Yesterday, we endorsed Laurette Healey in the 40th AD. Quite a few readers disagree with the choice of Republican-turned Democrat, Healey. This is an email I received today from Damian Carroll, republished with permission. All three of the candidates we did not endorse have good cases of their own.

[Y]our endorsement of Laurette Healey in the 40th was, shall we say, eye-raising.  Are you aware that Laurette is only recently a Democrat, who ran several years back for LA City Controller as a fiscal conservative?  Even giving Laurette the benefit of the doubt that she is, now, a real progressive, I think it’s quite a stretch to say that she is “the progressive” in a race where all the leading candidates – Stuart Waldman, Dan McCrory, and Bob Blumenfield – have solid progressive credentials.

Briefly, Stuart Waldman was endorsed by the Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley, which represents 27 Democratic clubs in the region, the San Fernando Valley Young Democrats, Sherman Oaks Democratic Club, Democrats for Change, AFSCME 3299, and dozens of progressive activists throughout the Valley.

Dan McCrory is a longtime union organizer endorsed by Jo Olson, co-chair of the CDP Progressive Caucus, San Fernando Valley NOW, United Food & Commercial Workers Local 1442, United Steelworkers Local 675, etc.

Bob Blumenfield shared the CLCV endorsement with Laurette, and was also endorsed by UTLA, Barney Frank, The Sierra Club, SEIU, and so on.

My point being that as progressives who demand high standards of our elected officials, I think your endorsement process should also hold candidates to high standards.  It doesn’t cut it to call a couple of progressive friends in Los Angeles, glance at some endorsements, and then declare that only one candidate in the race is “the progressive.”

I’m very disappointed with this endorsement and I don’t think it speaks highly of Calitics.  If this is the best process you can muster, maybe it’s not worth endorsing.