My first city election here, in November 2007, seemed a bit of a snoozer. Tom Rasmussen ran unopposed, Sally Clark might as well have, and Venus Velasquez's DUI stop was enough to knock her out of the running (and that's not even a particularly juicy scandal.) We ended up throwing our own victory party in a little park in the International District.
Only incumbent David Della and Tim Burgess really launched an ugly face-off, culminating in a series of increasingly hostile mailers. Della accused Burgess of being a right-wing wolf in liberal sheep's clothing. Burgess said Della hated trees (or something to that effect.) Burgess triumphed, unseating Della with 64 percent of the vote.
Burgess is a candidate to be reckoned with, so my ears perked up as rumors grew more substantial this week that Burgess wants a shot at the mayor himself. Neither man really subscribes to the passive/aggresive school of elections. Is it so wrong to want Burgess in if for no other reason than to spice things up a bit?