Tag Archives: SF Chronicle

SRO Tenant La Tonya Jones Builds Community, Fosters Compassion

This week I walked with long-time San Franciscan La Tonya Jones and her dog, which closely resembles a spritely floor mop, from Taylor and Turk to Mission and 6th St. The seven-minute walk lasted a full half hour. Striding down the street, La Tonya stops to talk to virtually everyone about bad backs, problematic children, or old times. Her eyes sparkle mischievously as jovial insults fly thick and fast and her voice resonates to people 50 feet away, who whip around as we walk by.

La Tonya relates to people, and draws them in. She values the qualities-warmth, patience, generosity, energy-that make her excellent at her job as an organizer with the Central City SRO Collaborative (CCSROC). She coordinates Sisters Rize!, a group for low-income women living in SRO’s. La Tonya lives in the non-profit run All Star Hotel. When I asked her about her experience coming to and living in an SRO, she describes her view of life here with nuance that is hard to find in any media’s coverage of San Francisco residents.



‘God has given you breath in your lungs’

In February, the SF Board of Supervisors honored La Tonya in a special session dedicated to Black History Month. Standing at the microphone, La Tonya was not afraid to steal the stage; she belted a deep-throated rendition of Amazing Grace. It’s telling that more than fifteen people went up to stand behind her, despite scowls from City Hall security.

District Six Supervisor Jane Kim, who nominated La Tonya for the Board of Supervisors’ award, told me:

   “La Tonya is a shining example of what a community leader should be. This is a mother of four who simply does not give up, whether it is advocating for more access to healthy foods and meals, promoting empowerment, sisterhood and peer education among the women who reside in the SRO’s in the Tenderloin, or proving with her actions and spirit that no matter the challenges, you can make a positive difference in your community. La Tonya is a beautiful person inside and out. It’s a privilege to call her a friend.”

Even in the hardest times of her life, La Tonya kept herself going by helping others. When I asked her what she gets from helping others, she said, “A joy…it’s just a joy to be able to help somebody…. God has given you breath in your lungs, so… you give that back.”

La Tonya came to San Francisco from Oakland in the mid 1990’s because her mother passed away and she badly needed to escape the drugs and shootings she experienced there. “[After] I first came here, I was in shelters for six years and towards the end I got pregnant. I came out of the shelters and got a job in 1998 at Next Door as a cook-it’s a shelter where I had stayed.” That job enabled her to get a place on Treasure Island but after she injured her back at work she could no longer lift more than 50 pounds and lost her job-and couldn’t pay rent. “Me and my son were living on the streets. I gave my son’s father custody of him because I couldn’t work and care for him. I gave up my place on Treasure Island to [him] so my son could live there.”

Staying in shelters made La Tonya feel controlled, which she abhors. “Being in the shelter was like… jail to me. It was like you were a child.” La Tonya never suffers being pushed around, so this chafed. To cope, she told me, “I always kept myself busy. During the daytime I’d go to the library, go to the movies. … I used to go to One Stop every day to try to find work.” And in a prelude to the work she does today, La Tonya “used to volunteer at SF public schools.” She didn’t stop there. “I’d go cook for some of the seniors in senior apartments… [and] take them for walks.”

Drugs have not been part of La Tonya’s story for a long time. “I’ve been clean since I came to San Francisco,” she told me. She laughed. “All of us is not dope smokers, or whatever.”

I didn’t solicit the latter statement, which is telling. La Tonya is acutely aware of the judgment that media too often make about SRO residents. On one hand, La Tonya knows every illicit substance, behavior, and activity that goes on in hotels-and she’s detailed it for me. Still, she told me that viewing these SRO tenants as “failures” of the system misses the point. La Tonya treats individuals, on the streets or in SROs, as humans. Coming from a place of compassion and empathy allows her to continue giving back to other people who are struggling. And this “is a joy”.

‘He wasn’t doing nothing’

La Tonya got a room at the All Star Hotel, where she still lives, in 2006, In the Tenderloin Housing Clinic’s 16 SRO hotels, men outnumber women almost four to one. La Tonya had to address this hurdle as well. When she moved in, she told me, “I was the only female there.” She went on, men would “approach you [and even] walk into the shower when you were all wet.” She shrugged. “It was home.” La Tonya takes ownership of wherever she calls home. “I started cooking meals with the case managers [for the residents] and… eventually [male tenants] respected me-they knew where I stood. And they still respect me.”

After a year and a half at the All Star, she said, she realized that the CCSROC tenant organizer in her building “wasn’t doing nothing.” Tenant organizers often voice the needs of tenants to management and agitate to improve conditions at the hotels, but she shivered a little when she recalled, “We needed pest control. [The tenant organizer] told me if he wasn’t doing a good job, I should take his job. So I did.”

La Tonya was a dedicated tenant organizer for her building but the CCSROC quickly recruited her to run the CCSROC’s women’s group, Sisters Rize!. “[My friend] invited me to the women’s group and I said ‘Naw, I don’t want to be around a lot of women-we always be bickering!'” But one Wednesday she went. “I’ve been coming ever since.” Pratibha Tekkey, Organizing Coordinator at the CCSROC told me that when they needed a new leader for the group, “She was a shoe-in.”

Last March, over 75 women gathered at a church in South of Market for the Sisters Rize! annual Women’s Convention. Laughter dominated the room. Throughout the day’s presentations and workshops, they had a space to pore through their biggest challenges, inspirations, and successes. La Tonya calls this event her most rewarding experience as an organizer.

This Convention drew women primarily from SRO hotels. She said, “I’ve never done nothing like that, never put any activity together. It was big! … It was inspirational to me that I could plan something and get a room full of women together without bickering, without stepping on each other’s toes.”

For La Tonya, the Convention celebrated this diverse group of women-many of whom faced severe medical, financial, substance abuse, and mental health challenges- for who they were. The convention cultivated a sense of empowerment, opening the possibility for them to believe they could change their own lives.

“It was a women’s day,” she said. “It was just great to see an auditorium full of women doing self-defense classes, learning about healthy food, learning about leadership. I wanted to treat them like somebody special, a mother, a sister.”

We have a little heart in there

Non-profit and some private SRO hotels often create communities. For better or for worse, people must live in close proximity. Some come to rely on the company of other tenants and sense of belonging as much as to the support services.

“When it comes down to it, we have a nice community…. Some people don’t have families, so we are one. There’s a senior in our hotel who has no one. His daughter came by one time in four years. I go to the pantry and pick up food for him, or go to the store for him.” She paused, looking thoughtful. “We have a little heart in there.” Even if residents have a (rare) opportunity to move to a more independent living situation, they can’t take this community with them.

La Tonya says that the All Star is home. Simultaneously, “It’s not home”. She dedicates herself to SRO residents but wishes for a place of her own. “It won’t be home until I can go to my door and won’t see someone sitting at a desk asking if you have visitors. The SRO is just a step.” To where?

In other words, La Tonya lives in the thick of the challenge that the San Francisco Chronicle series on SROs emphasized: how can SRO residents take a next step? La Tonya astutely points out, “At first Section Eight…was a way out of being homeless. They capped that step and now…people are still staying there,” so no one can get into Section Eight. Section Eight waiting lists are prohibitively long.

“We are all the small people, the middle people. There’s nowhere to go…. Where are the jobs at? There’s just a handful.” Case management can’t fix that, she says. She referred back to the Chronicle story, which emphasized the downside of THC SRO hotels’ 95% annual retention rate. “You’re talking about 5% who moves on? That’s the reason why-there’s a cap on everything.” Lack of step-up housing and job opportunity can devastate the SRO hotels residents who have the skills and motivation to seek employment. Still, the complicated truth is that fixing that problem wouldn’t do the trick.

For some, it’s a cycle

You got some people who want to do something with their lives and you got some people who don’t,” La Tonya said flatly. “[Ever] since I’ve been in San Francisco living in SRO hotels, they know who’s not going to make it. I know so many people who come into the hotel and they get so many write ups and they’re out. But they’re alcoholics and they’re hoarders. So if you’re alcoholic-you’re drunk and hollering in the hallway-and then you’re back out on the streets. And then you go back to General Assistance and it’s a cycle.” Those people, she tells me, “are the people you’re going to write about.”

She does not, however, accept the premise of the statement made in the Chronicle that SRO residents still “act as if they are homeless.” When I asked her about that statement, she said, “What do you mean by that? After they get their GA, they pay for food, hygiene” and by that point, they have next to no money. She herself goes out and busks. (I have run into La Tonya outside BART, where she was belting out blues songs to the delight of passersby.) She said, “Aggressive panhandlers, that’s one thing. But people who are just out to make a little extra money, what’s wrong with that? And if they want to come to my house, my house is clean. We aren’t all dirty.”

“Dirty” or not, I’ve never seen La Tonya treat other people on the street or in hotels with anything but a no-nonsense, loving attitude.

Like La Tonya, many residents help their building and themselves to the best of their abilities. And, folks like La Tonya work to get one another motivated and empowered to know their rights, and, hopefully, what they are capable of accomplishing. This is true of the women in Sister Rize!. La Tonya recently facilitated a documentary film-making class with the women through Intersection for the Arts, a community and arts development organization in South of Market. “…Making a film about my life…was healing, scary, and satisfying,” said one participant. (Contact Central City SRO Collaborative to learn about the documentary screening on August 28.)

Why do it?

Finally, I asked La Tonya how she keeps herself going.

“Where do I get my motivation?” She asked, with an isn’t-it-obvious look. “Because I don’t want to be a statistic. A lot of my friends who were on the streets with me, in shelters with me? I don’t see them no more. They’re dead. I’d say like every three months, somebody dies in the SRO.

My motivation: wake up in the morning and do something with my life. I get my motivation from the Collaborative, because I’m doing something with myself. It motivates me to go to other hotels and tell them my story. I’ve been there, I’ve done that. And I thank God.”  

The Chronicle’s Love Letter to Schwarzenegger

Yesterday’s front-page story in the SF Chronicle on the California budget crisis was shocking, dishonest and disgraceful.  The piece described Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as a “steely-eyed, sword-wielding strongman” – who will “hold his ground” against Democrats in the state legislature.  Never mind the Terminator has driven the state to bankruptcy – after six years of tax cuts for the rich, fiscal gymnastics and borrowing schemes.  Never mind that Schwarzenegger lied about a voter mandate in the May 19th election – and says he won’t support a “single tax increase whatsoever.”  Never mind that by vetoing last week’s budget stop-gap measure, Arnold forfeited $2 billion that the state can no longer use – and our government now has to pay with I.O.U.’s.  Never mind the Governor told the New York Times that despite the state’s disastrous plight, he will sit down in his Jacuzzi and “lay back with a stogie.”  The Bay Area’s paper of record would rather portray him as a “tough guy.”

Carla Marinucci is the Chronicle’s worst reporter, a point Beyond Chron has written about time and time again.  With all the talented printed journalists who are unemployed or underemployed, Marinucci stays on as their top political writer – with yesterday’s ode to Schwarzenegger being her most recent incarnation (although Matthew Yi co-authored to the piece.)  And it’s hard to see how much lower the Chronicle, which is on the brink of going out of business, can go in its coverage of a serious political issue.

Consider Marinucci’s first paragraph: “Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has played an astonishing range of roles in California’s budget dramas – bipartisan peacemaker and people’s advocate among them. Now, the governor is reprising a classic familiar to millions: the steely-eyed, sword-wielding strongman.”  Bipartisan peacemaker?  The only thing Arnold ever succeeded in getting Democrats and Republicans in Sacramento to agree on is that they both dislike him – prompting many commentators to label him a “party of one.”  As for a “people’s advocate,” Schwarzenegger twice called a special election to have the voters decide – and in both instances, he was soundly rejected.

And while old movie posters from Conan the Barbarian, Terminator and Total Recall could make him out to be a “steely-eyed, sword-wielding strongman,” it’s hard to see the Governor’s current posture as nothing but the pathetic bluster of a deranged bully.

Here are the facts: declining revenues due to a severe recession have bankrupted California – leaving us with a $26.3 billion deficit.  The state can lay off every employee tomorrow, and it still wouldn’t balance the budget.  On May 19th, the voters rejected a complicated set of ballot measures that Arnold championed – after opponents on the left and the right campaigned against them.  There has been very little analysis about what “the people” were saying, except a poll that found only 36% of voters (and 24% of Californians) want a cuts-only budget.

Nevertheless, Schwarzenegger has made common cause with right-wing extremists at the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Association – and Republican in the state legislature.  He says the voters on May 19th wanted the state to pass an “all-cuts” budget, and that he won’t support “any tax increase whatsoever.”  Arnold has proposed a budget that will shred our social safety net, and up-end the California Constitution by raiding school funding.  He wants to open up the ocean for drilling to get revenue, but opposes a tax on oil companies that would make that profitable – even though Sarah Palin’s Alaska has one at 25% of profits.

As June 30th approached, Democrats in the state legislature proposed using $2 billion in reserves to start plugging the hole – money that must be used before the end of the 2008-2009 fiscal year, or else it’s gone.  They couldn’t pass a comprehensive solution because of the two-thirds rule, but this – along with a few budget savings and closing tax loopholes – would have prevented the state from issuing I.O.U.’s.  How did Arnold respond?  Repeatedly veto the package, and insist we must resolve the “whole problem” all at once.  As the midnight deadline loomed, Schwarzenegger offered no solution besides the veto pen.

Apparently, the Governor is emboldened by his rising poll numbers – from a pitiful 30% to a dismal 43% – which may be attributed to a more aggressive posture with the state legislature.  But no one stops to ask if those 13% are right-wingers who want to shrink the size of government and drown it in a bathtub.  I suspect the legislature’s Republican minority is getting along better with Arnold these days, now that he’s backed off on all tax increases.  For a while, he was persona non grata in the Grover Norquist Fan Club known as the GOP caucus.

But you wouldn’t know any of this by reading yesterday’s Chronicle – although the piece briefly mentioned the state’s bond rating has collapsed, and banks are refusing to cash the state IOU’s.  The article quoted Schwarzenegger’s communications director, who said the Governor has “the luxury” of being near the end of his term – and not having to face the voters again.  Marinucci could have mentioned (but didn’t) that Arnold’s legacy – from slashing the vehicle license fee to solving each budget crisis by borrowing more money – will be driving the state to bankruptcy.  If Gray Davis was still Governor, we might not have a deficit.

In last Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, Schwarzenegger said he was not letting California’s fiscal crisis get to him personally.  “I will sit down in my Jacuzzi tonight,” he told reporter Mark Leibovich. “I’m going to lay back with a stogie.”  There are so many analogies that come to mind with the Governor’s quote.  You could say it’s just like “Nero fiddled while Rome burned,” or another “let them eat cake” moment.  A more recent comparison would be George W. Bush, who said he was getting plenty of sleep at night during the Iraq War.

As an R.E.M. fan, however, Arnold’s callous attitude reminds me of the following:

It’s the End of the World As We Know It,

It’s the End of the World As We Know it,

It’s the End of the World As We Know It

And I Feel Fine …

Paul Hogarth is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

SF Chronicle Bashes its Home Town

I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron.

Yesterday’s Chronicle portrayed San Francisco as an elitist island of the fringe left – out of touch with mainstream American values.  Reporter Carla Marinucci used the recent commotion over Barack Obama’s “bitter” comment at a local fundraiser to explain how the right uses San Francisco to hurt Democrats.  Even as polls out of Pennsylvania show the race unchanged despite Hillary Clinton desperately pushing this issue, the Chronicle couldn’t help perpetuating the stereotype that we are the “land of fruits and nuts.”  Marinucci did not quote any San Franciscans for her article – except for disgraced Newsom aide and Clinton supporter Peter Ragone, who repeated the line that only conservative places like the Central Valley matter in California politics.  Does the New York Times politically marginalize its hometown, because that is exactly what the Chronicle did.

Without even waiting to hear what working-class voters in Pennsylvania thought about Obama’s infamous statement, the media pronounced that it changed the dynamic of the presidential race – with some comparing it to the Jeremiah Wright controversy.  Because Clinton and John McCain both attacked Obama for being “elitist” and “condescending,” the press allowed the story to run far longer than it should.  And because Obama said it at a fundraiser in San Francisco, Clinton made sure to remind voters about that fact.

So what does the San Francisco Chronicle – our hometown newspaper of record – do when the City gets smeared by politicians of both parties?  Write a puff analysis which reinforces the notion that we make Democrats look bad – a place where national politicians come to campaign at their peril.  Marinucci could have mentioned that the fundraiser was in Presidio Heights – one of our most exclusive (and conservative) neighborhoods – rather than tar the whole City with an “elitist” smear.  Instead, she quotes Pat Buchanan as proof that Obama really screwed up with that statement.

It’s not the first time that the right has attacked “San Francisco Values” as a means of marginalizing Democrats.  But San Francisco values are mainstream American values.  We were one of the first cities to pass a domestic partnership law – “civil unions” that even George Bush and Dick Cheney now find acceptable.  In 2006, we were the first place that required employers to provide paid sick leave – and now other cities have since followed our lead.  We’re a city of creative entrepreneurs who have started cutting-edge businesses that are household names.  We have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of.

But Marinucci didn’t bother to interview any San Franciscans for her piece – let alone ask working-class folks in Pennsylvania if they were offended by Obama’s remarks – except for one local politico: Peter Ragone, Mayor Gavin Newsom’s former press secretary, who (according to an earlier Chronicle story) helped the Clinton campaign’s media team in Texas.  Marinucci did not disclose Ragone’s conflict-of-interest when she quoted his take on the situation.

Obama’s statement, said Ragone in the Chronicle, “sounded like someone running for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, not President.  The Democratic Party should have learned you have to respect people’s cultural experiences in order to get their votes.  If Democrats want to win in California, they have to win in the Central Valley, the Inland Empire and the I-80 corridor. If you truly feel that way about people in those places, you’re just not going to get their votes.”

It’s precisely such divisive talk that prevents Democrats from truly standing up for what we believe in – and depresses San Franciscans into believing that our values are not the values of mainstream America.  It is why liberals then allow Democrats to get away with taking offensive policy positions – all in the name of being electable to the average swing voter.  The Left has been so haunted by the ghost of George McGovern for the past 35 years that we’ve lost all will to believe that real change can happen at the ballot box.

Was Obama’s statement culturally insensitive?  Let’s take a closer look at his exact words, and see why it was not disrespectful to the swing-state working-class voter:

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them … And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

To suggest that working-class Pennsylvanians who’ve had their jobs shipped overseas are “bitter” is not condescending – it’s simply stating the truth.  As Randy Shaw wrote this week, if Clinton believes that they are not bitter, she is almost as delusional as George W. Bush.  And when Fox News actually interviewed such voters, they pretty much confirmed that it’s true.

The tricky part, of course, was for Obama to suggest that they “cling to guns or religion.”  But he never suggested that guns or religion are therefore bad.  What he meant to say is that during hard times, people stick with what they are familiar with and where they take comfort.  Conversely, they also mistrust the unfamiliar – people who don’t look like them, people who come from other countries, and coastal elitists.  It’s the politics of fear – and when voters are anxious, they become vulnerable to such appeals.

Could such an honest assessment hurt Obama?  Maybe a little, but anyone who believes that it rises to the level of the Jeremiah Wright controversy – where Obama’s pastor was caught on YouTube saying “God damn America” – is completely delusional.  And Obama did a stellar job handling that situation, with the most eloquent speech he has given in his entire career – where he effectively said that we must have an honest dialogue about race in this country.  But after the “bitter” comment, the media said Obama was in trouble.

Five days later, we now have fresh polls out of Pennsylvania that show that the brouhaha had practically no effect.  A friend of mine who’s there said that it’s a bigger deal nationally than locally (even though it has been widely disseminated.)  The issue will boil over, although we can expect that Republicans will try to make hay out of it in the general election.  By then, people won’t care – and the voters who will care would not vote Democratic anyway.

It’s bad enough that San Francisco – and everyone who lives here – got dragged into the mud with this story, just because the media won’t admit that the Clintons are history.  But for the Chronicle to pile on when it’s our hometown newspaper was embarrassing.  If the New York Times reported that voters in the Big Apple were out of touch with mainstream America, there would have been an outcry.  As residents of San Francisco, we deserve better from our local newspaper of record.

EDITOR’S NOTE: In his spare time and outside of regular work hours, Paul Hogarth volunteered on Obama’s field operation in San Francisco.  He also ran to be an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

SF Chronicle: Our horserace coverage really does suck!

I hate to admit this, but I get the “dead trees” version of the San Francisco Chronicle. I know, not very eco-friendly, or really bloggy-centric, but what can I do. On occasion, I like to read something on a piece of paper. Don’t worry, I’m sure the paper-based Chronicle has an expiration date in the fairly near future. But, while the questions of the Chronicle’s form are being answered, there are other questions about just how the Chronicle is reporting on the presidential campaigns yet to complain about.

For example, take the “Today on the Campaign Trail” highlights a national poll on the Democratic primay, and a poll on the Ohio primary. First of all, why does it matter what the people of, say, California or Iowa, think of the Democratic nomination race. It’s cute, but not all that relevant to the fight for the nomination. We keep getting berated about what each poll means, but we actually learn nothing of real substance. And, it turns out that John Diaz, of the Chron’s editorial board, thinks all the horserace coverage kinda sucks too, over the flip:

Journalists just can’t help themselves, especially those with hours to fill on cable television. Political operatives can’t wean themselves from their addiction to poll numbers either. One of Obama’s campaign aides had barely finished a profanity-laced, cell-phone diatribe to Zogby on Super Tuesday when he took a breath and asked: What do the numbers look like in the next round of states?

“To be perfectly honest with you, there is artwork involved here,” Zogby said of the “science” of polling. “Any of our colleagues who deny that are perfectly delusional.”

If this is art, this season’s collection looks a lot more like grade-school finger painting than a Monet.

Sure, a lot of the Chron’s coverage can be blamed on the AP and other news services, but it’s not like it’s all that challenging to find some “poll-watching” from the Chronicle’s political regulars like Carolyn Lochhead. Say, like in today’s blog post:

Republican columnist Robert Novak helpfully suggests today that someone needs to tell Sen. Hillary Clinton to leave the race. Not so fast. Clinton still leads rival Sen. Barack Obama in Ohio polls, and still has a slight edge in Texas. If she wins both states, she can claim she’s won the big states that matter.

Now, I’m not saying the Chronicle reporters are any better or worse than any other outlet. In fact, I think they are pretty good. But as Diaz points out, we have been so thoroughly beaten into the idea that polls are the be-all of politics, that it’s hard for reporters, or bloggers, to focus elsewhere. But, I hear there are these things called issues, I’ll look into that.

The Media’s Assault On John Edwards, SF Chron Edition

(cross-posted from Courage Campaign also at dailyKos)

In San Diego, the questions levied at Edwards during his press availability after what I would argue was the speech of the convention were pathetic. Hedgefunds and haircuts was all they could seem to talk about. And the SF Chronicle’s Carla Marinucci wasn’t much better. This was her idea of a probing question:

“So you are saying that YOU are the best positioned candidate to compete all over the country!?”

Edwards’s rightfully dismissive response:

If I didn’t would I be running for president?

Since then the media’s obsession with Edwards’s wealth (as though it somehow undercuts his credibility on the subject of poverty) has only escalated and now Marinucci is doing her darnedest to cement this intellectually dishonest media narrative with a story titled: Recent headlines threaten Edwards’s main campaign theme.

But hey, can’t say she isn’t nice about it. She starts out…

Democrat John Edwards has eloquently established his credentials as an  advocate for the poor with a presidential campaign focused on the devastating  effects of poverty in America.

And then she shoves in the shiv…

But the former North Carolina senator’s populist  drive has hit a series of troubling land mines: a pair of $400 haircuts, a  $500,000 paycheck from a hedge fund, and now a $55,000 payday for a speech on  poverty to students at UC Davis.

D-day put it well the other day:

Just because you talk about people who are poor, it doesn’t mean you have to take a vow of poverty. This is the classic move by people who don’t want anyone to think about the poor; they try and disqualify anyone who has the means and the access to power to do so.

And he gives us Edwards’s response (which he never should have even had to say):

“Would it have been better if I had done well and didn’t care?”

What’s truly amazing about Marinucci’s article is that she even has the gaul to catalog the negative media narrative phenomenon, placing the distorted narratives of Edwards and Al “the exagerrator” Gore alongside Bush’s incompetence meme, which is unique among these for actually being true. And she does it all as though she herself isn’t complicit in actually perpetuating a distorted narrative.

Like so much of the media, Marinucci isn’t concerned with truth, she’s concerned with faux balance. The only way she can talk about all the good Edwards has done and does do is by framing it as a negative, lest she be accused of having a liberal bent. Yes, hidden within her article’s creaky frame is the truth:

Edwards’ campaign spokesman Eric Schultz said the senator has in numerous  ways proved his dedication to the cause of eradicating poverty in America. 

“If you look at where John Edwards comes from and his record, its clear  that what makes him tick (is) helping those who haven’t been as blessed as he  has been,” Schultz wrote in an e-mail. 

Edwards has started a poverty center at the University of North Carolina,  led successful minimum wage initiatives in six states, traveled to  poverty-stricken areas and started a college-for-everyone program for a poor  county in eastern North Carolina, he said. 

“The bottom line is John Edwards is running for president to give every  American the opportunities that he’s had,” Schultz wrote.

Hell, she even provides some context:

Edwards’ supporters note that the senator  —  who donated $350,000 to  charity in 2006 before he began his presidential campaign  —  was not alone  that year in earning considerable cash from speaking fees. 

Former President Bill Clinton, for example, was paid $100,000 speaking at  the same California public university  —  UC Davis. And another presidential  candidate, Republican Rudy Giuliani, charged Oklahoma State University $100,000  for a speech  —  and $47,000 for the use of a private jet. 

But you think any of that matters? Don’t bet on it. As Marinucci rightly observes:

In the 24/7 media environment, a few maelstroms of unconnected and unexpected  headlines and images can quickly gather momentum and morph into a political  storm that obliterates even a carefully crafted strategy and message.

The big question is why the hell Marinucci would lower herself to being yet another swirl in that maelstrom.

Give her a piece of your mind at [email protected].

CA-InsComm: SF Chronicle Debate

Steve Poizner and Cruz Bustamante will be “debating” for the SF Chronicle’s endorsement.  The event will be streamed live on CBS5.com today at 2PM.

Should be an interesting one.  Maybe they will ask Poizner about the glass houses built from insurance money.

UPDATE: Oops, forgot to point out the Controller Debate here.  John Chiang “won” by being better on the issues, IMHO.  The debate was quite civil, pleasant even.  My kind of debate.