General Discussion

unedorse[d]" after seeing the evidence in the SF Chronicle and on CNN. She was devastated to learn what the young women had experienced, in addition to feeling the weight of having endorsed the person who caused them such harm. She didn't so "quickly unendorse" because she "consciously or unconsciously" had "an inking that [she] might have to do so in the future," but based on what she learned in those pieces. When she first began to hear the (rather vague) rumors about Swalwell a couple of weeks ago, she assumed (hoped) they were just dirty tricks, but still began talking with others in the party to see if there could be any truth to them; she didn't get that confirmation until the Chronicle and CNN pieces last Friday. [My daughter just told me she actually rescinded her endorsement at 2:15 pm on Friday, just based on the Chron article.] Obviously, I can't speak to what others knew, but I can guarantee one endorser was as shocked as (most of) the rest of us.

I posted this in an earlier reply:

My daughter is a CA Dem delegate and a caucus chair, and she had never heard those rumors.

The campaign asked for her endorsement a couple of weeks before the recent revelations and she gave it. (Felt terrible about that later, and of course, rescinded.) My daughter liked Swalwell, but had been hoping to vote for Kamala or Eleni (currently Lt. Gov.), so was disappointed when they chose not to run.

What she has since learned (just yesterday!) is that there were rumors he was a cheater. But she had talked with someone higher up in the party last week (as this was unfolding less publicly), who knows Swalwell somewhat, and that person hadn't heard even that.... so I don't think "everybody" knew even that less damaging (but still damaging) part about him being a cheater. When they were trying to figure out the veracity of the allegations (before the Chronicle and CNN pieces made the situation much clearer), that person told my daughter that maybe he could be considered flirtatious. NOT a groomer of young women or rapist, or even the cheating part. It may only be people in his targeted demographic who knew the first part, and "some" who knew the cheating part. My daughter is not unconnected, and we live in the Bay Area, and she didn't know that, and this other person, who is more connected, was also unaware.

I think we have to have zero tolerance for cheating, though. If enough people knew he was cheating that some thought he was "known" as a cheater, that's demonstrates he was reckless, and also he could be blackmailed. (Even without the alleged criminal behavior or grooming.) KNOWING he had a huge Republican target on his back, and how they were still hammering him about supposedly sleeping with a Chinese agent...I mean, forgetting the immorality of cheating (and the betrayal of wife and family)... and setting aside the much more serious grooming and criminal allegations... at least he could have been discreet enough (when "just" cheating) that there were no "rumors" about his behavior. So, even for candidates/electeds who are not engaging in criminal or exploitive behavior, the cheating itself (especially if "known" to some, and especially "serial" cheating) should be disqualifying. We are in precarious times and can't afford unnecessary distractions, so candidates/incumbents who don't have the requisite impulse control to refrain from cheating while in office should also not be tolerated.