Hi George,

I was somewhat dismayed by your recent posting which implied some sort of secret plot by Emily's "circle of advisors" who supposedly are attempting to "annoint" her successor.

I think the promulgation of this type of myth is a terrible distortion of reality and a disservice to our Democratic community.

As one of Creigh Deeds local supporters (and someone who was arguably one of Emily's "circle of advisors") I find it tragically laughable that anyone -- especially Al Weed -- would make the ridiculous charges that he has ... or unfortunately that you would choose to expand upon them.

Conspiracy theorists aside, let me state absolutely that there is no secret Emily Couric "list" being used by any campaign. The lists the Deeds supporters are using come from the same committee lists and phone books that we all have. The state Democratic Party offers lists and support to all Democratic candidates who request it. If candidates feel they are being "locked out" of an area, perhaps they should look at themselves and their appeal (or lack of it) before crying foul. I know it's hard to believe, but their difficulty could be that people just don't want to support them.

Local Democrats supporting Creigh Deeds embrace him because he is a great candidate, not because we are automatons controlled by some shadow puppeteers. Several people who worked very closely with Emily are now working very closely with Creigh Deeds. They knew Emily and they admired her -- if they see similar admirable qualities and similarities in Creigh Deeds then they have every right to embrace him as their candidate.

As for me, in addition to Emily I've been part of the "inner circle" of such candidates as Tom Michie, Mary Alice Gunter, George Gilliam, Betz Gleason, and Francis Fife (who support Nancy), and of Meredith Richards. So have others now supporting Creigh Deeds. Are we to infer from this conspiracy logic that the "inner circles" of these previous candidates are now quietly tilting to Creigh Deeds?

If there is collusion, I'm afraid it is a local collusion against Deeds. Despite all the rhetoric about retaining our focus on Tuesday's election, and all the hand wringing over a loose organization of local Democrats trying to promote a Creigh Deeds candidacy, it is in fact our "local" candidates who have officially announced their candidacies, hired staff, mailed literature, and published lists of supporters -- not Creigh Deeds. At a great disadvantage locally and with only five days until the mass meeting (to be held in Charlottesville), Creigh Deeds needs to take every opportunity to allow locals to learn about him ... but he has resolutely adhered to the promise to withhold any active campaigning until after Tuesday. Even the pious pledge promoted by our local candidates to not distribute campaign materials on Tuesday is in my view nothing more than a thinly disguised maneuver to block Deeds from gaining additional support.

In closing I would say to everyone interested in this campaign: relax ... there is no vast conspiracy at work. Creigh Deeds is a great candidate. Take a hard look at him -- take at hard look at all the candidates. Then support the one you like best.

I've done that. I know all the candidates -- some very well -- and I think Creigh Deeds is the best choice. But after Saturday, I'll be supporting whoever is our candidate, because all of them are better choices than what the Republicans will offer.

Tom Vandever (electronic mail, November 5, 2001)

Editor's Note: One of the purposes of my web site is to place issues and publically accountable discussion into the public domain. I leave it up to my readers to decide for themselves whether this is useful to them or not. I personally believe it makes the political process more accountable and more readily transparent. I realize that this is not everyone's goal.

There is a large rumor mill and I believe that one of the values of my web site is to act as a corrective to that rumor mill and to bring people into the political process who would be left out if such discussions all took place in private.

In this instance, I expanded upon Al Weed's remarks because I thought that this would be the best way to provide a context in which to discuss the notion of annointment. The fact that Tom discounts the 'myth' so eloquently reenforces my belief that this decision was fundamentally correct.