Voters who seek professionalism, creativity, empathy, and effectiveness in the Lieutenant Governor’s office should vote for Andrea Silbert tomorrow.
There are three primary reasons why Silbert has my vote. First, professionalism. She co-founded and served as CEO of the Center for Women & Enterprise, the largest non-profit entrepreneurial training center in New England, and helped create over 14,000 jobs in Massachusetts and Rhode Island and over $400 million in new wages. The Center has provided training and access to capital to over 10,000 individuals from more than 200 cities and towns. Her Harvard MBA, not to mention her undergraduate degree and degree in public policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, have been put to good use. This is the kind of creative professional with proven effectiveness in jobs creation and public-private partnerships we need in state government.
Second, electability. All of our gubernatorial candidates live in the Boston area, and all are men. Silbert, a working mother with three children who lives on the Cape and speaks Spanish and Portuguese, will bring useful gender, geographic and linguistic balance to the ticket, a one-two-three punch none of her rivals can match. More to the point, she has proven herself an effective, disciplined campaigner. She has raised more money from a larger group of supporters than any other candidate for the office, and spent little of it while running a very effective campaign. Goldberg, a local politician, has raised a larger absolute amount, but the fact that she contributed about 90% of her total receipts herself indicates a weak base of support. Murray, a more prominent politician, is still far behind Silbert in the fund-raising race despite months of effort trying to catch up. He has just two-thirds of Silbert’s cash on hand. This is another indicator of Silbert’s ability to generate enthusiasm as an innovator and an outsider, and her management effectiveness.
Third, trust. If her unbroken record of successful achievements isn’t convincing enough, perhaps a personal statement will assist. I have known Silbert, as I stated early on here, for more than 20 years since we went to college together. She is the same cheerful, energetic, talented person now that I knew then — except that she has spent years working with street children, started a non-profit that has transformed the lives of thousands of our most disadvantaged fellow citizens, married and created a family. That consistency, to me, speaks volumes. Politics all too often brings out the worst among us — people who seek to misuse the opportunities of public position for personal gain or to feed private ambitions — in the case of Andrea Silbert, it has brought out the best.
Good post, well said. Just one question – why does it seem that almost half the people I know (even those like you, Bob, whom I only know through cyberspace) went to school with Andrea Silbert?
What else needs to be said? đŸ˜‰
What attracts me to candidates is not only their policies on so many issues I care about, but their leadership–how a leader is a truly DYNAMIC, ENGAGING, CHARISMATIC leader.
<
p>
But how come at least in the interactions I have had with every single on of the LG candidates, sans Deb Goldberg, the candidates are solid policies stances but lack that charismatic quality that makes me think, “WOW! This person could lead a group of people and put to use their Democratic ideals! They inspire me!” Especially Andrea, who I know is smart and can discuss the issues, but lacks that charismatic quality I so hunger for in a leader. Is she and just not shown it?
What, exactly, do we want in a “leader”? It’s not too much of a stretch to say that both Al Gore and John Kerry lost (yes, I know, Gore didn’t lose, but he would have won by more otherwise) because they didn’t really inspire. So the tangibles of policies and ten-point plans are important. But so are the intangibles of leadership and, yes, charisma. I think their convention speeches will be quite important, because I suspect wonkette03 and I aren’t the only ones looking for these qualities.
<
p>
Just a clarification: wonkette03, do you mean that you haven’t yet met Goldberg, or that you found her to be more charismatic than the others?
Regarding Deb Goldberg, I think she is more charismatic than the other candidates.
I haven’t seen any of them in person, but that exact quaity is what I saw hints of a few months ago that got me to start leaning towards Andrea. None of them as much as Deval, which I think without a doubt is his biggest strength.
<
p>
PS: nice post Bob
Its pretty clear that BMG is pro Andrea Silbert but I still must state that Tim Murray has the most endorsements of other politicians, the most Congressional delegation support, the only candidate with previous executive experience, the only candidate who has to deal with local aid issues, a big plank in Devals platform I might add is increasing local aid by not cutting taxes, Murray is outside the Beacon Hill establishment of Traviglini and DiMasi, and he comes from a part of the state the Dems MUST win in order to win the Governorship. Also again a white Irish pol would really balance out the ticket with a liberal African American so that bread and butter union label Democrats in key places still vote our way. Murray also has a great record tackling high crime in Worchester and Healy with Hillman is clearly making crime a big issue and the local news coverage of another bloody summer in Boston will also put crime at the forefront of voters minds come November. Murray is the only LG candidate that has experience in fighting crime and bringing it down and that should also not be overlooked.
<
p>
So I am just advising the folks at BMG to stop the coronation of Andrea and give Tim another look.
Bob is, and always has been, pro-Silbert. Charley and I remain uncommitted in the LG’s race. And we’ve got lots of pro-Silbert, pro-Murray, and pro-Goldberg contributors.
I met Andrea Silbert on the floor of the DSC this year. She was intellegent, thoughtful, and had a great plan for the future of this state. Her ideas are based around the premise that it all starts with employment, and I agree. She will be able to create jobs and ultimately more tax revenue that can be converted into effective social programs. I’m not necessarily against Murray or Goldberg, and think they are fully capable, but I’m voting for Silbert.
She’s the only one in the Lt. Gov race who doesn’t hem and haw about Cape Wind – she supports it, period! All the more impressive since she lives on the Cape, where opinion is about evenly divided (unlike the rest of the state where support runs much stronger).
<
p>
She also was fantastic at the convention and has a vitality about her – she’d be a great pair with Deval.
I first heard Andrea speak at the Convention this summer. Andrea is the only candidate in this race with a proven track record of job creation. And bringing new jobs to Massachusetts – growing the pie – is the only way we’re going to be able to keep people here, keep tax rates low, and fund new initiatives like expanding commuter rail.
<
p>
Furthermore, Andrea is smart and has a boundless enthusiasm for the job. She’s a regular mom from Cape Cod, so she can relate to people when they talk about their everyday concerns. Unlike most candidates, Andrea’s children actually attend public schools, so she has a vested interest in giving our kids the best possible education.
<
p>
Like many others, I too think Tim Murray would make a good Lt. Governor and truly do not want to see Goldberg win. But this race is tied and Silbert is the best possible running mate from an electability standpoint, so I can happily vote with my heart and my head.
<
p>
Vote Andrea Silbert tomorrow.