I was pulling for Locke. I have no problem with an openly gay mayor, but Parker's every utterance strikes me as a contrived sound bite. (I get the same impression hearing Hillary Clinton speak publicly) At least Locke sounded as if he actually could think and had some ideas. Given my choice of all the original candidates, I would have really wanted Morales to win. He did do fairly well given the fact that he had almost no money or advertising compared to the others.
As long as she continues the foundation laid by former Mayor White she is fine with me. PS: Does anyone have a pic of Parker's significant other?
i think this is her on the left http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34400800/displaymode/1176/rstry/34399468/
Other than her sexual orientation she is as dull as white bread. Good that's what we want, a hard working, competent city administrator. The "elected an open lesbian" thing is just one more step in the de-sensationalization of issue. Good, it needs to be a just a matter of fact in the 21st century.
Is it ABSOLUTELY necessary to be saying "openly gay" every time we hear she's the new mayor? I don't think anyone needs to be reminded or else we would have this issue continuously instead of "she won because she will do a good job"... c'mon, now... that's enough mentioning... leave it alone... ... anyway, every time I read "her partner" on any news note or photo caption, I think about the American Beauty scene: "Ah, let's just cut to it, what are you selling?" "Nothing, we just wanted to welcome you to the neighborhood." "You said you're partners, so, uh what's your business?" :grin:
