Deborah Goldberg came across as knowledgeable and confident. Her opening remarks where a little long and didnât seem focused enough.
Sam Kelley, as my wife observed, spoke from the heart and came across as genuine. He was the victim of some microphone problems which may have contributed to him not coming across in a smooth and confident manner.
Tim Murray appeared to have the most depth. He was able to articulate city and state issues very well â sometimes a little too detailed though. He too was also the victim of microphone issues and didnât communicate as smoothly as he could have.
I thought Andrea Silbert came across very well. She stayed on her jobs message and answered the questions succinctly and with conviction. While her no-nonsense style was refreshing, I worry that without a softer touch she may not come across as likable enough.
If I had to vote today it would be for Silbert. Of all the candidates she seemed to have a vision and a plan for the Lt Governorâs position. My wife liked Sam Kelley. His âfrom the heartâ style and genuine approach won her over.
It’s interesting – at a Berkshire Brigades event in Pittsfield on January 12, Sam Kelley had microphone issues as well.
<
p>
Either Dr. Kelley has to reverse his polarity or someone with a degree in electrical engineering has it out for the guy.
<
p>
WF
Ended up missing the event but it sounds like it went as I would have expected: all 4 candidates are solid, with Silbert and Murray appearing to be the top 2 and with personal preference being the determining factor between them, not any competence or qualification issues.
<
p>
Here’s a link to the Crimson story. As the reporter says in this article: “group of Beacon Hill hopefuls expressed agreement on every issue that was raised…leaving the race to differences of character and style.”
<
p>
Interesting take from one student: “‘Iâd be very surprised if Andrea Silbert did not run for higher office whatever happens in September,’ said Brigit M. Helgen â08, the College Democrats campaign director and organizer of the debate.” Perhaps a glimmer of evidence that Silbert is, or at least wants to be, a future leader of our state? I know I said none of them are dynamos on the stump (and the blog entries seem to bear that out), but if people are looking for a leader, it seems Silbert has risen to the level that Murray automatically sits at due to his elected office status.
<
p>
I’m also still intrigued by Kelley’s continuing ability to make people feel that he is the most sincere. What impact will that have on delegates? I think it means he’ll get his 15%. What impact will that have on voters? I think it means he’s the Dennis Kucinich of this race: great message, hardcore followers, no money.
I think that’s exactly right. The thing to remember is that Kucinich was never close to winning, but he nonetheless affected the race significantly. Kelley could well do the same.
All four were their but in the end most came in the same as the way they came in. This was the first time I heard all the candidates in the same room so I will try to tell you how it went. Deb Goldberg seemed like she finally surrendured the cities and town issues to Tim Murray who has hammered that away. She seems to now be moving towards healthcare as her issue. Sam kelley did well making alot of jokes while having issues with the microphone. He seemed like he was great but you got the impression that Healey would eat him up. Tim Murray was very articulate and seemed the most sensible candidate to win the race. It is almost similiar to the presidents election where not everyone thought John Kerry was the best choice he looked and acted like a president. Silbert must have said the word jobs 100 times, abit too pushy at times. It makes me wonder if Silbert is completely one dimensional. If i had to vote today I would vote for Tim Murray because he has a much more dimensional outlook because to be lieutenant governor you have to deal with issues other than jobs and healthcare.
Great overall program run by the College Dems, they should be proud of their contribution to Mass politics. I was sort of dissapointed that candidates were not grilled a little more, I thought maybe they could be challenged more on certain issues (ie describing what they were going to do instead of using vague words like “jobs” and “healthcare”).
<
p>
I think the most important thing that I took from the event is that Tim Murray and Andrea Silbert headlined that forum. Andrea might have focused too much on her vast entreprenuerial vision for Massachusetts and even our great nation as she mentioned, therefore leaving potential supporters slightly confused as to her actual entreprenuerial goals. Tim Murray’s issue base (cities and towns), leaves supporters and potential voters feeling as though if we start at the base level of the problem, the process of economic growth will probably be less rocky.
<
p>
Yes, we need improved healthcare, jobs, and population retention, and the only way to do that is to go back to core values and re-asses them at the base level that is cities and towns. If we can find out what is wrong with our cities and towns (something Mayor Murray is very experienced in) we can then start to improve healthcare, create jobs, and hold onto valuable Mass residents. I think Tim Murray hit the nail on the head last night, and throughout his entire campaign thusfar, by focusing on Mass cities and towns.
<
p>
Great forum overall, Deb and Sam seemed slightly off their game, answering questions generically. Seeing the more personable side of Kelley was nice. Silbert was energetic and upbeat. Murray seemed to take the cake with his depth and experience.