Election roundup: Debate summation, Linehan pulls out of debate

It was not OK for John to send negative anonymous attack mailers when he first ran for city council but HE DEFENDED IT saying it "wasn't illegal." He also never apologized to Murphy; if you know otherwise, provide a link.

What surprises me is that reporters who are reporting today about the 3rd party out-of-state PACs mailers attacking Connolly, for which Walsh is not responsible, fail to mention Connolly's negative anonymous attack mailers, for which Connolly was directly responsible.

Wesley Lowery of the Globe was asked why he hasn't reported Connolly's history of negative anonymous attack mailers and he said it wasn't relevant explaining it was too long ago -- it was 2007.

So 2007 is too long ago but John Connolly claims about teaching 10 years prior, circa 1997, that's not too long ago? "I'm a teacher who taught kids from every neighborhood in Boston," he says when he taught 1 year in Boston, which the press reports verbatim and without challenging his misleading rhetoric.

If that seems like privilege to you, you might be right. Ironically that's the case the 3rd party mailer was making, that John Connolly is entitled to privilege most of us are not.

The Globe in the bag for Connolly. So is the Herald. Both editorial staffs endorse him but their news coverage tilts toward him too.

Reporters are basically blaming Walsh for an out-of-state 3rd party PAC mailer, when he's prohibited by law from even talking with the 3rd party PAC. and giving Connolly a pass on history of negative attack mailers. If that seems like privilege to you, you might be right.