As the reports begin to dribble in, these early hours indicate this: Andrea Silbert stole the show yesterday in Worcester, and looked classy doing so as well.
Not only do I agree with my own assessment, but pmegan and cephme do too. Mark Snyder thinks that Andrea was impressive. NECN thinks Silbert's upset over Goldberg was a surprise. Lynne thought Silbert's speech was the most well-organized in terms of laying out a clear plan of what she wants to do. Today's Globe notes that Silbert outpolled the better-known and better-financed Goldberg. Ditto for the T&G. The Cape Cod Times compared Silbert's grassroots appeal to that of Deval's. Cos thinks Silbert's second place finish couldn't have been predicted.
But not all think she was good, Charley over at BMG being the leader of that charge. Andy didn't think she was so hot and thinks Murray is Silbert in a more electable package. To these and others who may have thought Andrea's speech came off poorly I ask that you think some more about what you're saying: you are feeding into, as Slushpuppy wrote, that classic double standard that female candidates face: if they're intense, they're angry. If men are intense, they're inspirational. It's time to start changing that, and we have to do it. We have some serious issues facing our state, and we've had a string of dilletantes and under-achievers in office these last 16 years. I'm ready for someone who actually wants to do something for us as opposed to using us for ulterior political purposes.
The other theme emerging is that Silbert looked classy in ceding the convention's nomination to Murray. Scott in Belmont noted how the deal went down. Sabutai agreed and wants to buy Silbert a beer. Good move by the Silbert folks: keep Murray from getting the big win, look like good sports and fill the Comback Kid role. Well played.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
To these and others who may have thought Andrea's speech came off poorly I ask that you think some more about what you're saying: you are feeding into, as Slushpuppy wrote, that classic double standard that female candidates face: if they're intense, they're angry. If men are intense, they're inspirational.
Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out if that's what it was for me...she did come off as a bit harsh...but if she'd been a man would that have bothered me? I do think so, but I'm not sure. It's hard to quantify.
I do get annoyed at some of her turns of phrase, and I still think she's not as comfortable in her own skin up on a podium as she needs to be. However, *I* couldn't do what she's doing so who'm I to judge??
But it won her lots of votes apparently!
Two things that have to go:
*The whoop
*"Skin in the game". What the hell is that? Her kids are "skin"? Yeech.
I would say her speech was perfect for the convention - that is what they wanted to hear and it sure seemed to have the desired effect. As for "not as comfortable in her own skin up on a podium as she needs to be" I would attribute that to the fact that her real (i.e. more comfortable) style as a speaker is much closer to what we saw in the convention video - calm, cool, articulate and intelligent.
lynne, you're not alone. I kind of felt she came off a bit harsh too, and I think if a man spoke in the same manner I would have still felt that way. I do hate the stereotyping of female candidates/politicians, ie Hillary Clinton, but I really felt she was a bit too over the top. Goldberg spoke well, but he video did her in & Murray spoke calmly and used drive in the parts of his speech that required it. His video probably didn't cost nearly as much as Goldberg or Silbert's did to make , which is not a bad thing if you ask me. It still got across who he was and why he is the best candidate.
Personally, I predicted that Silbert would come in second. But, lets remember that second was about 20% less that the number of delegates Murray had.
In terms of "ceding the nomination to Murray" it didn't make her look any more or less classy. It was simply common sense. If she made those delegates stay for another vote after that first one took over 4 hours, she would have been hugely unpopular. Murray was .8% short of winning on the first ballot, that is a mere 40 votes. He was the clear winnner, and he probably would have trumped Silbert on the 2nd ballot, since alot of Goldberg delegates would have voted Murray.
Why would folks voting for Goldberg vote for Murray on the second ballot? I heard the voice vote and it was basically dead even. Silbert saved Murray (and yes the delegates) from a lengthy vote tally that for all intents and purposes could easily have been very close.
Check out Scott Lehigh's column in the Globe today "...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."
Pretty good analysis and he isn't an aliased blogger but the real thing - a journalist.
Post a Comment