What a confusing editorial.

You correctly point out that only Stogner and Nikas have taken clear positions on the tough issues: pensions, budget reform, and no new jail we cannot afford.

But you then go on to say that the other four candidates are qualified, and presumably Stogner and Nikas are not?

What does qualified mean? That they've already held elected office?

Note that Anna Eshoo never had when she became a San Mateo county supervisor.

If qualified means continuing to protect the status quo and being a rank and file politician, I'm totally in agreement with you.

On the other hand, if you use MY definition of qualified:

"WILLING TO SPEAK HONESTLY AND COURAGEOUSLY ABOUT IMPORTANT ISSUES SINCE YOU HAVE NOT BEEN BOUGHT BY SPECIAL INTERESTS"

then the only candidates who are actually qualified are Stogner and Nikas.

How interesting.

Thank you for articulating so well the opinion above about the Almanac editorial.
My reaction was identical.
I looks like it was written by someone who has just given up. Are you OK Tom? Get some rest.

"Although the Almanac has not interviewed each candidate."

I know I Michael G. Stogner was not interviewed. It would be interesting to know which candidates they did interview and what was the reason for the exclusion of the other(s).

Couple of points here at least the Almanac admitted that they did not interview all of the candidates for Supervisor of San Mateo County. They also mentioned that there are 6 candidates running for Supervisor, this is more than other media publications have done. many have lead the public to believe that there are only 4 candidates in this race.

The Great News which was not reported in this editorial is that Congresswomen Jackie Speier and Anna Eshoo NEVER held any elected office before Supervisor of San Mateo County. I don't know why they want to keep that from the public.

Lets Vote

After reviewing the profiles of each of the candidates, it seems as though they all agree on reducing county wide deficits as well as jumping on the popular bandwagon for salary and pension reform of our public servants. I might be impressed if any one candidate was sincere in honing in unreasonable salaries and perks if only one had been smart enough to take a pay cut for their own unreasonable annual salary if they were elected.

There are plenty of elected officials in office that have earned their positions not through having a wealth of experience, or the right endorsements or willing to spend $145M of their own money. It's a roll of the dice with any of these candidates as none of them really offers any solutions. I actually might be impressed if only one was willing to put their money where their mouth is instead of complaining about not being interviewed or what other public servants are earning.