Winfrey, Benson, Robinson, Coleman and Me!

An Open Posting to Danyelle A. Coleman, Candidate, State Rep. District 9

Danyelle, Danyelle, recently you made a reply on your Wall about a small matter regarding Janice Winfrey and Jocelyn Benson for Sec. of State. I think your gripe was that Janice like many candidates won election for her current office, but now see...ks to become SOS. I like both candidates; I know them both, and tried to bring harmony to a disagreement you were having with Isaac Robinson of the Teamsters and the Young Democrats' national Vice President about your stern position against Janice. Personally, I don't like folks to run for one office while over 50% of their current term has not expired.

Ergo, I interjected a debate would be wholesome between the SOS candidates because you brought up Ms. Benson and Ms. Winfrey. You claim Ms. Winfrey should not be running for office-is that correct?

I was saying the best way for the citizens to decide is for them to see the two candidates square of in a debate-now is that not reasonable since you are talking about candidates running for office?

Besides, do you analyze the intent or spirit of an entire message before you put in writing your knee jerk reaction and offensive tone-you can take issue with Burgess Foster, but the manner in which you did, showed a lack of class. For everyone to see. Allowing readers to conclude you rush to judgement which says something about your euristic skills or your comprehension level on a particular point about something as mundane as 'candidates debating'.

I am not talking about a complex surgical procedure or rocket science that can be misconstrued like a multi-pronged law suit.

Also, if you follow the posting thread or discussion thread on your profile you said to Isaac is this "legal or fair"-referring to Janice Winfrey-right. Then, I said I want to see them in a debate-trying to bring closure to two disjointed views on Ms. Winfrey-yours and Isaac's.

Moreover, Isaac replied "is what legal or fair" (he did not understand what you were talking about-now that I think about it neither do I now-LOL). Ms. Winfrey as the law reads and Ms. Benson the Election Law expert will tell you is well within the scope of the law. Again, you argue that Ms. Winfrey should not be allowed to be in her office-and run for another office, since she was just elected to-to campaign for another position.

As a matter of course, Burgess (moi) suggested as a way, again to bring closure, why not have the two of them debate-let the voters decide-not you, but the voters. You have an opinion for your one vote, and for your candidacy, but you should try to be more objective.

In addtion, I surmise you did not like the friendly notion that you debate Shanelle Jackson--the sister has just received a promotion within the Democratic Party Leadership-and would make a formidable debater against your lack of nuancing, based on your irrascibility. I wanted to help you prepare, but I think you are not coacable or affable.

Lastly, at any rate, you write back the most unthoughtful comments to someone who has recently tried to help you and who tried to spur you along. You owe Burgess an apology. You stated "Burgess, do you read and then think about what you say before you start talking."

Danyelle, Danyelle, Danyelle.

Finally, in summary for you: intially the conversation was not about a debate-it was about you complaining about Ms. Winfrey-right or wrong? I for the last time was trying to bring harmony and closure by simply suggesting may the best lady win at a debate!

Now, that is both a legally fair, and a well typed response!