There's not a whole lot of information on the Democratic contenders for District Attorney in Pennsylvania.
Morganelli was pretty easy for me to rule out; the front page of his web site makes it clear he wouldn't be the kind of AG I want [his color emphasis]:

His frank talk about the need to Abolish Parole for Violent Criminals, Stop Illegal Immigration , and Enforce the Death Penalty for Convicted First Degree Murderers has earned him national recognition.

The only basis for comparing Barasch and Eisenhower came down to their respective statement on priorities at the League of Women Voters' DemocracyNet project. Barasch's says

The explosion of financial, computer and consumer crimes and identity theft must be confronted. These crimes steal millions from Pennsylvanians annually. Aggressive prosecution of environmental crimes, revitalization of the Office of Civil Rights and the Public Protection Division are also key priorities. Large, violent drug rings threaten to overwhelm many individual county law enforcement efforts. Innovative, proactive steps must be taken to stop the flow of heroin, cocaine and other dangerous drugs into local communities.

Eisenhower's says

As Attorney General, I will prosecute large scale criminal organizations that target our communities. I will prosecute emerging threats such as cyber-crime, identity theft and invest in homeland security. I will aggressively prosecute corporations who seek illegal profit at the expense of their employees or stockholders. I will reinvigorate a dormant Civil Rights Division to guarantee equal rights for all Pennsylvanians. In sum, I will be an aggressive Attorney General who will fight for people and not special interests.

All I can really say is that I'm more interested in seeing the things Eisenhower mentions pursued than I am in the things Barasch mentions.

As for the Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Referendum, it appears to primarily beneift Southwestern Pennsylvania [compare the three flyers], which is not a bad thing, but I'm always suspicious when part of the argument is that it won't require any new taxes. They say it will cost 1¢ per year per household. The number of households found for the 2000 Census was 4,777,003. Assuming there are now 5,000,000 and assuming the Commonwealth borrows all $250 million, 1¢ per year per household would generate an annual interest payment of 0.02%. Something seems fishy.