In a previous post, Andy was asking where Andrea’s press coverage was. From today’s Scot Lehigh column:
The other candidate who really stood out was Andrea Silbert, one of three Democrats running for lieutenant governor.
She, like Patrick, made potent use of her background in both her introductory video and her speech, tying her experience as an entrepreneurial expert to what she hopes to do as lieutenant governor.
Sounding a bit like the late Paul Tsongas, she stressed that jobs were central to everything else that Democrats want to do.
“I know how to roll up my sleeves and create jobs, one at a time, from the ground up,” she told delegates, a boast that her record as founder of the Center for Women & Enterprise, a well-regarded nonprofit training center for businesswomen, bolsters. “Right now, we are down 160,000 jobs. Those lost jobs mean we have nearly $500 million less every year in tax revenues.”
Yes, the convention endorsement eventually went to Worcester Mayor Tim Murray. For an elected official with an established geographical base, and the convention in his home city, that was to be expected.
Still, Silbert made people sit up and take notice. And on a day when her rivals seemed bland — and in a hall where even some long time officeholders quickly lost a crowd preoccupied with the main event of the gubernatorial contest — hers was no small accomplishment.
Charley I can’t believe you front paging this public shaming of me! đŸ™‚ Nice call Jumpster, it certainly is a nice plug for Andrea. I get so enthusiastic sometimes for Murray that I think people think I am against Silbert. If she wins primary I don’t think the Party suffers too much of a loss (clearly I think Murray is better). I am also happy that now she will have an article to replace her March 26 article on her site.
<
p>
But take note, Silbert didn’t play that well on tv and this is important. Most people aren’t going to pay too much attention to the LG race which means that the few televised debates may be the most persuasive introductions voters will have to the LG candidate and without quesiton I would rather have Murray’s skill and poise as well as his sound answers and progressive positions than Silbert’s shaky performance.
Andy, you recently posted “don’t go spreading your negativity around.”
<
p>
But you just managed to slip in these beauties:
<
p>
“If she wins primary I don’t think the Party suffers too much of a loss.”
“Silbert didn’t play that well on tv”
“Silbert’s shaky performance”
<
p>
C’mon.
There is a difference between negativity and highlighting a candidate’s weaknesses. I said the Party doesn’t suffer too much of a loss to highlight the fact that I think Murray is the better candidate. If I said the Party was not affected at all then why would I be supporting one candidate over the other? As solid is Silbert is I think Murray is better.
<
p>
As for the last two comments I again say that those are valid criticisms. Her speech, as a viewer from the press room watching it on tv, was not impressive to put it as diplomatically as possible. It was shaky, I don’t see why that is so offensive. If it makes you feel better I have said that Murray’s video was pretty hokey and could have done a better job at conveying his message.
Just a little friendly poke, Andy. I feel, as a Silbert supporter, you’ve been very fair to Andrea.
<
p>
This offers a nice segue to something I noticed at the convention this past weekend. While certainly competitive, Silbert and Murray supporters both appreciate the fact that both candidates can legitimately speak to middle-class issues, vulnerable populations and doing what’s best to improve quality of life issues for those not loaded.
<
p>
It also seems their supporters agree that we cannot have Deb “Paris” Goldberg a heartbeat away from the Governor’s office. She so doesn’t get it, as proven by her convention presentation, it’s scary. Now, by opting out of public financing, she’s demonstrated that if actual support can’t help her, maybe her parents’ millions can. I think Silbert and Murray supporters should rally to make it a true two-person race between Tim and Andrea and ask Paris to bow out. At least we’d be guaranteed to get a candidate for LG in the general who truly understands the issues and is running to do something real about them.
I didn’t see the video, and I gather it wasn’t well received. But everything else I’ve seen of Goldberg, including in particular her very strong performance at the BlogLeft debate in Lowell, has shown her to be a serious and thoughtful candidate. My advice: let’s all stop thinking about who should and shouldn’t drop out. The Gov and LtGov races are both three-way races, and are going to remain that way until September 19.
What doesn’t Goldberg get? She did great in the debates, she has a good command of the issues, she’s been successful at managing plenty of things throughout her life…
<
p>
Are you seriously hating on her just because she happened to be born to the right family? Would you like her better if, instead of spending her time seeking a career in public service, she just sat in some mansion somewhere and donated to republicans like a rich person should according to your worldview?
<
p>
I don’t get the people who support Silbert because she’s more ‘progressive’. For one thing, for a bunch of Deval supporters they’re certainly not internalizing Deval’s message about labels. For another, Silbert hasn’t done a thing to prove she’s more or less ‘progressive’ besides make some friends in cambridge.
<
p>
I support Goldberg but I think all 3 are good candidates and you’re making some dishonest arguments here.
I could care less about labels or how much money your family has. It’s ideas that I’m most interested in. And I have heard very few new ideas from Goldberg.
<
p>
I listened to her stump speech at a Lt. Governor’s forum, and I have to say that I was not impressed. It sounded like the same old political stuff – let’s hit all the Democratic issue highlights and not say much original about what we’re going to do.
<
p>
Case in point: Silbert spoke about all of the individuals who she had helped create jobs for. You get the feeling that she’s the one person (Gov or Lt. Gov) who could really produce job growth for our state. Goldberg went up next and spoke about how she would create a task force to determine how to create jobs. As my State Rep said at the convention (paraphrasing): “We have a million task forces and they don’t do anything.”
<
p>
For me, Goldberg is going to have to convince me that she has some new ideas or is otherwise clearly best suited to implement some old ones. So far, I have been convinced of neither.
<
p>
Decide for yourself: http://www.deborahgoldberg.com/issues.html
I checked out Silbert’s issues page and basically thought it was more than Goldberg’s but they were still not going much further than a rhetorical sweet nothing.
<
p>
I have a different view of the MA economy than Silbert does. I think we need to fix the disconnect between the state gov’t and municipalities before we can address jobs. With property taxes going the way they’re going and declining local services, we’re gonna lose people and jobs no matter how much grant money we throw at neat entrepreneurial ideas. (btw, the SBA, DOE, DARPA, etc already throw plenty of money to techie startups).
<
p>
If it costs way less money to live in North Carolina or another up-and-coming technology area than here, companies can start up there and pay their employees less than here. We need to fix cities and towns and then turn to job creation. Sure, I’m in favor of most of the things Silbert lists (without listing how to pay for them althouhg they’re fairly small change), but we need to make cities and towns whole again first and foremost. That’s why I’m supporting Goldberg over Silbert, and I like her better than Murray because I think she’ll do what’s better for most of the state instead of just urban centers west of 495.
<
p>
I also think Goldberg beats Silbert by quite a bit on TV-ability, which will count.
First, I agree that all of the Lt. Governors’ web sites are thin on details. That’s actually one of the reason I was drawn to Patrick’s campaign initially – he was way out in front of everyone else by detailing his stances on the issues that matter. That’s leadership in my book.
<
p>
Polls show that affordable housing is probably the most important issue we have to face in order to keep people here. It’s a major reason why I support Silbert.
<
p>
First, based on my experience, it’s housing prices that are the main issue, not property taxes, especially for the young first-time buyers that we want to keep from leaving. When a mortgage costs you $3K/mo, so what’s another $400/mo for taxes? So the cities and towns argument of Murray (and Goldberg to a lesser extent) doesn’t sell me. Frankly, localities aren’t always the best at choosing what is best for the state as a whole (e.g. weak adoption of 40R/S/B/…, Cape Wind). I agree with Silbert that a redistribution of a dwindling tax base isn’t going to solve anything.
<
p>
Furthermore, both Silbert and Murray have advocated extending the commuter rail to communities with lower housing prices. I have not heard Goldberg speak about this.
<
p>
As for TV-ability, I think Silbert’s “regular mom” approach is a better sell than being just another rich politician. Not to mention Goldberg’s convention video, if that’s any indication…
Bashing Deb Goldberg because of her status. If you’ve watched any debates, or gone to any LG forum, she clearly shows her poise, grasp of the issues, and detailed solutions to problems. Not only that, but she is far more polished at politics than Andrea is.
<
p>
I’m going to now say something that will undoubtedly anger Andrea supporters, but is a harsh reality. To the AVERAGE voter (read: not someone writing on this blog) Andrea comes across as elitist and snobby. She comes across angry, and fed up with problems facing the state. While WE all understand this because we’re focused on issues, and we’re fed up too, the average voter will immediately see her as someone talking down to them, and someone far too negative to elect to office. They just won’t like her personality…and THAT is a big factor around which mainstream Mass. votes on.
<
p>
Andrea NEEDS desperately someone to tell her the reality of the situation, either become more likeable to the average voter, or pack your bags. While her background may connect her to normal people more than Deb’s, their attitudes are polar opposites. Deb goes out shaking hands, patting backs, hugging and kissing people. Andrea keeps her distance and makes me feel like I’m not good enough to be in the same room with her. That’s how I feel being around her. For her to win, and woo over mainstream democratic Massachusetts and not just Cambridge, she’s going to need to find a way to not come across that way.
<
p>
Right now, between the two female candidates, Deb is simply more likeable and more charismatic in her presentation and her personality.
It was out in full force at the Convention when she was working the floor hard both days – which is really what turned people for her. She met and talked with hundreds of people and when there was all that downtime while the damn party was taking so long to count ballots; she went back out there to just walk and talk with people. Deb was out there too, standing in a prime spot for most of the afternoon – right at the delegate entrance. Tim was out there too. They are all personable people and they all connect with voters in their own way.
<
p>
As for your description of her attitude, that pretty much sums up how people I work with who are not political feel: fed up, angry, feel like government doesn’t care about them. Andrea wants to be there for them.
<
p>
This ain’t a time in Massachusetts to be “patting backs, hugging and kissing people”; we need to be rolling up our sleeves and getting to work fixing the mess the last 16 years have left us with.
and let’s pray he does. The other two will actually cost the Dems votes. Murray is benign. That is what we need.
that we choose our candidates so that they’re elected for the sake of being elected, rather than for what they can actually do for our state? I know that’s how Massachusetts politics works, but it just gets depressing to see it happen all the time.
<
p>
After all, we all know that Murray, Silbert, and Goldberg are very similar in their actual policy stances, so those aren’t really the decisive factors. The difference is in judging their actual competency in carrying out the work that the state needs to be done. If it’s more important to simply choose a “benign” candidate rather than someone that people would actually want to vote for, we’re already digging ourselves into a hole because it’s such a passive way to approach a political campaign. (And, even as a Silbert supporter/delegate, I think it does Murray a disservice to simply paint him as being benign and mostly harmless as a candidate. He’s better than that.)
to support a candidate that YOU think is the best candidate?
<
p>
I emphasize YOU.
<
p>
I however would like to see the democratic nominee for governor win in November.
<
p>
Others would rather sulk if their candidate doesn’t win, and disparage the winners. Regardless of party.
I honestly believe that all the governatorial and Lt. governatorial candidates have their strengths. I was a Deval and Silbert delegate, but my point was that if Tim Murray should be our candidate, it should be for a better reason than simply saying that he’s benign and I even said flat out that Tim Murray is better than simply being benign. If you think Reilly should be the candidate, it should be for a better reason than that he looks innocuous and “electable.”
<
p>
Simply put, I want candidates who bring something to the table and have actual skills and qualifications. If those of us who actually actively want to see a Democrat in the corner office can’t even bring up positive traits in our own candidates, nobody else is going to do it for us. Whether it be Deval’s charisma, Gabrieli’s intelligence, Reilly’s honesty, or whatever, I’d rather focus on our candidates’ strengths as a starting point rather than say that we should vote for the most harmless or most moderate or most likeable candidate.
<
p>
And maybe the final calculus leads to Gabrieli/Goldberg or some other ticket that I’m not endorsing now, but at least it’d be easier to ascertain if we judged our candidates based on what these people can do for us rather than simply judging their ability to get the Governor’s seat for the sake of owning the Governor’s seat.
It is very fun to say, don’t be afraid …
Goobers have nothing to do with politics, unless we’re talking about peanut farmer Jimmy Carter. đŸ˜‰
Lehigh is dead on with his column, and as an early supporter of Silbert’s, I felt her showing at the convention was remarkable. To come from no political base to a strong second in Worcester (and more than a few have mentioned that the final voice vote for the endorsement sounded mighty close)is an impressive achievement. I think it is a good, traditional Democratic place to be, when you are identified as the jobs candidate. I think it will appeal to a lot of middle class voters when a candidate can credibly state that her kids will be in public schools and she has “skin in the game”. I spoke to 2 Goldberg supporters I know that were extremely impressed with Silbert that day. It was not a day for television, it was a day when you are speaking to 5,000 delegates.
AAAARRRGGGGHHHH!!!! STOP THE INSANITY!!!
I’m actually serious. Why the angst over this phrase? Is there something wrong with it? Is it an improper use of the phrase?
<
p>
Best I could find via Google, the phrase was actually originated by Warren Buffett (!?!). More recently, Cindy Sheehan used the phrase to to explain why Bush, Cheney et. als. wouldn’t ever “get it” on the war because their kids were never going to go.
<
p>
For the most part, though, it seems that it’s generally used in the investing world as a way of describing why it’s important for managers to be invested in their own funds so that they are incentivized to work towards getting good returns.
<
p>
If there’s some other offensive use of the term that I’m missing here, please enlighten me. She is most certainly not referring to her kids as “skin” and the public school system as the “game.” Rather, she’s showing how personal and important her kids’ education is to her, and this is a powerful, verbal way of doing so. It’s better than “I have a personal stake in this” or “this is personal to me” because people like metaphors and this is an example of one.
<
p>
Otherwise, I think that all of you who have a problem with it may have just fallen prey to the oldest advertising trick in the book – that being: it doesn’t matter what you say, as long as they remember you.
<
p>
In other words, if people go into the voting booth and say “yuck, she’s the one who said that skin thing”, that’s probably as good as anyone can ask for in a downballot campaign where voters won’t remember anything else about you.
As you know đŸ˜‰
because Andy kept hitting me over the head with that phrase. You know, for the fun. g
<
p>
I think the beef has to do with Andrea saying it more a than a few times during her stump speech, or it may be the fact that’s she’s referring to her children when she says it, and that’s kinda icky.
<
p>
Disclosure: I am a Andrea Silbert supporter.
She is using her children as a political prop. Now before everyone freaks out on me I would like to say that Silbert’s case this is a good prop. I think she is smart to highlight the fact that she is really invested in the schools because she already has one young child in them with two more to follow soon. But my point is do you see how I said that? I never needed to refer to SKIN IN THE GAME when referring to CHILDREN. I like her direct connection to the schools, it makes her a lot more credible. But she is a smart lady, she can think of a better way of getting her point across.
I’ll refer back to my earlier point – namely this is an election which is about getting people to pay attention by putting words out there that cause voters to remember you.
<
p>
It’s clear that this has worked, and I promise you, this in no way will result in people not voting for her because they think she’s using certain words that make them feel yucky.
<
p>
Also, I fundamentally disagree with your charaterization of her referring to her kids when using this phrase. Rather, I believe she is referring to her own personal investment – she herself feels that she herself has a stake in the schools. The “skin” you all are so uncomfortable with is hers and not her child’s, her husband’s, or anyone else’s. It is hers.
<
p>
Were I advising her, I’d tell her to stick with it because, contrary to your characterization, she is smart to use powerful, effective words. After all, this is about winning. Weak platitudes, mealy verbiage and verbose phraseolgy aren’t necessary in politics when you want and need to get a message across. If you can get something stuck in someone’s mind that causes them to remember you, then you have succeeded and increased your chances of winning, particularly in a downballot race where no one will remember anything other than a crisply presented message.
Go back to the Lowell debate. She preceeded the line of talking about having skin in the game with how your 5 year old is in school now so that means she has skin in the game. There is a direct connection.
Let me add a second “ARRGFGHGHGHGHGHG” to the “skin in the game” phrase. It is revolting. She needs to stop. As Bill Simmons says, “I think I just threw up in my mouth.”
<
p>
I also surprised that the standard reaction from many pro-Silbert folks to any constructive criticism leveled at her is to say, “You shouldn’t think that! Think something nicer!” Needless to say, I think that’s not an effective long-term strategy: Try telling primary voters that.
“…and finally let me send a message to those parents out there who may be looking for some hope as they prepare to send their kids off to their local public school: I am with you. I am you and you are me. We share the exact same concern: that our kids will not get the same quality education we were lucky enough to get. All of us parents of public school kids, we have skin in this game, and we can’t afford to let up on our determination to make our public schools as good as they once were, as good as they ought to be. This is personal to me, to you, and to every one of us just hoping, just praying that our kids get the chances that we got back when the world was a kinder, more forgiving place for kids. And for those of you who think nothing can be done, I say this: just you wait until [______insert gov. cand. name here_____] and I take office in January. We are going to roll up our sleeves and get to work getting our economy going again so that we can have the resources to expand local aid and support our educators and public schools. So let’s get to work; there’s a heckuva lot to be done…”