She's also not an experienced candidate. And her fundraising claim to fame is largely a single quarter phenomenon.

She's a flash in the pan.

When the regular folks start paying attention between Labor Day and Election Day, this won't even be close. At least 55 percent to the incumbent.

And who on earth wrote this line: "After outraising the incumbent in the first quarter of 2006, President Bush visited the suburbs of Seattle for a fundraiser with her opponent"? It wouldn't pass 5th grade writing standards.

Exactly what has Dave Reichert done in the past two years that you think Darcy Burner wouldn't be capable of? Just name one thing. That's all.

As opposed to sending someone who will disagree with the President on everything?

But by all means, keep running against Bush. You ran against him and lost in 2000. You ran against him and lost in 2002. You ran against him and lost in 2004. I seriously doubt the same strategy will win this time, but keep at it. It'll surely work in 2008.

And you just may want to check on that 'agreeing with everything' stance. You know, like, um, his voting history.

First of all, how do you know that? Do you know Burner's positions on everything? We know Reichert's. We've seen the votes.

But by all means, keep running against Bush. You ran against him and lost in 2000. You ran against him and lost in 2002. You ran against him and lost in 2004. I seriously doubt the same strategy will win this time, but keep at it. It'll surely work in 2008.

His approval rating is in the 30s for a reason. People have figured out that words only mean so much. You have to back up your tough talk with actions. Americans have figured out that he's a fraud when it comes to national security and fiscal responsibility. The Democrats would be absolutely stupid not to run against him. His disapproval rating in this state is around 60%. They want health care, not some folksy guy talking to them in slogans.

And you just may want to check on that 'agreeing with everything' stance. You know, like, um, his voting history.

You want to know about his voting history? Sure, someone's already broken it down. He's voted with the Republican leadership on key votes around 90% of the time.

Darcy Burner isn't much better than a dead body. Her entire campaign focus is calling Bush names, bashing the war in Iraq, and then trying to associate Richert as being nothing more than a Cantwell/Murray style sock puppet for the current administration. The voters were smart enough to fire CantDoWell when they realized her only talent was being mind melded to the Hilary/Slick Willy agenda.

With 98% of the incumbants being re-elected to congress you have to be really incompetent, or be up against an all-star challenger, to get voted out of office.

Cantwell was, Reichert is not.

She has a computer science degree from Harvard and was a Program Manager at Microsoft. What parts of that do you not understand? Are you unfamiliar with concept of higher education? Are you under the impression that these things can happen to a person by accident?

Her entire campaign focus is calling Bush names, bashing the war in Iraq, and then trying to associate Richert as being nothing more than a Cantwell/Murray style sock puppet for the current administration.

A Cantwell/Murray style sock puppet!!! LOL!!! Man, don't gag on the Kool-Aid there, champ!! Pace yourself, they never run out. I've been very critical of Maria Cantwell and her votes for the Patriot Act, but she's about as far from a sock puppet as you can get when it comes to Energy Policy.

Oh, and can you actually point to someplace where Darcy Burner has called Bush names? And in case you've forgotten, one of her brothers has fought in the Iraq War, so your silly insinuations about her lack of support for the troops are only going to be met with more well-deserved laughter.

The voters were smart enough to fire CantDoWell when they realized her only talent was being mind melded to the Hilary/Slick Willy agenda.

That really hurt her in 2000!! LOL!!

With 98% of the incumbants being re-elected to congress you have to be really incompetent, or be up against an all-star challenger, to get voted out of office.

Or be a Republican in a year when Republican policy-making becomes synonymous with disaster. It's a problem that Reichert is not only facing, but is too stupid to understand.

Burner has more experience than Maria Cantwell who's basically a professional politician starting as an aide to Jerry Springer, Mayor of Cincinnati, and worked in the NASA Division of RealNetworks, aka occupied space
(Greg Nickels is a professional politician also with no work experience as an employee)

Reichert's background is more interesting since he regained control of Seattle when Mayor Paul Schnell and the fired police captain lost it during the WTO riots in 1999 and he broke the Green River case

It basically boils down to whether you're happy or unhappy with Reichert's performance

I was the Ds would run someone like Darcy in Seattle

The 'Executive' flap is just silly. I worked at Microsoft, so I know that the term executive describes her position much better than the term program manager. The best term may have been general manager or project manager, although by definition, she was an executive in that she managed a budget. It's semantics, but I think that calling her a program manager is actually more misleading to the level of work she was doing than calling her an executive.

Reichert's background is more interesting since he regained control of Seattle when Mayor Paul Schnell and the fired police captain lost it during the WTO riots in 1999 and he broke the Green River case

Regained control of Seattle? The WTO riots were a very special case of a large number of troublemakers maker their way to this city to disrupt the meetings. How did he regain control? Everyone went home.

As for the Green River case, he took like 22 years to solve that. My wife worked in HR for the trucking company that Ridgway worked at. His co-workers called him Green River Gary for years because it was so obvious that he was the guy. But this isn't about his record as the King County Sheriff, this is about what he's doing in Congress. I'll ask the same question to you that I asked to Stefan. What accomplishment has Reichert achieved that Darcy Burner would not be qualified or capable of doing?

It's pretty obvious from your comments that you recognize Reichert is in trouble.

2. Your 2nd obfuscation (and Darcy's fav) is that Dave votes Republican... pay attention now OF COURSE HE DOES, HE WAS ELECTED AS A REPUBLICNA TO REPLACE A REBUBLICAN.

3. Darcy is virtually an empty pair of Manolo Blahnik's in the 8th... the loony lefty bloggers in Seattle know who she is but they don't get a voice or a vote. She has no name regognition with most voters in the 8th.

4. She has a Computer Science degree from Harvard...whoop-de-do. She quit law school and since leaving MS about the only true thing you can say about her is that she's OVER-EDUCATED and UNDER-EMPLOYED... gee, now that sure inspires confidence.

5. Neither her degree nor her work with Microsoft, whatever the hell it was, qualify her to run a campaign (clearly, as she's doing it so badly) or hold office.

6. She may be "cute", she fits the Seattle liberal ideal in that she has a womb, she mouths those platitudes really well, but she has YET to say how she can be more effective for ME in the 8th than Dave.

7. Her priorities...Henry v self gratification... suck.

8. She has no gravitas

Are you the same PBJ I embarrassed in the Horses' Ass threads on this point? Let me explain this again so that even you can understand it. The term program manager at Microsoft generally means an individual who guides the design process for a tech project. That is NOT what Darcy Burner did. She led a project team with a budget of something like $20 million. Let's review the definition of executive (again):

A person or group having administrative or managerial authority in an organization

The Burner campaign, to minimize confusion, simply refers to her as a manager now. People at her level are also commonly referred to as General Managers or Project Managers as well, but all of those positions are executive positions. Now, if this is still too hard for you to figure out, I can see if I can find a chimp with a box of crayons to explain it further.

"...but all of those positions are executive positions." No, they aren't. Microsoft the company doesn't refer to Project Managers as Executives. Schlubs who may or may not have worked at MS can say anything they feeeeeel like, but that doesn't make is so.

Um, Cheryl, I didn't bring that up. Green Lake Mark did.

2. Your 2nd obfuscation (and Darcy's fav) is that Dave votes Republican... pay attention now OF COURSE HE DOES, HE WAS ELECTED AS A REPUBLICNA TO REPLACE A REBUBLICAN.

If that's the case, then how come he intentionally avoided calling himself a Republican as he wasted your taxpayer money sending out frank mailings?

3. Darcy is virtually an empty pair of Manolo Blahnik's in the 8th... the loony lefty bloggers in Seattle know who she is but they don't get a voice or a vote. She has no name regognition with most voters in the 8th.

The 8th is a blue district. It voted for Kerry and has shifted even more the left as the entire country has begun to realize that Republican leadership is failing in significant ways.

4. She has a Computer Science degree from Harvard...whoop-de-do. She quit law school and since leaving MS about the only true thing you can say about her is that she's OVER-EDUCATED and UNDER-EMPLOYED... gee, now that sure inspires confidence.

She left Microsoft to get into politics. She took a year of law school to begin to learn about the process of making laws. Are you actually crazy enough to think that people should work full-time jobs while they run for Congress?

5. Neither her degree nor her work with Microsoft, whatever the hell it was, qualify her to run a campaign (clearly, as she's doing it so badly) or hold office.

Why not? Again, I'll ask you the same question I'm asking everyone else. What has Dave Reichert done in the last two years that Darcy Burner is not qualified for? I'm still waiting for an answer. No one seems to have one. I wonder why?

6. She may be "cute", she fits the Seattle liberal ideal in that she has a womb, she mouths those platitudes really well, but she has YET to say how she can be more effective for ME in the 8th than Dave.

Well, for starters, she can actually be a force for change in the health care industry. America has by far the most expensive health care system in the world, and it's also one of the least efficient. Reichert has voted repeatedly for repealing Medicaid and Medicare. He unabashed believes that the Federal government knows more about pain management and other long-term care issues than doctors, and he's slashed health care benefits for veterans.

When it comes to deficits, he's been right alongside Bush in his march to rack up record deficits and spend money that only goes to the very wealthy. People in the 8th district who've been comfortably middle class are now starting to find it a lot harder to make ends meet.

As for foreign policy, he's done nothing to challenge the Bush Administration as it's gotten us stuck in Iraq. Someone who actually has family sacrificing for our country, like Burner does, might actually care a little bit more about having a plan to succeed over there.

But what is it that you want out of a Congressman? If you just want government to waste your tax dollars, then by all means, vote for Reichert, he'll be happy to do that. But most people in the 8th district actually want someone who actually fights for the people of the 8th district, not just for wealthy Republicans in Texas, DC, and New York.

That makes no sense at all. How would an executive assistant have managerial authority in an organization. Can the executive assistant fire people? What on earth are you talking about?

No, they aren't. Microsoft the company doesn't refer to Project Managers as Executives. Schlubs who may or may not have worked at MS can say anything they feeeeeel like, but that doesn't make is so.

It doesn't matter what Microsoft says! People who are in charge of budgets are called executives. That's true everywhere. It's the definition of the word! Are you people all suffering from some form of brain damage? Read the definition again and think about it. When someone manages a budget, they are an executive. This is not hard. It's not rocket science. It's very simple understanding of the English language.

Sorry, but "Executive" means your name shows up in the company's annual report in the back. I'm sure you can produce links to say, MSFT's 10-K filings and such to back up the claim.

BTW - everyone notice the millitary and Iraq angles the DCCC threw in her bio? That's playing the Sheehan card - "What do you know about sacrifice, you chickenhawk!! My brother went to Iraq!!!!"

But she headed it up! She had managerial authority over a $20 million budget. By definition, that makes her an executive. What is so hard about this?

She is no more than a salesperson. That's probably why she has been successful in raising money.

The money is mostly being raised by bloggers and others online who are fed up with empty suits like Dave Reichert in Congress. She's been the beneficiary of good people around her and the fact that her opponent is very weak and completely unable to explain to anyone why he belongs in Congress.

And concerning the mentioning of her father and brother's military accomplishments, as if they were somehow a reflection on her, she doesn't even share a gene-pool with these people. She's adopted, for crying out loud.

Awesome!! Keep saying that, I'm sure that'll play real well in the 8th district! Sorry, but being raised in a good home trumps all genetics. She comes from a very patriotic and hard-working family, and her accomplishments are a result of that.

No, it doesn't. You see, we speak a language. This language is called English. In the English language, we have these things called dictionaries. Dictionaries are big books that explain what all the words in the language means. In this dictionary I'm referring to, the definition for executive is?

a) your name shows up in the company's annual report in the back

or

b) A person or group having administrative or managerial authority in an organization

If you guessed b, you're correct. That's the definition of the word and that's exactly what Burner was doing at Microsoft. Can you, or someone else please explain to me why this is so difficult to understand?

BTW - everyone notice the millitary and Iraq angles the DCCC threw in her bio? That's playing the Sheehan card - "What do you know about sacrifice, you chickenhawk!! My brother went to Iraq!!!!"

Steve_dog, please do me a huge favor and talk about Iraq every day from now until the election. I want this thing to be as easy as possible for Burner.

ROTFL! Riiiiight, it doesn't matter whom the company calls what.

By your definition, I'm an "executive" as an N-6 manager, 'cause I'm in charge of a budget. This is the problem when you try to twist language to suit your political whims: Add "executive" to "torture", "lie", and "is", words that the political left have *dishonestly* attempted to hijack to spread their political BS.

-Steve, getting out his waders

She's not filing with the SEC. She's describing her role at Microsoft. By the definition of the word executive, she held an executive position there. As you can clearly see, there's nothing on there about the SEC or shareholders. That's a narrower definition of the word executive for a specific regulatory purpose. It's not the general definition of the word.

For your information, Darcy was in fact listed on an internal webpage as an executive. Of course, since she's not longer employed, it's no longer there, so keep that tinfoil hat on! You'll need it!

By your definition, I'm an "executive" as an N-6 manager, 'cause I'm in charge of a budget.

Do you have managerial control as well? If so, then by definition, you'd be an executive. Is it misleading for someone who has a tiny budget and manages a few people to call themselves an executive? Maybe. But it's still the definition of the word. But Burner didn't manage a small budget and a few people. She managed a $20 million budget and a large team.

I have a child that GRADUATED from law school... quitting after the 1st and probably toughest year doesn't take courage... it shows cowardice, lack of confidence, and a penchant for not completing what's begun.

Just ask Henry about that.

We're not discussing a legal document. We're discussing something written in plain English. I don't understand what's so difficult to understand about that. She's not filing with the SEC. She was just telling people what her work background was.

She never intended to graduate. She took a year of introductory classes for her own benefit. This is all well known. She got all A's and A-'s and could have easily finished had that been her goal.

Just ask Henry about that.

If you're referring to her child, I want to ask you to please talk about this as much as you possibly can. I want you to stand on your roof wherever you live (if you live in the 8th district) and shout from the rooftops that Darcy Burner is not qualified to be in Congress because she's a mother to a young child. There's nothing more in the world I could want than for that to be Dave Reichert's strategy for winning re-election.

I would think it would carry a lot of weight with voters in the 8th District that someone is personally affected by what's happening in Iraq, or that someone has rural, blue collar roots, but has personally achieved a lot in life. I personally think her main qualification for serving in Congress is that she's a self-made success story. It's not easy to get into Harvard without being legacy (as our President was). It's very difficult. And she's been successful in the business world as well.

Sorry kiddo, if that's true, it is a MAJOR REASON to vote agaionst her because it shows she is completely thoughtless, selfish and self centered.

Do you have a clue what it takes to even get admitted to law school? Do you have a clue about the competition for coveted spots in premium law schools? That she would take one of those spots from someone anxious and willing to do the work and and take it with the intention NOT to graduate is absolutely despicable.

So are you saying that people shouldn't go to law school unless they intend to graduate? Really?

Do you have a clue what it takes to even get admitted to law school? Do you have a clue about the competition for coveted spots in premium law schools? That she would take one of those spots from someone anxious and willing to do the work and and take it with the intention NOT to graduate is absolutely despicable.

I can't believe I'm hearing an argument like this on a right-wing blog. I didn't think conservatives chastised people for using their skills to better themselves. Did she have another option to accomplish this? Are there law schools out there where people can just take classes?

I don't think what Burner did is as uncommon as you think, but I definitely don't have statistics. I'd like to hear what others think about this though. As far as I'm concerned, if you're good enough to make it into a good law school, it's up to you to do whatever you feel is right with that access. I don't think government or anyone else should be making rules to limit that.

I WORK at Microsoft RIGHT NOW. In fact, I'm sitting here in building 31 taking my afternoon politics break...:)

The position that Darcy filled was a PROGRAM MANAGER, and was NOT an executive level. Guess what - I'm a contract employee and even I have budget to work with! So do many of my colleagues - orange and blue badges. I guess that I'm an executive since I have a budget?

Darcy never was an executive. Period. If she was an executive, then 80% of the employees of Microsoft - orange or blue badge - are executives.

You get on here and argue that Dave has to go because he won't do what you want. Well I don't know of any REPUBLICANS who vote for MOONBAT causes. Go back to whoresesass and preach to the choir.

Dave will win handsomely becaause he is a man of integrity and the people in the 8th know him. Why should he debate Darcy, he is going to win anyway. Doing so only raises her nothingness to almost something, why help her out.

She does not fully support our troops. Like many of the left wing loonies, she only pays them lip service. War is not a nice neat package and to insist on a firm immediate withdrawal plan would be foolhardy. I have met many of the fine men and women who have been to Iraq and so far all think we are on the right course and to pull out now would be stupid.

As for being an executive, Michael is quite correct in that you must be listed for a publicly traded company or else you are in serious trouble. And I have been in charge of budgets but I certainly didn't add "executive" to my title.

I haven't found any record of her saying great things about President Bush. Among other things she says she wants to stop Bush because Reichart won't. Hardly words of support.

I've found that people are afraid to argue with me over there. :)

Yes I most certainly AM saying just that. I know for a fact how tough it is to get into law school, how hard it is to wait for that letter of admittance. The hubris of taking a spot for no reason whatsoever, with no intention of graduating is galling, selfish and despicable.

I don't think what Burner did is as uncommon as you think, but I definitely don't have statistics. I'd like to hear what others think about this though. As far as I'm concerned, if you're good enough to make it into a good law school, it's up to you to do whatever you feel is right with that access. I don't think government or anyone else should be making rules to limit that.

Who the hell said anything about government intervention? You really are the perfect protype liberal aren't you? Injecting bait to change the subject at hand.

I am so glad you informed us all that she never intended to finish. It solidifies my view of her in particular and liberals in general... with you people it's all about what make YOU feel good, never ever about consideration for others.... ask ol' Henry.

Tell me, if the stars and the moon are aligned, there's a star in the east and everyone in the 8th is suddenly struck brain dead and she is elected... would she finish her job or cut and run like she did with MS, like she did with law school, like she did with Henry?

Voters in the 8th are smart enough not to "hire" a debutante dallier, who plays at something till she gets bored and wants to move on.

Your language is 'lib'. It's a flexible language depending on the pile of poop you're shoveling at the moment.

The common, accepted definition in the business for "executive" is a VP. You can yammer all you want trying to twist the definition, but serious voters will blow you off.

Oh, and Iraq? Let's see your party's plan, kiddo.

Can you make managerial decisions? That's also part of the definition. When she was at Microsoft, she was referred to on company literature as holding an executive position. But she was not considered 'Executive level', which, as a different commenter explained, has certain legal connotations. Yes, it's confusing, but you work at Microsoft, so I trust you can figure it out.

Noone argues with you there because both of your readers always agree with you, and your Blog offers no value in reading.

I did? Can you copy and paste where I said that? I don't seem to be able to find it. It's not that it's a far-fetched thing for what I might say, but it's fascinating how often people put words in my mouth.

Well I don't know of any REPUBLICANS who vote for MOONBAT causes. Go back to whoresesass and preach to the choir.

Well, just so you know, I actually voted for Dino Rossi, but he'll probably be the last Republican I vote for for quite a while. Republicans used to be able to articulate positions without resorting to meaningless words like Moonbat (which comes from someone's inability to pronounce a name!!).

Dave will win handsomely becaause he is a man of integrity and the people in the 8th know him. Why should he debate Darcy, he is going to win anyway. Doing so only raises her nothingness to almost something, why help her out.

And thanks for explaining the other reason why it will be a while before I vote for a Republican again. I personally like to know where politicians stand on the issues. Being afraid to debate because your opponent might get more attention is about as cowardly as it gets.

Awesome! Give Bagdhad Jim a call.

Inslee 94%
Larsen 91%
Baird 88%
Dicks 88%
McDermott 88%
Smith 87%

So they must be "Rubber Stamp Democrats"...right?

Source: Washington Post Congress Votes Database

Um, burdabee, perhaps you haven't taken an economics class in a few years. The theoretical link between minimum wage increases and increases in unemployment doesn't work out empirically. On the contrary, places that have enacted higher minimum wages have seen great results.

Besides your lack of expertise in economics, I would really enjoy watching you tell someone straight to their face they are worth $5.15/hr.

And how is this relevant to what any of us are talking about?

Also, Darcy obviously slept through her economics classes because she thinks increasing the minimum wage helps people and that tax breaks are a bad thing. (As a side note, thehim: were you one of the many who whined how initiative 695 would shut down the state and bring about financial ruin?)

LOL!!! Where's your economics degree from? DeVry?!? LOL!!! There have been many examples where raising the minimum wage has not only helped people but been a boost to the economy. Tax breaks are not necessarily a bad thing, but they can be if the break goes to people who aren't going to reinvest into the local economy or don't need the money. Much of the tax breaks in the Bush era have been the latter kind and have gone to people of considerable wealth who are more likely spend money internationally.

She does not fully support our troops. Like many of the left wing loonies, she only pays them lip service. War is not a nice neat package and to insist on a firm immediate withdrawal plan would be foolhardy. I have met many of the fine men and women who have been to Iraq and so far all think we are on the right course and to pull out now would be stupid.

Right now, the best strategy is for a phased withdrawal. The current situation in Iraq is being exacerbated by the fact that the insurgency thrives on the uncertainty over our intentions. Everyone from the Prime Minister on down in Iraq, including General Casey, agrees with the Democrat's plan for having a timetable for withdrawal. Darcy Burner supports this plan. George Bush and Dave Reichert do not.

Are you saying he won't debate his opponent?

The single most important fact you always want to dance around is how few STAY at minimum wage.

Also, many newcomers to our country, legal and illegal, are thrilled beyond measure to break into the US work-force at minimum wage because it beats the crappy pay or NO JOB in their home country.

It just might be what the plan is, but the New York Times hasn't published it yet.

She didn't take it for no reason whatsoever. She took it to learn about laws. She intends to be a LAWmaker. That's not hubris. That's foresight. And she had every right to do it.

Who the hell said anything about government intervention? You really are the perfect protype liberal aren't you? Injecting bait to change the subject at hand.

I'll give you that one. I was across the line there. I apologize.

Tell me, if the stars and the moon are aligned, there's a star in the east and everyone in the 8th is suddenly struck brain dead and she is elected... would she finish her job or cut and run like she did with MS, like she did with law school, like she did with Henry?

I don't understand what you're talking about with respect to her son. There are large numbers of working mothers in the 8th District, much higher than even the national average. Do you really think that criticizing Darcy Burner for being a working mom is going to resonate with people?

Voters in the 8th are smart enough not to "hire" a debutante dallier, who plays at something till she gets bored and wants to move on.

Congress has been her goal for a long time. Exactly when did she become bored with that mission, or any other? She's a very focused person who knows how to balance work and family. But please, keep believing these stereotypes, it will make it so much easier for the people of the 8th District to realize how out-of-touch Reichert's base of support has actually gotten.

It's a narrow-interest blog on purpose. I write what I'm interested in. I have a small group of readers with particular interest in civil liberties issues and I like it that way. But unlike a lot of others, I like to mix it up with people who disagree with me.

You guys are such a riot. You're going to be throwing out this worn out line well after November has come and gone and Burner has defeated Reichert.

What matters to me is that a second rate sheriff obviously has proven to be a second rate legislator, who has failed to represent my district's interests.

Define managerial. I have decided which vendors Microsoft will use for certain products I'm working on. I've decided what resources - people, equipment, and funds - will be used where. And I have directed other contractors and vendors to perform specific tasks directly, without needing to run through my manager.

I also run my own business, where I have several employees. I am familiar with what management is, and I do perform some here at Microsoft. I even currently have a private office with a window; if you worked at MS you know how rare that is.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: if Burner was a Microsoft Executive, then I guess I am a Microsoft Executive, as are many of the people around here.

Looks like we'll have a chance to listen to Reichert tomorrow and question his record.

As for telling someone he has to live on $5.15/hour, it comes down to choices. When people choose not to get the education or training that allows them to pursue better paying jobs, that is their choice. And it is tough to see someone make that choice. As for making things accessible, it comes down to how badly you want to do it. People make time for what is important to them.

Instead of throwing more money at the problem, I am interested in what you think can be done to encourage people to get a good education so that they can go to trade school or college. And keep in mind there will always be those who just don't care and would prefer to have the world handed to them.

It means you manage a staff of people.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: if Burner was a Microsoft Executive, then I guess I am a Microsoft Executive, as are many of the people around here.

She was not a 'Microsoft Executive', in the sense of Microsoft's top-level management. She was simply a low-level executive, in that she had a managerial role over a budget and a group of people. Microsoft did actually refer to her as an 'executive' on websites, but her role is probably more accurately described as a General Manager or Project Manager. That's why the website is updated. I understand why it's confusing. What I take issue with is the notion out there that she was being intentionally misleading by calling herself an executive. It was technically correct, even though it was confusing.

Sorry Dan - contract employees like yourself at Microsoft are just grunts. Dream on.

I've met her before and I'm impressed by her. I didn't know her before this race. If you don't like her personally, there's really nothing I can say to that. It's your opinion.

OK, well then you're talking with an Executive. I do have a few direct reports. As does the person I report to, who also wears an orange badge. I have to go two levels up to reach a blue badge.

So, do I qualify as an Executive at Microsoft? I seem to have your criteria:

- Budgetary powers
- Direct reports
- Can make decisions regarding vendors
- Sets schedules

Never mind that I wear an orange badge. I must be a Microsoft executive!

Fact is, MANY people here have the same level of responsibility that I have, both orange and blue badged. And NONE are considered executives. Either by Microsoft, or by outside vendors/contractors, or by pretty much anyone.

Get to the Director level and we're talking... Below that? Not an executive. High level middle management, perhaps, but not an executive.

If I may, another comment on the "executive" issue. Company executives do not need to be listed in filings with the SEC, company directors and officers must be listed. It is the company, not dictionary.com that decides who is an executive and who is a manager. If a Microsoft HR representative would make a public statement that she was an executive that would end the matter as far as I was concerned. Absent such a statement, "manager" is more appropriate. After all, the DCCC thinks so.

How many hours would someone have to work at $5.15 to even afford Sowell's book? 4, if you get the discounted price from amazon.
What is Sowell's take on Card and Krueger, btw?

"Instead of throwing more money at the problem, I am interested in what you think can be done to encourage people to get a good education so that they can go to trade school or college."

How about making it more affordable? It does cost money. Some of us aren't lucky enough to have the $40,000/yr it takes to have a private school education, and for a high school grad even a public school is a burden.

Are all those who take out student loans, get scholarships and grants, and work their way through school "throwing money" at their education?

"And keep in mind there will always be those who just don't care and would prefer to have the world handed to them."

Thank you for your insight on human nature. I'm sure people working for $5.15 feel that way about those making $7.25 and would appreciate that statement.

How many hours would someone have to work at $5.15 to even afford Sowell's book? 4, if you get the discounted price from amazon.
What is Sowell's take on Card and Krueger, btw?

"Instead of throwing more money at the problem, I am interested in what you think can be done to encourage people to get a good education so that they can go to trade school or college."

How about making it more affordable? It does cost money. Some of us aren't lucky enough to have the $40,000/yr it takes to have a private school education, and for a high school grad even a public school is a burden.

Are all those who take out student loans, get scholarships and grants, and work their way through school "throwing money" at their education?

"And keep in mind there will always be those who just don't care and would prefer to have the world handed to them."

Thank you for your insight on human nature. I'm sure people working for $5.15 feel that way about those making $7.25 and would appreciate that statement.

As I said, the line is not perfectly clear, but having worked at Microsoft for 5 years, I don't find it misleading at all that Burner called herself an executive for the type of work she did. And neither did others in the company as well since she was referred to as an executive internally.

Spill it then. Are you going to use the fact that she's adopted as a way to discredit her familial ties again? Please do, that was entertainingly stupid and it made you look like an idiot.

She's a highly motivated and highly intelligent person, and I'm going to restate the same exact question that started this entire discussion that no one's been able to answer:

What has Dave Reichert done in the past two years that Darcy Burner is not qualified to do?

Reichert. 55 percent. Easy.
May not even be that close, but whatever.

Keep deluding yourselves. Run against Bush. He's evil and stupid, ya know. And I will happily talk about Iraq. Intelligently. From the highest hills. It was - and still is - the right thing to do. And history will prove it. Too bad none of the heroes on the Left had the balls to enact their own Iraq policies in the mid-90s, huh.

If you really want to know why Bush's rating are in the mid-30s, it's because he isn't conservative enough. It cracks me up when liberals start playing the out-of-control spending card. As if that's how you choose your candidates. Who's the first group to squeal like stuck pigs when reductions in increases are proposed? Sure ain't the conservatives.

Again. Reichert. 55 percent. Next?

Looks like we'll have a chance to listen to Reichert tomorrow and question his record.

BREAKING: I'm afraid not Ben - Dave Reichert has chickened out of the radio show. His handlers must have reconsidered putting him in front of real callers and a radio host who might ask him tough questions.

Chair the Emergency Preparedness, Science and Technology Subcommittee.

Next Question.

Jim, thank you. You're exactly what Darcy Burner needs. Please do whatever you can to convince Dave Reichert to run to the right of Bush. I'll be eternally grateful.

And I will happily talk about Iraq. Intelligently. From the highest hills. It was - and still is - the right thing to do. And history will prove it.

They wrote a book about people like you, Jim. It was called Moby Dick. Didn't end well.

That's not a accomplishment, that's a position. Do you not understand the difference? What actual accomplishment did he have as the chair of that subscommittee? Or any you saying that Darcy Burner is not qualified enough to be nominated for something?

As for Reichert, what's he done that Darcy can't do? That's easy. Vote to continue the war in Iraq. There's no way that a Nutroots endorsed candidate can run without agreeing to support a full withdrawal from Iraq. Look at the attack on Lieberman. Nutrooters want a full withdrawal. The Nutrooters' clever strategy for Darcy is to 1) divert attention by talking about the military accomplishments of her relatives, and 2) fly under the radar about Iraq because she's got no voting record. However, let's be clear, if she gets in to office, her intention is to support a defeatist policy on the war to what ever degree Democrats/ Nutrooters deem appropriate for her political vulnerability.

Most voters rightfully place our national security near the top of their lists of important issues. Most voters recognize that we are engaged in a fight with Islamic Fanaticism. Given the steady escalation of Islamic terror since 1979, we cannot afford a policy of defeatism, and any candidate in a swing district (Darcy) cannot ignore that fact. This is the only question Reichert needs to ask Burner.

As for the child issue, it's laudable that Darcy would want to further her career. However, anyone who has kids knows that it's pretty much impossible to be a nurturing mother, and be on the other side of the country for large stretches of time. It's hard enough for families to make ends meet in today's expensive world and still find the time to really give a quality nuturing experience to their kids. Parents that are truly interested in the best possible environment for their children will minimize day care time and maximize parent time with their children. This obviously becomes much easier as the child gets older, is less dependent and more focused on schooling, etc. But the reality is that parental sacrifices should be made more on the front end of a child's life. Ask any early childhood development expert. By making a run at Congress with a relatively young child, Darcy Burner is making a statement whether she intends to or not. It is a fact, and it will be noted by those voters with young children who have made career sacrifices.

Yes

Chair the Emergency Preparedness, Science and Technology Subcommittee.

Anyone can sit on a chair, and that's all he has done - he's just keeping the seat warm! He hasn't moved a single important bill out of his sub-committee. He's ignored the recommendations of the 9/11 Committee.

Reichert just does what party brass and his staff tell him to do - a staff, I might add, hand picked by the party brass.

The man couldn't hire his own people, and as we've found out, couldn't fire people when he should have as Sheriff.

Well, as I said, you have a personal opinion of Darcy that I can't change. I realize you won't elaborate, so the only vote it will affect is yours, and I doubt your vote was in play anyway.

Or any you saying that Darcy Burner is not qualified enough to be nominated for something

Yes

Are you kidding, or are you retarded?

As for Reichert, what's he done that Darcy can't do? That's easy. Vote to continue the war in Iraq.

I disagree. I think she could do that, but since she's not a complete idiot, I don't think she will.

However, let's be clear, if she gets in to office, her intention is to support a defeatist policy on the war to what ever degree Democrats/ Nutrooters deem appropriate for her political vulnerability.

So let me unravel this absurdity. We invaded Iraq as a central battle in the war on terror (Bush's words). As a result of this attack, Iraq, a formerly secular state with a brutal tyrant, has now become an ungovernable mess with radical Islamist rule taking over across much of the country and with terrorist cells training and equipping throughout. In addition, Islamic terrorism skyrockets throughout the rest of the Middle East while the people who actually attacked us on 9/11 are ignored. Our troops remain stationed in Iraq, however, their numbers are way to small to actually intervene in the growing civil war, so they remain at their bases as the violence escalates. However, not supporting this strategy is considered 'defeatist'? Can I have some of what you're smoking? Because my brain works a little to well for any of that nonsense you wrote to be clear.

Most voters rightfully place our national security near the top of their lists of important issues. Most voters recognize that we are engaged in a fight with Islamic Fanaticism. Given the steady escalation of Islamic terror since 1979, we cannot afford a policy of defeatism, and any candidate in a swing district (Darcy) cannot ignore that fact. This is the only question Reichert needs to ask Burner.

I agree. We can't afford a policy of defeatism, but that's exactly the policy we have in Iraq right now. We are spreading Islamic radicalism across the Middle East because George Bush does not have a plan to stabilize Iraq, and Dave Reichert is not capable of forcing him to implement one. We need people like Darcy Burner in Congress to actually put the heat on this administration to start winning in Iraq. And sadly, Iraq has been bungled so badly, that any plan in Iraq that has any hope of success (and this is not just my opinion, but General Casey's and PM al-Maliki's as well) must involve a timetable for withdrawal.

As for the child issue, it's laudable that Darcy would want to further her career. However, anyone who has kids knows that it's pretty much impossible to be a nurturing mother, and be on the other side of the country for large stretches of time. It's hard enough for families to make ends meet in today's expensive world and still find the time to really give a quality nuturing experience to their kids. Parents that are truly interested in the best possible environment for their children will minimize day care time and maximize parent time with their children. This obviously becomes much easier as the child gets older, is less dependent and more focused on schooling, etc. But the reality is that parental sacrifices should be made more on the front end of a child's life. Ask any early childhood development expert. By making a run at Congress with a relatively young child, Darcy Burner is making a statement whether she intends to or not. It is a fact, and it will be noted by those voters with young children who have made career sacrifices.

And as I said earlier, you're deeply mistaken if you think that this will be a liability for her in the 8th. Democrats know how to take polls too, and they'd be thrilled if you tried to say that Darcy Burner shouldn't be a Congresswoman because she has a small child. They already know how people in the 8th district feel about that. Apparently, you don't.

Pathetic.

"The theoretical link between minimum wage increases and increases in unemployment doesn't work out empirically. On the contrary, places that have enacted higher minimum wages have seen great results."

That's such total BS it's barely worth debating. Even FDR's economists knew that the minimum wage was a bad idea. Every place where the minimum wage has been instituted has higher unemployment because of it. And it's the lower-skilled workers who get laid off first. It's not a 'theoretical link' - it's a direct relationship.

You don't want to tell someone that they're worth $5.15 an hour? To bad - what if they ARE? Have you met anyone from Poland or Mexico lately? They'd love to work for $5.15 an hour. They might love to work for $3 per hour. But if they're worth $5 per hour and they come to Washington, they'll have to work illegally or they'll be unemployed. If they go someplace where wages can legally be $5 per hour, they'll be legally employed.

The fact is that if you take a bunch of workers that the market has optimized to $5 an hour and demand that they're paid $7 an hour - they'll be laid off because they're not worth that much. Period.

The minimum wage is the bottom rung of the ladder. People only make the minimum wage for an average of 6-10 months before they get a wage hike. Very few people make the minimum wage for extended periods of time. When you raise the minimum wage, you're moving up that bottom rung of the ladder and making it more difficult for entry-level workers to enter the workforce.

Here's your money quote: "Mine is that $5.15 is an economically and morally indefensible wage for an adult American." Too bad for all those teenagers - not yet adults - who won't be able to enter the workforce at $7.25, huh? Who do you think it really hurts? Some 40-year-old with an engineering degree, or the kid going to Bellevue High School who'd like to work part-time at Starbucks?

Raising the cost of ANY input discourages the use of that input. Raising the cost of entry-level workers discourages the use of entry-level workers. And I thought Democrats and Liberals were looking out for the little guy!

Liberals are always trying to re-write laws - but the laws of economics and supply and demand do not lend themselves to your revisionist history.

Just ignore him.

Thehim's mother

Right now there is a HUGE problem with the major public school systems graduating kids who cannot read, write or do simple math even with large budgets. You did not answer the question as to how young people should be motivated to value education so that they can get ahead.

As for affordable higher education, instead of throwing billions of dollars away on tunnels and trains to nowhere, the same money could easily be set aside for full expenses at a public four year in-state institution to all students in the state who meet admission requirements. It's a matter of priorities.

Instead of worrying how the minimum wage worker is going to afford "Basic Economics", buy yourself a copy first. I don't know Sowell's take on Alan Krueger, but I'll let you know if I find out.

Wages are a business expense. And employers pay what it takes to get employees. The law of supply and demand determine which jobs are going to pay more. When the government tries to get all warm and fuzzy and raise the minimum wage, it does not have the intended effect. Here are a few links for reference if you are interested: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2006/04/26/minimum_wage,_maximum_folly and
http://www.californiarepublic.org/archives/Columns/Archie/20051222ArchieWage.html and http://www.virginiainstitute.org/viewpoint/cox.html.

It's also fallacious to argue that the mere presence of the US in the Middle East is the cause of terrorism. Terrorism has been escalating since before the US arrived in the Middle East in anything approaching our presence in Iraq now or during the first Gulf War. And the US has a presence in many other parts of the world, where we do not draw a reaction of Jihadi Terror even if we are not well liked. The world did not ask for Islamic Terror and Fanaticism, but it came a knocking. Cowards cringe and prattle on about diplomacy. And we've been extremely diplomatic throughout the 30 years of Islamic Fanaticism to the point of waiting for UN Inaction many times over when we had no obligation to do so. But eventually, Americans do what is right, which is to confront Islamic Fanaticism on all of its fronts and defend our way of life. It has probably not occured to your that thousands of your fellow Americans volunteer for this fight every day.

Furthermore, it's utterly absurd to say that we have no plan in Iraq. We have been steadily advancing the position of the Iraqi government, it's own military, the stability of the country, the restoration of infrastructure, much of which was destroyed by Islamic fanatics, etc. On every metric, Iraq is a better place today, and on every metric, the Islamic Fanatics are losing their battles and in decline. To say that Iraq is going badly is another huge evasion of reality. Could it be better, of course, there is always room for improvement, but to deny the obvious progress is to bury one's head in the sand.

It's also interesting to note you insistence on Bush being the problem. The American people have elected Bush twice. Has it occured to you that the majority of American's want to confront Islamic Fanaticism and terror? The solution to winning is not plattitudes towards a plan. Winning involved primarily one thing. Our resolve. We have more power and money than we will ever need to fight Islamic terror, but as long as we have cowards and a defeatist press influencing public opinion, the real battle is for the resolve of the American voter.

Darcy Burner will be a good baraometer of 8th CD resolve. I suspect that although it is not Texas, it is also not Seattle and that most 8th CD voters will see Darcy for what she is, which is at best a dilution of Reichert's resolve. Even if we assume you are 100% right and that Iraq is the wrong battle, will Darcy and the Democrats be for continuing the battle against Islamic Fanaticism and Terror as a whole, wherever it need be fought? Or will the Democrats be more for attempts at withdrawal and appeasement as in the 1990s which led us to 9/11?

As for the child issue. It need not be mentioned by anyone officially. I certainly would not bring it up in any official stance for Reichert, and no one else will either. It's a choice Darcy is free to make, and there are no doubt other Congresswoman who have made the same choice. Commenters here are simply noting that if she is going to mention that she has a young child as part of her official Bio statement, it does not take much for the average voter to connect the dots. Darcy would be forced to spend large amounts of time away from her young child. It is simply a fact that will be noted by many voters. And if nothing else, it emphasizes Darcy's inexperience as a function of her age and the timing of her candidacy with respect to the rest of her life choices. It may not be anyone's place to make these sort of judgments. But you are kidding yourself if you don't think people factor a candidate's personal choices in to everything from hiring decisions to voting all the time.

A PM is the lowliest of the low at MS. (S)He is merely someone who manages a program. "Control" of a budget is meaningless. While at MS as a PM, I controlled a budget. I *never* referred to myself as an executive, and even the GM of my division was not an "Executive" - that's left for the VP level or possible Director.

I'd stop beating that horse if I were you. It don't run no more.

Why Liberals Are So Stupid

Liberals, especially Secular Humanists, believe that Man is innately good. The good just has to be encouraged by untrammeled personal license and therapy. So, evils like crime and terrorism cannot be simplly condemned as evil. Liberals have to look for a "politically- correct" root cause for wrongdoing. Popular scapegoats for Liberals
are: "Poverty" (even when that poverty is the fruit of a
dysfunctional society unwilling to adapt to new realities),
"Racism"(which might limit one's opportunities but doesn't lead
directly to criminal behavior), "Zionism" (the Jews always make a
convienent scapegoat), "Colonialism" (even though most of the
colonial empires educated their subjects and built enough
infrastructure for said former subjects to make a better go at modern statehood than they otherwise could have), or "Alienation" ( a convienient dodge for those who lack ambition, a work ethic, or any sense of personal responsibility).

Therefore, the United States, being relatively rich, powerful, and
the world's policeman must be the cause of all the world's ills. The solution is to hand our American sovereignity and military over to the United Nations, a true coalition of the weak and powerless. If the United States imprisons terrorists caught on the battlefield as unlawful combatants at Guantanamo, then it is a "gulag" and the U.S. military is equivalent to "Soviet Russia" or "Pol Pot".

How can Liberals make such a morally ignorant simile? It's really
quite simple. First off, to a liberal, history is mutable. History to
be valid has to be reinterpreted by each generation and by each
"oppressed minority". You end up with no history at all, unless it is in the Orwellian sense of constant reinvention to suit the causes of the immediate present.

Facts don't matter much either. Facts are hard and cold, the province of Conservatives who care about results. Results don't matter, only intentions. How else can a bloody-handed murderer like Che Guevara still remain a cool lefty icon? So what if Castro runs real gulags and Guevara was his hangman? Castro brought free health care and education to Cuba.

It's all about emotions. Liberals have to be constantly outraged. And they feel the need to express their outrage by outraging others. Why else would a picture of a crucifix and a beaker of piss be considered great art? It expresses what Liberals really want to do, which is piss on religion. They react emotionally, so they acclaim the "artist" in a Pavlovian response.

They commit outrages, because they don't want to build. Not really anyway. There are rare exceptions like Jimmy Carter out there swinging a hammer for Habitat for Humanity (which is, btw, a Christian organization) The Left really wants to destroy. They want to destroy America, the family, God, capitalism, the Boy Scouts, and all these bourgoise fascist infrastructure that keeps them from their Neverland utopia where we can live off the dole, smoke pot, sleep around, and somehow not starve. Peter Pan was the penultimate liberal, because he never wanted to grow up and always got the best of that fascist capitalist pirate, Captain Hook.

Darcy Burner has to deal with pressure every day as she turns a race most were ignoring into one of the top races the Democratic party is putting their resources behind and looking to be a key seat the party is targeting to win in November.

If you want to have a serious discussion of the minimum wage, quote sowell's data and not townhall articles. Economic models are based on the assumptions of perfect competition and perfect information and must be tested. Drawing lines on graphs doesn't dictate reality. Card and Krueger's data showed no noticeable impact on unemployment.

On education, I really have no idea what your point is. You seem to contradict yourself entirely. How about a motivating factor being making the increase in the min. wage conditional on being 18 or having a GED? This would create a lower wage for HS students (which you may be aware is already the case for special cases like farm labor) and create an incentive to graduate.

Larry,

there would be no jump from $5 to $7.25 if there had been gradual increases based on the CPI. And I think $5 is a fine wage for HS students.

Where is your data?
And what is your proposal? Would you abolish the min wage entirely?

Yep, there's a ringing endorsement.

>

It's too bad he left, because this is absolutely ludicrous. I'm quite amazed at his energy, actually, because he's willing to destroy his own personal credibility not once but dozens of times in a single comment string.

Once and for all, she wasn't an executive at Microsoft, whether she controlled a budget, program or employees. People who control employee are managers; people who control strategic direction over an organization are executives. Darcy controlled a fairly small budget by Microsoft marketing standards but did not have the ability to determine P&L in the organization or strategic directions within the marketing organization. Only one little program. As has been pointed out, entry level marketing employees just about always control a program of some sort. A friend of mine came in as a 60 (practically entry level) and had a $4m budget and three employees. If someone called him an executive, you can bet there would be confused looks. Only those who blindly want to excuse the inexcusable would not be confused.

For reference, Microsoft actually has a page of executive bios here: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/default.mspx?group=A-D. Notice that not a single title is below Vice President. The litmus test is: if Darcy were to put she was an executive on her resume and re-apply to MS, would they accept that? The answer is clearly "no." Furthermore, there was never, ever any literature that MS put out describing Darcy as an executive. The only documentation at all with the words "Darcy Burner" and "Executive" on the same page was what Goldy uncovered, and that never asserted Darcy was an executive but rather that the presenters were "executive and senior business leaders," of which you could argue Darcy was one of the latter. Given the audience, and the fact that none of the other presenters on the cached page amount to executives by MS definition (none of their names are on the exec bio page above), you can figure that MS puffed up the webcasts to make their customers feel like they're reaching power when they're hitting program managers. This is a far more logical conclusion, but Goldy and TheHim would rather grasp at straws.

But you can see for yourself here: http://www.horsesass.org/downloads/webcasts/MSwebcasts.html. See if you think this really makes the claim the Darcy herself was an executive. Furthermore, consider whether a real executive, regardless of what sort of definition you want to give it, would actually stoop to the point of delivering the topic Darcy delivered in an organization as large as MS. To me, as someone with 15 years of tech experience, it looks like something that would follow up in the side room at the convention center after Bill delivered a keynote that covered that topic and about 40 others that were going in the rooms next door to that side room.

I hope this helps puts the whole "executive" argument to rest.

Marc has the definitive answer: Darcy Burner was not a Microsoft Executive. That settles it for me. Now, I'd like to see an examination of Mr. Reichert's background to see if he is who he claims to be. Was the Green River Investigation done well for example, since this is about 99% of Reichert's notoriety? Why did the Green River Murderer get arrested immediately after the DNA pointed to him? Why were 7 separate identifications of the Green River Murderer not enough evidence? Why were N. Maleng and Mr. Reichert so supportive of letting off the Green River Murderer? What experience tells us that Reichert is a conservative or even a moderate? How come no one could tell if he was an R or D prior to his announcement? Is Reichert actually a Christian as he claims? Are his votes in line with his churches teaching or does he have Ted Kennedy Syndrome or is his faith a photo-op prop? What are the differences between Reichert and the Sierra Club? Why won't Mr. Reichert debate Darcy? Name one actual conservative or moderate law Mr. Reichert has helped pass - without having to search his record (right off the top of your head)?

1. If you think $5 is a fine wage for high school students, then why do you advocate putting them all out of jobs by raising the minimum wage above their market value?

2. Where is my data? Try the BLS, Census Bureau, state labor boards - in other words, do your own d**n research. Obviously you haven't done any yet.

3. My proposal? Lower the WA minimum wage to $5/hour. For a start.

4. I stand by my comment: "Raising the cost of entry-level workers discourages the use of entry-level workers." People get hired at minimum wage, then they progress up and out of that tier. If you raise the minimum wage, you're encouraging employers to hire more highly-skilled employees (and probably fewer of them). So the OVERALL employment rate may be unaffected or it may decrease. But the employment rate of those you want to protect - unskilled, entry-level workers - goes through the roof! They all go illegal, or go to the cheese line.

It's all supply and demand. You want to increase the price point, without bothering to think about the fact that more of that resource (entry-level workers) will go unused because of that increase in prize.

In theory I agree with you. However, with the value of dollar dropping as fast has it has, it's net impact is to cut the minimum wage. No one in their right mind short of being an illegal or 14 year old teenage would work for minimum wage, thus the debate is mostly almost meaningless.

The CPI grossly understates inflation. For example, acutal housing appraisals show an increase of 11% percent per year for the past 6 or 7 years. The government says housing inflation is around 2-3% per year. LOL. There is a technical reason for this as inflation is measured by actual house and rental payments, not the inflation in the price of the house. Thus as interest rates dropped, inflation went down -- oh a terrible rigged system. Now that interest rates are increasing, housing "inflation" will take off while the prices of houses either stay flat or go down. (I suspect they will simply change the way they measure inflation)

The one thing that doesn't lie is the price of commodities ... especially ones produced outside of this country ... gold, oil, etc. Those items are the true measure of inflation.

The identity of the Zodiac Killer is still unknown... since the 60's for heaven sake.

Only in your own mind. Are you the same "TheHim" that I exposed as a DNC operative? Goldstein, is that you?

Let me explain this again so that even you can understand it. The term program manager at Microsoft generally means an individual who guides the design process for a tech project. That is NOT what Darcy Burner did. She led a project team with a budget of something like $20 million. Let's review the definition of executive (again):

A person or group having administrative or managerial authority in an organization

The Burner campaign, to minimize confusion, simply refers to her as a manager now. People at her level are also commonly referred to as General Managers or Project Managers as well, but all of those positions are executive positions. Now, if this is still too hard for you to figure out, I can see if I can find a chimp with a box of crayons to explain it further.

Her campaign is referring to her as a manager an not an executuve because she was NOT an executive.

In fact, Microsoft does have a specific web page listing people they consider to be executives. It is called "Microsoft PressPass - Microsoft Executives and Images" and can be found here:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/default.mspx?group=A-D

Nowhere are general managers or project managers listed. So apparently Microsoft DOES make a distinction. Executives are called, surprise, EXECUTIVES, not General Managers, Project Managers, Team Lead or even Head Geek.

Now do you want me to explain what the maening of "is" is as well?

Only in your own mind. Are you the same "TheHim" that I exposed as a DNC operative? Goldstein, is that you?

Let me explain this again so that even you can understand it. The term program manager at Microsoft generally means an individual who guides the design process for a tech project. That is NOT what Darcy Burner did. She led a project team with a budget of something like $20 million. Let's review the definition of executive (again):

A person or group having administrative or managerial authority in an organization

The Burner campaign, to minimize confusion, simply refers to her as a manager now. People at her level are also commonly referred to as General Managers or Project Managers as well, but all of those positions are executive positions. Now, if this is still too hard for you to figure out, I can see if I can find a chimp with a box of crayons to explain it further.

Her campaign is referring to her as a manager an not an executuve because she was NOT an executive.

In fact, Microsoft does have a specific web page listing people they consider to be executives. It is called "Microsoft PressPass - Microsoft Executives and Images" and can be found here:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/default.mspx?group=A-D

Nowhere are general managers or project managers listed. So apparently Microsoft DOES make a distinction. Executives are called, surprise, EXECUTIVES, not General Managers, Project Managers, Team Lead or even Head Geek.

Now do you want me to explain what the maening of "is" is as well?

"TheHIM" is a liar. He states that the Darcy Burner campaign has backed off calling her an excutive at Microsoft.

I encourage everyone to see for themselves by visiting the source:

http://www.darcyburner.com/aboutdarcy.php

"Darcy grew up in a military family. She worked hard in school, graduated at the top of her class and put herself through Harvard. After graduation, Darcy worked for 12 years in the high tech sector - including as an executive at Microsoft."

Of course, now that they are caught in their lie, TheHim, the DNC operative, will rush to alter their web page to make it look like it never happened.

Yet ANOTHER lie of "TheHIM" exposed.