Editor's Blog

Absolutely. Because she could have changed how her campaign was run.

First, she didn't make the obvious point—that while she worked and succeeded in getting things done Jamie was nowhere to be found.

Second, she didn't have a unified theme. It might have been: "I've been working in Annapolis for the things you care about, and with your support I will continue to do so".

Third, Jamie's attacks focused the debate on Ida's fitness. Had she defended herself and blunted his criticism, she could have returned the debate to Jamie's lack of involvement.

Fourth, Jamie's negative attacks worked because they were circumspect and believable (even if based on distortions and half truths). Ida's attack back fired because it was crude and by the time it was launched many voters were already enamored of Jamie.

There are somethings that Jamie couldn't change: Ida is a dyed in the wool liberal Democrat with an outstanding legislative record. This is the reason she was endorsed by an overwhelming number of major labor, women's, environmental and other organizations which promote a progressive agenda.

But he convinced voters she had to go because she was a machine pol, ineffective and beholden to special interests—all false allegations.

Jamie also knew that when handed lemons he could make lemonade. When he didn't get endorsed by the Montgomery County Education Association or the state teacher's organization he mailed a piece with a picture of his three kids and announced they were the reason he was committed to public education.

Some other thoughts:

1. WHAT MACHINE?

There is little question that Jamie convinced voters that Ida was a relic of Maryland's machine politics who had to go. But someone has to define "machine" and convince me that the term applies to Ruben. As I use the term, if you're part of a machine you need to do more than put out one or two stock pieces with your running mates (in Ida's case that was Sheila Hixson, who won, and Gareth Murray, who lost). Because most elected officials who took a public stand supported Ida, maybe that's what Jamie means by a machine. If so, Jamie just joined.

2. WHAT DO JOHN KERRY AND IDA RUBEN HAVE IN COMMON?

Ida did not counter Jamie's criticisms and charges, some of which were distortions or plainly untrue. She needed to defend herself early and often, and shift the debate to how could someone with a scant record in local and state affairs do better than she has.

Her failure to respond is regrettably reminiscent of John Kerry's pummeling by the Swift Boaters.

A few examples of how Ida should have fought back in order to direct the debate in her favor.

Ida opposes Bush's Iraq War. Jamie's false accusation that she was pro-war opened the door for his candidacy. The Maryland Senate unanimously passed a resolution supporting the troops. It asiduously avoided declaring support for the President or the war. One can argue that supporting the troops is best demonstrated by bringing them home. Sure, but the practicalities of voting for the Senate resolution did not make Ida (or progressive icons like Brian Frosh, who also voted for it) pro-war. The simple truth: Raskin fibbed, Ruben let him get away with it.

Jamie's fundraising e-mails proclaimed he would never take gambling money. The implication was Ida had. The truth is that Ruben, who has steadfastly opposed slots at Maryland race tracks, accepted contributions from an old friend who owns Ocean Downs. Ruben should have used this to demostrate her independence. Instead, voters heard an almost entirely unchallenged message (there was one piece on the weekend before the election "setting the record straight") that she was in the pocket of a very disfavored special interest. Incidently, Ruben almost lost her leadership position because of her opposition to slots.

Jamie convinced voters Ida was ineffective. His source was a Gazette article which described itself as being just for fun. You can't lead the Montgomery County delegation year after year, sit on the coveted Budget and Tax Committee and be named by Washingtonian Magazine as one of the 100 most powerful women in the area if you aren't getting results.

Jamie accused relentlessly. Ida didn't respond. Had she responded voters may have seen her as the undeserving victim of an upstart's dissembling. Responded to effectively the question would have turned to Jamie's propensity to distort and win at any cost. Ida's silence was an enormous strategic error.

Coupled with her unfounded attack on Jamie's Democratic bona fides made disaster pedictable.

3. WHAT MESSAGE

Ida's campaign lacked a convincing theme. It seems her campaign's message was "Thank You, Ida" and focused on her bringing home the bacon. It didn't sell. Her success in funding inumberable local projects needed to be individualized and humanized.

Ida's message should have been "I've been working in Annapolis for the things you care about, and with your support I will continue to do so". Catalogue her work on health care, the elderly and disabled, for example. Tell the real life, individualized stories of the numerous people who have benefited, and keep asking "Where was Jamie?" and (maybe) the election turns out differently.

Compare Jamie's mail piece on the Houston Ave tenants—human, concrete, sympathetic—even if it falsely charges Ida as not responding to their pleas. In fact, she produced email and notes demonstrating her response, and she sponsored a bill which became law to protect tenants facing condo conversion.

4. WHAT'S NEXT

To the victor go the spoils.

Despite his campaign rhetoric, the fact is Jamie did not rid Maryland politics of a corrupt, machine pol. All he did was replace a steady presence and reliable vote with . . . . we'll see. He may prove he can better move a more progressive agenda, but that is not guaranteed.

Once elected in November, Jamie will have to demostrate that he can work successfully in wiley and wild Annapolis. He's smart enough, let's hope he's wise enough. I for one will work with him. If he wants it, he has my support to enact a yet to be defined progressive agenda.

Patching things up with his predecessor and her colleagues who are returning to Annapolis would be an excellent first step.

And Ida is more likely to be properly recognized for her long and distinguished public service, if she, too, extends an olive branch.