Personally, I HAVE mentioned Johnson's (AND Simpson's) past connections with the machine. So settle down a bit.

Remember that Johnson has been a judge for 16 years. She has some credibility on her own. She is widely seen as a good judge and as having a good heart. Even among many who supported Margarita.

I remember back when Johnson first ran for Surrogate many thought she was very good but preferred Torres, particularly given the fact that Vito Lopez supported Johnson. But remember that Vito supported Johnson NOT because he liked Johnson, but because he had a personal vendetta against Torres since Torres had refused to help out Vito's cronies. Funny you don't mention that aspect of it.

If everyone sat it out it is the same as letting Vito have his way. That is the same as supporting corruption. I have said all along none of the candidates who were eyeing this race are as independent as I would like. That included the many who made a pitch and dropped out like Bob Miller and Leo Beitner. In the field Johnson is the best. That is undeniable. So I support her despite her past connections to the machine. If you want to call her on having campaign people connected with the very corrupt Diane Gordon, I am all for that. I find it worrisome myself and welcome your comment on that. But me thinks you doth protest too much and are pretending a rightousness that isn't quite warrented. Makes me wonder who you work for.

And for the record, I really am a pretty independent voice in this who is getting info from all sides. And I came to the conclusion that Johnson was the best in a not really perfect field.

I am seeing in your techniques precisely the same kind of BS we get both from the national Republicans and from the local corrupt machine. You recognize no middle ground, you show no respect for the voters or the average citizen, and you show no respect for those you discuss issues with.

Me thinks I smell a rat. At least I feel a bit complemented that the machine feels they need to send someone over here to give an extreme...and a bit confused, it seems...point of view. Some of what you say just doesn't make sense, like claiming that Lopez (mis-spelled?) supports her, which he doesn't. Vito Lopez supports Simpson, not Johnson. So you are factually incorrect as well as being disrespectful towards the will of the voters. You seem to think only lawyers should have a say in who is judge, forgetting that it is regular citizens like me whose cases are being decided by those same judges. This reminds me of a New Yorker (?) book review I recently was given about a book that seems to argue that because voters often vote from ignorance, democracy doesn't work and economists should have far more power. Of course it was written by an economist. Neither economists nor lawyers (and believe me, I know many lawyers) are any better at deciding than the average citizen. We each have our expertise and we do better listening to eachother, not insulting eachother like you do...and like national Republicans and the local Vito Lopez machine.

Corruption is far more of a concern to average citizens because that corruption usually hurts us while lawyers get their fees anyway (apologies to the many very honest lawyers and judges I know!). So don't tell me that the average citizen should keep their mouths shut when it comes to judicial races. We have been given the responsibility of voting for the judges who judge us and I think it is best for us to do so in an informed manner, not take the word of people like you or Vito Lopez.

The most fundamental mistake (or lie?) you say is that Simpson is independent and doesn't surround herself with unsavory people, and yet that is EXACTLY what she has done and EXACTLY why so many oppose her. If she weren't associated with Vito Lopez, Clarence Norman's equally corrupt successor, it would be much better for her. But she is the chosen candidate of the corrupt machine and you are asking us to do PRECISELY what Vito wants us to do: keep out of it. And that is PRECISELY what we should not do since that is how corruption thrives.

What stopped (partly) Republican corruption nationally in 2006? The will of the voters. The machine clearly understand that is what just might clean out Brooklyn corruption and that is why you are telling us to keep out of it. So please tell Vito we don't plan on doing that.

So, for our dear readers, here is ONCE AGAIN, my position:

1. Johnson and Simpson are both qualified and neither is as independent as one would wish.

2. Johnson has 16 years of judicial experience (more than Simpson) and has been described by several people I know as being a good and caring judge.

3. Vito Lopez brough Simpson out of nowhere last minute even though other candidates had gone through the proper procedures. Simpson is the candidate this time around chosen by the machine. And I know that there are many who were being intimidated to petition for her and, for the record, there are some connected with both IND and CBID who have been siding with Lopez behind the clubs' backs.

4. All reform minded and progressive clubs and public figures I know support Johnson or at least oppose Simpson. In fact, my friend, I am far nicer to Simpson than most are.

So, the balance falls to Johnson.

Now we're getting somewhere. THESE are things we can discuss.

First, DA Hynes...I have note been very impressed with him overall. I DO appreciate the fact that he put Clarence Norman away. THAT was great. And his pursuit of Gordon has been great. But he has spent more time writing his book than being a DA. His time is past. He has become lazy in his pursuit of corruption...otherwise Vito would already be indicted. Hynes also was pretty slow to pursue even Clarence Norman.

For the record, I supported Paul Wooten in the last DA election. I found it impossible to support Sampson, of course, and difficult to support Hynes for reasons David Yassky outlined: Hynes has his own brand of corruption. Of course Yassky's bizzare solution was to endorse the MORE corrupt Sampson. Mine was to go for the person who seemed most independent and intelligent, and who was endorsed by Norman Seigel, who I respect.

Now, about Simpson being the choice of the corrupt machine. No, that in itself does not make her a bad person. And I said that earlier. She has her strong and weak points, just like Diana Johnson. BOTH are qualified and BOTH have had their machine connections. I have met Johnson twice and liked her both times. Simpson didn't even bother to meet with reform organizations partly because she was simply hand picked last minute by Vito. The circumstances of her entry into the process, and the intimidation that I have heard went on in the petitioning process for Simpson show what happens when you, like Simpson, surround yourself with corrupt sleaze like Vito. My take is that BOTH Simpson and Johnson are qualified, but because Johnson had the respect for the voters to talk to us before petitioning, and because I have heard many good things about Johnson both from supporters and those who don't support her, and because Simpson is the current choice of the corrupt machine, I pick Diana Johnson.

And I think that was the path taken by IND and CBID, though I will point out that at no point could they have endorsed Simpson because Simpson did not tell anyone she was running until after both clubs endorsed. Can't blame the clubs for Simpson not getting their endorsements.

Finally, as to Johnson and the Diane Gordon connection. That is indeed a problem. Is it more of a problem than Simpson's Vito connection? I don't think so, but that is my own opinion. Personally, I think Johnson should sever that connection, and you can quote me on it. It would be in Johnson's best interest to sever connections with people associated with Gordon. Of course it would be in Simpson's best interest to sever her ties with Vito.

As to the reform clubs, believe me, I know that there is much going on behind the scenes there. In general, people associated with the clubs are indeed honest reformers. But not everyone. There are people in both clubs that worry me...and I mean electeds. This race in particular has shown me that electeds in the club are not always honest with their club. That goes for both IND and CBID. I can tell you up front that the support of Johnson from both clubs is honest and based on a genuine desire to find the best and least corrupt candidate. Those in the clubs who are being dishonest with the clubs have been the ones going against Johnson (some for Miller, some for Simpson). That tells me something as well about both campaigns. All through, I feel Johnson's campaign has been more upfront with the public than Simpson's, who stayed hidden until last minute.

So that's where I am coming from.

I can't speak to the odds. Generally races in Brooklyn come down to racial break down of the voters and money. But not always. Low voter turnout favors the machine, which is why the reform clubs and the politicians that are putting themsevles behind Johnson had better do some big pushing to get out their people. And it is probably why some electeds are playing both sides: taling reform through the clubs, but working with the machine for Simpson on the side. Of course that is what Jake Gold does, but people expect it from him. And somehow he's likeable DESPITE being a weasel.