I'd like to answer Bouldin's comments from the perspective of a DFNYC organizer -- not as their spokesperson, but just as an "insider."

I have problems with the DFNYC endorsement process. I won't go into detail, for several reasons, but I believe it is flawed. That being said...

Regarding Tasini over Clinton -- he was against the continued occupation of Iraq, while she was in favor of it. Her position "evolved" as she ran for president, perhaps too slowly for her to win the nomination, but she was very much a hawk in 2006.

Norman Siegel is very much the type of person who should be in the office he's running for. He's a true reformer, a true progressive, and the exact opposite of the hack politician who holds that office now. That's why he has DFNYC support.

About this year's endorsements:

Towns/Powell -- I'm not familiar enough with the candidates to have a position; truth be told, I abstained from that race when I voted.

Silver/Henry/Newell -- It was a foregone conclusion that Silver was not going to get our endorsement. Luke Henry got it over Paul Newell primarily (I believe) because he worked to get it. He courted DFNYC voters assiduously, whereas Newell's efforts were minimal. Does that mean Newell was spending his time courting other voters? Most likely. Is that a good thing? Possibly -- and we'll find out on September 9th.

Connor/Squadron -- I moderated the forum we held in conjunction with Manhattan Young Dems. At the time, I had met Dan Squadron but didn't know him that well, and had never met Marty Connor. I was surprised by both of them -- Connor for his progressive stands on issues, and Squadron for his lack of attention to issues beneath the surface. In addition, Squadron's attacks on Connor smacked of the kind of phony politics that we despise. (Did Connor "allow" landlords to get all sorts of breaks in 1997? No -- he didn't have the power to stop Joe Bruno and George Pataki. But Squadron attacked him anyway.) It is my view that DFNYC'ers who saw the two of them were affected the same way, which is why Squadron did not get our endorsement. The prevailing view may also be that Squadron is merely Chuck Schumer's latest fair-haired boy, and we're not overly fond of Schumer for several of his votes in the Senate (caving in on Michael Mukasey comes to mind).

In short, while I believe several changes need to be made in the DFNYC endorsement process, there are reasons why we endorse the way we do.