Karen Spilka will be featured on Jim Braude’s program on NECN, Thursday night July 11, 8:00 PM.
I attended her recent campaign kick-off event and was happy to see a huge crowd there:
With Brownsberger’s campaign apparently imploding (Citizens United, Keystone), it’s certainly worth taking a look at Senator Spilka. I’m currently represented by Joe Kennedy, so I don’t really have a dog in this hunt, but Senator Spilka has backed our efforts to defeat the casino in Milford, so I’m in her corner. I’m sure we’ll hear more from each candidate this weekend at the state convention in Lowell!
Please share widely!
There is no campaign implosion, just lots of good conversation. Sen Brownsberger does a very good job explaining his point of view on things.
…between the candidates, Will Brownsbeger’s positions on two issues of huge importance is directly at odds with the majority of likely primary voters. He can do the best job of explaining his point of view all day long, but it won’t earn him any votes. Furthermore, JohnK pointed out his condescending attitude in this comment:
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/2013/07/really-senator-brownsberger-the-keystone-pipeline-too/#comment-319734
You might think it’s good conversation, but I don’t like being talked down to, and I’d wager that a lot more primary voters feel the way I do.
Two attack posts, on one blog, by a former Spilka staffer, don’t equal the “implosion” of another candidates campaign.
However, is is interesting to know who Team Spilka considers the greatest threat.
I am anything but Team Spilka – as I said, I don’t even live in the district, so I really have no stake in this at all. You might think that Senator Brownsberger being on the wrong side of two issues that are important to primary voters and talking down to people when called on it isn’t an implosion, but that’s your opinion and others can certainly hold the opposite opinion.
He should say so and quit the neutrality bs.
He points it out in his disclaimer. Anyway his posts reflect quite poorly on his former employer.
Rarely do I disagree with jconway. I don’t think it is fair to equate the tone and/or content of someone’s posts with the character or judgement of a former employer. mathelman has been rough riding Brownsberger in other posts – but I needed to know that information. It has confirmed some reservations that I have about “wonks and intellectuals” being great legislators. I want a great legislator in the MA-5 seat. I agree with those above who are protesting the claims of implosion as hyperbole. I don’t think that is a valid claim or statement.
I don’t see any indication by any of the campaigns at this point that competition has been tiered. I would think that the candidate with the deepest record of accomplishment is the one to beat.
I do see that this will be an emotionally charged race and suggest that maybe we as constituents, activists and stake holders take our own “People’s Pledge” to stick to the high road of civic engagement and civil dialogue.
I respect where you are coming from and can disagree agreeably here. I also wanted to highlight your last paragraph and heartily agree to it, in my view Helman is not even sticking to that. We might as well call this field “the fantastic five” it’s that good. I am really excited about great women like Clark and Spilka running, great legislators whom I’m Facebook friends/email buddies with (Will and Carl) and a Sheriff who has a great record. There is literally NO need to bash one candidate exclusively and in the misleading manner Helman had proceeded to do. It has served its purpose to convince voters unfamiliar with Will’s record that he is somehow toxic as a more “conservative” candidate which is patwntly false. its done nothing to help us choose between the other four or educate us about their records and positions. Why kneecap Will this early?
It’s one thing to say “huh?” when viewing Will’s opinion on these issues-it’s quite another to go out of your way to paint them as something they are not. Helman seemed to argue Will doesn’t care and put little thought into campaign finance reform. He wants to paint him as more conservative and more naive than the rest of the field when his position is actually quite thought out, disagree with it as you may (and as do I in fact). Similarly on Keystone he took one quote about not pursuing opposition and juxtaposed it with arguments for Keystone that Will was NOT making. Nowhere did he say he supported the project, as I pointed out there are well thought out reasons to say what he say that do not constitute support. To be fair, Will has not clarified this position or elaborated on his reasoning, but doesn’t he deserve the opportunity to do so before the smug gotcha “some maverick” post was authored? Helman may claim these are points of information but they are points of attack to mislead voters about the record and character of Will. For what it’s worth I’m uncomfortable with both of his answers, but I know him as as my rep and senator and feel he is owed room to explain himself, room Helman clearly does not feel the good Senator is entitled to. I’m troubled by Clark’s bill, but won’t call her names or say she is unworthy of the nod without giving her the opportunity to tell her side of the story. We owe all the candidates this.
Hey, lets keep to the high road folks. There’s way too much ad hominen going on between posters!
I am interested in this race. It is an important seat. I want to learn about all of the candidates and have opinions of varying favor-ability for all five announced. If bloggers have strong posts and opinions on the candidates their experience, positions, temperament and actions lets bring it forth.
Go to Broadside to see the video of the interviews. I have only caught portions of two candidates thus far this week with Katherine Clark on this evening. I will watch Karen Spilka’s interview tomorrow night. They are all good people and viable candidates. There are differences and voters will have preferences.