If Reilly wins, I think he needs Silbert or Goldberg. If Patrick wins, he needs Murray or Silbert.
Ideally, I think we need a woman on the ticket who is without financial skeletons so that we can credibly go after Healey’s “Muffy-ness” – if that’s going to be the message. I’m not sure Goldberg could do that given her wealth, so Silbert may have an edge there given her status as the suburban mom of the field.
If it’s an “out of touch” message, then I think Murray or Silbert are the ones to deliver that, because Murray can argue he knows what’s going on in our cities with violence, drugs, development, local aid, etc…although Goldberg’s local experience could help her too. Silbert’s image as the mom who really runs things in her and her family’s life could also be a plus here, especially if we want to get all those metrowest women on our side this year.
Sorry, enough analysis. Let’s just let things play out. They’re all likely to get their 15% at the convention, so it’s really going to come down to the main things that always win down-ballot elections:
1. Money
2. Money
3. Field (or a perception thereof).
4. Endorsements (caution: see Segel ’02).
I wish those top two weren’t the top ones, but it is, sadly, true.
If you look at actual money raised, which can be seen on the Mass. Office of Campaign and Political Finance website, Murray, Silbert and Goldberg are all almost completely even with the money they’ve raised. Silbert and Goldberg have raised about 450k each, where Murray has raised 375k. You’re looking at net figures, because Goldberg is investing her money in her campaign early, where Murray and Silbert are not. That’s why cash on hand is 175k for Goldberg and 300k and 400k for Murray and Silbert respectively. Your figures do not indicate each candidate’s fundraising prowess accurately. They’re all about on part with each other when it comes to fundraising ability…which is why this race is going to be tight.
netting $5K a month is just not good. Which is why I asked whether she was going to self fund above the 150K she’s already put in (making her actual “raised” from donors in 1/05-1/06 around 315K – still a decent amount, but hardly the 450K you suggest, and not the 460K thru 1/15/06 Silbert raised, or even the 357K Murray raised in that same period without putting in significant amounts of personal cash (Silbert did put in 5K of her own, I think).)
<
p>
And what is she investing in that others aren’t? Her 2005 expense list appears to be heavy on staff. Now, that may pay off with a field operation, but until someone proves me wrong, field will never be the deciding factor in a down-ballot primary. TV will. But how big a field operation can she be building? Most people don’t even know who’s running. Is she poised to pounce on delegates next week? Where’s all that $$ going? Define “investing”? I’m open to being convinced.
I’m not on her finance team, so I don’t know where the money goes. Her campaign office is in downtown Boston so that must cost some, and she has been involved in several high profile events throughout Mass (big fundraisers getting the name out, garnering big-name suppor). But I cannot speak intelligently on where the money goes. As for the Caucus…I’m about 90% sure she has her 15% lined up already before even going into Saturday.
<
p>
Many people are equating “cash-on-hand” with fundraising prowess. But, several fail to present all the facts (and that’s why we’re involved in politics and law).
<
p>
If you want gross figures…guess what? Deb Goldberg has ALL the competition beat on fundraising with 475k gross to Silbert’s 415k gross and Murray’s 350k gross. (if you want the figures, go to the official source, http://www.mass.gov/ocpf) That means she has the fundraising down to a science. What she’s spending it on? I guess we’ll find out soon, won’t we…
<
p>
Just keepin’ it real…and accurate.
Goldberg’s 2005 year-end report shows a contribution of $100,000 from herself, so to be accurate you really do have to take out that amount from her total, since it doesn’t represent “fundraising.” I think (but am not certain) that Silbert lent herself only $5,000; don’t know whether Murray has lent himself anything.
I didn’t catch that, but thanks for keeping me honest.
If you go to the 05 year end report and click on the liablities link, you will see that she loaned herself $50,000 on 3/3/05 and then $100,000 on 8/16/05. For whatever reason only the $100,000 is listed in the contribution area.
<
p>
In addition, she started ’05 with $47,000 in her account (apparently a Select Race in Brookline requires a war chest.)
<
p>
So for the record, Deb Goldberg raised $297,799 in 2005 and spent $338,000 in 2005. The only reason she has a positive cash-on-hand is becuase of her loans and the money she already hand in her account. But it is all academic…I assume she can write a check for $10 million and still not worry about the winter heating bill.
<
p>
I stand by my original reporting
If she’s nailed down and ID’d 15% already, that would be impressive. I would assume she has all of Brookline and Newton’s delegates wrapped up, no? If not, that’d be a surprise. If she’s got that locked up, then I’d imagine she’d hunker down and fundraise going forward.
With FrankSkeffington’s response in mind, it’s important to note that according to OCPF Andrea Silbert put $5,000 into her campaign as a donation, which given her middle-class situation is a great statement about her belief in her campaign.
<
p>
According to OCPF, Deb the Heiress gave a $150,000 loan to her campaign, which tells me she wants that back. On top of that, of the money she did raise, $40k came from people with Palm Beach addresses, which I believe is where she keeps a vacation home. Palm Beach – that’s where to feel the plight of the middle class.
<
p>
Finally, given the St. Fleur mess, a disciplined campaign budget tells me two things: One, Andrea Silbert has watched, listened and learned about what has happened on down-ballot races of yesteryear and two, she is exactly the kind of person we want near a state budget.
<
p>
Just helping to keep it real and accurate as well.
are you associated with the Silbert campaign? Just askin’…
I am not, but I am sick of Republican governors and have been around enough to know what we’re doing every 4 years for the Gov’s race just ain’t working. As a result, I am thrilled that someone with her background wants to get in and I feel that Mass Democrats (hell – Democrats nationally) need to embrace people like Andrea. When I went to her site and read what she had done and then the stories on the CWE site, it was a moment of truth for me. Honestly, it’s why I am supporting Deval as well – too many good folks with great resumes don’t want to get in and too many with lousy resumes or what I perceive to be “electoral entitlement” do (you’ve one one small race and now you’re ready to be ____), which is a change for me as I always thought that serving in previous office prepared you best for the next campaign and thus office. I am absolutely convinced that does not work for winning a Governor’s race here. In fact, for Dems, it’s a negative and all I have to do is look at Romney/Healey. We’re so tied to unions, establishment endorsements, delegate gathering etc, that we’ve lost focus on what voters want and thus, what they’ll vote for.
<
p>
I try to attend as many events these folks are speaking at as I can, so I have heard everyone a few times except for Tim Murray, who I’ve heard once. I just really think we need people without an insider pedigree, yet accomplished records, to beat Kerry Healey. If, in any way, our ticket can be billed as insider or out of touch, I think we’re doomed again.
<
p>
So, that splurge above, plus her clear fundraising ability and discipline, it’s how I’ve come to the conclusion that with Deval should be Andrea Silbert.
<
p>
My issues with the other candidates are simple:
Deb Goldberg – To me, she is pure ambition and arrogance. I feel yelled at when I see her speak. I could not picture her as governor.
Tim Murray – Seems like a great person and certainly has worked to get to where he is but, to me, he is not seasoned enough and plays the insider game with all his endorsements.
Sam Kelley – actually has a great life story, but he is so quiet and without funds that I can’t see him as viable.
I am sorry FG, but I dont understand how you can say “Tim Murray is not seasoned enough.” Silbert has ZERO political campaign experience running for herself. Not only has Murray gotten himself elected he has also been a campaign director or county coordinator for several competative races. Silbert has never even won a local town election so I dont think you can claim he’s not “seasoned enough.” A more correct statement would be Silbert is not seasoned at all.
<
p>
I do agree with you about Goldberg on the other hand!
As a pro-Silbert person, I do wish field guy would be less confrontational–until a cheap shot comes our way. Yes, Murray has more campaign experience and is more “seasoned” than Silbert. I’ve seen them both speak and campaign…have you?
<
p>
Silbert is a fine speaker–she could project a little better–but keeps on message, is always “on” with smile and hand shake. She can campaign…she works the room, steps up to talk with strangers and will ask for their support. So you are flat out wrong to say “Silbert is not seasoned at all”. Flat out wrong.
<
p>
And frankly while Murray’s a fine “campaigner” he’s got no magic that some people on this blog have attested to. He struck me as an 38 year “old boy” in waiting. He starts off telling a couple of lame jokes and goes into the stump. There seemed to be no there there. And at the event I was at, Murray left early (maybe a scheduling issue) and Silbert stayed after the event to glad hand. Who made the “seasoned” moves that day?
FD –
<
p>
Please understand I have no beef with Tim and his dedication to Democratic politics and campaigns. He is a good person and in the one time that I’ve seen him speak, that is clear. But, your explanation of Tim’s seasoning is exactly what I meant when I wrote that “electoral entitlement” is something I think we need less of. Sorry for ending my sentence in a preposition.
<
p>
Perhaps I need to parse my issue with Murray a bit more. Politically, campaign-ly and rolodex-y, he is a seasoned, seasoned dude. His record of service to Democratic campaigns, his campaign experience and his dedication to a political career is proven.
<
p>
Public service-wise, he is not seasoned enough in my opinion. If he were a full-time Mayor, with all the managerial duties that fall to the Worcester City Manager, I’d have no standing on this issue and he would be a wash with Silbert. Then the decision, to me, would be simple – experienced insider vs. experienced outsider. But, he hasn’t had those duties.
<
p>
To me, if we reward insiders by putting them on the ticket this year, we are handing the office back to Healey. If Tim were to leverage his significant political reach into getting new blood the corner office, that would be great. In the mean time, he would get more experience and could be ready for higher office in a few years.
Tim has been doing a great job as the Mayor of Worcester. He has proven to the PEOPLE of Worcester, that electing him as their Mayor was the right choice. He has brought business back to Worcester, improved the schools, as well as brough state and federal funding to the city- therefore giving back to the people who elected him. He is quite seasoned, having dealt with the many difficult issues that Worcester has been faced with time and time again.
<
p>
Andrea Silbert, on the other hand, has nothing to differentiate herself from the other candidates running in this race, that is, besides money. Tim Murray has made huge progress after joining the race late, and after this focus on gaining momentum, he will certainly continue to raise a large amount of funds. EXPERIENCE IS WHAT WILL WIN THIS RACE…AND TIM’S TRACK RECORD HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT HIS EXPERIENCE WILL SERVE HIM WELL IN THE CORNER OFFICE.
How can a person not be “seasoned,” yet they have enough experience to be labeled an insider who plays the political “game?”
<
p>
And yes Mayor Murray knows alot of people in MA Politics, because he has been Mayor of Worcester and a city councilor for about a decade. People are endorsing him because they know that he can and will do the best job as Lt. Governor, and they know him to be smart, honest, hardworking, and amiable guy. After having met Mayor Murray and heard him speak, I can fully understand the strong support he is receiving from fellow mayors, state legislators and federal legislators.
<
p>
Mayor Murray has paid his dues, and worked hard to get where he is today. He is quite “seasoned” if you ask me.
<
p>
I think you’re taking this a little seriously guy. If you’re born into money, there’s a lot worse things to do with yourself than public service.
<
p>
Deb’s been a top local official, chair of the board of selectmen in a 60 some-odd thousand person city. You seen any of the local aid receipts over the last 4 years? Check them out. Here’s a nice graphed version (page 7) Remember, if local aid goes up by 3-4% it is effectively standing still after inflation. Anything below that is a loss. The absolute losses in 03-04 killed municipalities.
<
p>
I got elected to the board of selectmen in tyngsboro last spring and the first thing I did was vote “Aye” on a budget that was laying off 2 cops and 9 teachers because we didn’t have the money to pay them. You wanna take a guess at how that felt?
<
p>
There’s more at stake here than your aesthetic views of whether people were born into money or not. I think Silbert’s alright and I’m impressed with the work she did with CWE — but there’s a BU Corporate Education center down the street from me. Even if the governor’s office launched some huge job training program, the Lt G wouldn’t be in charge of it. I want someone who understands local government and can be a liason from the state government to municpalities. That’s why I’m on yesterday’s press release endorsing Deb Goldberg.
In the above link, the adjacent sentences “Check this out” and “Heres a pretty graph” are 2 separate links. Dunno if that was clear.
Jay –
<
p>
You should support – with enthusiasm – whoever you see fit, as will I. It’s just that I don’t have a title other than “Democratic voter.”
<
p>
Brookline has a town manager. Deb did not have full managerial duties. Also, she did not demonstrate long-term committment to the job. I believe she served for 6 years total, with only two as chair, according to her campaign site bio. Any dedication she has paid to charity and her family, also referenced in her bio, is laudable and honorable. But, the initiative and vision Andrea Silbert has shown in her career is what sold me.
<
p>
As far as representation/liasion to cities and towns, what are State Representatives, State Senators, Mayors, Selectmen, Aldermen, Councilors for?
<
p>
The corner office jobs, to me, are big-picture management and vision jobs. That’s why I want Patrick/Silbert. Also, rolling out a list of political endorsements, as Deb did recently, signals that she has been a very dedicated campaigner on others’ behalves, as Tim Murray has, but doesn’t tell me much about management skills or her vision. Cities and towns have representation already and the budget crises almost all are facing are huge problems, but at least in my town, the budget crunches are due to structural issues as simple as lack of revenue and costs, not from a lack of commitment to cities and towns. What we don’t have is vision and leadership to fix the structural issues that create costs and hold back increasing resources.
<
p>
Andrea Silbert saw a problem – vulnerable families lacking a way out – and set out to fix it by creating Center for Women and Enterprise. It was a vision and she made it work by managing it extremely well and ultimately making a huge difference for thousands of people lives. That’s vision, that’s management skills. While the LG’s post doesn’t have much of a job description, someone with Andrea’s vision and management skills will find a way to make a difference. Being a liasion to cities and towns is redundant with existing elected representation and doesn’t find a way to fix structural state problems with job growth and costs.
Earlier, I thought you were one of the dkos groupthink people who was making judgements on who’s more of an ‘outsider’ or ‘progressive’ or labels like that. Now I can see that isn’t the case, you actually have a very well-reasoned viewpoint. I’d differ on the relationship between municipalities and the state, yes we have reps and senators (selectmen/aldermen/councilmen are too busy to do much lobbying) who look out for their specific communities but there is plenty of room for big picture thinking and reform. I think we have just have different #1 issues and the Goldberg and Silbert campaign emphasize different things. Honestly, I’ll be psyched if (when?) Deval Patrick wins with either of them.
Of course, money helps! But, we shouldnât forget, that money does not always a guarantee political success. At this point, Reilly has the most in the bank, versus Patrick, and he is hurtin’ for certain! What if the election were tomorrow? Mitt Romney helped his candidates for State Senate and the House raise money hand over fist during the last election, but in the end the Republicans lost seats to new Democrats.
<
p>
All the candidates have funds enough to survive at this juncture so it is time wasted to compare Murray, Goldberg, and Silbert on the fundraising front. All three are virtually even and all have to pick it up; that will happen naturally as people start to get more invested in the outcome of the election.
<
p>
Regarding the above comment about Silbert’s suburban mom image, you obviously donât know that Deb has two children and 4 dogs. She is everything Silbert is and more. Deb doesnât try to embellish her record by double and triple counting the ânumber of jobs she has createdâ as Silbert does. It is only a matter of time until someone asks Silbert to prove it. Deb has real business and political experience. She may talk a lot, but she doesnât exaggerate.
If you’re going to make comments like accusing someone of not being honest, than you should be prepared to source your comments.
<
p>
If what you say is true, than you shouldn’t have any problem giving us more information. Thanks.
If someone took a class at your institute and then later on hires someone, you didn’t create a job — They did.
<
p>
Not that I have a problem with Silbert, I’m sure she’s a good person and everyone’s gonna talk themselves up in politics.
It appears that you are accusing Silbert is doing this. Have you taken any time to see what the Center for Women & Enterprise is all about?
<
p>
Take a few minutes and check it out. It is fairly obvious they offer mentoring, counseling and access to a network of help that is not readilyu available to most people…never mind people in the lower income areas that CWE serves.
<
p>
Sure, ultimately it is the individual that creates the job. But it in undeniable that many of those individuals would not ahve been given the chance (and the knowledge) to create those jobs with out the CWE.
Or her intentions, as I said in my original post.
<
p>
I just said that she didn’t personally create umpteen thousand jobs.
“As the co-founder and former CEO of the CEnter for Women and Enterprise, Andrea helped create over 14,000 new jobs…and over $400 million in new wages.”
<
p>
Where does she say “personally created”? She did “personally create” CWE and she and the organization helped thousands.
I actually did know that she had 2 kids cuz I saw their picture on her website. I don’t fault Deb for being loaded. Her parents did well, and her husband I’m sure works hard and is successful. I’m not sure how much she has worked herself beyond the 5 years in retail after college (S&S corporate, I presume?), because her bio doesn’t say anything about what she did from 1985 after she got her MBA to 1998 when she was elected a Selectman, but if she was home with the kids and volunteering in the community and running civic organizations, even better.
<
p>
People who make the choice to stay home and raise a family should be lauded, regardless of whether or not they’re loaded. Civic engagement amongst those who can afford to be engaged is essential, especially for Democrats. We need more wealthy democrats to run for office, because they can blow away the other side with $, but still get the right policies in place.
<
p>
All I’m saying is that most suburban female voters are NOT loaded, but they vote, and I want to make sure that if we have a woman on our ticket, that she is the one who can most connect with those voters. I think of Deb and Silbert, Silbert has that edge because she can’t be painted with any image that compares her to Healey. She can go after Healey as a working mom, where as Deb can go after Healey as a fellow member of the ultra-rich. It’d be fun to watch, but it doesn’t help us as much as I’d like. Maybe it would be enough to win, and I do think Goldberg’s city and town experience is huge there, but she can’t attempt to paint Healey as out of touch when she lives in a tony neighborhood too. Silbert’s ability to raise the coin has impressed me, frankly. We’ll see how it lasts, but it can’t be discounted.
<
p>
That all being said, I am still not convinced that Murray isn’t a bad option, especially for Patrick. He’d bring political backing and a good political experience. I think, though, that Silbert and Goldberg are the options we really need to go after Healey with some credibility.
What the heck brought that on, Jean-o?
<
p>
If there’s anything Andrea hasn’t done, it’s embellish her record. She doesn’t need to, quite frankly. You want embellishment, try getting someone to believe that Deb Goldberg ever swept a floor in her life, something she keeps hollering at the audience every time I’ve seen her. Go to the Center for Women and Enterprise’s website and just read. Also, Andrea’s family didn’t found it – she did, all by herself.
<
p>
You can see Senator Kerry’s take on Andrea’s accomplishments at CWE here here: http://sbc.senate.gov/democrat/record.cfm?id=222376
<
p>
Perhaps you’ll call him and tell him he is embellishing too?
See, this is exactly the kind of democratic in-fighting that is THE reason why Republicans are wiping the Thanks though, hoss, for making an intelligent and well thought out response to the fundraising and LG field issue. Looking at the figures, I made a clerical error, but even with that error all three front-running candidates are about even on dough-raising…again, it will be a good race. Yes, this is a phenomenal LG field with experience, money, support, and (gasp) all the candidates are genuinely good people. Quite frankly, part of the reason I’m on this blog is to get more information from people who are educated on Massachusetts politics (so I can also make wise decision when election day rolls around). So, if you feel angry at something someone has said, here’s a guide to writing a comment in response:
<
p>
1. Take a deep breath
2. Count to ten
3. Write your response
4. Read your response
5. Count to ten
6. Hit the post button
<
p>
“…the reason Republicans are wiping the floor with democratic candidates all across America.” I should have read my own guide.
It seems that Democrats almost set themselves up to fail. I know that from time to time I am disillusioned with the Democratic Party. I mean, how much sense does it make that 3 of the most liberal states, NY, CA and MA all have Republican Governors.
<
p>
I agree that all the infighting at the primary level definitely has something to do with the problem. We need to majorly revamp our party structure and strategize. There are loads of Republican Think Tanks, and one well known Democratic/Progressive one, The Center for American Progress (check out there website, it rocks).
<
p>
I strongly hope that when this primary is over and a LG and Gubernatorial candidate are chosen that we all rally around the Democratic nominee. Because I think we all agree that all the candidates are good/intelligent people, even though some of us think that one has more qualifications, vision or drive than the other.
<
p>
Lets just end the Republican regime in MA ok . . .
Iâm responding to earlier posts on this diary that contend it is somehow good to be spending money early in a campaign. Except in the instance of spending early to scare someone from not running, I canât think of a good reason why it would be done.
<
p>
In the way of disclosure, I am pro-Silbert. But when I did the end of year research, my intent was to be Joe Friday and just report the facts. Iâve been involved in a few campaigns and certainly observed many from a far. And Iâve seen lots of campaign waste tons of money on worthless things because they can (and some who canât really afford to, which I fear the Patrick campaign is doingâ¦but that would be for another post).
<
p>
They spend on needless and expensive consultants, ramp up with lots of staff to early and buy all the latest toys and gadgets. Well run campaigns, even oneâs with lots of money, are cheap, cheap, cheap when it comes to everything. Sure you spend money for quality and spend money all the time. But 80% of the money should be spent when the voters are beginning to pay attentionâthe last 3 weeks and mostly the last week of a campaign.
<
p>
Based on this first post on this diary that said âGoldberg is investing her money in her campaign earlyâ it is time to comment on what I see as Goldbergâs wasteful spending. First, Iâll admit that she could have spent/wasted twice as much money and sheâll still have plenty of personal wealth to spend five times as more than Murray and Silbert combined. So Iâve not whining that sheâs wasting money. Iâm disputing that she has been effectively investing it so far.
<
p>
Among the expenses that jump out is: $5,500 for parking spaces. I assume that is for staff members to park in a garage near her downtown headquarters. And the Goldberg campaign pays $2700 a month in rent, for a total of $16,200 for the 6 months theyâve been there. (I could not access Silbertâs end of year report for whatever reason, but the November report indicates they pay $1,000 in rent per month.)
<
p>
Every campaign needs a voter database, computers and a network for everyone to access. But a full 18 months out and to the tune of $50,000? I donât think so. I mean why start paying a monthly voter file fee starting in March of â05, when most Dem voters were still in a funk from Bush winning a few months earlier? (In â05 they spent $29,000 for the voter file systemâand SAGE is a good system indeed.) Also, with computer prices so cheap and smart volunteer labor so available, campaigns should be able to beg and borrow to get a decent IT infrastructure for short money. But Goldbergâs campaign dropped $21,000 on computers and networking installation.
<
p>
Also, why in the world does a campaign spend $5,500 a full year before the election (September 2005) on auto calls? Iâm befuddled on that one.
<
p>
And, while deciphering the reports to figure out staff (people come and go) is difficult and I maybe mistaken, it appears the Goldberg campaign has about 6 and ½ staffers, with 2 full time staffers since early 2005. One would assume they focus on fundraising at this stage of the game, but yet Goldberg spent another $37,000 on a fundraising consultant. In addition to paying consulting fees too two other firms totaling about $6,500.
<
p>
Now, Iâm sure her staff is good. The few events Iâve been to theyâve had their sh*t together and the campaign stuff looks good. (You certainly can not say that about Silbertâs one-sheeters)
<
p>
But in no way would I argue that all their early money has translated into any great progress. They are buying new top line things when you could get them for ½ the price on EBay. They are spending monthly fees early on things they really donât need until later. And they are spending money on things that other campaigns wonât be spending money on (downtown offices / parking).
<
p>
Like I said, spending all this money for Goldberg is fine. She has plenty more to spend for campaign luxuries. But please do not argue that the fact that she is spending so much money is any kind of indicator of how well her campaign is going. If anything, the argument can be made that sheâs making poor decisions and it does not bode well.
<
p>
PS) Field Guy…I love your strong support for Silbert. But please don’t use this research to throw back at the Goldberg campaign…it won’t be helpful. I hope you only speak in positive tones about Andrea…until someone speaks badly about about her. Then, respond with full force.
As a computer programmer for my day job I’m amazed at what these SAGE guys get away with. Thousands a month for glorified web hosting and a voter database? Sign me up.
Or so I’ve been told by friends, its probably one of the best voter databases they have out there. The sucky (yet kinda smart thing) is the company that created SAGE will only allow one candidate in each race permission to use the database.
<
p>
Guess all the other candidates are missing out …
The post was lame because it didn’t include links, or really any supporting information at all. Remember our rules? It wasn’t so outrageous that it deserved to be deleted, but frankly it doesn’t sound like much more than the splenetic venting of a frustrated Goldberg supporter. If you want to convince people, provide supporting data for your posts. If you just want to scream into the silence of cyberspace, there are lots of other sites that welcome that approach.
…that Deb has 2 kids and four dogs…those are some facts? (What are the snark rules around here?)
Like FieldGuy, I’m also sick of GOP governors and I’m ready for a change. Like him, I support Deval because I find him both more progressive than Reilly and more exciting as a personality. Just as I believe that electoral office shouldn’t be a prerequisite for seeking higher office, though, it also seems that previously having held electoral office should not be held against a person.
<
p>
The Goldberg/Silbert/Murray arguments have been repeated and will be repeated again, but the reason that I continually feel frustrated is not that people support a candidate other than the one I like (hey, I know we’d all love it if everyone suddenly agreed on who the best candidate was, but that’s not gonna happen). Rather, what frustrates me is that every time FieldGuy posts about Deb it has to be malicious, not just critical. In this thread, we’ve seen snarky references to “the heiress” and “does anyone really believe Deb Goldberg has ever swept a floor in her life?” (I do, by the way).
<
p>
In (sort of) answer to David’s earlier question to FieldGuy, I should acknowledge that I interned for Deb this summer and have volunteered occasionally for her campaign since then when I’m around. Having met Deb in person multiple times, I can state that she is a caring, committed person who is absolutely invested in the state’s future — not at all the caricature that FieldGuy continually presents.
<
p>
I do not support Andrea Silbert’s bid for LG, but I think that she has done good work with her organization. FieldGuy likewise ought to be able to acknowledge that Deb has valuable contributions to make, even if he doesn’t support her. As another poster pointed out above, spewing out venom about the other candidates only helps Healey in the fall.
Patrick makes an excellent point. I assure you that Healey’s folks are monitoring the dem blogs in Massachusetts. The in-fighting, and scathing comments about candidates from our own party only fuel the Reps more than they already are. It only reinforces the perception that Dems are really divided as they seem. How do we win back seats in Congress and governorships? We stand together and have a defined goal and values. We acknowledge that every candidate in the field is qualified, despite the fact that we can support only one. Again, having met the candidates, and knowing people who are close to them…they’re all good, driven, ethical people. How lucky we are to have such a field.
…we should support Bush’s War because “in-fighting” will embolden our enemies.
<
p>
My point is that there is a balance to be struck. Besides, Healy lives ina glass house, just ask Christy Mihos.
Between infighting over issues and infighting that involves bashing our own candidates. The former is fine and healthy; the latter can be trouble.
Does it strike anyone as odd that we have this particular field running for LG? LG has become a very major stepping-stone opportunity in Mass politics. Kerry is Exhibit A, of course, but Cellucci, Swift (no that didn’t work out too well, but could have), and now Healey, nominee-apparent on the GOP side, show that this is an office worth having. Why, for example, haven’t any legislators thrown their hats into the ring? Except for the people who live around Worcester, who know Murray, and a sliver of activists, who know Silbert and Goldberg, nobody knows who these people are.
<
p>
This wasn’t true in the not so distant past: Tommy O’Neil, John Kerry, Evelyn Murphy were all pretty well known when they ran, as were Lois Pines, Paul Cellucci, Andrew Natsios.
Why has an office that has a high likelihood of leading to bigger and better things attracted a field of less well-known and less politically established people?
And interesting as well because in a State House News poll today, Murray was leading the pack with a whopping 10.5%. Now, Gabrieli was in this poll, but I think it’s fair to say that were he not in there, the numbers would not have been that much different. (Note: I think this poll means absolutely nothing. 183 people took the poll, and its margin of error is huge. Nonetheless, it shows nada.)
<
p>
But this race is beginning to look a lot like the Treasurer’s race of ’02: 4 relatively unknown candidates, a couple with some semblance of a base, and a chance that the most qualified may not win – and I won’t say who I think is most qualified vs. who might win!
<
p>
I will say that while Tim Cahill was a great candidate who had been a Treasurer, Segel seemed to me at the time to be more ready for the job. Tim, however, has proven to be a fairly astute guy who has only had the usual stumbles that any elected official inevitably has. Otherwise, I think he’s got the job for life if he wants. He’ll probably stay another 4 years, and if Healey wins, he’ll be the guy put up to run against her in ’10. If a Dem wins, Tim can either stay in office as Treasurer or leave for the financial world, make a mint, and set up his family for generations – not a bad idea either.
Healy and Swift being the best examples, both hand selected by above. And if Tommy’s last name weren’t O’Neil there little chance he would have won.
<
p>
But I agree with you basic point that this job (or at least getting the nominee nod) has done Dukakis and Kerry well and I can’t understand why more “established” people don’t go for it. I gues they don’t want to give up a safe seat for a job with no power. No one wants to role the dice and play long shot odds to potentially capapult to the front of the line. makes no sense to me either. But at the end of the day we’ve got three good qualified people to run.
why established people don’t want to run for LG is because they have relatively little control over the general election. It’s an awfully big risk for an elected official to take – why give up your seat when your fate is tied to someone else getting elected?
Maybe I’m the only one old enough to remember, but Tom O’Neill was a rep in Cambridge and was facing a primary challenge with Charlie Flaherty when the legislature was reduced in numbers and opted to run for Lt. Gov, his father being in the leadership and with healthy name rec. He won, and was re-nominated for the number two spot four years later only to find himself with a new number one, who promptly ignored him, starting what later became known as the Evelyn Murphy syndrome.
That’s a cheap shot at Murphy. Don’t blame the messenger. She challenged Dukakis’ needless tax hikes. Those tax hikes are one of the reasons that we’ve lost the governor’s office for 16 years.