I'm not terribly interested in the various charges that Pat Lykos and Kelly Siegler are lobbing at each other, though I do have to tip my hat to whoever's doing Lykos' oppo research. They've dug up some pretty interesting things, and forced Siegler to be on the defensive a lot. I don't think the individual items matter all that much - it's the narrative that I think will carry the day one way or the other. Which admittedly the various tidbits that Lykos has unearthed will help to reinforce, so perhaps the weight of the evidence will make a difference.

The way I see it, the choice is pretty basic, and each candidate is very clear about it. Siegler, according to Lykos, is Chuck Rosenthal continued, with all the same questions about judgment, narrow-minded focus on winning over justice, and representing all of the county and its people. Lykos, according to Siegler, is unqualified because she has no prosecutorial experience, and has many questions relating to her own judgment as well. Their case for themselves is mostly that they are what the other is not.

If I were CO Bradford, who would I rather run against? I can make a case for either. Anyone would want to run against Rosenthal-by-proxy, so that argues for Siegler. On the other hand, Lykos would not be able to use what will surely be Siegler's main thrust against Bradford, which is his lack of prosecutorial experience, since she has none herself. Obviously, if the GOP voters pick Lykos over Siegler next month, then having spent time in the DA's office will be discounted as a requirement for the job. For now, I just hope he's taking notes and prepping his talking points for each of them.