Pros: I’ve personally found her most appealing and if the strategic considerations all come out in the wash, I’ll probably vote for her. (I voted for her at the convention.) She seems smart and tough, and brings a good focus to the key issue of jobs, jobs, jobs. Signifies as outsider. Brings gender balance to the ticket. May (this was her line with me before the convention) be able, as a woman, to say things about Kerry Healey that Patrick could not. May play well with suburban women swing voters with her “empower women in business” line.
Cons: Another candidate whose claim comes from work outside of State government. Does this make the ticket seem too “outside” (is that possible at this political moment)? So far, her appeal seems greatest among those already drawn to Patrick–is she really going to bring in anyone who won’t be there already, regardless of LG nominee? Has been a good fundraiser for an LG candidate but probably isn’t going to be a major source of revenue for the campaign, at least not relative to the kind of spending that will mark the general election.
Pros: I find him very appealing, too. (Have heard him speak in person twice, been impressed both times, and was considering supporting him at the convention right up through the day we voted.) He adds Central Mass, an important city, the most substantial experience in governing, something of a field organization, and ties to the more traditional Democratic party. He’s Irish-American (this is still a plus, no?). For many people, he signifies as “dynamic, young, mainstream-but-reform leader.” May come off best to the majority of voters on the “what if the Governor died on inauguration day and the LG had to become Governor?” test.
Cons: Two men on ticket: does this help Healey, especially with, say, those unenrolled suburban women swing voters? For some he might signify less as “progressive mayor” than as “another hack politician.” He doesn’t seem likely to bring in the big bucks, either. And won’t Patrick win Worcester easily, anyway?
Disclaimer: I have a hard time imagining voting for her, let alone recommending her to others. Still, I’d be interested in hearing a case for her, especially as we may well all have to learn to love her starting next Tuesday night.
Pros: I assume all those riches would be deployed to help Patrick get elected. (They’d better be.) Some people seem to think her experience in Brookline is relevant. Anybody who can get the endorsement of both the Phoenix and the Herald shows some cross-over appeal (that is, assuming the latter’s endorsement was not part of a coordinated attempt to give Healey the easiest path to the conrner office). Her health care spots and web site are pretty good, suggesting she’s gotten slicker in the media department. And she, too, would bring gender balance to the ticket.
Cons: Have seen her speak twice and she sure knows how to grate on lots of people. I’m among them. And I’ve never seen anything quite like the response of everyone around me to that truly atrocious convention video. Among the many rich people running for state wide office this time, she seems to be the one whose wealth comes off most badly in a way that could matter. And–or is this just a continuation of the previous point–should we talk about tickets, badges, and entitlement? Wouldn’t she be the kind of candidate one wants to keep out of the public eye as much as possible? Which means that, though she’d bring gender balance, would you actually want her throwing jabs at Healey or would you worry about how she’d screw it up?