Maybe instead of this blog you could start today with "reaching out rather than scribbling online".

I appreciate this apology, Marina, which I believe is sincere. I know you to be a fiercely intelligent, unflinchingly hardworking and curious person who wants all kids to reach their full potential. And I believe Tia in these last six weeks has shown us the same. It's easy to get caught up in election fever and not always be careful about how we express our views. Let's face it: This is complicated stuff.

Congratulations to the winners, and let's get on with making the schools here even better. We all have something to offer to that end!

I would like to take this opportunity to publicly apologize to Tia Swanson for applauding a blog post by Marina Buddhos that included a paragraph that criticized some of Tia’s comments during this election season. As I have already said to Tia personally, in my initial review of the post I had glossed over that paragraph and had instead resonated with the soul-searching that I went through during the past few weeks. I know Tia personally and deeply respect her as a person who has contributed tremendously to our community. This election season has been uglier than I ever remember and it pains me to realize that I have inadvertently hurt someone who I respect very much. I am just very sorry about this.

I appreciate Marina Budhos's concern about having crossed the line into the personal in her remarks--we saw this kind of line-crossing too often during this campaign. But I honestly don't feel her remarks WERE personal. Marina was stating that she saw the student work Ms. Swanson referred to in a debate and on her blog post as being at a level we should expect as standard, not as extraordinary, and also that she didn't feel Ms. Swanson's anecdotal approach to the issue of curriculum was persuasive to her. That is not personal--it is solely about the content of Ms. Swanson's campaign.

Marina articles on this site have clearly reflected not just her rigorous examination of the issues at play in this election but also a great deal of private soul-searching. I think it's a brave thing to make that kind of soul-searching so transparent in a public forum. Many of us, like Marina, have close friends and colleagues who strongly disagreed with our votes yesterday. It's been hard on all of us.

I think that the soul searching that Marina has done so publicly needs to be done by others as well. I actually believe Amy, that many of the voters that voted for the winning slate did so because the twisting of words and positions,fabrications of motivations and the disingenuous arguments against those that sought be strong stewards of this district was a turn off pure and simple.

There are many things I am reflecting upon and I hope others are too, in this aftermath.

While I stand by my perceptions—it was truly not a tactic--one thing I have learned is to be careful of my own power of writing in the space of a small community. I am used to writing in a professional sphere, I write op eds, indeed I recently took on one of America’s most celebrated authors in a moxie critique of his sexism. However, it’s very different to do that in a community of neighbors, friends and fellow parents. What I most regret is not recognizing the difference and making someone feel their outlook had been demeaned in some way. Especially someone who had given so many countless volunteer hours to this process. That pains me to no end. It’s simply not my style as a person, nor what I’m trying to achieve through words.

I believe most who know me personally know this to be true.

While your op-ed crossed the line (in my opinion) it did not cost Tia the election. Still, as Jennifer suggests, reaching out is the noble thing to do. This was an ugly election season, the ugliest on record that I can remember and it influenced so many of us to do things that under normal circumstances we would think twice about.

Morrisa,
In the comments section of Mary's article on the role of race in the campaign, John Davenport just admitted that "MOL" was "his job on the campaign." I think it is now fair to say that all of his comments there on MOL, over many weeks--many of which had no basis in fact, or were deliberate distortions of meaning--many of which, in other words, were way over the line--can and should be attributed to the campaign itself. He viewed these statements as part of a job that he now says was distasteful to him, but a job that had to be done, as a member of the campaign team. If one of the problems with the Lisa Davis's email was that it was issued by a campaign, then it seems there is a lot to answer for all around.

For the record, let me add that I disagree with Amy Higer and others who say Marina's comments were out of bounds. Everything she said in the last days of the campaign were in my view within bounds. She's apologized, so I guess she disagrees with me too.
Best,
Michael

Morrisa,
They were posted by John under his usual moniker. What he did not ever say there, but now admits, is that he was working closely with your campaign--that is, he say, it was "one of his jobs on the campaign."
I have to disagree with you on the hurt feelings/disappointment point. Anyone whose spouse loses an election will be disappointed (although there is always a bright side), but my feelings certainly aren't hurt. Indeed, I think it is a good thing to lose one once in a while. You all ran an excellent campaign, technically speaking.

I am upset that in the uproar over the Lisa Davis email no one has taken a hard look at MOL for the impropriety of many things that were said there by John D, and by others, "anonymously." It is John who is saying that it was his job for the campaign. You can say that there was parity in the free-for-all on MOL, but that's just not true. No one in our campaign went there to go after Wayne, et al., and we didn't encourage anyone else to post there. I'm hard pressed to find direct and unfair attacks on Eastman, Pai, or Bennett, aside from a few jabs at Wayne's prose, but there are many against the other 3, and particularly against Amy. So this conversation will play out a bit on the comments to the other Patch article on race, if Mary is willing to let it continue. As always, I appreciate your candor and thoughts.
Best,
Michael

the ego is a terrible thing!!!! What ABOUT the CHILDREN