The Chron treads into Guardian territory today to discuss the drama surrounding the choice for interim mayor, which will be made by a liberal-majority Board of Supervisors in a simple majority vote. Do they choose someone who can get elected in the general election next November, or do they just pick a "caretaker" mayor who'll maintain the status quo until then? Do the majority of voters in S.F. these days swing pretty progressive anyway? Is it time for a real, capital P progressive to kick some shit up?

And we quote: "Not since the election of Art Agnos in 1987 has a progressive served as mayor, and his tenure ended four years later when he lost his re-election bid to Frank Jordan, the more conservative former police chief. The only progressive mayor before Agnos, George Moscone, was assassinated in 1978, three years into his first term... Progressives came close to winning the mayor's race in 2003, when Supervisor Matt Gonzalez, then a Green Party member, almost beat Newsom. Gonzalez won on election day, but lost once all the absentee votes were counted." Yes, we're old enough to remember that one. [Chron]