(Editor’s note: This comment was posted on the Harvard Hillside Web site by a person who identified herself as Marcia Croyle of Harvard.)
To the Editor:
I found your recent editorial on the candidates for the Harvard Board
of Selectmen’ s race offensive.
To whom is the editorial writer referring when he/she writes: “It’s a struggle to avoid saying it any other way, there is a little bit of guilt by association with a precious few stalwart but suspect Sobalvarro supporters, clinging, calculating, catastrophic reminders of where Harvard was and no longer needs to be.”
Is the Hillside writer suggesting Marie Sobalvarro is a lesser candidate and unworthy of our vote because she has some unknown “suspect” supporters. Huh?
Another offensive statement: “Sobalvarro has worked tirelessly to convey her message, particularly to women during numerous coffee klatches. Her following is duly noted — and fanatical — for the right reasons.”
Is the implication that women who support Sobalvarro are fanatical? Or is it that Sobalvarro only has the support of women?
As someone who hosted a weekend fundraising event (not a coffee klatch) for Marie, I’d say that of the 60 or so folks who attended that event, there were nearly as many men as women.
I support Marie’s candidacy; I do so because I believe she is the candidate who is most likely to bring the selectmen together to work for the common good. She’s willing to listen, learn the facts, and work for a consensus. She has the kind of personality that enables her to work with a variety of individuals–a quality that goes a long way in town politics.
The rationale for this editorial that has to be the dumbest I’ ve ever seen in a political campaign.