Email (no link):
State Sen. Sonia Chang-Díaz today announced her endorsement of Don Berwick’s campaign for Governor of Massachusetts and her intention to serve as campaign Chair, citing Berwick’s progressive vision for Massachusetts and his extensive record of executive leadership.
“Don has spent his career advocating for the public, finding practical solutions to big-scale problems, and fighting for underserved communities,” said Sen. Chang-Díaz. “His passion, vision, and willingness to stand up for what is right will make a difference in people’s lives—as, indeed, it literally already has. From fighting to preserve adequate resources for our schools, to ensuring that every worker in our Commonwealth can earn a living wage, to taking aggressive steps to reform our corrections system, to protecting our environment for future generations, to ending homelessness for our veterans, Don has put forward a bold, progressive agenda. I am proud to offer him my support.”
Chang-Díaz cited Berwick’s 20-year stint as the CEO of a globally recognized health care non-profit and his time at the helm of Medicare and Medicaid as evidence that he is ready to be CEO of a state. “Medicare and Medicaid comprise some of our nation’s most relied-upon infrastructure,” said Chang-Díaz. “Their budget is over $800 billion a year—larger than the Pentagon’s. Don is field tested.”
“Sen. Chang-Díaz has been a champion of working families, communities of color, LGBT rights, and responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars,” said Berwick. “Her tireless legislative efforts to speak up for those who have traditionally lacked a voice on Beacon Hill have made her a progressive leader. I am proud to have her support and honored that she has agreed to serve as Chair for our campaign. She also knows a thing or two about winning campaigns as dark-horse candidate, so I’m glad to have her on the team.”
Nice get for Berwick.
Berwick came off as the most liberal in Thrusday’s debate, and the single supporter of single payer health care in the state. Also, he challenged the other candidates on state casinos – and Berwick is the only candidate opposing casinos.
Grossman came off as most knowledgeable about budget issues and working with the legislature. He would be a perfect shoo-in for governor, hitting the ground while running.
Coakley was likable, and communicating quite well – talking freely about priorities, but avoiding any budget talk or specifics to back up her priorities. Grossman should have taken better advantage of that, but he only brought it up obliquely.
Coakley gave several hints about the need to have a woman elected in the corner office. That may be sufficient in terms of being elected, and she is the front runner in the primary so far – while voters are still learning about the other candidates. There was no talk about Coakley’s campaign funding troubles, reported by the Globe, which are a big deal given her position of state campaign finance law enforcement chief. She continues to be the front runner in the polls, but voters don’t know the other candidates yet, so any misstep she makes will be very closely watched.
Kayyem’s style of talking had some in the audience reportedly being put off. She passed an opportunity to speak when asked by the moderator, and gave the impression that the debate format took her by surprise. Left the mike open twice while Coakley was speaking – that may not seem like a big deal, except indicating unfamiliarity with the town hall format.
But, these things she can improve on. Kayyem was at her best when she spoke of being a child of an immigrant, and she talked good on well honed liberal positions. Yet Berwick seemed to be better able to substantiate his proposal, while talking the same good liberal stands. And Coakley was more direct with her hints that she’s courting the women vote.
In the end, this may very well be a two plus one race – Coakley and Grossman plus a challenger from the liberal left, either Berwick or Kayyem.
Goes a long way in my book. With our northern neighbor passing it there is no excuse for us to be content with the status quo on healthcare. The surprisingly strong passage of the election reform bill also sends a signal that Massachusetts is ready to take it to the next level as a progressive policy innovator. Baker is a strong candidate, but the candidate who beats him cannot afford to be cautious or timid.
I agree with Berwick in opposing casinos, but (speaking as someone who’s supporting Kayyem) I thought she was really effective in responding to Berwick on his casinos question. She said that the reality is that the state budget is currently built around the expectation of casino money and it’s simply not realistic to just pretend that we can wish the casino thing away without finding additional revenue somewhere. She added that she didn’t want to make any promises that she wasn’t prepared to keep. The exchange left me thinking of Berwick as unrealistically idealistic on casinos and Kayyem as pragmatically realistic. I’ll be voting against casinos in November, but if I was running for Governor, I’d probably look at things more like Kayyem than Berwick.
Tom Conroy’s excellent cost benefit analysis of Patrick’s original casino proposal cast severe doubt on that. He found that casinos will not deliver the promised windfall.
“Coakley was more direct with her hints that she’s courting the women vote.”
“Hints”? Maybe I’m still annoyed with the role Emily’s List played in Katherine Clark’s election (as well as Coakley’s ill-fated win in the Senate primary in 2010), but I found Coakley’s pointed use of “she” in reference to the next governor (which elicited the expected cheers from her supporters) to be pretty tiresome. I’m admittedly supporting Kayyem, but I find her low-key approach on gender much more appropriate. It’s terrible that we’ve elected so few women to high office, but we’re electing the best *person*, not awarding the job to the woman Emily’s List chose.
…to trying to have it both ways. We’ve used masculine pronouns genericly forever, and I have no problem doing so myself. However, I’ll take feminine pronouns over the constant awkward-sounding “he or she”, “him or her”, “his or her”. I’m glad she chose to use just one and considering she is hoping she will be elected it might as well be “she”.
It’s not about the pronoun choice!! I prefer using “she or he” (in that order, better than “he or she”) or just avoiding a pronoun entirely. “They” as a non-gendered third person singular pronoun might prevail in the long run as English evolves. But anyone running for progressive support today would be clueless to use a generic “he” in that context.
In this case, it sounded to me like Coakley was deliberately wording the sentence to force a pronoun choice of “she” vs. “he” and paused for the applause that she knew would follow when she pointedly said “she.” She did it very well and didn’t step on her applause line, but it certainly wasn’t subtle or a “hint.”
I was just pointing out that any alternative would sound worse, IMO.
By virtue of being a woman she is entitled to any political office she aspires to, regardless of her positions on the issues, record in the office she holds, or history of poor campaigns in the past.
This kind of appeal has a certain resonance with boomers, but I find it fairly distasteful and it does a true disservice to the other candidates.
Once again speaking to what really matters.
and introduced Don Berwick as a very interesting candidate indeed. He expressed a strong vision for a progressive Massachusetts and citing our state as the one that can and does lead the country in many progressive ideas, such as health care and gay marriage. He stressed fixing health care by reducing costs while increasing quality which is something he knows the research on as his long term role in leading the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services CMS, and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. He did express support for Single Payer and did oppose casinos (which personally I think is already done deal and since MA dollars already just go to CT for casinos I don’t see any harm in keeping the revenues in MA instead). He strongly supports closing tax loopholes (who doesn’t?), and more importantly progressive taxation in the state! He strongly supports in-state tuition for undocumented immigrant children saying “he never met an illegal child”. He supports decriminalization of recreational drugs, a war on poverty, civil rights, social justice, equality and compassion, although no specifics on that…but he did say he supports increasing revenues to increase jobs by building infrastructure, expanding alternative energy and conservation and sustainable building standards.
I found Steve Grossman to be nearly as good, he had a lot of data supporting his statements. His vision is to “leave no one behind” by improving job growth, supporting unions and decreasing those who need food stamps which is why he does support the revenue we’d generate from allowing casinos in the 3 communities that want them. He says we can narrow the skills gap by focusing on our vocational/regional high schools, he fully supports the governor’s transportation package (yay!) and the 1% Green Budget proposal, renewables, conservation and retrofitting transportation. He thinks he can work better with the State house by bringing legislators into the budget process earlier to share in what the Governor’s budget entails. We need to change sentencing guidelines and decrease recidivism. And reduce health care costs by reigning in prescription drug costs. He also wants to increase revenues and seek tax reform like GA and NJ…he is against decreasing unemployment benefits and for creating jobs in the older city centers where they are most needed. He also wants to see mental health parity. Supports undocumented immigrant in state tuition.
Martha was on par with these two on positions although not indicating support for single payer. She does support the already passed casino bill and the revenues it means. She is committed to mental health parity especially as that is personal for her (her brother committed suicide due to mental illness) She would support in state tuition for immigrants if it passed the legislature…but stressed immigration issues need a federal solution. She would like to fund preK and lengthen the school day, grow the economy and pay for teachers and infrastructure improvements. She strongly supports increasing the minimum wage (yay!) and wants to look at how we tax in the state. We need to streamline regulations for businesses to enhance job growth. And work on decreasing carbon emissions along the lines Deval Patrick has focused on. She agrees with decriminalization, so we can increase spending on education and decrease that spent on jails. We can improve health care costs by focusing on community health centers.
I was not as impressed by Juliette Kayyem who was personable but I found her prescriptions to be unspecific. She focused on her homeland security background, being the child of Lebanese immigrants and thus her support of immigrant issues (in state tuition and getting drivers licenses). She envisions a government that does good, supports diversity, being bold, innovative and fearless in its prescriptions. She supports infrastructure, competitive advantage esp in health care, biotech, alternative energy, etc We need to plan for “what if Hurricane Sandy were to come to Boston” in the next major storm. She believes in decriminalization, having been a pot smoker in the past and we need to fix health care access and control costs. She also envisions increasing preK and decreasing expenses on prisons. She also expressed wanting to increase minimum wage and progressive taxation (yay!) and wants equality of opportunity and treating the state house with respect so we can get things done. She also thinks we need casino revenues and we have strong controls on the casinos with community review.
I will not waste my time (or yours) by repeating the unspecific stances of Joe Avellone. So 4 good choices…I need to do more research to make up my mind.
Berwick and Grossman impressed me the most. I thought Coakley came across pretty well. Kayyem had some good points but there’s a lack of seriousness about her that annoys me. We have really serious problems to tackle. I’m all for humor but it just fell flat with me. Berwick on the other hand has a surprisingly good sense of humor, which balances out his wonky serious side. This is gonna be a tough choice…lots to ponder.
Kudos to all who organized the Lexington forum. Really well done, was so glad I went.
Sonia Chang Diaz is a rising star in our party. She has huge potential. And, Don Berwick is my hero! He has spoken out about “patient-centered health care”, as opposed to physician centered care. He is a leader.
Bur, for Governor, I am backing Steve Grossman. In this state, we have deal with the basic reality of our dismal state legislature. Deval Patrick showed us that great ideas are not sufficient to get support from the legislature. Steve is the one guy that can get things done with the legislature.
I think one of Grossman’s greatest selling points is exactly what you’ve highlighted — that we need someone who can get down in the trenches and hammer things out with the Legislature. And he is definitely that candidate it seems to me. I hadn’t seen Grossman yet in a long forum, and I was quite impressed. Was so thankful to finally hear details and see how he’s presenting himself vs. the other candidates.
For me it is really coming down to Berwick or Grossman. Tough choice…but we are lucky to have so many good candidates running.
It does look like Berwick has reached out to at least one legislator and brought her on board his team. Perhaps she could bring others along. But either way the next Governor has to get in the trenches and fight it out. Grossman troubles me with the casinos and his ambivalence about Deval’s revenue plan-but otherwise has solid progressive priorities that are specific and implementable. I think Berwick has done a great job moving past a single issue and developing a great profile of issues. How he hopes to pass any of his priorities is a concern-but if he can move the field left in revenue and investment that’s a victory even if he doesn’t win the nod.
The Lexington event last night was excellent! Here’s my take on each of the candidates, in alphabetical order, for what it’s worth.
Joe Avellone — he did better than I expected in the forum, but I’m still trying to grasp how he breaks through in this field. He seems to me to be trying to be Don Berwick with less governmental experience and less progressive passion (which seem to be Berwick’s two biggest strengths).
Don Berwick — he probably had the best night in Lexington, getting the two biggest ovations from a very liberal crowd when he spoke out for single-payer and against casinos (though I thought Kayyem’s response to him on casinos–she’s not making promises on repealing casinos that she can’t keep–was excellent, even though I share Berwick’s anti-casino stance). Berwick is clearly trying to stake out the left-most turf in a left-leaning field, though I wonder how he’d fare in a general election against Baker. I’m supporting Kayyem but Berwick is appealing too.
Martha Coakley — as the putative front runner at this point, she did OK, with no major mistakes and made a good emotional connection with the story of her brother’s suicide in talking about mental health. I’m still failing to work up any enthusiasm for the idea of a Baker-Coakley race. We will be getting a steady diet of “it’s time for a woman” stuff, I suppose, though I find it grating in this day and age. I know she would make a fine Governor if she got there, but I’m expecting a 53-47 loss to Baker if she gets the nomination.
Steve Grossman — as probably right behind Coakley, he did fine as well, though I thought he had an odd moment when he had the chance to ask the other candidates a question. He asked them, with a flourish, each to join him in supporting in-state tuition and driver’s licenses for undocumented residents and seemed to be expecting some/many of them to decline, but they all agreed with him — Berwick was even a little snarky about it (thanking Grossman for joining him on the issue). Otherwise, Grossman was fine, speaking with passion about creating jobs. I could see supporting him with enthusiasm if neither Berwick nor Kayyem manage to make the ballot. Still, I suspect he would have an uphill climb against Baker.
Juliette Kayyem — she had strong responses for all questions, though she made one mistake: at the midpoint of the forum, she was the first to be offered an extra minute to speak about anything and she declined — then all the others used their minute to make some extra points. Never pass up a chance to speak at a forum like this!! She did ask the deepest question of the other candidates (“Cite a specific example where you worked with someone with whom you disagree politically on an issue where failure was not an option”), which both Coakley and Grossman struggled with. And, though I disagree with her on casinos (I will happily vote to repeal the casino law in November), I thought her very realistic response to Berwick’s casino question, in which she turned around the “on day one” nonsense that candidates love to use to win votes and made a point about a new Governor having to actually work within the constraints of current conditions, was excellent.
I’m supporting Kayyem, because I think she combines a depth of experience working in government with an ability to speak about our progressive values in ways that can energize the Democratic base while reaching out to the swing voters who might be tempted to vote for Baker. As a newcomer to electoral politics, she’s a bigger risk than the two veteran politicians, but I think she has huge potential to break through in the same way Deval Patrick did in 2006. I feel like a Baker-Kayyem race could provide energy that a Baker-Grossman or Baker-Coakley race just lacks. I need to ponder a Baker-Berwick race more to figure out what to make of that, but it seems like it would be like the 2002 Romney-Reich race that we never got to enjoy.