This week in the mayor's race: What will Warren do? 

[
      {
        "name": "500x250 Ad",
        "insertPoint": "5",
        "component": "15667920",
        "parentWrapperClass": "",
        "requiredCountToDisplay": "1"
      }
    ]

I’m sitting here marveling over the pithy brilliance that was Team Lovely Warren’s reaction to Rachel Barnhart’s candidacy.

Shortly after Barnhart announced her mayoral bid earlier this week, the Friends of Lovely Warren Committee sent over this brief rejoinder:

"Last year, Miss Barnhart ran for the State Assembly. This year she has announced her candidacy for mayor. We are curious to learn what office she will run for next year.”

The statement is dismissive and condescending, and in three sentences manages to paint Barnhart as both an opportunist and a loser. Is it “nice”? Of course not. Is it fair? I guess that depends on your point of view. But I just think it’s a devastating — and deft — political attack.

We’re approaching the time when the candidates will make their pitches to the local committees in the hope of eventually winning the endorsement of the party. It’ll be interesting to see what Mayor Warren does, given the very public rift between her and the Democratic Committee.

Does Warren HAVE to go to the committees? No. Can she get the endorsement without doing it? I hear it’s 50-50.

She certainly doesn’t need the endorsement to win; Rochester has proven that more than once. But it would be unusual — if not unprecedented — for a sitting mayor not to be endorsed by his or her party.

I’m also hearing that we can expect an official platform from mayoral candidate James Sheppard “soon-ish.” In theory, he’s got time. Practically, though, the longer he takes, the more he risks his opponents and critics defining him as the guy with no ideas — I’m already hearing it, in fact.

Some other sounds-crazy-but-is-it thing I heard today: What if Warren decides not to run and the committees can't decide on Barnhart or Sheppard? Mayor Loretta Scott, anyone?