Monday, October 13, 2008

Di's Hole Truth


Don't we all know the standard oath — ...the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth... ? Sen. Dianne Wilkerson seems to have missed that lesson too. Then again her campaign site does not require an oath.

I had checked her campaign website a few times since she lost the primary, and lost the recount, and lost nearly all her endorsements. Pragmatism alone dictates that she'd tout her quixotic sticker/write-in approach. That's her GAS, grasping at straws, tactic.

Well, the site was stagnant until this weekend. Not surprisingly, it does not update everything. Least surprising, it does not link to Globe columnist Yvonne Abraham's detailed piece on my-district-is-not-for-sale Wilkerson's sellout to corporate interests.

The site has tried to start to change. The old DIANNE DELIVERS message everywhere is only in the site name. The slogan is now the same as it was two years ago when she goofed off and goofed up, leading to an all-sticker primary. The catchphrase is STICK WITH DIANNE.

Everything is dead.

Maybe someone in her campaign can hire a 12-year-old geek to apply some hotlinks. In the top center of the page, the WHERE'S MY POLLING PLACE and REGISTER TO VOTE red heads are dead. On the left column, the red Polling Changes head and Click here for more info are dead. The Donate box and head...well, you know. Likewise, the Sticker/Write-in Further Information box and the Boston Election Department one go nowhere.

This is an apt metaphor for her job and her campaign. Wait until it's too late and then do a half-assed job in a hurry. Don't plan, overlook the details, make mistakes, and above all else, wait.

On the other hand, she seems to have made a whole-truth decision in one section. She came down on the wrong side of that.

In the endorsements area, she seems unaware that she has almost none left. To her, any endorsement before the primary is permanent. The page has been updated in look and quotes from individuals, but the long list remains, including many who jumped ship to primary winner and Dem. nominee Sonia Chang-Díaz. She also included those, like Tom Menino, who don't want to rile disappointed black voters but still are sitting out the general, in effect more gently rejecting Wilkerson.

PolitickerMA has been keeping a running total. It does not include the large number or organizations and media who have come out for Chang-Díaz. It only has primary endorsers. That's embarrassing enough and seemingly sufficient reason to inspire Wilkerson's on-site lie Senator Wilkerson is endorsed by the following. Of course, the minimal truth would be Senator Wilkerson was endorsed for the primary election by the following. The whole truth would be the just the list of three Boston City Councillors and one state rep. Literally all the long list of big shots at the state level endorse the nominee.

Her highly efficient and extremely honorable campaign staff under her noble leadership have three weeks to add some truth. I bet they'll eventually manage to activate a link from the Donate button. Here's betting the whole truth of endorsers remains a programming error.
Monday night update: I guess someone isn't watching the Sox game. The left column has some links. The center one's are still dead. The endorsement page hasn't removed the lost kisses, but did put the long list, deceptively, in the past tense...in very small type. It's far from a whole truth still, but making feeble efforts. The site reflects Wilkerson.

Fourth day follow-up: She apparently is going to stick with the simple dishonesty of no-longer endorsers. They finally added some links to the page. The endorser list is still from the primary and identified as such. There's no good-faith effort to reduce the list to two city councilors and one state rep. Moving to Dem. nominee Sonia Chang-Díaz endorsers are the governor, senate president, speaker of the house, Mass Alliance, National Association of Social Workers, and the most influential state rep., Byron Rushing.

Tags: , , , , , ,

4 comments:

P said...

Ummm so tell me this? Who would be so into the Senator's website as to go into explicit detail regarding the functionality of it? I could understand the Senator herself but why anyone else but maybe the campaign team or someone previously a part of the team? I think it is pretty obvious this article is distasteful at best. Does Diaz need this much help to win? Apparently she must need her supporters to scrunge for every milligram of fungus they can find to try and discourage Senator Wilkerson from running. This is sad. You would think this race could be about ability.

massmarrier said...

That's an amusing attempted defense. PolitickerMA among others have drawn attention to Wilkerson's endorsements and claims. In fact, she has drawn considerable attention to herself, website included. She's asked for folk to look.

When lies of commission and omission are obvious, they say much of her ability and responsibility. If constituents can't trust the public statements, what does that imply about what goes on where they can't see?

P said...

This is good. I can understand your point but respectfully disagree. The website was under construction and being moved to a different provider. This is fact. It was not left unattended nor was it dysfunctional due to any oversight, incompetence, or negligence. In fact, her original web-sight was still functioning at the time this article came out. If you look for the truth you will find it. As people, if you are aware of psychology, everyone has built in bias which is why each science incorporates methods to eliminate it. The articles that some of the media have introduced and encouraged bias intentionally and incessantly. Lastly, there have been no lies. There are no statements she has backed down from or felt the need to correct. The omitted "lies" you speak of are an assumptions / bias drawn from articles. She has not been proven a liar and will not be proven so. Finally, we must question the logic of your statement: "what does that imply about what goes on where they can't see?" Since the first statement about her being a liar has not been proven true, the remaining implication is presumptuous at best. If you claim to be impartial, then, since she has not been found guilty of lying, why is she being convicted by the media? In fact, she has a greater history of hard work, honesty, and progressive change than any of the negative things currently being published. Don't be naive, speech is not free in America. There is a price to pay. Expect counter actions when exposed to attacks, especially blatantly, unwarranted, negative attacks.

massmarrier said...

Thanks for the info about the server. I assume you, anon p, are connected with the site and/or campaign and know this stuff. I'll check back until the general.

In terms of "naive" and "not proven," she is not in a good position. She likes to stonewall and refuses to say she made any error, except maybe in accounting. Yet, the plea bargain with the AG, the convictions for tax offenses and judgments for repeated bad checks and non-payment to her condo association take any shine off claims of innocence.

I am truly sorry when a lawmaker who votes my way allows such distractions. These also undermine public faith and trust, as well as undercut her relations with other legislators.

On her site for the moment, the biggest lie remains one of omission. By rebuilding the supporter page to suggest that she is still endorsed by the long list is deceptive. It's not a total lie, but far less than honest.

A long-term friend, a psychologist who happens to be black has been chuckling over all this. He says she's a politician and you just have to expect such shenanigans. I'm not there yet.

UpTweet