Deb Goldberg: Touted her business experience combined with public experience. Was pretty good after a slow start due to a tough question. Projects well. Seems scrappy, and I can see her getting into this and gettin’ pissed at another candidate at some point.
Sam Kelley: the most on-message: health care, health care, health care. Pretty good overall, and assertive that he was the right choice. I’m surprised he hasn’t raised more $$. Would be bland and an afterthought on the ticket. Would get slayed by Brown in a debate.
Tim Murray: bread and butter, local issues. The slickest, clearly the most politically experienced. Focused wanting to be the local liason, but mentioned other duties of LG (Guv Council). More of a young looking face on TV than in person, I thought. Not sure he has the looks to convince people he’s ready – maybe too baby-faced.
Andrea Silbert: the big picture thinker in the field. Seemed to be the one who was trying to tie together each of the other candidates’ issues. Seemed the most interested in actually being governor based on what she was talking about (not that the others aren’t). Might be talking a bit over people’s heads, and wasn’t as folksy Deb or Tim, but appeared to be really smart.
I’ll say it again: we’ll be fine with any of these, but I persnally think we need a woman on the ticket. Either Goldberg or Silbert would work. None of these candidates would be a drag on the ticket.
It’s actually going to be a hard choice for people I think, and there likely won’t be much negative crap going around because I don’t think these people have any negative crap in their backgrounds. (I don’t know that, I’m just assuming.)
I recommend it to all political junkies on Blus MAss Group!
<
p>
And make sure you catch the Mihos interview.
I agree wholeheartedly that this is a terrific field of Lt. Gov. candidates – all smart, capable people. This program – which everyone should watch soon (I’m not sure how long it stays on NECN’s website), since I think it’s the first time the 4 of them have been in a room together – wasn’t really a debate, it was more of a group conversation. But each got the opportunity to talk a little bit about why they’re running and what they’d do if they’d win.
<
p>
Although it wasn’t a debate, I still get to declare a “winner,” and, surprise! IMHO it was Sam Kelley. As hoss says, he was the most on-message of any of them, and he was quite compelling in his understated way about why health care is the most pressing issue facing the state and why he’s the guy to drive that particular bus. It would be interesting to see him in a real debate where more actual punches would be thrown. I’m not sure I agree with hoss that Kelley would be just an afterthought on the ticket. But he has got to start raising money if he wants to stay in the race.
<
p>
The rest of them did very well too. They’ve each figured out what their strongest issues are, and they’re each good at talking about them.
I just watched the NECN interview, and I don’t see how you can say that Kelly spoke well. I’m sure he is a great well-intentioned guy, but he did not say anything that resonates with me as a voter. Yes, he is speaking about improving healthcare, a very important issue, but what else is he about? He also isn’t the best public speaker, compared to the other 3 candidates.
<
p>
I feel he could best get his healthcare vision accomplished by working w/ or forming a non-profit or group to champion healthcare reform. He is not a politician and that is apparent.
<
p>
All the other candidates came off well. It will be fun to watch as this race unfolds. I of course am still backing Murray, and one of the important things he said is that we need to concentrate on defeating the Republicans in Novemeber. There should not be major infighting between democratic candidates, because that will hurt the party and the nominated ticket in November. We all need to support each other, because we all believe in the same issues and we all want to take on the problems we have faced in MA under Republican leadership.
I’ve been wondering if the next Governor might be able to appoint Dr. Kelly as some sort of “healthcare tsar”. Besides forming a non-profit dedicated to healthcare reform, that would seem to be the role for which he’s really best suited. Would something like this be possible at the state level?
As flawed as I’m sure it will be, doesn’t htat take the wind from the sail on this issue fora year or two, until the problem reas it ugly head?
But I think that a progressive Governor would recognize that the the current proposal is merely a (good) start in the right direction, not an ideal end in itself.
<
p>
The 2 years or so that it takes the crap to hit the fan — assuming the legislature does pass the bill — would probably be time well spent developing a more comprehensive proposal along the lines of what Sam envisions. Think of it as the reform plan being a two-step process, I guess.
<
p>
Of course it would probably look odd (politically) to have a newly-elected Governor appoint someone to look into reforming a newly-implemented healthcare system. Maybe that is something best handled by a non-profit initially?
<
p>
Then again, it might be still prudent for the next Governor to appoint a special “health care advisor” dedicated to monitoring the new plan and ready to recommend revisions as the need arises.
<
p>
Anywho, this is all just a bit of random musing…. I really like Sam Kelly’s ideas on healthcare reform, and I’d like to see him actively involved in the next administration in some way. I just don’t see him making the cut as Lt. Gov., unfortunately.
no joke. For one thing, I don’t think there’s any doubt that he exceeded expectations to a greater extent that the others. For another, he’s not running for Governor, and it’s an entirely different kettle of fish – each LG candidate has a very specific issue or set of issues that they heavily emphasize, to the exclusion of just about everything else (did you hear Murray or Silbert say word 1 about health care?). His happens to be health care – a perfectly defensible choice – and I personally thought he did well with it. Others (obviously) will disagree.
…as lacking cash and in need of its own health care effort, anytime Sam gets on TV, sitting next to his three opponents–he wins. Yes, Sam did exceed expectations for where people see his campaign at.
David –
<
p>
Just a quick note about Andrea’s discussion of health care (or any issue such as education or transportation) – what I heard her say in the NECN piece (great job, NECN) was that the health care crisis is symptomatic of an ailing economy.H ealth care is extremely important and it’s good that we have a candidate like Sam who is credible on the issue. Andrea’s point was that growing the economy and jobs would create the resources the state is sorely lacking to address health care coverage, which is why she is focused on the economy.
And, man, it’s not making my decision-making any easier! Hoss is right when he says we’ve got a great field from which to choose.
<
p>
Previously I’d been leaning pretty strongly towards Andrea Silbert, based on her message and track record. I can’t say that my opinion’s been diminished all that much, but the other candidates all acquitted themselves very well in my opinion.
<
p>
Tim Murray definitely earned some points in my book. So far he’s the only one of the four I’ve actually met in person (at the Lowell caucus), and while we didn’t get a chance to talk at length, I got a pretty good “vibe” off of him. (Hey, I’m an intuitive sort of guy; what can I say? Or maybe it’s just the name? And for what it’s worth, I think he looks much older on TV than he does in person.)
<
p>
In the NECN discussion I got a much better sense of Murray as a politician; he really seems to have the most realistic grasp of the Lt. Governor’s role, and also the flexibility to complement whoever ends up as the gubernatorial nominee. The “cities-and-towns” shtick is actually growing on me, believe it or not, but I think he also gets the “big picture” seeing how things like job creation and healthcare are all interconnected.
<
p>
Deb Goldberg came across much better than I expected. Unfortunately thanks to Tim Murray the “cities-and-towns” mantra doesn’t hold up as well as it might have against Silbert and Kelley alone. The flip side is her combination of experience in both government and the private sector. I’m not sure if this represents a significant advantage for her, but it stuck me as noteworthy.
<
p>
As I mentioned earlier, Andrea Silbert came into this at the top of my dance card. I still think she’s a very strong candidate with a very strong message (jobs, jobs, jobs) that is most likely to appeal to “crossover” voters. That being said, I think her confidence could be misconstrued as arrogance by some. (Murray and Silbert seemed the most confident of the foursome, but Silbert had an extra edginess that could rub some people the wrong way.)
<
p>
Count me among those who — for whatever reason — would prefer to have a woman on the ticket against Healey come November. In my opinion Andrea still outclasses Deb in this regard. However, it’s still close in my mind between Andrea and Tim. I’m going to need more from her before I can form an opinion one way or the other.
<
p>
Poor Dr. Sam…. I really, really, really like this guy’s message: Addressing the skyrocketing cost of healthcare is critical to keeping jobs in the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, I don’t think he articulates the relationship between healthcare costs and jobs, etc., as well as he could. I also still worry that he’s too much of a one-trick pony in this race (although they all are to varynig degrees), and that healthcare by itself may not be enough to woo voters. That and they guy — clearly an everyman — simply has no charisma. I’m not sure how much this matters as Lt. Gov., but in this media-driven age he just doesn’t project as well any of the other three. I really hope whoever the next Governor is will be able to find a position for Dr. Kelley where he’ll be able to work on healthcare reform. I just don’t think Lt. Governor is that spot.
<
p>
One final word: Although I haven’t looked today, I learned more in 17 minutes watching the candidates than I have from their websites over the past several weeks. Granted nothing compares to meeting any one of them in person, but a “deep” website (a la Deval Patrick) is the next best thing.
<
p>
Folks, I’m going to Worcester (as an alternate) in June and undecided on Lt. Gov.: make your pitch!
<
p>
Ok, more than enough for now…. Over and out.
<
p>
– T.
I forgot to add:
<
p>
Props to Chet Curtis and NECN for hosting this event. As I said earlier, this is really the first chance I’ve had to meet the candidates for Lt. Gov. It was very informative; thanks!
Thanks for that very thoughtful post, Tim.
<
p>
I would like to encourage you (and similarly-minded folks) to stay with Andrea Silbert. Her commitment to public service led to the vision that become the Center for Women & Enterprise, which had a huge impact on thousands of people. I think the “edginess” you describe comes from the fact that she believes strongly in what she’s doing and saying. Her record proves her commitment. I think, given a chance in the State House with the resources she would have there, she will really make a difference for Massachusetts – not in an abstract way, but for several thousand real people and families in the Commonwealth. One of the things I find appealing about her is that this is her first run for office, but she’s doing because of a genuine commitment to making a difference. Supporting a candidate like Andrea, I believe, tells more people like Andrea that there is a place for them in politics and elected office. We need more of those folks and offices and fewer professional politicians.
<
p>