WatchSonoma Watch

Political newcomer drawing attention, cash

Democrat Stacey Lawson of San Rafael campaigns in Terra Linda for signatures to qualify her for the ballot in her bid for Congress. She is talking to Bill Werstler of San Rafael; in the background is Joe Diver, Lawson's field coordinator. (KENT PORTER/The Press Democrat)


A self-made millionaire before she turned 30, Stacey Lawson sees herself as living the American dream.

The idea that hard work and initiative pay off proved true for her father, a truck driver who built his own trucking company and replaced his family’s used mobile home with a new three-bedroom house near Port Angeles, Wash.

Lawson parlayed her Harvard Business School idea into a software company that she sold after two years for $60 million, keeping $6 million and going on to hold corporate executive jobs paying as much as $300,000 a year.

Now Lawson, 41, who’s lived quietly and privately in San Francisco and San Rafael for 20 years, is engaged in her first-ever political campaign, bidding for the most sought-after political post on the North Coast. She’s running as a pro-business Democrat with liberal values, intent on lifting the middle class out of an economic funk.

“I come from those roots. I had the benefit of living the American dream,” Lawson said. “I see that slipping away.”

She has made the progression from entrepreneur to congressional candidate — Lawson calls it an “evolutionary path” — aided by an Indian guru who kindled her spiritual quest and a San Francisco political maven who cultivated her political inclinations.

Lawson, who is single and has been a San Rafael resident for the past three years, has bolted into a wide-open race for the Congressional seat being vacated after 20 years by Democrat Lynn Woolsey, the liberal Petaluma Democrat best known for her steadfast opposition to the Middle East wars.

She is now out meeting voters in the district that stretches from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Oregon border, seeking the 3,000 signatures needed to qualify for the June 5 ballot without paying a $1,740 filing fee.

She’s already grabbed attention by raising more than $450,000 for her campaign, and intends to pull in a total of $2 million, money she will need to overcome a near zero in name recognition.

Lawson’s fundraising has eclipsed one of her leading opponents, activist Norman Solomon, who has spent decades cultivating relations with the North Coast’s most liberal Democrats. And she’s betting on a November runoff against Democratic Assemblyman Jared Huffman, who has represented the North Bay in Sacramento for five years, has the largest campaign warchest and a long list of endorsements.

On Wednesday night, seven Democratic candidates, including Lawson, Solomon and Huffman, are expected to participate in a public forum at the Petaluma Boys and Girls Club.

Lawson is unknown to most of the district’s 400,000 registered voters, but two Democratic heavyweights are already in her corner.

Doug Bosco, a Santa Rosa attorney and former North Coast Democratic congressman, said he is quietly introducing Lawson to his friends.

“Everyone is enthusiastic about Stacey,” said Bosco, who lives in a McDonald Avenue mansion in Santa Rosa and has closed ties to monied Democrats. “She has a charisma and a sense of purpose about her that is appealing to people.”

Pointing to Lawson’s business record, Bosco said: “She can take ideas and make jobs out of them.”

Susie Tompkins Buell, who lives in a penthouse apartment in San Francisco’s Pacific Heights neighborhood, is among the Democratic Party’s most prolific donors and is on Lawson’s campaign finance committee.

“She’s a great breath of fresh air. What we really need in politics,” said Buell, a co-founder of the Esprit clothing company.

Buell and Lawson met in 2007, when Lawson participated in Emerge California, a political candidate training program for Democratic women and worked together on Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. Buell co-founded Emerge and serves on its advisory board with Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Apple CEO Steve Jobs.

Buell, who said her passion is the environment, declined to say how much money she would raise for Lawson. She already has donated the $5,000 maximum personally.

“I’m inviting people to meet her,” Buell said. “Stacey really sells herself. I don’t ask for favors.”

Lawson’s fresh face and fundraising adds “an element of sizzle” to the congressional race, said David McCuan, a Sonoma State University political scientist.

The money makes her “instantly credible,” and Lawson’s jobs-first campaign pitch could resonate in a district where unemployment runs as high as 18 percent in rural Trinity County, he said.

“In the primary, you’re buying visibility,” he said.

About eight Democratic and Republican candidates are expected to be on the June ballot, and unless someone gets a majority the top two vote-getters will advance to the November election.

If two Democrats make it to the runoff, Lawson’s pro-business credentials could appeal to Republicans and independents, who make up 44 percent of the district’s registered voters, compared with 50 percent Democrats.

Lawson hopes to follow in Woolsey’s footsteps.

Woolsey a former welfare mother, started her own personnel agency in Petaluma, got elected to the city council, then pulled a stunning upset in 1992, the “year of the woman” in California politics. She won a crowded primary with a $62,000 campaign against better-known and far better-funded male candidates.

Woolsey’s personal appeal and a cadre of women backers propelled her into Congress, and her liberal politics — in perfect tune with prevailing North Bay sentiments — cemented her two-decade run in office.

Lawson claims the same liberal credentials: abortion rights, marriage equality, open space preservation and clean energy. She is “100 percent on board,” she said, with expanding marine sanctuaries to protect the coast from oil drilling, a legislative goal that Woolsey has pursued for years and hopes to achieve in the 2012 session.

Lawson’s campaign mantra, “restoring middle class prosperity,” derives from her upbringing in Port Angeles, Wash., a blue-collar town supported by logging, fishing and lumber mills.

Her truck-driving father prospered by dint of “hard work and handshakes,” she said, enjoying an upward mobility that Lawson intends to rekindle. Her 49-page campaign report, released last week, aims to revive manufacturing and promote technology. Her policy recommendations include repealing the Bush tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 and implementing the Buffett rule, which says millionaires should pay the same tax rate as working people.

But her campaign says nothing about the mantras she learned at an ashram in India in 2004.

That was a pivotal year for Lawson, who wound up walking away from the work that made her rich. “I’ve always been an entrepreneur,” she said. “I never identified with business per se.”

She earned a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering from the University of Washington in 1992 and worked at IBM in San Jose for two years. At Harvard Business School she hatched an idea for industrial design software, and after graduating with a master’s degree in 1996 launched her first company, InPart Design, to produce it.

At Parametric Technology Corp., which bought InPart for $60 million in 1998, Lawson helped build a new division into a $300 million a year business. At Siebel Systems, she developed a $100 million a year business from 2001 to 2004.

Stepping away from corporate boardrooms in 2004, Lawson co-founded the Center for Entrepreneurship & Technology at UC Berkeley, a program that has graduated more than 3,000 engineers and scientists and developed 18 companies with more than 1,000 jobs in Northern California.

In 2004, she made her first trip to India, where she met Baskaran Pillai, a guru who teaches that repeated sounds, or mantras, can cultivate a “spiritual awakening.”

In an hourlong audiotape at the Sacred Awakenings Series website, Lawson described her first meeting with Pillai, saying he “touched my third eye” and enabled her to “see the light bodies of all the people in the meditation hall.”

She called it a “turning point” in her life, and has worked with Pillai ever since, combating poverty in India and Southeast Asia. She meditates for two hours every morning, or at least as often as her schedule allows.

In an interview with The Press Democrat, Lawson described Pillai as a “close friend,” humanitarian and “spiritual leader.”

Pillai contributed $5,000 to her campaign, as did Vish Iyer, who serves with Lawson on the board of Pillai’s Tripura Foundation, and Iyer’s wife, Akila.

Lawson also serves on the board of the Petaluma-based Institute of Noetic Sciences, along with George Zimmer, chairman of the Men’s Wearhouse, who joined his wife, Lorri, in giving Lawson a total of $10,000.

The institute, dedicated to exploring the bounds of consciousness, describes Lawson as “equal parts entrepreneur and spiritual leader” on its website.

“I believe in helping make people’s lives better,” she said.

Forum for Democratic congressional candidates

Seven Democratic candidates for the North Coast seat in Congress are expected to participate Wednesday in a public forum in Petaluma.

Susan Adams, Andy Caffrey, William Courtney, Jared Huffman, Stacey Lawson, Tiffany Renee and Norman Solomon have accepted invitations from the sponsor, the Democratic Club of Southern Sonoma County.

The forum starts at 7 p.m. at the Boys & Girls Clubs of Marin and Southern Sonoma County, 203 Maria Dr., Petaluma.
RSVP to Therese Horsting at 664-1687 or raventh9@gmail.com.


Watch a campaign video by Stacey Lawson explaining her middle-class jobs plan

39 Responses to “Political newcomer drawing attention, cash”

  1. LOUIS EMIS says:

    pro-business liberal democrat seems like a contradiction. If selected by your party, you will win the election because calif. is a one party state. Well ,good luck to you.

  2. Nutty vs Creepy says:


    After reviewing all the posts and the links to Lawson’s pre campaign writing, I don’t know who is worse: Lawson or Solomon?

    Her silly new age ramblings that were actually published are just embarrassing. No adult can read her writing and conclude she is a serious candidate for public office. But I’d have to say her money has bought some magnificent political packaging and talented scriptwriters. I attended the candidate forum in Petaluma on Weds night. I was there to get a read on all the candidates. One thing I noticed about Lawson was she sounded rehearsed and basically gave the same answer no matter what the question. That comes from coaching. Very Expensive coaching.

    Solomon is a big name dropper who like Lawson has never held public office. One of the posters below asks if he’s ever created any jobs. Uh…no. Except for his own of course. He’s self employed. Anyone interested can learned all about this guy’s “resume” in his book about his life where he explains that he left high school after the 11th grade, evaded the draft, and then spent the next 40 years or so attending a variety of protests and street demonstrations. Kind of a professional ’60s radical. He’s been arrested dozens of times, was a heavy drug user for a period of his life,has been part of the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) and counts Catherine Wilkerson of the Weather Underground as one of his mentors. He writes books that don’t sell. He used to be a “media critic” until all the newspapers decided to drop his column. He has run an organization funded by anonymous donors. He has immersed himself in radical middle east politics for decades.

    At the forum there were three local people who seemed sane, successful and above all–normal. All three have been elected to something. Susan Adams, a nurse with a PhD and a Marin County Supervisor had a lot of substance and is the expert on health policy in this race. She is a problem solver.

    Assemblyman Huffman, an environmental lawyer, has one of the best records of any legislator in California and is involved in his community and is also an effective problem solver,

    Tiffany Renee is a web designer who serves on the Petaluma City Council. She solves problems at the local level.

    Solomon and Lawson are problems.

  3. J L Anderson says:

    Our kingdom for just one, sane, well-adjusted candidate with common sense and who is not anti-success and pro-tax.

    And hold the woo-woo!

    People who live in SF for any length of time seem to just eventually slip into la-la land, Pelosi being the obvious poster girl.

  4. Jim says:

    @Cynthia B

    Optimism regarding what? Every level of government wastes billions of dollars more than they take from the economy and easily manipulate the Sheeple into believing anything they do is in their best interest.

    We have an ever growing government, intruding into every aspect of our lives. Want to put up a fence, paint your house, build a deck, etc? You have to ask PERMISSION from the government. Want to heat your house? You have to look to see if CARB has said it is ok. You want to send your kids to school with homemade cookies, like your mom did? The government will confiscate them. The government will feed your children breakfast and lunch because YOU are INCAPABLE.

    Look at this story, where taxpayers are paying this unnecessary department to INSPECT SCHOOL LUNCHES!! PRE-SCHOOL LUNCHES!!!!

    Every time you turn around there is a new tax being proposed. Look at your phone bill, cable bill, gas bill, grocery bill, rental car receipt, garbage bill, hotel bill, airline receipt, cell phone bill, any purchase and there is government taxes.

    Both parties are liars. Both parties are corrupt. They only care about being re-elected. In CA, the unions control them. They steal from hard working people to buy votes through government handouts. Every new program is permanent. Every “temporary tax” is permanent. The Sheeple are so dependent on the handouts that even the mention of cutting them, because the government spends $2 for every dollar they steal, and the attack dogs come out.

    Obama’s recent budget was a political move, not a budget. Look at the figures. Obama took office after Bush spent us into oblivion. What “change” does Obama bring? Four consecutive years with over $1 trillion deficits. The “change” was an even high increase in spending than Bush.

    There is nothing to be optimistic about.

  5. Cynthia B. says:

    Truth Teller, calling someone a corporatist simply because they advocate job creation is disingenuousness of the highest order. Your pseudonym is intended to be ironic, surely.

  6. Truth Teller says:

    The last thing this district needs is a corporate Democrat who needs on-the-job training.

  7. Commonsense says:

    While I’d be interested in knowing more about her, I’m not feeling great about what I do know about her. She seems to be trying to run in Woolsey’s shoes (welfare mother who creates her own success), but the reality I’m getting from research is that her father is more of the “Woolsey” in the family and that she had it pretty good in terms of what he was able to provide for her as a result, including an Ivy league education. She was able to sell a web based idea, which earned her millions, which is great, but doesn’t mean she’s necessarily a “hard working business mind”. It could also mean she took advantage of robust boom that many did, which quickly turned into a bust when all those great ideas from silicon valley tanked in the real world.
    She seems to be mirroring the talking points of Woolsey and other northbay democrats regarding taxes (I’m still trying to figure out how they all came up with $250,00 as “rich”, when in many areas that’s two working parents eaking out a middleclass living). So overall, not sure she is an different then other politicians (from either party). And, I can’t help but notice that many have been very critical of republican politicians like Romney for making millions and not paying enough of it “forward” so to speak (someone who also inherited opportunity from a father that did well for himself)but apparently that doesn’t appear to matter for many democratic politicians who get their support from the same contributors???? How many charitable organizations has Ms. Lawson given to or started? How much as she paid in taxes on her millions? Just saying (as an independant who thinks both sides of the aisle are pretty much the same at this point)if you are going to hold one party to a standard, then you have to hold the other to the same standard.

  8. Lets be Reasonable says:

    I haven’t started paying attention to this race and the candidates yet, but most of the comments here are ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with someone being wealthy, as long as they didn’t abuse someone else to get it, and they pay at least the same effective tax rate as someone in the middle class. Hopefully they are charitable in addition. If they are paying a lower effective tax rate, as a result of our idiotic tax system, they had better by making up for it through philanthropic causes. If they meet that basic qualification of paying their fair share, and I agree with their positions on important issues, then I would have no problem voting for someone from the 1%.

  9. Cynthia Boaz says:

    Cynthia R, the only one in the race with any experience in a legislature is Huffman. And Solomon has never held elective office either. As for Susan Adams and Tiffany Renee, they are barely in contention. Lawson, on the other hand, is absolutely viable.

    So why are you picking on Lawson? Is this personal?

    Being a political insider is hardly an in-demand quality in a candidate these days. Given the popularity of members of both parties’ incumbent candidates, I’d say being a fresh face with a new set of ideas is about the best thing a candidate can offer in these times.

    What really impresses me is that Lawson– at only 30 years old– held her own as the only woman in board rooms of 60 and 70 year-old men undoubtedly ready to eat her alive.

  10. Julie Moore says:

    After reading and listening to Stacey Lawson, and all of the comments, I conclude Stacey is likely the best candidate running:

    (1) She is incredibly brave. Knowing that every aspect of her life will be criticized and attacked, she still runs.

    (2) She is capable. No other candidate has put together any sort comprehensive, thoughtful plan of any substance to address the most critical issue: jobs and money for California

    (3) She is a natural leader. Her track record has show how she creates sustainable business out of nothing but good ideas. She has led and organized large groups of people and built consensus among them. She has the connections and networks to make things happen.

    (4) She is empathetic. Whether that comes from her own spiritual or humanitarian history. She seems to care and really have empathy with the people of 2nd district.

    I am very interested to hear more what she has to say and watch her progress. Among all the candidates, very likely she may have my vote.

  11. Rojo says:

    Most of the posts here do not even talk about the issues that are important. Look at her website and you see she only talks about domestic issues and “job creation” a Republican code word for the ultra-wealthy. Some who defend her are only interested in the fact that she is a woman. So shallow. What I want to know is where she stands on the coming War Against Iran, where she stands on globalization, “free trade”, immigration to just name a few she has not addressed on her website.

  12. Cynthia R. says:

    Cynthia B. you throw that word “progressive” around like it means something. If I wanted to agree with a candidate 100% then I’d have to run myself. Oops, I don’t have wealthy East Coast Ivy Leaguers or hmrich gurus or wealthy “thinkers” from the high tech industry so I wouldn’t get very far would I?

    Given the wealth of excellent candidates in this race , why are you supporting the one who has no political experience? It’s worked so well for the Tea Party hasn’t it? Yes, another business- oriented legislator. Just what we need, there aren’t enough millionaire business people in Congress. But this one can see her “third eye” so she must be different!

  13. Cynthia B. says:

    Wow, Jim is an equal-opportunity cynic. Nice work covering all the bases, sir. With that level of jadedness, I’m dumbfounded as to why you even bother engaging in dialogue, which is usually the purview of those with a shred of optimism for the future.

  14. Cynthia B. says:

    So Cynthia R, what you’re saying is that the only people you trust and respect are people exactly like you. Explain to me how that is progressive.

  15. Jim says:

    @Mr. Galt…I can address who is funding her campaign. Given she is an Ivy League grad, all her connections are East Coast. There is a foolish belief that politicians running in local districts are loyal to local districts. Politicians are loyal only to the unions and corporations that bribe them with the money they use to buy re-election.

    The ridiculousness of her claim of “hard work and initiative” pay off is COMPLETELY opposite of the Democrat Party’s stance that Big Government is the answer to all problems. It is amazing she is getting away with the rhetoric.

    The easy answer is she knows a Republican can’t win in California. The voting block is way to brain dead from all the medicinal pot to evaluate anything but the letter next to the name of each candidate.

  16. I read about her background. Felt a flicker of hope.

    Read about her degrees. Started becoming enthusiastic.

    Read about her business chops. Became highly enthusiastic.

    Read about the guru who put her in touch with her third eye and the light bodies of those around her.

    Suddenly became nostalgic for Lynn Woolsey, a former welfare mother and current political hack, who might be a laughing stock, but is not 100% certifiable.

  17. Wendy Nelson says:

    Sounds like a SoCo snob who belongs in the out of touch Washington culture. However, at this point anybody is better than that dimwit one trick pony Woolsey.

  18. John Galt says:

    I spent the time to review her year-end campaign disclosures- and they were pretty long. Two things immediately jumped out at me:

    1. Her donor base is almost exclusively comprised of those who live outside the district, including a substantial chunk of money coming from folks in the Boston area and around New England.

    2. Roughly 1/3 of her contributions came through ActBlue, and don’t appear to specifically identify the ultimate source of the contribution. While I imagine that ActBlue identifies their donors (known as layering), there is no direct disclosure of 1/3 of her funding, and who it comes from.

    Maybe I’m missing something (after reading dozens of pages campaign disclosures, my eyes are a little bleary), but this is a bit concerning. I like to know who is supporting each candidate.

  19. Cynthia R. says:

    Stacey Lawson didn’t “quit corporate America to work at a University” — she quit her job to roam around India with a scam artist guru. Then she came back to the USA and tried to start her own woo-woo gurudom through her Huffington Post writings and Stacey TV — all of which have been scrubbed from the Internet (or have they?)


  20. Grapevines says:

    (he “touched my third eye” and enabled her to “see the light bodies of all the people in the meditation hall.”)

    Almost reminiscent of Jim Jones cultism isn’t it? Anyone who buys any of this and votes for her will have already “drunk the Kool-Aid”

  21. Jim says:

    Lets get down to the REAL american dream…

    Someone who goes to public elementary school, public high school and then to a junior college. Then transfers to a public university because they earned good grades through studying, hard work. The public university tuition is paid for through some loans and working 30+ hours a week at two jobs. Upon graduation, a job is found via the newspaper (before internet made job searching far easier), after dozens of interviews in a difficult job market.

    Then working, gaining experience from the bottom of the ladder. Saving 40% of their paycheck by living cheaply. Working their way through the ranks, through learning on the job and off the job. Studying to earn a certification in the off hours. Then a bad economy hits and a layoff. Searching for over a year for employment, cover living expenses through savings, then finding a job for 40% less money and 4 times the commute length.

    Now, after years in the job market, through ups and downs, has some savings, a solid resume and a decent amount in retirement accounts.

    What part of that story cannot be duplicated by EVERYONE? No ivy league schools. No connections to get cushy jobs. No overpaid positions with the government where a lifetime pension was given. Public school, hard work, savings, living below your means. NO GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS.

    The real American Dream exists. I just wrote it for you. Have your kids follow that map and they’ll be fine. Well, except that the Democrats will brand you the devil because you aren’t dependent on Big Government and have some reasonable savings.

  22. Jim says:

    She has the exact qualifications of every politician…she is extremely wealthy.

    I have no issue with her because I know nothing about her. My issue is the Press. This is the American Dream. She went to school (albeit a private school for connected rich people) and made a lot of money in the private sector. This is America. The problem is that the Press is drooling over her as a “self made” woman whereas the media attacks Republicans for being EXACTLY the same…self-made millionaires. The party she claims to represent is led by the President who ENDLESSLY attacks the wealthy for “not paying their fair share” and making “millionaires and billionaires” out to be the devil, and a negative in society. Yet the media in this situation is talking like she is the second coming. The reason is obvious…because she is a Democrat. Politicians are wealthy. Period. ALL of them. Yet one party lies like they are all about the “middle class” and the media takes the lies and brainwashes the IDIOT VOTERS into believing it.

    If wealth is such a bad thing, per the Democrats, how can she be even remotely electable with a “D” next to her name?? Again…easy answer…because the Democrats are hypocrites and the voters are IDIOTS.

  23. Follow the money, deja vu says:

    I get it: she’s a rank newcomer. She’s never held elected office. She clearly knows how to make promises to the public, but has no track record of serving a broad constituency, us voters.

    Stacy has lots of rich friends, including the notoriously self-serving Doug Bosco and his cronies. We don’t need another local Diane Feinstein and her rich, self-dealing friends. We’ve got enough of them already.

    If Lawson, Bosco and Susie Tompkins want us to believe that means good representation in a huge district, they are mistaken.

    Bosco, like Feinstein, is the master of resource exploitation and using public money to finance their own private ventures. Bosco the king-maker clearly wants Lawson in this district to do his bidding.

    Enough of them all. At least Huffman has demonstrated years of ability to deliver good legislation, most of the time. Will Lawson only deliver what Bosco, Tompkins and Feinstein want?
    Just say no!

  24. john bly says:

    These posts are obviously part of a coordinated effort to discredit a candidate. Perhaps more attention should be paid to the donors and habits of her opponents. I have not made up my mind yet, but when there is this kind of opposition, it makes me very suspicious. Stacey has created jobs. Has Huffman? Solomon? I am actually asking, not trying to disparage the candidates. If they have, let’s hear about them

  25. Cynthia B. says:

    If progressives are ever going to be truly successful as a political force, we must learn to distinguish between the notion that anyone who has money is bad and the notion that some who have money want to use it for good.

    It’s not successful people who are the enemy, it’s people who don’t use their success to help others succeed as well.

  26. John Lennon says:

    Strange times when there are more filthy rich Democrats compared to Filthy rich republicans.

  27. Cynthia B. says:

    Cynthia R, yes that’s exactly right, Stacey does want to represent “they.” I know her and like David J. Spencer says below, I trust her. Have you met her or interacted with her in any way, or are your posts just a visceral reaction to another woman’s success?

    Stacey comes from the 99% and she is the model that it is possible (though perhaps not easy, to her credit) to move from one category to the other. Nothing constructive can come from divisiveness. Stacey is a successful woman who wants to share her success with others. How could you possibly be opposed to that? It is no less prejudicial to judge a person for their success than it is to judge them for their relative lack of it. Stacey’s credentials are solid. Holding her success against her is ludicrous and totally self-defeating. Not to mention petty. BTW, she quit corporate America to teach at a university (not exactly the most lucrative job in the world). Your implication that Stacey is elitist is grasping at straws, Cynthia R.

    Regarding earlier posts, I also find it hilarious that no one wants an insider unless it’s their insider.

    Let’s not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, people.

  28. Love it! says:

    More good stuff on Lawson’s guru, Dr. Pallai, in this 2004 magazine article entitled “Bling Bling Guru.” This guy is complete scam artist, teaching people they should aspire to be as rich as possible (and he can help them) so that all that money in the hands of spiritually enlightened people will heal the world! This was the world of Stacey Lawson before she moved to Marin and started running for Congress.


  29. Love it! says:

    Just saw this bombshell that begins to expose the real Stacey Lawson. Thanks to Cynthia R. (who really does her homework!) for posting the link to a 2008 Huffington Post column by Amy Alkon, ripping our very own Stacey Lawson for writing an absurd blog article in the Huffington Post called “We are the terrorists.” http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/01/your_inner_terr.html

    This is a must read! It includes long excerpts of the Lawson article which cannot otherwise be found because Lawson and her handlers have removed it from the internet (along with all of those “StaceyTV” videos that can no longer be found).

    But through these excerpts, we get a real window into Lawson before her campaign consultants took over and started feeding us the puffed resume and carefully scripted bio.

    In 2008, Lawson was so far removed from the real world in her enclave of New Age megawealth that she used the assassination of Pakistan’s Benizir Bhutto to accuse all of us, because of our emotional and spiritual limitations, of being terrorists, suicide bombers, and dictators. Until we all attain enlightenment through the teachings of Dr. Pallai, she believes we are no better than the killers of Prime Minister Bhutto or the 9/11 terrorists.

    She goes on to blame US for the terrorists who kill innocent people and revered political leaders because, “the collective consciousness is an assimilation of each of us. As is the microcosm, so is the macrocosm. As long as we perpetuate the fracturing and fragmentation of disallowed parts of ourselves, stuffing our emotions and perpetuating a sense of shame and worthlessness even on a small scale, we will continue to create terrorists.”

    Alkon’s critique then gives us excerpts from ANOTHER Lawson article on the Huffington Post (also removed by Lawson) entitled, “Igniting the Modern Mystic.” In that article, Lawson acknowledges “When asked at dinner parties or social events what kind of work I do, I find it an awkward question.” She writes: “Truth be told, I fancy myself a modern day mystic, someone weaving together these worlds of the mundane and the magical.”

    Now why isn’t that in the campaign bio/resume we’re being fed by Lawson today? And why, when you click the links to Lawson’s previous articles on the Huffington Post, do they all say, “This post has been removed at the request of the blogger”?

    Lawson is concealing from us BIG parts of her life, her work, her videos, and her writing. If she wants to get to know this district and potentially represent us, she needs to come clean and let us know more about herself.

  30. Heather says:

    Just what we need, another spoiled rich liberal. And to make matters worse she teaches at a University, can you be anymore out of touch, talk about the 1%.

  31. Cynthia R. says:

    Give me a break. Most people don’t to go to Harvard and get an MBA (last time I checked there were a lot of Harvard MBAs that screwed up our economy).

    Most people don’t sell a money-losing company for millions (which was later shut down — can you say sweetheart deal?)

    And most people don’t have the luxury of quitting their job to flit around India and practice with a guru or shaman or charlatan, whatever Pillai is.

    Her resume looks like she likes to bounce around a lot. We don’t need a dilletante that’s going to add another thing to her resume, get bored and move on. There’s a wealth of qualified candidates who have actually devoted their lives to public service — not just talked about it.

    She’s straight out of the 1%. Here’s a great quote that tells you her mentslity. Forbes magazine reported in 1999:

    Lawson grew up in the lumber mill town of Port Angeles, Wash., longing to get out and make something of herself. “People lived their lives by default,” she says. “They never took risks. I never wanted to be ordinary.”

    Now Lawson wants to represent “they?

  32. David J. Spencer says:

    I always get suspicious when I see somebody get ganged up on, and thus far all the comments in this forum against Stacey Lawson come from people who don’t normally comment in WSC–a most suspicious circumstance.

    Investing in a political candidate is a lot like investing in a start-up enterprise; the investor isn’t going to do it unless there is a lot of viability, and the fact that her candidacy is attracting so much financial support from people who are extremely knowledgeable and intelligent is a good indicator that she is viewed as being far more than just a viable candidate–she is going to win, and she is going to be effective once she wins.

    She has a Baccalaureate in Chemical Engineering from the University of Washington, an MBA from Harvard, and she teaches at U.C., Berkeley, so we know that she has the smarts for the job, and the financial support she has thus far elicited is a strong indicator that she has the trust of some very intelligent people.

    I trust her, and I hope she wins.

  33. Cynthia B. says:

    Cynthia R, did you not read the article? Ms. Lawson has worked tirelessly her entire life for what she has achieved. Being financially successful is not a de facto sign that someone is without conscience. To the contrary, Ms. Lawson has shown an incredible degree of social conscience and desire to give back. Isn’t that exactly what OWS and the 99% wants?

    This is a chance for the 99% to get someone with financial viability on their side. Someone who will give them a voice and genuinely wants to open up opportunity and make life better for everyone. How can you possibly find fault with that? Incredible.

  34. SoCo Voter says:

    As a Sonoma County voter, jobs and the economy are my top concerns. I don’t know how anyone can actually make a difference in Congress, but at least Ms. Lawson is a candidate who cares about job creation and has significant private sector experience. That is more than I can say for Jared Huffman, who has been the enemy of job creation in the Assembly.

  35. Cynthia R. says:

    Just what we need — another millionaire preaching to the rest of us about the virtues of hard work. I guess picking up the phone to dial her rich friends for campaign contributions is what is considered hard work for her.

  36. wilson says:

    @Lamar – Well said.

    This woman may be successful and all but she has no qualifications or credibility for Congress. At least woolsey muddled her way through some time on the Petaluma City Council before running for office. And any accomplice of Doug Bosco is no friend of mine. But then, he’s better than many of Huffman’s supporters like Brian Sobel.

    If Stacey Lawson really wants to serve the public in elected office then she should start at the local level and actually learn politics and her community first.

  37. James Todd says:

    Got to agree with Jim- I thought libtards were against anyone who was “The 1%”, which this candidate clearly is.

    Then again, we ALL know that liberals are nothing but hypocrites!

    If this candidate were a republican the liberal hit machine in the media would be comparing her to trying to buy an election like Meg Whitman. But no, since she’s yet ANOTHER liberal democrat she will get a pass.

    Remember one important FACT: Liberals have held both houses of the California Legislature since 1992. Since then California has seen a steady decline in quality of life, our schools, decline in businesses that are FLEEING the state in record numbers along with PEOPLE leaving to more friendly states. Meanwhile, taxes have steadily increase, as has crime, cost of living, government regulation and restriction, etc. and we have gone from being the World’s 5th largest economy to below the 9th, all demonstrably thanks to liberalism.
    This is what your liberal democratic leaders have brought California. It is a perfect example of what liberalism does as a whole. Look at Jerry Brown, who just wants to raise taxes yet again while in one of the worst economic downturns in history!

    It is time to restore SANITY to California and elect fiscal conservatives who will cut wasteful spending and get us back on a sane fiscal path.

    We’ve already seen what the looney left has done and all they can offer. It’s time to get some fiscal sanity back in California.

  38. Lamar says:

    Here’s what disturbs me about Lawson’s story. Mind you, I respect the Harvard MBA and millionaire before 30 stuff. Good for her. BUT, if someone wants to represent me and my community in Congress, if she cares enough about the community and all the important issues in play in our country, I want to see SOMEWHERE in her life story at least a little bit of public or community service! Something more than just enriching herself and chanting with her guru.

    How about a Rotary Club? A local charity? A little volunteer work at a school or park? She doesn’t appear to have kids, but how about working as a Big Sister. If she’s too rich and elite for any of that, how about at least being on the board of a local symphony or museum? Supporting the arts? Even her work at Berkeley was about teaching privileged people how to be millionaires like her.

    The next question is why is this wealthy San Francisco person remotely qualified to represent THIS community. She has no history, family, or record of any kind working in the North Bay – she’s literally brand new. It’s as if she looked around for a place where there might be an open seat for Congress and said, “bingo! I’ll get a place in Marin!”

    Add to all of these warning signs the the mystery money from out of state people, and the clincher: a sleezeball like Doug Bosco is “quietly” helping her and raving about her “charisma.”

  39. Jim says:

    Whoa, wait a minute…she is part of the 1%! She is a “millionaire”!! She is the devil, right Democrats?

    Per Obama’s endless class warfare rhetoric, this story is 100% false. No one can be a “self-made” millionaire in America. She must have walked over everyone and cheated her way to her money. I bet she also doesn’t “pay her fair share” of taxes! Someone investigate her. The Democrats should use the same attack dogs they use on the devilish “rich” republicans.

    Listen to this woman… benefited from the “American Dream”?? The Democrats say it doesn’t exist anymore and Big Government is the only way to live the American dream.

    Amazing how the Democrats and only anti rich, anti 1% and pro-’tax the rich to death’ when talking of Republicans.