As you have probably noticed by now, the Weekly Editorial Board is revealing its primary-election endorsements in this issue.
As always, these endorsements will simultaneously enthrall (the supporters of the endorsed candidates) and annoy (the supporters of the candidates we don't endorse). The latter group will undoubtedly vent to us in some cranky phone calls, letters and e-mails. We can deal with that. It's part of the job.
I should probably take this opportunity to explain how we made our picks. Unlike a big daily newspaper, we don't employ people whose sole jobs are to sit on an editorial board. Instead, our editorial board is made up of our editorial staff, our publisher and key freelancers. This means, regrettably, that we don't have the luxury of bringing in each and every candidate for an in-depth interview with our editorial board. Instead, as many of us as possible talk to as many candidates as possible. Then, after weighing the issues and examining the candidates' positions, we get together and make our picks.
They're good picks, I think. You can check them out on Page 19.
Now, to those of you who fall in the "annoyed" category, because your candidate was not endorsed by the Weekly: Feel free to write us and give us your two cents. Bring us those aforementioned letters and e-mails (and even calls, if you must--but remember, we can't publish a phone call). Our mailbag section is open to you, as always. We're all about constructive debates and back-and-forth.
We hope these picks are helpful to you. And we hope they encourage you to make an informed decision--no matter how you actually end up voting.