Martin O'Malley

in their states that are unsavory "just because?"

Come on, you are not that naive--and to play the "You don't understand" excuse to try to avoid the question is just not on. Then to double down with the sorry little "civics/government" snark? Not working, either. Of course I understand the difference between state and federal government; I also understand the difference between public and private business entities.

When Chik-fil-A was at the height of their discrimination games, the little Mayor of Boston sent them a letter saying "We don't want your kind HERE in the City of Boston." A politician--even a city leader, never mind state-- CAN speak out. All I'm asking is "Did he?" Way back when, before Obama visited prisons, before #BLM started speaking about incarceration rates, before prison issues/non-violent offenders became a platform plank? It makes a difference.

And anytime there is an effort to resolve a candidate's stance on an issue, that does not make that effort a "smear." Calling it that is cheap and easy--it shuts up any discussion, sure, but it doesn't enhance understanding. If MO'M has been speaking of this matter for years, he's got a leg well up on the ladder. If he hasn't, though, or if he's spoken approvingly of the private entities in the past, he has some processing to work through to articulate his evolution. And it's not denigrating to mention this. There's nothing wrong with evolving. Except, of course, at DU.

O'Malley has a lot of positives, but he's got issues reaching out to certain segments of society. If he can demonstrate that this is a long-held view it is helpful to him. If it's an evolution, he can spin that in 'fervor of the convert' fashion. I am less familiar with his career than some politicians, which is why I ask the questions. If he wants to grow his base of support, he needs to be prepared to answer them--because if I am wondering, you can rest assured that many people are as well.