Some light editing on the Inquirer

Whatever else is said about the mayoral primary, it was a setback for Philadelphia progressives, which had recent wins with the election of D.A. Larry Krasner, state rep Elizabeth Fiedler, state senator Nikil Saval, Council member Kendra Brooks, and others.

The progs were on a roll.

Hoping to capture Philadelphia as they had Boston, L.A., and Chicago, the progs brought in the big socialist guns — Sen. Bernie Sanders and U.S. Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to rouse the rabble, so to speak.

They came, they saw, but they didn’t conquer for Helen Gym, who finished in a very disappointing third place. All the polls, such as they were, had the three women (can’t say that) cisgender female candidates tied for the lead. When I went to sleep Monday night, I had a queasy feeling Ms. Bullhorn would win because her four moderate opponents would split the Anyone But Gym vote.

Happily, that did not happen and the Inquirer offered a post mortem, generally on track, but with a blind spot or two.

Such as this paragraph: “And in Gym, her opponents found a left-leaning bogeywoman to attack, for her authenticity, personal wealth and a husband who once worked at a pharmaceutical company, all of which became an obstacle to growing her support.”

Not quite right. She was attacked for her inauthenticity, for being an advocate for public schools, but helping create a charter for her own children. Also for attending a party at the Union League after she condemned it as racist and homophobic. And she was not criticized for wealth or because her “husband once worked at” a pharmaceutical company, but because Gym voted on a bill that benefited her husband’s company at the time. She should have recused herself. That was borderline corrupt. There’s more here.

It is true that Gym was even too extreme for the Inquirer to endorse, but the two reporters saw Gym through their own prism.

And I’m here to correct the record.