It's Katie Porter time

Until Eric Swalwell's implosion (good riddance to another abuser of women), I hadn't paid much attention to the California governor's race. Any of the candidates might do...

Now I'm forced to dig in a bit -- and a very little reflection makes me realize what an odd contest this is.

• California has enjoyed extraordinary stability in the governor's office for the last 16 years. That's amazing to recognize. First we elected a used governor who had matured  and already knew the ropes (Jerry Brown 2011-2019), then his ambitious understudy who had cooled his jets watching Brown for eight years as Lieutenant Governor (Gavin Newsom 2019-2026). Love 'em or hate 'em, that experience mattered.

• Disposing of Swalwell helps, but there are still too damn many non-viable Dem also-rans on the June primary ballot. (Any who drop out will still appear at this point.) Sacramento denizens Tony Thurmond and Betty Yee never took flight. Xavier Becerra had a Sacramento background, but had been out of state for four years. Antonio Villaraigosa has been out of sight for longer. The tech bros got a late candidate in San Jose's Matt Mahan, but who is he? Can money elevate any of these non-starters?

• None of the three original contenders (now two) came out of experience with California government. California has a huge government, not easily mastered by any pol; ask Arnold Schwarzenegger. Sacramento is its own world, far removed from the daily lives of people, especially in the southern part of this huge state. But here we are left with Tom Steyer and Katie Porter who've never worked in state government. (Neither had Swalwell.)

• I think we can hope the combination of Trump endorsing one of the GOP cranks and getting rid of one of the genuine Dem contenders will ensure we will have some Democrat to vote for in November. But the Democratic Party circus sure doesn't inspire confidence.

So, out of Steyer and Porter, who am I for? 

To be blunt, Steyer has excellent issue positions, but this is no year to elect a billionaire to anything. It's a year to reject billionaires across the board; we need to stoke the populist backlash to the criminals in the national GOP, not default to a money guy in a Democratic stronghold. Steyer is a very good donor wanting to be a real player -- but that doesn't qualify him for me. 

That means I'm continuing to throw down for Katie Porter. I think she is getting the dismissive treatment from a lot of the punditocracy because she's a sharp woman. Her detractors brush her off with what amounts to "nice fat lady; should stay in her place." She made it abundantly clear in her service in Congress that she understands how money works in the lives of working Americans. That should matter in a governor. Yes, she's apparently abrasive; women who succeed in a power job tend to be tough cookies. Can we, finally, get to where women of ambition no longer have to present a charming public face that soothes egos? 

I'll vote in November for any Democrat who survives this shit show. But it is hard to be impressed with the politics of my state.