Time to focus, Philly: Somebody wins next week

OK, PHILLY, hope you're thinking about the mayor's race, now that the election's just eight days away.

Hope you're focused on civic duty and weighing qualifications of candidates.

Hope you fully intend to vote.

What's that? Who's running?

Tell me you're kidding. Tell me you've seen or read about at least some of the 1,100 forums/debates and have an idea of who the six Democratic candidates are and what they say about leading the city, even if it all sounds much the same.

And although I hate to hope too much, I hope you're not planning to vote for Anthony Hardy Williams because he's black or for Jim Kenney because he's white or for Lynne Abraham because she's a woman - although I understand the urge in Abraham's case.

Nelson Diaz: nice guy, bright past. Doug Oliver: nice guy, bright future. Both worthy of consideration.

That leaves Milton, and I don't mean John Milton, although I love this John Milton quote, which hints at what could happen if Philly's Milton became mayor:

"And when night darkens the streets, then wander forth the sons of Belial, flown with insolence and wine" (from Paradise Lost).

But it's Diaz and Oliver who are calling for bars to stay open till 4 a.m.

I hope you're not hoping that "none of the above" is on the ballot.

I hope you know that the issues in the race (other than race) are schools, poverty and policing.

You're forgiven if you think the issues are "Johnny Doc" and unions getting more power; three rich suburban guys buying City Hall; Lynne Abraham falling down.

You're also forgiven if you think Williams' sole interest is getting out the African-American vote, because clearly it is.

Don't be surprised to see some reprisal of the late Rep. David Richardson's quote in 1987: "I'm not voting for W. Wilson Goode because he's black. I'm voting for W. Wilson Goode because I'm black."

(Goode beat Ed Rendell in that mayoral primary.)

Yes, some see Kenney too close to unions; Williams too reliant on big-dollar, pro-charter advocates; and Abraham too old.

But the election hinges not so much on suspicions and stereotypical branding. It hinges on which campaign drags out a larger sliver of a predicted low-turnout electorate.

That's why it's a two-man race between those with the most resources: Kenney and Williams, with momentum favoring Kenney.

Williams separates himself by supporting expansion of charter schools and lately by pledging to can Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey. But has Williams convinced voters that expanding charters helps public education? Has he even tried?

As for Ramsey, the crime rate is down, the murder rate is down. He was President Obama's choice to co-chair a presidential task force on local policing. And Williams earlier this year called Ramsey "an effective commissioner."

Calling for his head late in the race is a get-out-the-vote strategy aimed at African-American voters most opposed to "stop-and-frisk" policing supported by Ramsey.

And Mayor Nutter last week said that anyone vowing to oust Ramsey "is probably not smart enough to run the city."

BAM!

I asked Nutter spokesman Mark McDonald if the mayor's comment can be construed as a de facto endorsement of Kenney.

"All I can say is that the comment speaks for itself," he said.

It does, indeed.

Unless, of course, Williams' policing position simply "evolved" much more quickly than Kenney's: 18 years ago (as pointed out in a Williams ad) Kenney seemed all for releasing the hounds, now he, too, opposes stop and frisk.

Politics are a movable feast. But elections call for big-picture focus.

Like whether the way one runs a campaign presages how one would run the city. Like which candidate represents the best interests and goals of most Philadelphians on schools, poverty and policing.

Even if you like "none of the above," one of the above wins next Tuesday, hopefully after much thought by more voters than expected.

And I only say that because, well, one can always hope.