Above: Watch video of the debate

On Monday, August 11th, I hosted a conversation with San Diego's city attorney, Michael Aguirre, and his re-election challenger, Superior Court Judge Jan Goldsmith. Thank you for your questions and feel free to continue the conversation in the comments section below.

I grew up in a Brooklyn apartment with a gaggle of relatives, all of whom were passionate about professional baseball and politics. We were uncompromising and vigorous about which team we loved and which political party and candidate deserved our support. And the best part was that we never did reach compromise and we expressed our disagreements loudly and often dramatically with waving arms and stomping feet. The teams about which we struggled were the Brooklyn Dodgers ("dem bums"), the ("high-falutin'") New York Yankees, and the cruel, cold New York Giants. There were even more political parties than local ball clubs in contention including, but not limited to, the Republicans, Democrats, the Socialist Workers Party, The Farm Labor Party, and the Communists. It was indeed a time of political tempestuousness married to baseball frenzy.

Now here we are decades later and 3000 miles away, and once again, I'm feeling an echo of that former time. True, the Padres are not inspiring anything resembling baseball passion these days. But, oh, our candidates - and I'm talking local. The Clinton-Obama dust-up becomes remote when you think about whether the mayor or the president will have a greater effect on your life. After all, the president can't influence whether the pothole in front of your property will be repaired.

So, congratulations to San Diego's candidates who are engaged in closely-contested races, close enough to get our voter-blood flowing a bit faster these days. At the risk of treading on a few campaign workers and supporter sensitivities, here are some really competitive contests:

• Mayor Jerry Sanders and Steve Francis for San Diego mayor
• City Attorney Mike Aguirre and City Council President Scott Peters for city attorney
• Sherri Lightner and Marshall Merrifield in District 1 (Phil Thalheimer has gone extreme with the number and tenor of his direct mail pieces)
• Stephen Whitburn (endorsed by Congressmember Bob Filner) and Todd Gloria (endorsed by Congressmember Susan Davis) in District 3
• April Boling and Marti Emerald in District 7

There are endorsements, news reports, blogs, and, best of all, kitchen-table and water-cooler conversations about these candidates, and some of those arguments are really loud and dramatic. Reminds me of my childhood.

Last week, I moderated a candidates' forum in La Jolla. Actually, I was moderator and interviewer since I asked all the questions, some submitted by readers of the La Jolla Light. I thought long and hard about taking on this gig because an after-work event that requires lots of preparation, time, and energy can detract from my next day's focus. But I'm glad I did.

All three candidates who want to represent District 1 on the San Diego City Council were there and each was impressive. In fact, I would recommend that San Diego Councilman Jim Madaffer get to know Sherri Lightner, Marshall Merrifield, and Phil Thalheimer. It was Madaffer who said his reason for voting for the wildly unpopular 24% council-pay increase last week was to improve the quality of council members.

I had to think long and hard about including that brief discussion in Editors Roundtable this morning. Producer Hank Crook and I pondered whether the incident warranted time on the program and decided that since it was part of the week's news with interest building as the week progressed, the mayor's use of that impolite epithet deserved to be presented to the editors for their opinions. Apparently, San Diego Union-Tribune editorial page editor Bob Kittle and Los Angeles Times San Diego bureau chief Tony Perry had different takes on the moment. What a shame that Andrew Donahue, co-executive editor of voiceofsandiego.org and our listeners didn't have a chance to weigh in. But the campaign for San Diego mayor is rich with material and controversy, and so we moved on.

While San Diego City voters are twittering about the tight race for the Democratic presidential nomination which may not be settled until the last week of August at the party’s national convention, they may be ignoring six very important races close to home.  This would be a shame since many citizens believe that their city mayor has more influence over the quality of their lives than does the president of the United States.  And their district’s councilmember comes close.  Those six races will determine not only the mayor of San Diego, but the city attorney and four of the eight members of the City Council.

The positioning for those contests has already begun with the primary election scheduled for June 3.  Here’s the interesting part.  If any candidate gets 50 percent plus one vote during that election, it’s all over.  There’s no need to run again in November.  So what does that tell you?  If you stay home that day or go to work or school or the market without stopping by the polls, you will have missed out on helping to decide the winners.

And much is at stake in San Diego.  There are just a few problems that need fixing including the city’s financial mess, the deepening potholes, bursting water pipes, understaffed police and fire departments, who are the power brokers and lots of concern about how City Hall is being managed.  Interestingly, there’s a healthy number of citizens willing to take on these headaches, including three, possibly four, who are currently serving.

Mayor Jerry Sanders and City Attorney Michael Aguirre want to stay in office for another four years.  5th District Councilman Brian Maienschein is termed out and wants to hang around City Hall at the city attorney’s desk.   And his colleague, Council President Scott Peters, also forced out of office because of term limits, is having second thoughts about leaving city government and is also considering a run for the city attorney’s job.  Council meetings must have a certain undercurrent of competitiveness these days unrelated to the issues being discussed.

As of this moment, 32 people have pulled nomination papers at the city clerk’s office.  If they are serious about running, they have until March 6 to file their completed papers and petitions.  The candidates running for citywide office (mayor and city attorney) must pay $500 to the city clerk and submit 200 validated signatures from registered city voters who have been registered for 30 days at the address they’ve given.  This doesn’t seem like a tough assignment or particularly expensive, especially if the potential candidates go out and get more signatures.  It seems that our municipal code 27.0221 values each additional signature at 25 cents.  So with 2000 validated extra signatures, the potential candidate gets the $500 back. City Council candidates follow those same rules, but only need 100 signatures from registered voters in their districts with a payment of $200.  You can figure out how many 25 cent signatures will get them a return on their money. 

But, of course, that’s only the beginning. Next comes the fund-raising with a limit of $270 per contributor for City Council and $320 for mayor or city attorney.  Although city-elected officials run as non-partisans, the political party endorsements are juicy plums since the local parties can raise unlimited funds to send out campaign mailers that are allowed under campaign laws as communications with party members.  So with those ground rules, and the players figuring out their developing campaigns, the race is on. And we’ll be watching closely, with an occasional peek at what’s happening with Clinton and Obama.