We're now less than a week from Election Day (thankfully), so it's time for the vaunted Blogalicious endorsements!

Governor: OK, it's pretty easy to start with who I'm not endorsing: Kerry Healey and Christy Mihos. Healey gets the gate for a myriad of reasons, from her ugly campaign to her sparse record. I wouldn't have endorsed her if she were running unopposed.

Mihos, meanwhile, has run more of a personal vendetta than a campaign, a tantrum disguised as a run for office. He had a chance to use his fiscal conservatism and socially moderate stance to attract the large group of moderate, unenrolled voters that helped Romney win in '02, but didn't make the connection.

That leaves us with Grace Ross and Deval Patrick. Ross, like Jill Stein in '02, is a thoughtful presence in the campaign. But she's a little too far to the left for my taste. This leaves Deval Patrick.

But I can't quite endorse him. He's also thoughtful, and inspiring in a way that we've not seen in the governor's race in some time. But he's a little too glib for me; Mihos's comment that Patrick favors uttering "sweet nothings" is probably the most insightful thing he said in the entire campaign. Patrick is in favor of a lot of things, but doesn't seem to have a cohesive plan to pay for his ideas. Or even pay for some of the ideas he'll inherit, though all the candidates are hazy there.

There's also the issue of Patrick's forgetfulness, which between his advocacy for Benjamin LaGuer and how he voted on the tax rollback, is clearly his favorite defense mechanism for answering questions he's not prepped for. I'm not saying that he needs to remember everything in detail - I have no idea how I voted for the rollback - but saying "I don't remember" is as much of a dodge as using the question to give a different answer.

I like Patrick, and think he's probably the closest candidate to what I believe, but I can't quite pull the trigger. Thus, I am endorsing no one. I may still vote for Patrick if I feel like adding to the assumed landslide, or may vote for Ross to give some votes for the Greens. Or I may go the wife's route and write in Shawn DeVeau. We'll see how I feel when I'm in the booth.

Attorney General: Middlesex County DA Martha Coakley is facing off against Larry Frisoli, and is expected to win handily. I knew nothing about Frisoli until this morning, when I got a flier from someone at North Station. Main points to take away from it:

* Does pro bono work on cases against NAMBLA
* Is an avid outdoorsman and is a high mucky-muck in state soccer
* Is in favor of changing auto insurance rates to reflect individual driver history, rather than set rates by age or class
* Would have convicted drug dealers register their addresses, similar to what's done for sex offenders
* Wants to force private universities and colleges to take a certain percentage of state residents, and force them to give an in-state rate.

There's nothing about the Big Dig on the flier, which concerns me given that prosecuting cases related to it will be high on the AG's agenda. And as someone who works at a private college, I can't say I'm thrilled with the idea that the state's going to muck about in our business.

Martha Coakley it is. Maybe I'll write her in for governor, too.

Secretary of State: Incumbent Bill Galvin is taking on former Green Party gubernatorial candidate Jill Stein. I didn't get to vote for Stein in '02 given the close race that year, and wish I could vote twice for her now. Jill Stein gets the nod.

Treasurer: Tim Cahill is running against Green Party candidate James O'Keefe, and based on how it's gone so far Tim Cahill can stay.

Auditor: For some reason, the antipathy I feel for Bill Galvin doesn't extend to Joe DiNucci, who has been auditor for decades. Rand Wilson of the Working Families Party is opposing him, which is about as thankless a task as can be. Joe DiNucci gets my vote, for what it's worth.

US Senator: Speaking of long-time party hacks, Teddy Kennedy is vying to get into his fifth decade of representing Massachusetts in the Senate. And in asmuch as I dislike the hackishness, I (like many here) have a hard time not voting for him. But I'm going to resist the urge, though not to cast a ballot for Ken Chase, his opponent. Instead, I am going to endorse me. It'd be a nice change of pace, and the raise would be welcome. Remember, that's C-O-E-N.

Question 1: Only slightly less distasteful than Healey's ads is the entire campaign over this question, which would OK wine sales in supermarkets and similar locations. The campaign, styled as a battle between consumer choice and public safety, has been a proxy war between the retailers who will benefit from the question's passage and the liquor store owners who stand to lose business. If there was a voting option that would punish both sides, I'd recommend it in a heartbeat.

Without that, though, I'm going to vote yes on Question 1. While it does increase the number of liquor licences, cities and towns are under no obligation to issue them. So if this passes and you're really concerned about the impact, get to know your licencing board members.

Question 2: This quesion would effect a number of changes in voting laws, most notably by introducing "fusion voting," where a candidate would be listed on the ballot under each party's endorsement. Voters could then vote by party, giving votes to smaller parties while voting for better known candidates.

I like the idea in theory, but in practice this sounds like a disaster. So I'm voting no here. Come back when we get touch screen voting that could handle this better.

Question 3: There's something very unthreatening about letting day care workers unionize, to the point where there doesn't seem to be any unified opposition to the question. The Globe endorsed a no vote, saying that the issue should go back to the legislature based on its complexity. And for the Globe to not endorse a union position (the SEIU is heavily involved in this) makes me think that their arguement has some merit. No it is, then.