One often looks at two candidates and thinks: if only they could both lose. Other times, as now, one looks at two candidates, and thinks: it’s a shame they can’t both win. The latter situation is preferable, and it’s the one in which Whitewater finds itself with an at-large council race between Patrick Singer and Andrew Crone.

It’s to the advantage of the city that we have smart and dedicated candidates, both now incumbents on Common Council.

Months go, when Andrew Crone was first appointed to the seat he now holds, I wished him well. He’s been a good choice (as Cort Hartmann, an applicant he narrowly bested, would have been.) By professional background (and I think by temperament, too), he hopes to effect mediation between the city’s competing interests. We could use more of that, surely. There’s been an unfortunate tendency to favor enforced resolution (arbitration) over a consensus approach (mediation) from our city’s old guard.

Mr. Crone’s past accomplishments on city commissions, and his broad, forward-looking view, are both attractive. On the evening of his appointment in December, he mentioned looking ahead even fifty years from now. The long view is the right one; better to set aside a near-sighted gaze for a more-encompassing view.

Established incumbent and council president Patrick Singer seeks the at-large seat, too, after having served multiple terms as representative of the Fifth Council District. He’s smart and knowledgeable and hardworking.

Over the years, I’ve agreed with some of his positions, disagreed with others. (But then, although I believe in the inevitability of a New Whitewater, I don’t believe it will be – as I am – particularly libertarian. ‘New’ isn’t a partisan term; nor, truly, should it be. One can’t reasonably expect agreement on every position.)

Looking out over Mr. Singer’s work on council – across two municipal administrations and numerous legislative colleagues past and present – what will one find? Management of a sometimes querulous council, dealing with a former administration, establishing an orderly process toward a new one, navigating differing views of left and right, all during a deep recession: these have not been easy times for this small and beautiful city.

For it all, Patrick Singer has been an accomplished legislator. Where others have faded and flagged, he’s yet motivated. (Steadily, too; where peers or administrators have lost their cool, he’s stayed calm.)

Whitewater is fortunate to have good candidates; that, by itself, is a measure of progress. Both these gentlemen have offered much for Whitewater; I’m sure they will long after April 2nd. I believe, though, that Patrick Singer has served notably well on Council. I hope Whitewater sees it that way on election day, too.

Whitewater’s in transition. Part of this is a shift – slow but inexorable – in the political culture of the city. (See, along these lines, New Whitewater’s Inevitability and Horses and Automobiles, Contemporaneously.)

There’s more than one way to wage a local race, and our city is getting a taste of the difference between a concentration on the candidates’ policies and peripheral developments that only distract attention from substantive policies.

There’s nothing surprising that a popular candidate, with a longstanding career in Whitewater, would have supporters properly and timely file fundraising documents in support of his campaign. It would be more surprising if he didn’t have those supporters and that support.

By the way, what’s the reported amount of the candidate’s current spending in question, compared with the city’s population?

Wait for it — it’s 2 cents per city resident. That’s cents, as in pennies, the small copper coins with Pres. Lincoln’s portrait on them.

(A single first-class stamp is 23 times as valuable as that.)

The total amount reportedly raised so far is merely 13 cents per city resident.

That’s all.

This a modest amount, raised and reported under law, from voluntary contributions.

It’s also too funny that an open supporter of the candidate’s opponent presents this news as though it were a revelation, a development, an issue, a topic, an item, a rare event, etc.

There’s a better name for it.

This is a sidehow, a distraction from actual policies and positions on which sound government depends.

What have candidates done, what do they profess, and what will they truly do?

That’s what matters.

Tomorrow: More about upcoming local races.