Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Comments

    • Comment From Bean in the BurbsBean:  

      Capuano comes across as an arrogant jerk

      <

      p>If you watched the debate and formed an opinion, click reply and tell me if you agree with this sentiment.  

        • t.eloise:

          <

          p>

          The important thing, at the end of the day, is that we put a strong democrat in the senate to bear the torch of civil rights and liberties

          <

          p>Your own statements – unsubstantiated character attacks on the opponent running against your preferred candidate – put a lie to your words.  That you would respect yourself and others enough to be honest would be a big improvement.

          <

          p>

          “I kept thinking he was trying to sell me a used car”

          “They have too much grease on them if you know what I mean.” (0.00 / 8)  

          “he’s slick, slippery”

          “didn’t mean to offend anyone … you gotta watch out for those used car dealers”

          “so slick, he fooled you into thinking he wasn’t slick at all”

          “there’s a difference between those traits and being slick, especially to the point of deception (as in the case of a dishonest, used car-salesman).”

          “call it slick call it greasy, maybe its just plain “deceptive”“

          <

          p>I think we get it.

          <

          p>Also, handing out 3’s to people who disagree with you (and why shouldn’t they, you offer nothing beyond mud-slinging characterization) is another offense that demonstrates your lack of respect for other people who post at BMG.  

          • But what you are doing is no better.

            <

            p>Don’t try to speak for BMG – everyone here is capable of speaking for themselves and responding or rating a newcomer’s comments as each of us sees fit.  Last I checked, the ROTR did not appoint NeilSagan the arbiter of offenses here.  

            • about t.eloise’s comments in the context of how I and others have responded to them.  

              <

              p>Regarding giving people gratuitous 3’s when they disagree, I didn’t make it up, I learned it hear. It’s all opinion and it’s all mine.  You got a problem with that?

              <

              p>I’d like to ask you a question becuase you seem like a reasonable person. What do you make of t.eloise’s in the thread quoted above?  After all, that is the subject of my comment.  

              • Merit further discussion.  

                <

                p>I like this blog because it has succeeded in being a place where there is meaningful discussion.  There are many other blogs for those who just want to engage in empty verbal battles.

            • just another slur at working class men and women who work with their hands.

              <

              p>I don’t think you’d want to make that jab in a room with Rosie the Riveter.

              <

              p>Let it drop.  

              • I think you may be wrong about that. Rosie would almost certainly take exception to being lumped in with car salesmen.

                • and implying that they get grease on them doing it, you’re enabling her ‘grease’ remark. To state what should be obvious: Car salesmen do not work with their hands, nor get those hands greasy.

                  <

                  p>I worked with my hands for many years as a mechanic, machinist, and technician, and I cannot allow the characterization of car salesmen as working with their hands.

            • I have heard too many ethnic slurs like “greaseballs.”  You are not helping your candidate with these kind of slurs on BMG.

            • Not to mention the implied ethnic slur. Both Pags and Khazei are of Italian descent. They just don’t come from working-class Somerville. You manage to hit two birds with one stone.

                • i’m italian myself and come from a long line of middle-class blue collar workers and as most people in the working class can tell you, you gotta watch out for those used car dealers because they’re always trying to sell you a lemon…if you have never been able to afford a new car, i think you’d know what i’m talking about….

                • Most of the criticism has been that he was abrasive and harsh, pushy and in your face.  Now, I’m from New York and I view these traits as social skills, but I don’t see how you can look at Capuano’s performance and call it slick or slippery.

                • It is true that “greasy” etc. can be used as a slur against our beloved Italian-American community — Viva Italia! I say, as a committed Italo and Italian-American-ophile — but they can have other meanings as well, and I think we should accept t.eloise’s clarification. Thanks, t.eloise.

                • Bob, I know I am not alone on this blog when I say that sometimes your “reality-based commentary” seems otherworldly.  Seriously.  

                • Your comments about New York are hilarious and I agree with you that a senator ought to be aggressive. But as you point out, there’s a difference between those traits and being slick, especially to the point of deception (as in the case of a dishonest, used car-salesman).

                  <

                  p>For example, when asked when he decided to run Capuano said “a few weeks after the Senator passed.” Take quick trip to the FEC website and you can see Capuano on July 16, 2009 (before Senator Kennedy passed) spent $15,300 to conduct campaign research.

                  <

                  p>Now while Capuano’s statement might be technically correct- we could play a game of semantics and he could say he was thinking about running on July 16 but only decided absolutely a few weeks after- in spirit, to me at least, that statement isn’t completely forthright.

                • we can start trashing Martha Coakley. Slick and deceptive. You know, kind of like a used car saleswoman.  

                • to someone who is replying to your comment, you will get a gratuitous 3 for your own.  in other words, if you are engaged in a debate, let your words speak for you, not ratings.  

                • Hi Judy Meredith, hello “liveandletlive” and hello to you “HR’s Kevin.” It’s a pleasure to be posting with you (as much as you may not enjoy posting with me- but I assume you are all true democrats, and are not inclined to foster an environment of hostile censorship).

                  <

                  p>The important thing, at the end of the day, is that we put a strong democrat in the senate to bear the torch of civil rights and liberties which Senator Kennedy fought so hard to advance and preserve.

                • First we heard that Capuano spent almost 25K on superfluous trips abroad in the name of duty.

                  <

                  p>Then, during the debate, when asked when he decided to run, Capuano said, “a few weeks after the Senator passed.” On the FEC website and you can see Capuano on July 16, 2009 (before Senator Kennedy passed) spent $15,300 to conduct campaign research.

                  <

                  p>Doesn’t feel right to me.

                • who was fully prepared and anxiously awaiting for the opportunity to run for Senator Kennedy’s seat.

                  <

                  p>Senator Kennedy died on August 25th 2009 . His funeral was on Saturday August 29th.  Just 2 days later she picks up  nomination papers and in 4 days  AG Martha Coakley announces her candidacy for his seat.  She is applauded for her guts and determination for not waiting until Joe Kennedy or other candidates  throw their hat in the ring.  She is applauded for not caring who she will run against and having confidence no matter what.  The truth is, no one was announcing their candidacy so quickly out of respect for Senator Kennedy and his family. Except, of course, for Martha Coakley.  Who is so insensitive that she could not wait to jump in, trampling over any sense of respect for Senator Kennedy and his family.   It wasn’t guts, it was lack of empathy, and lack of sensitivity.  Two qualities that to me make her unqualified to be our next Senator.  

                • Coakley and Capuano both had plans to run before Sen. Kennedy passed. We should give both of them kudos for planning, as much as we hated Sen. Kennedy getting so ill, as much as we wanted him to continue championing the Commonwealth, we had to face the inevitable; we had to prepare for it. The difference is that Coakley was forthright about her planning, Capuano was not.  

                • unless she broker campaign laws which, having watched her answer questions about the FEC complaint, I don’t think she did.

                  <

                  p>Nor do I find Congressmen Capuano’s trips to Iraq and Afghanistan superfluous. The US will have spent 1.5 trillion in Iraq before it’s over and we’re sending men and women from Massachusetts to serve, fight and die there. It’s a credit to Mike to spend the time and make his own assessment; time when Congress is not in session, that he could have chosen to spend on vacation, with his family or fund raising. It’s not like he was golfing at St Andrews with Delay and Abramoff.  

                  <

                  p>(Although I did hear that Coakley’s foreign policy adviser traveled to Iraq, stayed with Martha’s sister and quipped, “the locals looked a little greasy, deceptive and deceitful.”)  ;-O

                • it’s part of a pattern that she follows with many of her decisions, from the death penalty, to DNA testing, to Fells Acres. I have concerns about this. It doesn’t feel right.

                • I think she fails to look at the whole picture, she can’t see things from an outside perspective.  She looks at the matter at hand without looking forward to unintended consequences, especially relating to people (pretty much every decision affects people in some way). She diminishes the value of people’s lives.

      • There’s a big difference between arrogance and confidence. I thought Capuano seemed confident in his answers, and deservedly so. He’s had years of legislative experience and is able to boast an impressive progressive track record. It’s a definite advantage in a race where none of the other candidates have close to his degree of experience. Why shouldn’t he be proud of his accomplishments?  

  2. Mike is the only one who actually understands the groundbreaking work that comes before the horsetrading even gets close. Even Alan agreed Mike was good at it.  

    <

    p>And poor Pags thinks that human beings decide on the facts…………….and Mike makes value based decisions informed by the facts.

    • I would caution you not to overreact.  If I was offended every time my gender was left out of a conversation about the first Gulf war, I wouldn’t have time to do anything else.  Indeed, it is more than likely that if Capuano was talking with soldiers in combat infantry units,  as he suggested, then he was talking with men, so he may be accurate in his statement.   I don’t think it’s productive to suggest Capuano mean any disrespect or fails to be grateful for the service of both men and women.  

        • You have the gall to criticize Capuano as sexist and then you turn around call me “my dear”?  Are you for real?

          <

          p>You can keep your brand of “parity” “my dear.”    

            • I offered a clarification from a veteran’s point of view because as one of the female veterans you CLAIM to be championing, I was trying to help you out.  And this is the best you can do?  Mock my attempt to clarify something in good faith?   I hope your candidate has more class.    

              • So calm down. This sort of bickering divides a united female front. I have complete respect for you and the service you’ve provided for this country and I am in awe of women who have the guts to wear a uniform- and as a voting citizen, whether or not it upsets you, I find it in poor taste not to mention the women who have fought so hard for even the opportunity to serve. I have a female friend who was 80th in her class at West Point and got told “no” when she said she wanted to be a Navy Seal. We’ll she’s working her ass off to change that and whoever my next senator is going to be, you better flipping believe I expect them to acknowledge the service she and YOU have provided.  

                • I think everyone reading got the point many comments ago. You aren’t doing Martha any favors by belaboring the point.

                • Then you don’t read the thread, and you don’t have to participate in it, Kevin. Coakley has the strongest record of advocacy for women and children, and I think that speaks for itself, regardless of what I have to say.  

                • Your ego just won’t let you acknowledge that you have gone too far. You tell yourself you are really fighting for Martha Coakley, when you are really just unwilling to admit to have gone overboard.

                  <

                  p>It is totally ridiculous to suggest that anyone that finds your repetitive comments tiresome is against “sexual equality”.
                   

                • when t.eloise framed Capuano in a sexist light. I don’t think the wedge issue of gender actually  works in Coakley’s favor. I give the electorate for more credit for paying attention to issues that matter.  Calling Capuano a sexist is simply an charged way of bringing up gender.  It’s pretty cynical in my opinion.  

                • just wanted a shout out to the ladies giving their lives over-seas, sorry it ruffled so many feathers, guess that says something in itself…

        • As I recall lightiris and I got into a back-and-forth not too long ago about how important it was to have gender neutral/gender inclusive language.  She came out strongly for the side you are taking while I defended the traditional use of the generic masculine.

    • I’d rather we focus on substance than semantics. Capuano was describing actual experience on the ground in Afghanistan–and word choice is what we chose to discuss? Mike showed courage and strength by taking a decisive stand against increasing troops in Afghanistan. As one of the few Congressman to stand with Ted Kennedy against the Iraq war, I trust his word and his record on this issue. Glad to see he plans to continue standing up for progressive policy.

      • It’s substantive that Coakley brought the issue back home to Massachusetts, having lost a dear friend in Iraq, I sincerely appreciate that she took a moment to  mention the young MA marine who lost his life in Afghanistan. It’s important to remember the personal aspect of the statistics.  

  5. Lost the feed in the middle of Coakley’s answer, but we’re probably getting the same amount of information about her stance either way. All Coakley is doing is dancing around the questions and suggesting what she may do depending on the circumstances. Can we get a solid answer please?

    <

    p>Mike’s making it clear that he’s the candidate with the actual legislative and policy experience to prepare him for this seat. Even the other candidates are deferring to his expertise.  

    • That pugnaciousness and uncongenial quality may explain why he hasn’t been that productive in the house.  

      • I’m not sure how you can make this claim. Here’s just a sampling of Mike’s achievements in Congress:

        <

        p>He chaired the bipartisan Special Task Force on Ethics Enforcement, and helped to create the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), increasing government transparency and accountability by giving Americans the power to review ethics issues.

        <

        p>He has championed progressive environmental policies, co-sponsoring the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and supporting legislation imposing a cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

        <

        p>He’s supported college students and their families by voting to simplify the financial aid application process and increasing the Federal Pell Grant to $5500.

        <

        p>He protected tenants’ rights by ensuring they are given 90 days notice before forced to vacate a foreclosed home.

        <

        p>Moreover, he has a proven record of standing up for progressive interests, despite what’s in vogue in Congress. Mike voted against the Iraq War, No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act, and FISA (Bush’s invasive wiretapping policies).

        <

        p>I don’t think there are any questions about whether or not Mike has the experience needed to serve as our Senator. He’s proven he is a strong leader with a solid record and a commitment to advancing progressive policies.

        • But in 10 years, I’d expect more legislation that he led on or authored – there isn’t much there.  Really only the OCE, and the version of that that passed came under some criticism for being too weak.  

          • Is lead sponsor/author the only metric of success?  What if, instead of re-writing something that’s already floating around, he refined it a bit and brought along not only his vote but some others?  What if he worked with the authors of a number of bills before they were written, shaping them early?  What if, what if, what if…

            <

            p>I don’t know the details of Capuano’s record on legislation.  I have no idea how dirty he gets his hands when it comes to writing bills.  It just seems silly to me to count the number of bills, divide by years served, and decide that’s a useful metric.

            • Unless you are of the persuasion (and I didn’t think you were) that the less Congress does, the better?

    • On Afghanistan, for example, She talked about the need to have a clearly articulated goal, and to provide our troops on the ground with resources to accomplish that goal.

      <

      p>Clear. Answer.  

      • Okay, t.eloise is a BMG newbie who has done nothing but post a Coakley party line.

        <

        p>I hope the campaign operatives would be a little more subtle.

        • t.eloise is clearly excited by Coakley — as thousands are — and came here to spread her opinion.  Pretty common, and not necessarily a campaign operative thing.  People were brought here by Deval, and stuck around. We have some shadows who only show up when John Kerry needs defending (beachmom).

          <

          p>I just hope she keeps posting at such a furious rate on December 9th and on…

          • thank you, sabutai, i can’t tell you how much I appreciate your response.

            <

            p>…if you’ll direct your attention to some of my previous posts, i’ve been berated plenty for my opinion, and my opinion alone.

            <

            p>but why the hell would i be up all night blogging if i weren’t absolutely passionate about a candidate? what’s so wrong with that? The democratic process is not privy to the elite, the democratic process is not just for a special club of people who have been blogging longer than others.

            <

            p>What’s wrong with being a woman and saying openly i support Martha Coakley? Because she is the most viable female candidate MA has ever had, and I support her not only because she would be the first female in all 221 years of the Commonwealth’s history of statehood, but i support her because i believe heart and soul she is the right PERSON for the job. I think her leadership is different than the other candidates and when people like you say things like that, it’s disappoiting- that wasn’t a party line, that was Coakley’s stance on Afghanistan. It was clear, and it was correct, what’s your problem with that?

            • It’s good to have passionate folks who believe in their candidates around here!

              <

              p>Personally, I thought beachmom, the poster Sabutai references, made a nice contribution to BMG, and I hope she keeps posting.  

            • I look forward to reading more.  You’ve clearly got energy and ideas — both very welcome.  May I recommend you just turn down the gusto a smidge?  It’s more than a little off-putting.  Get to know the lay of the BMG land a bit, get a feel for the tone around here.  Most threads aren’t nearly as combative as the ones in which you seem to be engaged.  Many folks around here are Democrat and/or liberal and/or progressive, but there’s still plenty of room for disagreement in tactics, policy, and priorities, so know that comments like thought this was a progressive forum, my bad are unhelpful.  Finally, giving a comment a negative rating and then engaging in debate in that thread is tacky (all those 3s you gave above).

              <

              p>I’m not the politeness police, and nobody appointed me, so take my words with a grain of salt.  I’d rather you refine your words a bit and become a respected BMG poster than flame out, so I hope you’ll consider the advice.

  6. seems to be way over his head except when he says Mike is right on this. Counted 5 times. Think if he followed Martha he would have said Martha’s right on this? Or Alan?  

  8. I like the free for all much better. You get the flavor of lots of people’s thoughts not just David’s

    • I was trying in the live-blog to keep a more or less coherent flow going.  If everyone’s comments came in, it would read like twenty people in a room all talking at the same time.  I did try to drop in people’s comments when they weren’t repetitive (lots of people chimed in with very similar comments that were very similar to what I had just posted), and when they fit in with the overall commentary.  But it was harder than I thought, in part because the debate moved so fast.  I’ll try to do better next time!  🙂

      • I think you have to have one person reporting and someone else moderating. To do both leaves people out and doesn’t give you the time to report. If I hadn’t watched the debate I’m not sure I would get a true sense of it if all I had to read was this live blog.

        <

        p>Not trying  to beat you up today. I’m off from work and have lots of time to think and read today.

        <

        p>P.S. can we get a spell check function. My spell checker (Bean) is in another state tonight.

      • It’s next to impossible just to keep up with the questions and answers, let alone add your own commentary, or moderate comments from others.

        <

        p>So thanks for taking on the challenge!  

  10. Martha was pretty good, Alan was pretty naive, Pagliuca clearly has NO clue, but at least he was able to say — sincerely I think, Mike is right about this or that 6 times.

    <

    p>Bottom line, my candidate Mike did not disappoint me by losing his temper at the stupid format and succeeding in tolerating it all with grace.  

    • I think Martha did well, I thought Mike came across as hostile. I also thought I’d scream if he said “kennedy” one more time.

    • As the front-runner, she only improved her position with the debate tonight. She came across as well informed and well spoken.  

      <

      p>I thought Capuano did well too. He is well spoken and made a good case that experience gained as a Congressmen is hikgly applicable and irreplaceable as a qualification for the US Senate. He explained that, as a Senator, you work to make sure the debate does not advance to the point where you are left with two bad choices and that relationships and influence are key in accomplishing this feat.  

      <

      p>Pags projects well and speaks well but is clearly green and lost points for agreeing with the candidate who spoke directly before him, typically Cap.

      <

      p>Kaz is determined and serious but projected porly, perhaps dourly, in tv tonight.  

  11. Mike was pugnacious but fine, Martha played it safe but was fine, Alan seemed okay on the issue but a little undisciplined in his responses, and Pags was clearly out of his league.  Coakley will likely take it in the end.  

  12. She knows the issues, but spends time dithering verbally before eventually stumbling out with the progressive position. She doesn’t seem to have visceral feelings about how power works in government and the kind of opposition we are up against. I think Capuano is the only candidate who would enter this office not taking for granted the Democratic majority and the tenuous progressive position within it.

    <

    p>The Senate desperately needs his ability to articulate progressive positions with passion and directness.  

    • I think Coakley will take the liberal position and vote when it is politically smart to do so.  I think Capuano will take the liberal position and vote especially when it is least safe and politically smart to do so.

      <

      p>They may both cast liberal votes as senator, but I am sure only about Capuano.  I think “moderate” Senators are for states such as Maine and Arkansas.  The Bay State should be sending a liberal.

        • Capuano doesn’t want to be seen as a moderate and has spent this campaign saying that he doesn’t want to be seen as a moderate.  He campaigns and votes as a liberal.

          <

          p>I frankly don’t know what Coakley is.  She’s a good Democrat, that was clear tonight.  She’s on “our side”.  But so is Harry Reid and Blanche Lincoln — it’s the Schumers and Rockefellers who get us where we need to be.  But I haven’t seen or hear anything to know if she’s a moderate or a liberal.  Given the choice between the maybe liberal or the definite liberal, I’ll take #2.

          • At the Labor Day rally she came out clearly for the public option. Capuano was still sorting it out. She has always fought for the underdog. She supports a path to citizenship. She didn’t get caught up in the illegal immigrant nonsense. Cap didn’t either. There wasn’t a difference between them.

            <

            p>I think the argument that as a Congressman he is the only one who could learn to work in the Senate is bogus. There is a huge differnce in how things work in the house versus the senate. She is one of the brightest people I have met.

            • I will say that unlike most previous primaries, if my favorite candidate loses, I’ll still likely be quite happy.  It’s just that on my top 3 issues, Capuano has shown me more in career and campaign on two of them (education, foreign policy).  The third (religious freedom) nobody really cares about.

            • and has been vocal about it.  I was at the Labor Breakfast and he was very clear on this point well before then.

        • are opposed to the death penalty by the time they finish their undergraduate educations.  Coakley didn’t come to her current position on the death penalty until 2002.  

          <

          p>By arguing Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, Coakley  prioritized the state’s interest in efficient prosecutions (and resource allocation of highly utilized crime labs) over the sixth amendment rights of the accused.  

          <

          p>Amber Paw is right to say it was an unsettled question. At the same time, it’s clear how Coakley wanted it settled.  In my opinion Coakley’s policy is dangerously underinformed if she thinks crime labs produce infallible results that should not be subject to cross-examination. That she is willing to make this trade off, as a matter of law, is decidedly not liberal in the sense of preserving an individual’s Constitutional rights.  

          <

          p>I will say that her positions as a candidate for US Senate are as liberal as Capuano’s,  but I could not say that all of her positions are.  My conclusion is that she is more conservative than she’d have voters believe.  That said, if she wins the primary, she wins my vote in January. At the same time, saying she’s a better candidate than Scott Brown is not saying much.  She’s my #2 choice.  

          • are opposed to the death penalty by the time they finish their undergraduate educations.” This is a rather sweeping statement. Do you have some kind of facts to back this up, especially since you keep beating the drum about how the fact that Coakley has opposed the death penalty for “only” 10 years somehow disqualifies her?

            <

            p>Additionally, since opposition to the death penalty sems to be legitimate in your eyes only if it’s based on moral grounds, I’m wondering if you can demonstrate how all of these undergrads not only opposed the death penalty, but did it for the “right” reasons.

            • “Coakley has opposed the death penalty for “only” 10 years somehow disqualifies her?“

              <

              p>Less than eight actually but no I don’t think it disqualifies her.  I think it tells you about how liberal she is.  

              <

              p>IMO She is zealously law and order and her core values on law and order strike directly at her views on individual rights. The former not the latter, is her priority… not right or wrong just so.  

              <

              p>My belief is based on observations about her positions on a. death penalty b. mooninite case c. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts sixth amendment case d. opposing Gerald’s commutation while not opposing Cheryl’s e. overcharging Louis Woodward f. convicting a man with uncorroborated “repressed memory” testimony based on a scientific theory of unsettled scientific merit.

              <

              p>Coakley changed her opinion on the death penalty about the same time Gov Ryan of IL suspended executions. What I cannot reconcile about Coakley’s change of heart in her death penalty position in 2002, is that she attributes the change to a recognition of the real possibility of wrongful convictions and (therefore state-sponsored wrongful deaths.) It’s a good reason but she cannot have been unaware of the possibility of wrongful convictions for 12 years while attending law school and working as a prosecutor and DA. So why so late into a career in the law? It’s not like she was running a business and never thought about these things.  

              <

              p>Many liberals make the following arguments against the death penalty, Coakley doesn’t: Coakley doesn’t argue that because the death penalty is not a deterrent, and because  executions are more expensive than a life sentence, and becuase it’s immoral for the state to play god with lives, and because if you believe the aforementioned, an execution is nothing more than a revenge killing emotionally satisfting for the victmis family, that under those circumstnaces, the death penalty is mothinh more than cruel and unusual punishment.

              <

              p>Coakley says instead, it might be a mistake.  

              <

              p>This distinction is probably immaterial to most people and I understand that. To me, its an unsolved mystery that shines some light on how she thinks through her policy positions.  

              • you’re trying to understand the machinations of the candidate’s mind, to predict how that person would act on currently unforeseen circumstances.

                <

                p>I also think the “law & order” tale you weave is a legitimate narrative for AG Coakley — not the only one to be sure, but certainly a plausible one.

                <

                p>At the same time, if the person has the stance I have, I don’t always care if it’s from financial, religious, ethical, theoretical, personal, or other experiences — the vote is aye or nay, no asterisks or purity tests.

  13. but am now seriously considering Khazei.  I will proudly vote for whoever wins the democratic primary (as long as it’s not Pagliuca).  That being said, I am thinking about what I want in a Massachusetts senator.  A progressive; someone who will establish their own niche in the club of 100; someone driven by their own convictions.  Given that I respect Coakley, her gender is a factor in my thinking.  But Khazei and his passion really impressed me tonight.

    • I was at the debate and even though I think Khazei is probably a good guy he was the worst debater.  I actually felt sorry for him when the moderator kept having to cut him off and he still didn’t “get it”  Maybe it’s my age (60) but everything he said sounded like a page out of our new age handbook(and he had no sense of boundaries;  he went on and on and on. I kept thinking I was so glad I didn’t have to sit through a whole dinner with this guy)   If I heard one more time that Khazei’s dad was a doctor and he was the son of immigrants-egads- Also his closing is getting old-have heard it several times now,  he needs new material.  I think being a community organizer is a wonderful thing- he created City Year- wonderful- now he needs to get to know the people of our state before he represents them.   BTW- thought he was a big Obama guy- seems like Alan thinks the big O hasn’t really kept his big promises-new kind of politics etc.  He kept saying the people voted for change but we’re getting more of the same?  Interesting to note.

  17. 1 Capuano – Informed, with good control and master of the format.

    <

    p>2 Coakley – Started slow, but gained her footing as the event went on.

    <

    p>3 Khazei – A little hyper, and constantly reminding the audience about his parents, but had command of his facts, and comfortable in the debate.

    <

    p>4 Pagliuca – Out of his depth, plus he donated to Romney and Bush, that eliminates him from consideration.

    <

    p>Capuano is my man. I can’t support Coakley unless she is the primary winner.

    <

    p>Peter Meade:  If I never see another debate moderated by him, it will be too soon. His attempts to control speakers that went on too long were whiny at best, and his efforts to draw out answers from candidates trying to skirt them were amateurish. As a debate moderator, he makes a good Kennedy Greenway organization head.

  18. Just watched the “debate” DVR. First of all, it’s not a debate, it’s a group interview.

    <

    p>That said, only two truly substantive, distinctive remarks were made by the candidates:

    <

    p>1. Alan Khazei’s comments on heath care and how, despite an historic Democratic majority and mandate for change, the public option still is being railroaded by lobbysists, PACs and entrenched political interests. He was the only one who expressed anything close to appropriate outrage at this unacceptable, outrageous fact.

    <

    p>2. Mike Capuano’s description of getting legislation passed and horse-trading which demonstrated experience-based understanding of how ideas are crafted into real-world policy in Washington DC. He distinguished himself among the candidates (panelists as Pag’s called them) as someone who understands how one gets things done as a Senator in addition to what he’d like to do as a Senator.

    <

    p>Every other comment struck me as candidates getting their sea-legs, introducing themselves, and making sure they didn’t make any gaffes.

    <

    p>The format was fatally flawed and the mediator fatally graceless.

    <

    p>I was especially disappointed in Coakley’s underwhelming presence. She is a more thoughtful and substantive politician, but seems already to be “playing to not lose.”

    <

    p>Cap often distracted from important distinctions he stated (visiting troops in Afghanistan, voting against PATRIOT Act and Iraq invasion, etc.) by using a testy/adversarial tone.

    <

    p>Khazei seemed nervous a couple of times, speaking longer than he had to after making his point.

    <

    p>Pags was consistently languid, but forgettable.

  19. As it started, I thought Khazei was all over the place at first, but once it got a little way in and he started actually answering questions, he seemed to be dominating the debate. The moderator was horrendous: idiotic questions, and worse at letting the candidates answer. I thought Capuano and Coakley were strong in their responses, and I thought the attorney general did a good job of starting to show what she would do as senator. Capuano was good at stating clearly his positions and calling out the moderator, though he seemed to be talking out of both sides on immigration, while the others were clear in their strong support. Also, declaring the president having the right to launch a pre-emptive attack unilaterally was either confusion on the constitutional role of Congress or an odd attempt at a joke.

    <

    p>On the radio, Khazei jumped out (as he needed to do) as the most interesting and with the strongest experience. Coakley seemed steady but subdued, Capuano seemed strong and tough (sometimes too much on both of them).

    <

    p>Watching on TV, my wife thought Capuano came off as almost as much of a joke as Pags, perhaps a difference of radio/TV or of perception in general, while Coakley came across as the strongest, again different medium and different person. She did paraphrase Khazei’s closing argument as potential reason to not support Coakley in the primary.

    <

    p>Look forward to 5 more if the candidates take up Alan’s challenge 🙂

  20. I don’t have TV (I really don’t!), only a broadband feed.

    <

    p>I just spoke with the CSpan main office, they tell me that they did tape last night’s debate, and will publish it on http://www.cspan.org after they receive and prep the tape (sometime today). I’ll post a link when I find it.

  21. I came in wanting to support Cap….but I agree with most of comments about his tone. The Senate is a much different group than the house…I almost feel that his personality and style are a better fit there.

    <

    p>Coakley appeared Senatorial..(Is that a word?)  I could see her going toe to toe with folks across the aisle…and having success in building consensus and compromise.

    <

    p>I want our Senator to be relevant nationally.  I want them to have the cache to impact the conversation and move the ball forward for democratic values.

    <

    p>I’m starting to think that Coakley is best positioned to be that Senator.

    • The Senate is all about the relationships.  It’s suited to those who can be patient, long-range, congenial.  I see Capuano as too pugnacious, Khazei as too impatient to thrive there.  Coakley’s even-tempered, objective, lawerly approach will be an asset in the Senate.

Archives