MassChange

I'm back, baby! Follow me now on Twitter

2010-01-20T20:53:00.001-05:00

I've been away for a while, but it's an election year now, and we Mass Dems have just gotten burned by complacency. So follow me on Twitter now, as I'm going to be posting my thoughts there more often than here.

Here's the link: https://twitter.com/masschange

Glad to be back.

God Bless America

2008-11-05T00:23:00.001-05:00

The new face of America has arrived and it is everyone who was at Grant Park, Chicago, Illinois, November 4, 2008.

Obama's Speech on Race

2008-03-18T10:17:00.001-05:00

Here's his speech from today:

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”
Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either “too black” or “not black enough.” We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

“People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn’t need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild.”

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I’d like to leave you with today – a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King’s birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that’s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother’s problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn’t. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they’re supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who’s been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he’s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, “I am here because of Ashley.”

“I’m here because of Ashley.” By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

Rev. Wright: What Are People REALLY Worried About Here?

2008-03-18T08:45:00.004-05:00

So this whole Rev. Wright thing has gotten me thinking about a million different things. But two things stick out in my mind.

First, sure, his comments were inflammatory -- to say the least. (Obviously, making a lasting impression on listeners is a preacher's job, whether a rabbi, imam, catholic priest or congregationalist minister -- so factor that into the analysis here.)

But what do those condemning Barack Obama for listening really worry about? That he's going to say "God Damn America" in his inaugural address? He won't. That he's going to implement policies that punish white people for centuries of oppression? He won't, and Congress won't let him. That he's going to not scramble jets to protect America when Canadian Fighters are inbound to Washington, D.C.? C'mon.

Seriously, what precisely is it that people are worried about actually, practically happening here? I've thought about this and read as much as I can over the past week and STILL have yet to see one concrete, realistic, plausible concern that could arise.

If anyone can point me to one, feel do so, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

Second point: anyone who has studied the racial history of this country knows that what Rev. Wright said about the history of the government treating African Americans as less than a whole person IS RIGHT. You can start in the 1600's and continue right up to 2008 in New Orleans. Black people are not treated the same by our government, by our laws, by our society as white people. They (and I say they because I am an over-educated white, anglo-saxon protestant who can't even dream of knowing what it is like to be Black in America) have, and will continue to have for a long time, every right in the world to complain, to be nasty, to begrudge this nation for what it has done to them. And I suspect that even Rev. Wright would tell you that when Barack Obama is inaugurated on January 20, 2009, African Americans will be the first ones to do the most honorable, Christian, biblical, Jewish, Muslim, Bhuddist, Hindu thing of all: forgive. Not forget, but simply forgive. And then we can all truly say, God Bless America for making us who we are. Until then, we say God Bless America out of a need for healing, a need for
reconciliation, a need for true prayer that will play a crucial role in healing our country.

More on the Clinton Strategy

2008-03-17T13:36:00.002-05:00

In order to win the nomination, Hillary Clinton will need to convince unelected insider delegates that even though she is in second place in all of the major categories (delegates, states and popular vote), she deserves the nomination.

If Hillary gets the nomination, there will be lingering discussion over how she "stole" it, how she turned her back on the will of the people, how she did not deserve to have it.

If Barack gets the nomination, there will be none of that. There will be relief that people feel knowing that the right outcome came to pass. There will be relief that we won't have to go through all the bullcrap that her nomination would bring. There will be relief that we can focus our time and money on a once-in-a-generation candidate who will restore America's status in the world and who will allow America's citizens to prosper beyond their wildest dreams.

If Barack gets the nomination, America will be proud. If Hillary gets the nomination, America will remain on the electoral-shenanigan road we started on in Bush v. Gore. We need to get off that road and get on a new path to greatness.

Hillary Campaign Admits She Can't Catch Up

2008-03-12T20:56:00.003-05:00

In a fascinating post today, Greg Sargent over at TPM Election Central gives us an insider's recap of today's Clinton campaign Hillraiser Summit.

In short, the campaign admits that it is not going to be able to catch up in pledged delegates and thus will need to rely on superdelegates for her to win the nomination.

Here's the key graf from Sargent's post:

The presentations had a tone of optimism tempered by realism, the fundraiser said, adding that Ickes didn't try to persuade his listeners that she would be able to catch up with Obama in pledged delegates.
Rather, the clear message emerging from the presentations was that Hillary's success depends on the campaign's ability to persuade the super-delegates that they should be considering three "data points," as this fundraiser puts it, in considering whom to back: The pledged delegate count, the popular vote, and the specific states won by each candidate.

I read this to say that the Clinton campaign admits that its sole route to success is to convince party insiders to annoint Hillary the nominee, regardless of whether she has struck out on all three pitches - total delegates, total states and popular vote. (You could even throw in a fourth strike - strength combined with results in getting to 271 electoral votes.)

The Clinton campaign's strategy may pay off, but we Democrats will pay the price if it does.

What Happens in June

2008-03-06T10:49:00.004-05:00

OK, so let's project forward into the future a little bit and ponder a possible scenario:

Let's say we get to the end of the primary season in June and we're still in the same place as we are now. In other words:

Obama leads Clinton in elected delegates by around 130.

Clinton has won all of the "big" states (NY, CA, OH, PA, TX, MA) except for Illinois.

Obama has won more states overall.

Obama leads the popular vote by around the same small margin (~600K) as he does now.

Clinton leads the SuperDelegate tally, but a 200-300 remain uncommitted.

Michigan and Florida do not ultimately get "done over" and Howard Dean gets everyone to agree on some compromise that enables MI and FL delegates to participate but not be a determining factor (I can't figure out how that would work, but let's assume something gets worked out).

No major gaffes have occurred on either side, no new scandals have emerged, no surrogate has said anything deadly to the campaign.

The momentum see-saw has flopped back and forth a couple of more times.

What happens then?

Why Hillary Should Drop Out Now

2008-03-05T09:36:00.004-05:00

Hillary Clinton should drop out today. Here's a list of reasons why:

1. She is not going to overtake Obama in either delegates, superdelegates or a combination of both.

2. She has staged yet another "Clinton Comeback" and ought to go out on a positive note a la Brett Favre.

3. She has spent her ammunition on Obama to get to this point and will only sully herself further if she lets Mark Penn lead her further into the gutter.

4. She is not going to have the chance to win another primary for at least 7 weeks.

5. If she drops out now, she gives Democrats enough time to unite, because her supporters, who would undoubtedly be crushed if she dropped out, would come back around to support Obama come the Fall.

6. If she waits to lose it outright, she will have recklessly divided the Democratic party at a time when unity ought to become our defining mindset. The goal of energizing the Democratic base has been accomplished and we know that turnout will be huge for Democrats in November. Now is the time to begin harnessing that support into a coordinated, organized ground game that will blow the Republic party away.

7. She could assume the role of king-maker were she to drop out now and wield great behind-the-scenes influence, which, as we all know, is often more impactful than being the candidate oneself.

8. She could become Senate Majority Leader and play an even more important role in the future of the nation than if she were President. (See the role Massachusetts Speaker of the House Sal DiMasi plays for an example of the power wielded by a legislative leader.)

9. Were she to become Majority Leader, she could assist hundreds or thousands of politicians across the country with their political efforts, all of which would greatly aid her daughter Chelsea's inevitable political ambitions.

10. She could write the final chapter in her and her husband's political story and make it one of grace and eloquence. As of now, that story is a mish-mash of fabulous economic success and disturbingly icky politics.

Tim Russert Should Be Fired

2008-02-27T09:36:00.003-05:00

Tim Russert's questioning of Barack Obama's views on and relationship with Farrakhan were reprehensible, out of line, and dirty. His gotcha-style interrogation of Hillary Clinton's tax returns was dumb, cheap and low class.

Tim Russert should be ashamed of himself and he should voluntarily take a long leave of absence to clear his head. If he does not, I call on NBC/Universal to fire him so that he learns a lesson a la Don Imus.

Obama Returns the Finger

2008-02-19T21:38:00.003-05:00

So, Barack wins Wisconsin. Hillary comes out at 9:30 EST for an early speech. After a week where the Clinton campaign has basically been giving the Obama campaign the finger with this whole "words" thing, Obama decides to return the favor by starting HIS speech at 9:40.

It's petty, stupid and incendiary inside the campaign offices, but I LOVE IT!!!

Hilarious.

Superdelegates: Obama's Secret Strategy

2008-02-18T22:16:00.002-05:00

OK, here are my thoughts on this whole superdelegate rigmarole:

Obama is secretly happy that we're all only talking about delegates and superdelegates because when he splits the vote in WI, TX and OH, but still gets more delegates, it will be reported by the media as a "big win." And this wouldn't be possible if we weren't spending so much time talking about delegates and superdelegates and instead were only focusing on wins and losses.

The result, then, will be that there will be a "feeling" or "aura" surrounding the Obama campaign which will make it even more difficult for superdelegates to support Clinton because then it will look like they're making her the winner when she shouldn't be -- even if their supporting her is totally legit and within the rules.

We shall see...

It's Deval's Time

2007-01-04T09:25:00.000-05:00

One of the most memorable political lines of my adult life was delivered in 1993 by Bill Clinton at his first inaugural.

He said,

Thomas Jefferson believed that to preserve the very foundations of our nation, we would need dramatic change from time to time. Well, my fellow citizens, this is our time. Let us embrace it.

I can't find an audio or video link to that speech at the moment (I'm a YouTube search novice. Help anyone?), but whenever I hear a clip of that, I get chills. I was there for it too, and though it was a bit muffled miles away on the Washington Mall, it was powerful then.

More recently, Barack Obama has used that line. In New Hampshire last month, he said,

"What's hard, what demands courage, what's truly audacious, is to hope," he said. "People are hungry for something new. They are interested in being part of something larger than petty politics we have seen in the last few years. This is our time - a new generation that is preparing to lead."

A good speech can change people. As I mentioned, I was lucky enough to be in Washington on 1/20/93. I was also lucky enough to be at the Fleet Center for Barack's memorable speech in 2004.

Today is Deval Patrick's time. It's time to start out on a new path to hope, a new path to prosperity, and a new path to true equality. I hope his speech does that - his Convention Speech was solid, but I hope this surpasses that.

Good luck, Governor Patrick.

p.s. - I'm baaaaaaaaaaack.......

Deval Patrick Is Too Liberal To Beat Kerry Murphy Healey

2006-10-24T17:20:00.000-05:00

Anyone remember that argument?

Mr. Gabrieli, Mr. Reilly, care to chime in?

Thought not.

When You're Down Double Digits You Gotta Go Double Barrel

2006-10-13T16:07:00.000-05:00

Yep, Deval's pissed.

And Murph is hiding. (Remember when they wanted to have people call her "Murph"? I'm going to go back to that, because it's funny.)

Instead she's putting her whipping boy Tim O'Brien out to get flogged (does this guy have a crappy job or what?) and by the looks of this statement, they're setting themselves up for a bigtime backlash. Here's why:

The media (read: the Globe, Phoenix, Weekly Dig, South End News, Valley Advocate, T&G, Eagle - i.e. anyone but the Herald) is now going to focus like a laser beam on finding out who leaked this story to the Herald. And that will get out - don't even think for a minute that it won't. And when that happens, Healey will be branded a "liar" for not telling the truth about her sources. Now, maybe this is why she's not saying anything and is instead putting her campaign manager out there -- so that when the source is revealed, she can fire him, yada yada.

But I think there will be some reporter out there who will want to find out the source. I can bet you that the Globe would love to front-page this on Sunday if they can. If it turns out it was the sex offender registry office, that will tie back to Healey too, because she's the titular vice-chief of the executive branch.

And how could it NOT be Healey/tied to Healey? I mean, who else has the motivation to spend money on an opposition researcher to investigate Deval's family?

Remember, someone here had to make a conscious decision and say: "Yes, let's investigate and do criminal background checks on Deval's family members."

Make no mistake - that decision was affirmatively made by someone with authority - the question is what authority. Perhaps it was the Republican Governor's Association, perhaps another group. But someone who can undoubtedly be easily tied to Murph made this decision. And it will cost her her chance at being Governor.

I just can't see any way this ends up helping Healey - she's going to get burned in the end and people are now so used to campaign revelations that they don't get as worked up about Horton-Swift-Boat-esque events as they used to. There are a lot more important things going on in this world too, and people know it.

Hey, when you're down double digits you gotta go double barrel, I guess...

Green-Rainbow LG Candidate: An Inspiration

2006-10-10T09:15:00.000-05:00

It's been prety quiet around these parts for ol' Hoss. Real world time pressures have kept me from posting as much as I could over the summer.

But this morning's Globe profile of Green-Rainbow Lieutenant Governor Candidate Martina Robinson has prompted me to stir. She is truly an inspirational figure and we as Democrats ought to be ashamed of ourselves for letting her go.

Before I go on, let me state this: I support Deval Patrick and Tim Murray completely. I will vote for them in 4 weeks, I will continue to support them with my time and money. But I hope all of us take a look at Ms. Robinson when we think about how much we really have to complain about in life.

Martina has cerebral palsy, yet she is a three-time candidate for Belchertown Selectman. I, for one, hope she runs again so that we netroots-ers can propel her to victory. I hope she runs for Rtate Representative or Senator someday. She is someone who we need in the political realm in Massachusetts. Senator Berry has been a leader on disability issues, but he's as much of an insider up on Becaon Hill as anyone else.

Martina also has what could be the line of the race thus far and does a good job summing up what the LG actually does:

Compared with some of her greater challenges, Robinson said, the job she seeks looks pretty easy.
``I've chaired lots of meetings," she said. ``I can do that in my sleep."

As far as the LG debate goes, here's what should happen: it should be extended to 90 minutes, Ms. Robinson should be invited and given the opportunity to have an aide repeat her answers if she wants, and Tim Murray ought to be the first person advocating for her to be there. Let's face it: no one is going to watch the LG debate, so it doesn't matter if it's 30 minutes longer. And I would also hope that the broadcast networks wouldn't balk at adding 30 minutes. It's the right thing to do if it's what is necessary to allow Ms. Robinson the time she needs to answer the questions facing our state.

I strongly urge the Patrick/Murray campaign to advocate for this or a similar measure if it is not already doing so.

Damn You Ferson! I Thought I Could Quit You!

2006-09-27T18:26:00.000-05:00

Aggh! I've been attacked for my wrong, incorrect and stupid Scott Ferson insinuations from last March!

I've been trying to lay pretty low for the past week since the primary, mostly because I need to do the work I actually get paid for... But I've been drawn back in by the WonderTwins.

Looks like the braniacs over at HubPolitics have decided to use the usual GOP playbook and pounce on disproven theories as the basis for their statements (WMD, anyone?). This time they accuse Mihos and Ferson of being in cahoots to bring down Muffy.

I wish.

Hey, dingbats: I WAS WRONG. I WAS A CLUELESS BLOGGER WHO JUST DISCOVERED THE INTERNETS BACK THEN. SCOTT FERSON IS A DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST WHO WAS PART OF THE TEAM THAT JUST WHOOPED SOME SERIOUS ASS IN THE LG RACE.

I think they know that they are right to be very afraid that Ferson et. als. are going to unload another can of that whoopass on MuffDawg.

Even Keller gets in a dig. I LOVE it.

Hat Tip to BMG for noting this.

LG Race: All Tied Up

2006-09-18T10:23:00.000-05:00

In a Suffolk University/Channel 7 poll released today, the LG race is too close to call.

The numbers are as follows (with their increase over the prior Suffolk poll from 8/22):

Deb Goldberg: 25% (+19%)
Tim Murray: 22% (+11)
Andrea Silbert: 20% (+15%)

In the commentary put out by the pollster along with the results, this interesting nugget about the LG race was included:

“When you consider all the races, this is the one that could come down to a re-count,” said Paleologos. “However, Deval Patrick supporters could end up deciding the Lt. Governor winner by discussing it on the Deval Patrick internet platform.”

In an August 22nd poll, the results were as follows:

Tim Murray: 11%
Deb Goldberg: 6%
Andrea Silbert: 5%

It's pretty clear that they are all gathering traction and that Deb's millions are NOT allowing her to pull away.

This means that the Silbert and Murray field operations (which I would think track the Patrick operation in various communities) will play a key role in the outcome, because Deb likely has no field operation a la Gabrieli and is relying on name recognition.

Inside the LG Poll Numbers: Closer Than It Seems

2006-09-17T14:45:00.000-05:00

While the poll numbers put out by the Globe show the LG race at 26/20/18 in the overall horserace and 27/27/16 in the "definitely vote" category, given the large numbers of undecideds remaining, it's interesting and helpful to look inside the numbers to get a sense of where things really stand.

The Globe's Political Intelligence blog points to the cross-tabs can be found here at the UNH website.

What do these numbers tell us and what do they mean?

A couple things.

First, and most obviously, this race is too low of a priority for voters to be able to predict who will win.

Second, Deb Goldberg's purported lead is not as large as it seems, and her support is not as solid as it ought to be given the money she's spent.

And now the deeper findings based on the numbers:

Deval's Voters Favor Silbert: Of the 224 people who responded to the poll who said they were voting for Deval, 24% said they'll vote for Silbert, 24% for Goldberg and 22% for Murray. But if you look at the favorability ratings for the LG candidates amongst the 227 Deval voters, the spread widens, with 32% having a favorable rating of Silbert, 27% see Murray favorably, 26% see Goldberg favorably.

What does this mean? Well, if Deval's voters come out in higher numbers, Silbert's chances go up.

Fav/Unfav: Deb's unfavorables are twice Silbert's or Murray's, which is likely a result of people seeing her more on TV and more people having the opportunity to decide they don't like her. He favorables are also higher, but that's probably for the same reason - more exposure. Another interesting note is the Silbert's favorability rating is slightly higher than Murray's, although is within the margin of error.

Goldberg v. Silbert In "Voter Belt": In the 128 to 495 belt, the race is essentially tied between Goldberg (28%) and Silbert (25%) with Murray at 18% there. This area includes, I presume everything from Woburn all the way around to Framingham, Franklin and Walpole. As people move out of the Boston area and as the commuter suburbs extend north, west and south, these are the towns where the race will be won or lost. Interesting that Murray isn't doing well here, although the margin of error is certainly in play.

Murray Cleaning Up in CMass, Low Interest in WMass; Silbert leads on Cape: In the area identified as "Central Mass", Murray gets 36%, Silbert 24%, Goldberg 17%. In Western Mass, it's only 15% Murray, 14% Goldberg and 5% Silbert. On the Cape and Islands, Silbert is at 21%, Goldberg 18% and Murray 14%.

Interestingly, the sample included the same amount of respondents from WMass (61) as from the Cape and Islands (63). Anyone know why? Are the population numbers that similar? CMass had a sample of 84, 128-495 had 144, inside 128 was 158.

Bottom line? None of us know what's going to happen.

Murray's CMass Turnout Bet: Risk vs. Reward

2006-09-16T08:01:00.000-05:00

Well, it's finally been revealed: the hunger, the drive, the desparation of the Murray campaign has been revealed in two recent articles.

First, in this Worcester Magazine article, the secret Murray strategy has been revealed.

...Murray’s... talking predicted voter turnout in Worcester with [campaign manager Joe] O’Brien. “Only 66,000 four years ago,” says Murray. Joe calls for 100,000 this time around, at least.

So there it is: the Murray campaign is counting on increasing turnout in Worcester County by 40,000 voters. If they do that, good on them, but any seasoned political operative knows an extraordinary field/GOTV operation is good for 3-5% points. Even with Deval Patrick's purported unprecedented field operation statewide, increasing turnout by 66% is a pipe dream. Taking it one step further, if they are able to increase turnout in Worcester County by that large an amount, presumably working in concert with the Patrick campaign's GOTV operation, it will be because something bigger than any of them is happening in the state and turnout across the board will be greater - which will help the other candidates and lift all boats.

As I've said all along, if Murray can re-write the downballot campaign playbook and win a primary without competing on the airwaves with the bigger spending candidates, I will be happy because it will get us back to where we ough to be - running and winning grassroots campaigns. However, as we move farther and farther away from those grassroots years, I fear that we can't return to that model in non-top-of-the-ticket races.

So, that's one element of Murray's plan.

Here's the other element of it: a hunger, a drive, and indeed a sense of desparation amongst Worcester-area political operatives who can barely contain themselves about the possibility that one of their own will be elected statewide. They thought they had a shot with D'Amico back in '86, but that fizzled. And now they have the (pasty) white knight they've been dreaming of for decades. Take this quote from "Worcester man-about-town and Democratic Party activist extraordinaire" John Brissette in today's Worcester T&G while he was directing the set up for Murray's election night party:

“How long’s it been?” Mr. Brissette said as he directed logistics in the middle of Union Station’s expansive marble-floored entry hall yesterday afternoon. “We’ve got a shot in Worcester to do something really big. We can’t blow it.”

There you have it. These guys feel a sense of ownership, which is good. But there's also that sense of desparation; if their man doesn't win, it seems like these guys won't know what to do with themselves. But another excerpt from this article shows how confident they are:

If he wins, Mr. Murray will deliver a speech to local supporters before being whisked to Boston to appear on stage with whoever is victorious in the primary for governor.

With a state police escort, I presume? There's some Herald front page fodder for ya...

But their arrogance doesn't stop there. In that same T&G article, the Murray campaign is blatantly asserting that their candidate is the one to pick if Deval Patrick wins.

Are you kidding me? I'm not asking that for political reasons, because projecting confidence is important. And each of the LG candidates can make a credible political argument why they are the most appropriate running mate for Deval Patrick or any of the others too. But could you BE more presumptuous, arrogant and disrespectful? People don't like being told who to vote for, and an article like this certainly won't help that. People want to vote for winners, people who instill confidence, but when they detect a candidate's sense of entitlement, that don't work.

I'd advise the Murray campaign to tone down that rhetoric in tomorrow's debate because the whiplash can getcha everytime.

So, there's the playbook: increase turnout in Worcester County and environs and hope that investing in direct-mail advertising and gotv will trump advertising on television. I hope for the sake of democracy they're right. Otherwise those State Police will have to shift from escort duty to suicide watch.

WBUR Helpful Candidate Interviews - Gov and LG

2006-09-15T15:10:00.000-05:00

WBUR has a helpful page that contains links to interviews with each of the candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor.

WBUR's Election Page.

Deval Patrick.

Chris Gabrieli.

Tom Reilly.

Andrea Silbert.

Tim Murray.

Deb Goldberg .

These interviews are perhaps a better way of deciding who to vote for than reading a position paper or blog because you get to hear who these people are and how they talk to you.

For anyone who is still undecided after reading and studying the candidates, perhaps listening to these clips will help you make up your mind.

Goldberg Whines While Silbert Shines

2006-09-14T11:21:00.000-05:00

Apparently Deb Goldberg has taken out a full page ad in today's Brookline Tab complaining about the Tab's failure to endorse her and instead endorse Andrea Silbert for Lieutenant Governor.

Does anyone else find this hysterical?

Now I have not seen the ad, but the Boston Globe noted that she'd done this, as did onBrookline.com's editor, and former Tab columnist, Jim Conley who posted this excerpt from the print ad.

“Your misstatements of fact and mischaracterization of dedicated and hard working public servants are not worthy of refutation (sic).”

This is absolutely pathetic on Goldberg's part.

First of all, it confirms what many of us already believe about her: that she is thin-skinned and can't take the heat.

But it also re-confirms something I already know, which is that she feels entitled to support from her hometown and is incredulous that it is not forthcoming.

Lastly, it shows me how off-base her priorities are. Can you imagine the scene at the Goldberg HQ last week when the editorial came down? I guarantee that her staff spent valuable time this past week working this ad, time that could have been spent on getting in touch with voters. I also am sure that Deb wasted hours on the phone speaking to her Brookline homies who were, like her, SHOCKED.

(I'm sure they are all hot at Dan Payne who informed the world outside the Blogosphere today that the Tab hadn't endorsed Debbie and insted went with Silbert. Payne's a Newton guy, part of that whole Brookline/Newton political crew that grew up with JFK, came of age with Barney Frank and The Duke, and now think that they're god's gift to politics. Think again, folks, because the people who matter most in Mass. politics these days live in towns like Wayland, Ashland, East Bridgewater, Wakefield and Franklin.)

If the people who know Deb Goldberg best do not think that she is ready to be our LG nominee, should the rest of us? I think I answered my own question.

Well, it all plays well into Ms. Andrea Silbert's hands, because she, apparently, has been spending the last week getting a story about her in papers around the state just about every day - something which ain't too shabby for an unelected candidate who supposedly has no base.

But don't forget, Andrea's a Brookline native too, and she got a ton of support at the convention from Deb's hometown delegates who knew Deb and liked Andrea better.

Deb, it's too bad it's come to this. I said to myself last week that I thought your $2 million could innocculate your campaign from worrying about these kinds of things, but that's evidently not the case. Actually, I should clarify: I'm sure your campaign staff wasn't worried about it, but you made them worry.

I wish you luck on Tuesday because you're going to need it now more than you needed it yesterday.

Somerville's & Cambridge's Choice: Deval Patrick & Andrea Silbert

2006-09-14T07:12:00.000-05:00

In an editorial published today, the Somerville Journal endorsed Deval Patrick for Governor and Andrea Silbert for Lieutenant Governor. In an identical editorial, the Cambridge Chronicle endorsed the same team.

On Deval, the editors note

Deval Patrick understands that cities facing the challenges presented to Somerville - aging infrastructure, few train stops despite many trains running through the city, children of many languages to educated and a sky-rocketing cost of living - can become opportunities with the right help from the state. Patrick is the only candidate in favor of returning local aid to the cities and not to the pockets of wealthy suburbanites via ill-advised tax cuts.

To complement him, the editors endorse Andrea Silbert and write

She has real ideas on retaining companies in this state - so those started in Cambridge can flourish here in Massachusetts - and she has real experience in getting into the workforce a diverse group of women as the former CEO and co-founder of the Center for Women & Enterprise, the largest nonprofit entrepreneurial training center in New England.

Congratulations to the Patrick and Silbert campaigns.

MetroWest's Choice: Andrea Silbert

2006-09-14T07:08:00.000-05:00

In an editorial published today, the MetroWest Daily News endorsed Andrea Silbert for Governor.

The editors note

[W]e're most impressed by Silbert. Her grasp of the issues is sure. She speaks well, and listens well. The lieutenant governor's office has little legal definition, so she has written her own job description. At the top is economic development, a field she has explored from Wall Street to Brazil -- and in MetroWest, where her organization has helped several small businesses get started.

This endorsement is significant because many think that the MetroWest area is where the primary races next week will be decided.

Congratulations to the Silbert campaign.

Newton's Choice: Andrea Silbert

2006-09-13T09:32:00.000-05:00

Today's Newton Tab includes an endorsement of Andrea Silbert for Lieutenant Governor and Chris Gabrieli for Governor.

The Editors note

...Andrea Silbert has shown she can be an equal to those running for governor - as well as an advocate for job creation, the environment and the homeless.

This endorsement is significant because the Tab is delivered free to thousands of households in Newton each week and is the paper of record for local issues there.

Given that Newton's turnout in 2002 was amongst the three highest in the state (higher than Worcester, interestingly), this endorsement could have an effect on a lightly covered race.

It is also important because Deb Goldberg was thought to be running strong in Newton, given her connections to the Jewish community in Newton and Brookline. While she will likely receive the most votes in those two towns, the endorsement of Andrea Silbert by both the Brookline and Newton Tabs is telling.

Globe Op-Ed: Silbert's the Star

2006-09-12T06:50:00.000-05:00

Scot Lehigh, a longtime reporter and observer of the Massachusetts political scene, has called Andrea Silbert the "real star" of the 2006 Lieutenant Governor field in a column in today's Boston Globe.

Lehigh also not only notes that Goldberg's candidacy was "torpedoed" by her hometown paper's endorsement of Andrea Silbert, he also torpedoes the main point of the Murray candidacy - namely that we somehow needs an advocate for cities and towns in the corner office. Lehigh writes

By my count, with 40 senators and 160 representatives regularly doing the same thing, we'd then have 201 public officials committed to that task.

Spot on.

We now have multiple, objective, experienced observers ratifying what at least 14,000 people, and likely tens of thousands more, already know - that Andrea Silbert is the best candidate to back up her campaign promises with a proven record of job creation expertise.

Globe Endorses Murray

2006-09-11T05:55:00.000-05:00

In this editorial in today's Boston Globe, the editors endorse Tim Murray for Lieutenant Governor over his rivals, Andrea Silbert and Deb Goldberg.

The editors note

Murray's best asset is his ability to see the connections among the state's many challenges, including a sluggish economy, high-cost housing, shrinking population, and rising energy and healthcare costs.

Congratulations, Mr. Murray.

Globe Endorses Patrick

2006-09-09T21:28:00.000-05:00

The Boston Globe, in an editorial to be printed on Sunday, September 10, 2006, endorsed Deval Patrick for Governor in the Massachusetts Democratic primary to be held on September 19, 2006.

The Globe's editors chose to focus their first paragraph of policy analysis on Patrick's primary substantive focus: economic development.

His economic prescription is simple but powerful: Hold the line on income taxes; focus on support for beleaguered communities to ease property taxes; and expand the economy by making Massachusetts a more inviting place for all kinds of businesses. Despite the easy stereotype, he is no big-spending, antibusiness liberal. His ideas for economic development are as serious and sensible as any candidate's, Republican or Democrat.

Interestingly, in an interview broadcast this evening on WBZ-1030 Radio's Lovell Dyett show, Patrick was asked his greatest frustration of the campaign. He answered, and I'm paraphrasing, "the media's inability or unwillingness to focus on what is the main focus of my campaign: economic development."

It appears that focus was apparent at least to the editors of the Boston Globe.

The editors then discussed his approach to the state's new healthcare law and his plan to repair the relationship between state government and cities and towns.

He has a measured, focused approach to implementing the state's complicated new healthcare law, already fraying at the seams. Just holding together the fragile coalition that passed the universal access law and steadily making it work is challenge enough for now. ``It's important for us to get past this politics that says we have to agree on everything before we can work on anything," he says. Similarly, he wants to fix the relationship between the state and the cities and towns, which he correctly says is in ``total breakdown."

The editors have, in my opinion, correctly listed the order of priority of issues facing our next Governor:

1. Economic Development.

2. Implementing the new healthcare law.

3. Increasing local aid.

Congratulations Mr. Patrick.

Kids in Ads

2006-09-07T13:33:00.000-05:00

There have been a lot of kids in political ads so far this year, as John Keller pointed out today in his blog when he referenced this Weekly Dig story about same.

So while we may all agree or disagree over whether Chris Gabrieli, Andrea Silbert or Tim Murray are exploiting kids in their ads, I think we can all agree that none are as bad as this ad that Rick Santorum is running in Pennsylvania.

Silbert: Brookline's Choice for LG

2006-09-07T10:41:00.000-05:00

In a stunning move, the Brookline Tab today endorsed Andrea Silbert for Lieutenant Governor.

Given that Deb Goldberg is from Brookline and claims it as her own, this is nothing less than a shocking upset. (For the record, Andrea Silbert is ALSO from Brookline, but has since moved to Cape Cod.) It speaks volumes as to Goldberg's qualifications when the people who know her best do not want her to be elected.

The Tab editors summed up Silbert's qualifications this way:

Silbert impresses with her readiness to roll up her sleeves and get to work and with her progressive, grassroots style. She has a practical view of the limits of the lieutenant governor, yet a clear determination to negotiate a meaningful role. We are also not swayed by her opponents' claims that she lacks government experience. Her managerial background, ability to think on her feet and analytical skills give us confidence that Silbert could ably step into the governor's shoes, if needed.

In an amusing turn, they also note the following about Ms. Goldberg:

And while Goldberg is campaigning under the slogan "people first," we can think of few events during her years as a selectman where that sentiment drove her decision-making. In fact, we think of a May 2003 incident when Goldberg was stopped for speeding and reportedly flashed her selectman's badge to avoid a ticket as more symbolic of her priorities.

That's the highest of comedy. Can you imagine that traffic stop? Just think about it for a second.... OK. Now, who you gonna vote for?

In other shocking news, the West Roxbury Transcript endorsed Tim Murray. The endorsement was based primarily on property tax issues. An important issue, for sure, but not a ringing endorsement given that they could have expounded more as their Brookline colleagues did.

Thoughts on Charter Schools

2006-09-04T22:10:00.000-05:00

First off, let me say this: I am not an expert on education issues or on school funding issues. Rather, my thoughts on this issue are formed in the context of race relations, fairness and fostering innovation.

Over at BMG, there has been a lot of discussion about charter schools in this thread from last week and this thread from today. Pablo, a poster over at BMG, appears to be an expert in this field and knows far more about it than I. Read his stuff because he throws actual numbers around and knows what he's talking about.

But here's my question: if we expand charter schools, won't the most underserved communities benefit? More bluntly: won't black and latino children living in Boston and other cities have more educational opportunities than they otherwise would? Isn't it racist NOT to offer those communities new and innovative educational outlets after they have been systematically ignored, denied and oppressed for a century? Don't we want to give not just hope but real opportunity, real chances for success?

Now, perhaps "charter schools" - as strictly defined - are not the best solution. Perhaps "pilot schools" are a better option. In Boston, I know that there are a number of excellent high schools that are pilot schools. I confess I don't know the exact difference, but perhaps someone can enlighten me some more on that front as well.

But getting back to my primary point: we as a state need to ask ourselves the hard questions. I'd point people to the Oprah episode with Bill Gates from earlier this year, but I can't find the exact link. But the jist was this: Oprah followed a bunch of black and latino Chicago school kids as they toured a posh suburban white public high school, and then the suburban kids visited the inner city school. Both groups of kids (and yours truly too) were absolutely flabbergasted at the discrepancies between the schools.

But look in our own back yards. Take a walk to Madison Park high school in Roxbury. Check out the concrete wasteland surrounding it, check out its dilapidated facilities. Then check out a place like Newton North high school, and take a look at the designs famed architect Graham Gund has done for its new facility.

Now, I know it's easy to say that it's precisely because charter schools are draining money from school systems that these schools in black and latino communities are suffering. While that's probably not exactly true, it could be a factor, and please, someone, demonstrate to me why it's true if it is. But the innovation, the dedication, the cutting edge education that is going on at the vast majority of charter schools is too powerful to ignore because it is giving hope to literally thousands of kids who would otherwise be left behind due to latent racist policies that have existed for generations both inside and outside the educational arena. (I also recognize that there have been instances where charter schools have failed. But I argue that a)the successes far outweigh the failures and b) the media's fascination with the failures is due to just that: the media's fascination with failure as opposed to success (when was the last time you heard "news" that was good but wasn't in the context of some "human interest story"?)

So, where does this leave me? Here: we should not be stifling innovation and creativity in the name of saving money. We should not stifle innovation because it's taking money away from the non-charter public schools. (If this Hobbes-ian choice is occurring, the we should come up with a solution - and perhaps "Pilot schools" are an answer.)

For too long our educational system has reflected the racism that still thrives in our society today. It is only by creating a new, highly educated black and latino upper middle class that we will conquer these challenges. Because going to a prestigious college or university is such a master key for success in this world, we must do all we can to ensure more black and latino kids get into elite colleges. (Or, at the very least, sharply increase the percentage of black and latino kids that go to four year colleges.) Only then will our society become more equal, more fair, and more democratic.

Thanks.

By way of disclosure, I should state the following: I have studied critical race theory extensively, hence my thoughts on this issue. CRT is a much more complex field than simply thinking everything is racist - as too many people often assume. But after studying and working in the field, it's not too hard to see how latently racist our society is. For another powerful example, take a look at how much higher asthma rates are in black and latino communities in Boston and you'll know what I mean. That doesn't mean we can't fix it, that doesn't mean we should all feel guilty. It just means that we need innovative, entrepreneurial ways to solve the problem, and I am of the opinion that the benefits provided by charter schools is one way to accomplish the larger goal of becoming a more just society.

LG Ad Spending

2006-08-30T11:51:00.000-05:00

As of today, the LG ad campaigns have all begun. We also pretty much know how much each plans to spend on TV ads. Here's the breakdown, in order of magnitude:

1. Deb Goldberg: well, we actually do not know exactly how much she plans to spend on TV advertising, because I believe her campaign has not said so. However, given that at the end of July she had 1.9+ million on hand, we can guess that she will spend approximately $2 million on ads, give or take a couple of hundred thousand.

2. Andrea Silbert: $530,000. According to a press release received today from the Silbert campaign, they

will air two new television ads today. The ads, which are Silbert's first of the campaign and were created by noted media specialist Tad Devine, are entitled "Andrea Silbert: The Jobs Candidate," and "14,000 Jobs." They will air today and take a hiatus for the Labor Day holiday. They will return to the airwaves on Tuesday, September 5^th through the September 19^th primary. The ads are part of an approximately $530,000 media buy designed to ensure that Silbert's message reaches Democratic and unenrolled primary voters.

3. Tim Murray: $400,000

According to an article in today's T&G,

So the mayor’s campaign, which had $391,234 in the bank at the end of the most recent reporting period, Aug. 16, was able to plunk down about $400,000 for “media” for a longer run than the mayor’s advisers had anticipated. Besides the network booking fees, the campaign paid Mr. Patton-Spruill, the director, about $20,000.

After incurring those costs plus other fees for the services of media buyer Tobe Berkovitz, a Boston University professor, the campaign has only about $80,000 left, Mr. Ferson said.

Another interesting piece from the article:

In one of the two versions of the ad, a group of elementary school pupils behind a beaming Mr. Murray chant: “Hurry, hurry, vote for Murray.”

In the other version, the candidate declares: “I’m in a hurry to get Massachusetts working again. I hope you’ll give me the chance.”

Hoss Analysis: remember that with all of these amounts, a portion goes to the consultants, so each of their amounts that is actually spent on tv ads is less than the total amount put out there.

That said, this is overall an impressive bunch of media buys for a downballot race, particularly Silbert's buy and, to a lesser extent, Murray's.

Regarding Silbert, the following are especially impressive:

A) Her ability to spend more money on TV than either 2002 LG candidates Pines or Slattery, even though they were both much more established politicians at the time. She's also buying more time than any of the Treasurer candidates did in 2002. Again, impressive, given that that group had both established politicians (Cahill, Cahill and Murphy) and a guy that was an ultimate insider and kicked in 100K+ of his own dough (Segel).

B) Her ability to have conserved enough resources to be able to spend this much.

Regarding Murray, it's impressive that he's been able to pull together a larger media buy than Pines or Slattery, but it's surprising overall that he didn't raise more given his position as an elected official. I know he's allegedly putting together a field operation, but as I've said constantly, I'll believe it when I see it. I also know that some say "he got into the race late." Baloney. He's known he was running for years, and for him not to have stocked up more funds prior to getting in the race was foolish. Or, if it was not foolish, then his failure to raise more since he did get in isn't impressive - and yes, I know he's "raised more since he got in than anyone else."

Also, it appears that Murray's people have bought into the "remember a rhyme" school of political ads a la Tim Cahill. But "Hurry Hurry Vote for Murray"? Uhhh...

Lastly, I'll say this: usually the candidate that accumulates and spends the most wins. In this race, Deb Goldberg's inherited wealth positions her as the leading candidate to do that now. However, given that she has not gotten a ton of attention, and given that her ads are not particularly memorable, she is less of a favorite than she could have been. Silbert and Murray are still in this thing, and as we all know in politics, anything can happen.

Andrea Silbert: A Voice for the Middle Class

2006-08-27T13:20:00.000-05:00

Eileen McNamara has a column in today's Globe that better sums up why Andrea Silbert is the best candidate for Lieutenant Governor than anything I or any other junior varsity blogger could.

Key paragraphs include:

In the last decade, she says, the center's training and fund-raising efforts have helped 10,000 people, most with low incomes and limited education, launch small businesses in more than 200 communities in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. What began as a center in Roxbury has expanded to include state-subsidized centers in Worcester and Providence. It is little wonder, then, that economic development is the centerpiece of Silbert's pitch, a mix of results-oriented pragmatism and socially conscious idealism. Expanding commuter rail is not just environmentally responsible, she argues, it is a practical response to housing costs and traffic gridlock. Ending homelessness is not just a moral imperative, it is an economic investment. Preserving open space is not just aesthetically pleasing, it is a key to asset management.

``We can't leave politics to the rich and to professional politicians," Silbert says of Goldberg, heir to the Stop & Shop fortune, and Murray, the 37-year-old three-term mayor in Worcester. ``I have the political skills to identify a problem and to raise money from the public and private sectors to fix it. We have had to overcome more than one veto in the last few years at the center, but we have done it. I want to take what we have learned and apply it statewide."

It is her biography, as much as her resume, that Silbert hopes will connect with ordinary voters. She lives on Cape Cod not just because it is beautiful but also because she and her husband, a self-employed graphic designer and artist, could not afford housing prices closer to Boston. They buy their own health insurance, a solution that costs too much and provides too little coverage. Their children will go to public schools. ``We are living the life of so many middle-class families in Massachusetts," she says. ``We ought to have a voice at the State House."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Thoughts on WBUR LG Story

2006-08-25T21:38:00.000-05:00

So I finally was able to listen to the WBUR story on the LG race and it was pretty good.

Two things struck me: first, calling Tim the "frontrunner" was an inaccuracy, but an understandable perception from the reporter.

Second, I'd like to put this out there: Andrea Silbert has more endorsements than any other candidate: the 10,000 people she and her team helped while she was at the Center for Women and Enterprise.

I know that sounds like a stretch, but when, as Prof. Berry said in the BUR story, you're talking about "name recognition", I contend that come primary day, those 10,000 people are going to play an important role in a Silbert victory because when they begin to focus on the race in the closing days, they'll be part of the viral marketing/buzz building that helps the Silibert campaign get over the hump.

LG Poll Analysis

2006-08-23T08:52:00.000-05:00

Couple quick thoughts on the Suffolk poll showing Murray with 11%, Goldberg with 6% and Silbert with 5%.

First, this poll means nothing, nada, zip, zilch, zero. We would know just as much about the state of the race today as we did before the poll came out.

Second, let's look at history: where was the LG race and Treasurer's race in 2002?

On August 29th, a Suffolk poll comes out with the following numbers:

LG:

Gabrieli - 30%
Slattery - 23%
Pines - 16%

That's sort of relevant, but the Treasurer's numbers are more relevant because none of them had advertised at the time of the poll:

Steve Murphy - 17%
Mike Cahill - 14%
Jim Segel - 12%
Tim Cahill - 11%

Who won? Tim Cahill. Murphy? Came in 3rd.

So to those Murray folks getting their hopes up, go for it, your hopes are as likely to come to true as not.

LG July Money

2006-08-07T15:28:00.000-05:00

Well, it was an interesting month on the LG money front.

Tim Murray's people fudged his June numbers;
Deb Goldberg fudged her fundraising numbers;
Deb Goldberg threw in another million for the heckuvit; and
Andrea Silbert continued to lead the non-self-funding money race.

As anyone who has been around this state knows, it takes a significant ad presence on the airwaves to win a downballot primary. Deb Goldberg has positioned herself well to take that victory home with her to Brookline. It's not guaranteed, but any objective observer would have to say that at this point, her largesse gives her the upper hand as we head into "ad" season.

That said, unlike in 2002 when Chris Gabrieli spent nearly $2 million on ads and faced an ad campaign of $270K from Lois Pines and $165K from John Slattery, the ad presence of the well-heeled candidate's opponents will be significantly greater than that year where the order of finish was:

Gabrieli- 306,043 (46%)
Pines- 205,208 (31%)
Slattery- 150,313 (25%)

What do people think the results will look like this year when Goldberg spends $2 (or 3 or 4) million on TV, Silbert spends $600K and Murray spends $400K? With $1 million in non-Goldberg ads and 2, 3 or 4 million in Goldberg ads, it would seem there is a better chance for an "upset" this year than in previous years. Plus, with turnout supposedly down this year (continuing the trend in primaries), who does that help? Murray with his field operation? Silbert with the clearest message? Deb with most money?

Finally, last month I wondered why Murray fudged his June tally and whether he was holding checks. This month's performance shows that he was not. This month's spending also shows that the Murray campaign is not stockpiling money like it should be. A very rought look at the 2006 numbers indicate that Murray has raised 500K his year, spent 320K, and is up 170K from his Feb. 1 number. Silbert has raised 440K, spent 215K and is up 155K from her Feb. 1 number. Murray has spent more than 60% of what he's taken in this year, whereas Silbert has spent just under half. Granted, some of that may be going into a field operation, but will that pay off? Perhaps, but Silbert's and Goldberg's field effort will not be significantly less than Murray's given the vacuum created by the governor's race. Maybe I'll be proven wrong this time around, both on the impact of a ground game and the importance of winning the ad war.

As you stew over all that, here are the numbers.

1. Deb Goldberg

Starting Balance: $1,057,124.84
Receipts: $1,023,417.34
Expenditures: $98,199.63
Ending Balance: $1,982,342.55

2. Andrea Silbert

Starting Balance: $475.517.32
Receipts: $68,851.00
Expenditures: $19,040.25
Ending Balance: $525,328.07

3. Tim Murray

Starting Balance: $386,166.26
Receipts: $61,743.95
Expenditures: $52,013.16
Ending Balance: $395,897.04

Netroots Rise Up: Donate to Silbert & Counter Deb's Millions

2006-08-01T19:03:00.000-05:00

Well, it appears that Deb Goldberg has given herself another million dollars

If you are a fan of Andrea Silbert's (as I know many of you are) and you haven't donated to her campaign yet, NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT. Please donate here.

Andrea is a fabulous candidate and, absent Deb's millions, would be in a great position to win as she'd be able to spend more on TV than any downballot candidate since 1998, except for Gabrieli. More than Cahill or Segel in 02, more than Pines or Slattery in 02. Make no mistake: Andrea has done something that no candidate has ever done before in a downballot campaign. BUT SHE NEEDS OUR SUPPORT NOW MORE THAN EVER TO PUT HER OVER THE TOP.

If each of us donates something, it will make a difference. I'm starting with $100, and if each of us do that, it will make a huge difference. If each of us gave $200, I can't even tell you how much of an impact it would have.

You know, there's really no "netroots" candidate out there other than Deval. But there can be, and now is the time.

Please join me and donate to Andrea's campaign here.

Why Liberal Biz Dems Will Make MA Better

2006-07-21T14:25:00.000-05:00

Looking up at the statement that lies beneath my blog's name, I thought I'd discuss a bit why I think Democrats in the Governor and Lieutenant Governor's offices will make this state better - if we have the right Democrats there.

In today's Globe, Scot Lehigh asks why, in this state full of the best universities, research facilities and companies, don't we have the best and most capable leaders?

My answer? Because we have a general presumption that holding elected office equals competence. But it does not, and Scot's piece clearly points that out.

Another piece in today's Globe also stands out to me: in this article, Romney gets generally high marks for his handling of the Big Dig crisis, just as he did for handling the 2002 Olympics. While I disagree with most, if not all of his policies, Romney's performance over the past two weeks has convinced me of this: we need to elect Democrats who have the private sector experience like Romney, but we should also make sure they have a conscience and, ideally, have operated in sectors outside of the private/business world.

Some good examples? Mark Warner, John Edwards, Maria Cantwell. They were all private sector actors who also believe, for the most part, what many of us Democrats believe. If we get more of these kinds of people into our ranks, and get less of the career-politician-types, we can rule for decades and fundamentally change this country, just as the Republicans have done over the past 30 years by making "government" a dirty word.

So, how do we start here in Massachusetts? It's very easy: elect either Chris Gabrieli or Deval Patrick, and make sure Andrea Silbert is their running mate.

Let's speak truth here: most of us spend our daily lives working in the private sector, receiving direct or indirect benefit from both the social service/non-profit sector, and relying on the public/government sector. These three candidates have thrived in that sector, and they are the ones we ought to be putting out there to the voters.

Succeeding in getting elected does not make you an expert in making people's lives better, and it ought not to be a ticket to higher office. Unfortunately in Massachusetts, that's not the case. We are so enamored with elected officials (or we used to be, and that impression has been perpetuated by the media) that we automatically assume that they are the "best" candidates for the job. Granted, being elected does prove something more than your campaigning skills, and getting re-elected does not happen, for the most part, unless you've delivered something for your constituents, either tangibly or by standing for something 50.1% of them believe in. The most recent evidence of this presumption occurred in 2004 when the only prominent names listed as possible successors to Sen. Kerry were Bay State congressmen.

But let's look again at Scot's column: he notes, correctly I think, that someone like Matt Amorello had no business being appointed to the Turnpike chairman's position, save for his being a failed congressional candidate and former Republican state senator who needed a job. Same goes for the Blutes and Buckinghams of the world, as Scot points out. Scot further notes that in the Dukakis administration, expertise usually trumped politics. (Note: is Scot right? I was in elementary school then, and wasn't even living in this state...)

Now, some may say that my comments here are a slight on Tom Reilly's and Tim Murray's qualifications for the offices they're running for. You're right. I have no doubt they are accomplished, effective politicians, and they are both clearly smart because they are admitted to the bar (despite the bad lawyer jokes, you do have to be more than a good test-taker to become a lawyer). Tom Reilly, in fact, is an excellent prosecutor. But does he have the ability to understand what a food pantry in Greenfield is going through when its federal grant dries up or its source of donations shrinks as fewer people choose to live there and instead migrate to the cities? And when I say "understand", I mean does he really KNOW, as opposed to have compassion for the situation. Maybe, but it may in large part be due to the fact that he has the ability to pull together people who can advise him on such a situation; he has no direct experience in meeting a bottom line, save for working within a budget prescribed to him by the Legislature - a concept that is approached differently than when a small bodega owner needs to figure out how to buy supplies and price the goods.

My concerns here also relate to the promises politicians make, and how they are able to keep them. While the candidates for Governor are necessarily talking about a whole host of issues, the candidates for Lt. Gov. are speaking to a much narrower scope of issues. Let's look at each:

1. Tim Murray: wants to be an advocate at the state level for cities and towns, wants to expand commuter rail. He has released plans on both.

2. Andrea Silbert: wants to lead the state's economic development efforts so that we create jobs, and has released an action plan thereon; wants to bring more federal dollars back to Mass. and use it to expand regional rail; and wants to be the advocate for those without a voice, especially homeless families, and she wants to end family homelessness (note: ending homelessness through innovative strategies is a hot issue these days, and NPR is doing a series on it. Mike Bloomberg in New York is launching an effort to end homelessness, but appears to want to do it in a more compassionate way than the Guiliani efforts were.)

3. Deb Goldberg: wants to use her family's experience starting and running Stop and Shop, as well as her experience as a Brookline Selectman and in life in general, to help get Massachusetts moving again.

Of these three, Andrea Silbert is the one who fits best into the mold I have deemed the most helpful for our state. She's run a successful business that had a direct impact on thousands of lives, and she has worked in and with the private and public sectors. It's just my opinion, but I want someone like her and like Deval or Chris.

Admittedly, there are drawbacks to having a non-governmental Governor. They can get frustrated with the bureaucracy, or have unreasonable illusions about how things work and how much harder it is to get things done. This could be particularly true this year if Deval or Chris wins, because they will be coming in with such high expectations of cleaning house that they will invariably not be able to live up to them and there will undoubtedly be stories at the 100 day mark of just how many things have NOT been accomplished. But that's not enough of an argument to have a career politician in there, not at this point in our history. Massachusetts needs people who will attract the best and brightest into government again. That means someone who will be able to get lawyers to leave cushy law firm jobs, executives to leave their posts, young college and master's degree grads to go into government before going to work on Wall Street. Do you really think that Tom Reilly is going to be able to do that and attract that kind of new talent? Please. There are career hacks salivating all over the place because they've been waiting for 16 years for a Democrat to get into office so they could reach their jackpot position. Tom Reilly is not going to shake the trees of Boston's best institutions to attract new people. It's going to be more of the same. Contrast that with what a Deval governorship will do: bring in new, fresh faces from all over the region, perhaps the country. (Incidentally, I think if he wins, he's immediately in the mix for 2008 discussion as a Presidential candidate. Patrick/Obama 08, baby!) Gabrieli might do so as well, but he isn't the inspirational guy that will draw in young, smart, excited people like Deval will.

Career politicians are needed in some sectors, particularly the legislative leadership area. I am a big opponent of term limits and believe strongly that old oaks weather the storms. Legislatures are bizarre places (I've worked in one, I know), and it takes a while to get ones bearings. So term-limiting isn't the solution. (Although I also favor Parties term-limiting chairmanships in Congress, as that lets good people serve.)

So, enough rambling.

You want real innovation and leadership? Andrea Silbert, Deval Patrick and Chris Gabrieli should be top on your radar screen.

Think It's Hot Here?

2006-07-18T12:23:00.000-05:00

At least our ROADS AREN'T MELTING!

From the BBC:

Roads have been melting in parts of England as the heatwave across most of the country continues.

Gritting lorries have been sent out to spread crushed rock dust on melting tar to create non-stick road surfaces.

Monday was the year's hottest day so far with a reading of 32.7C (90.9F) at Heathrow. Forecasters say temperatures could be 37C (99F) later in the week.

The average maximum temperature in England for this week in July is only 21-23C (70-73F).

Romney Seeking to Take Control of Investigation

2006-07-13T12:43:00.000-05:00

I actually posted this over at BMG first, but wanted you loyal readers of this site to be able to see it as well (ha ha).

According to this article from Boston.com, Romney plan to file emergency legislation wresting control of the BigDig investigation from the Turnpike Authority and placing it under the auspices of the Executive Office of Transportation.

Interesting political move here, because it has the potential to have the following impacts (among others I'm sure):

1. Allows Romney to weaken the Pike, which he has wanted to do for a long time.

2. Puts the "buck" more squarely in the Executive Branch. This could cut both ways. On the one hand, if things aren't fixed soon, we all know where to point blame. If things go well, Romney can claim to be the savior. Or if things continue to be as muddled (blame-wise), it won't make a lick of difference in the public will still be mad as hell at everybody.

But on the other hand, if Dems win in November, this baby is in their lap, and they can be held accountable.

But if Romney gets this bill through, the blame for a slow fix will surely be focused on Healey by her opponent(s) this fall.

3. If the Legislature doesn't pass it, allows Romney and Healey to blame them and lump them in w/ the Pike in terms of being who we should blame for the problem. This would jibe well with Healey's political strategy.

I think if this bill gets introduced, it passes. This could, and probably should, be the beginning of the end for the separate Turnpike Authority.

That being said, I must say that in terms of road quality, the Pike is simply one of the best roads to drive on in the Northeast. It's always well paved with what appears to be better pavement than other roads. I actually love driving out west on the Pike - it's scenic and fast. Yes, the Pike "extension" from Weston to Boston has its periodic challenges, and the traffic is bad. But compared to, say, Route 1 Southbound coming into the Tobin bridge, it's a great ride. (I think that curvy stretch coming into Chelsea has been improved recently, though, right? But isn't the Bridge still a bumpy nightmare?)

I remember as a kid driving back to southern NE from skiing in Vermont with my parents and when we'd cross into Mass. from VT, the roads (usually I-91) would always get drastically better. My parents would always say "Yup, you can thank Tip O'Neill for these roads! Too bad Tip's legacy is going through rough times now - after all, he's the one who got the Feds committed to the point of no return on the Big Dig.

Polls Coming Fast and Furious

2006-07-12T13:07:00.000-05:00

Another day, another poll in the Governor's race.

And again, Patrick is ahead, getting 37% to Gabrieli's 27% and Reilly's 26%.

This could begin to be a battle for 2nd place, although if I'm Gabrieli, I'm focusing on bringing Reilly down for the next month, then take aim at Deval for the stretch run.

Patrick Has Huge Lead

2006-07-10T15:55:00.000-05:00

OK, so the latest Statehouse News poll is out and it has Deval Patrick with a big lead.

Now, I know it's early, and I know we can't rely fully on polls yet. However, I think this lead is similar to building up a lot of speed going downhill so that you can safely make it uphill. It's also like stockpiling a large campaign warchest so that you can a) fend of potential challengers and b) have enough to spend at the end. (Wait, that didn't work for Reilly, so scratch that analogy...)

But I think this lead is going to hold. Here's why:

In a couple of weeks, the TV ads are going to start flying. We've already seen the effect a large TV ad buy can have on a race. (Don't believe me? In addition to Chris's ads this year, check out this chart showing the impact Gabrieli's big ad buy in 2002 had.)

However, ad buys have less of an impact when they are countered with other ad buys. This year, Gabrieli's going to have a ton of ads (probably $5-6 million worth, I'd guess). Reilly's going to have $3-4 million worth of them. Patrick's going to have $2-3 million too (I predict he raises a ton in July-Sept. - like $2 million or so - plus chips in perhaps a million of his own).

With all those ads flying, it will be impossible for any of them to so solidly stamp out the others' messages that the status quo will hold. Sure, the race will tighten, but in a contested media battle, no one can make up more than 10 points. In my book, Patrick should keep doing what he's doing, and perhaps even spend a little now to get 5 or so more points ahead. Then, he'll have a cushion for the inevitable tightening of the race.

LG June Money

2006-07-09T22:18:00.000-05:00

Interesting note from this month: in a June 27th article in the T&G, the Murray camp announced it had "raised about $100,000" in June. Unless they are holding checks until next month (which would be stupid), the numbers below show that the campaign was making promises its fundraising team couldn't keep. They were spinning the press a tale they couldn't live up to. Good for them for getting that story in the paper, (it's what campaigns are supposed to do, after all), but that won't breed a lot of trust amongst the media as we head into endorsement and coverage season.

That all being said, it is still quite surprising that even with all his endorsements and political support, Murray still hasn't been able to catch up to Silbert in the one race that really matters: money. (I'm leaving Goldberg out of this analysis for obvious reasons.) Silbert looks to have spent some real dough, for the first time really, on her convention effort - and she still didn't spend that much last month. Also, she must have been focused in May on ensuring she got on the ballot since, as we all know, raising money takes advance work, and by working delegates to get her surprising 2nd place finish at the Convention, she appears to have sacrificed a bit of cash in June. That strategy paid off with the convention results. Also, Silbert's early chase of the money looks like an even smarter move now: she is the story of the Convention in the LG's race (unless Goldberg's embarassing performance in the story), and still maintains a healthy fundraising advantage over her main opponent.

Finally, it's really too bad that Goldberg's millions are all she's bringing to the table here. This race would be so much more interesting if it were between Tim and Andrea....

With that, let's check the numbers. As always, listed in order of cash on hand.

1. Deb Goldberg

Starting Balance: $1,087,491.74
Receipts: $17,763.75
Expenditures: $48,130.65
Ending Balance: $1,057,124.84

2. Andrea Silbert

Starting Balance: $476,548.08
Receipts: $52,991.00
Expenditures: $54,021.76
Ending Balance: $475.517.32

3. Tim Murray

Starting Balance: $353,917.53
Receipts: $80,936.89
Expenditures: $48,688.16
Ending Balance: $386,166.26

Silbert Trailblazes

2006-06-28T14:02:00.000-05:00

OK, so just when I thought things were quiet, someone wakes me up.

What piqued my interest? It was the announcement from Andrea Silbert's campaign that her convention video will be available for viewing on Comcast's On Demand service.

What a great idea this is! Her video was generally regarded as the best of the LG's videos (really, her competition was only with Tim), so it'll be good for her to have others view it too.

I'm sure other candidates will fall in behind Silbert's lead here - I can't imagine why they wouldn't, as it's probably not too costly.

The other news today is Tim Murray's June fundraising - clipping along at a solid pace post convention. I've said it before, and will continue to: Tim Murray is the favorite in this race and ought to be miles ahead in cash on hand. His up and down fundraising strategy has not helped him and if he ends up spending the same on media as Silbert, he loses. While they both may lose to Goldberg due to her largesse (although she may be hurt by lack of a clear message), Murray risks a dead last finish if he doesn't significantly outspend Silbert. Plus, comments about his "grass roots organizing" are such baloney I can't even believe they're spouting them.

Back to sleep - or work - or whatever...

All Quiet...

2006-06-27T12:45:00.000-05:00

Yes, I'm still here. Reality has set in and shown me that actually working for the clients I'm serving is pretty darn important.

But I've also been quiet cuz, well, things are pretty quiet on the ol' political front. It's all below the radar screen these days - building the field, building the warchest, whatever it is that's going to have to happen to make any of our esteemed statewide candidates viable.

So, in honor of their head-down dogged-ness, I too will put my head down and work my tail off for a while before posting again.

Unless a "July 4th Surprise" happens...

Quick Thoughts on LG Debate

2006-06-17T17:00:00.000-05:00

Gotta run to father's day dinner, but I just caught the LG debate on Channel 5 after the World Cup fiasco (2 red cards? are you effing kidding me?)

Anyway, this debate can be summed up thusly: Andrea Silbert and Tim Murray: substance and on message. Deb Goldberg: wandering, elitist and possibly harmful to our party in November.

Why? I'll speak to Goldberg because of my tight time.

Coming out of her horrendous convention, she needed to recover here. She didn't. instead she showed herself to be elitist and out of touch.

First, she thinks we might want to have another referendum on the tax rollback. I can't count how many ways that's effed up.

Second, her answers to the "get to know you "questions were comical at best and deal-breaking at worst.

Her kids go to private school (she lives in Brookline - doesn't get better public than that).

She drives a Lexus, her husband an Audi ($$$$$$$$$).

Her fav. leisure activities? Skiing ($$) and tennis (muffy, bring me another iced tea).

Does she own an iPod? No, but her kids HAVE EACH HAD THREE DIFFERENT MODELS!?!?!

I know she's smart, got a bunch of degrees, but could she be more out of touch with the voters we need to attract?

It's time for someone (Phil Johnston, are you available?) to whisper in her ear that it ain't happening. Let us have a great race between 2 great candidates and get out now before you embarass yourself and your family.

Off to dinner...

LG May Money

2006-06-07T12:03:00.000-05:00

Per Cash on Hand:

1. Deb Goldberg

Starting Balance: $1,144,765.83
Receipts: $36,208.25
Expenditures: $93,482.34
Ending Balance: $1,087,491.74

2. Andrea Silbert

Starting Balance: $451,691.13
Receipts: $64,890
Expenditures: $40,033.05
Ending Balance: $476,548.08

3. Tim Murray

Starting Balance: $330,017.99
Receipts: $87,239.14
Expenditures: $63,500.60
Ending Balance: $353,917.53

Interesting. We'll see who, if anyone, gets a convention fundraising "bump."

Silbert Steals the Show

2006-06-04T08:39:00.000-05:00

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.

Kelley Out

2006-05-25T14:57:00.000-05:00

BlueMassGroup has the scoop here, courtesy of Political Intelligence.

Not sure how this changes things, but it's interesting nonetheless.

LG Mid-May Money

2006-05-24T09:48:00.000-05:00

A commenter on this site noted that the mid-May OCPF filings have been made. While these reports are not always reliable in terms of showing where things stand, I thought that given the upcoming Convention, and given that many undecideds might be looking for ways to distinguish these four candidates, posting these mid-month numbers would be relevant in this month more so than probably any other month.

One huge caveat: Deb Goldberg does not file mid-month reports; rather, she files a single report at the end of each month. However, given the influx of cash she gave herself last month, I think it doesn't really matter.

The larger question is: who will have the funds to compete with her.

So, here are the mid-May numbers, based on Cash on Hand. Commentary follows.

1. Deb Goldberg ** THIS IS THE MAY 1ST NUMBER

$1,144,765.83

2. Andrea Silbert

Starting Balance: $451,691.13
Receipts: $33,070.00
Expenditures: $24,051.37
Ending Balance: $460,709.76

3. Tim Murray

Starting Balance: $330,017.99
Receipts: $17,275.00
Expenditures: $35,775.73
Ending Balance: $311,678.26

4. Sam Kelley:

Starting Balance: $13, 617.94
Receipts: $1,725.00
Expenditures: $3,381.42
Ending Balance: $11,961.52

My thoughts: Murray dumped a bunch of costs into this month, as did Silbert. I'm surprised Murray didn't have a better opening, but again, he may be holding checks, he may have a ton of stuff going on this week, who knows. But I think the more likely scenario is that his people are so busy with delegate-related stuff that fundraising is taking a back seat. Not a bad strategy if he can pull off a first-ballot win as is possible. If he doesn't though, then it may not have been worth it. I'm sure his people have plans for a big June. Time's getting short and Silbert's $150K gap ain't getting any narrower. She's continuing to move along at a solid clip.

Interesting.

More Thoughts on Silbert

2006-05-21T16:06:00.000-05:00

I posted more thoughts on why I chose Silbert over at BMG.

Here's the text of that entry:

As many of you know, I have been a frequent commenter on this blog about this wonderful LG field. And as many of you also know, I had not decided who to vote for, but it was down to Murray and Silbert.
Today, that all changed. Andrea Silbert won me over today and I am proud to say that I will be supporting her at the Convention, on this blog, and over at my blog, MassChange, where I live-blogged the debate (forgive typos, etc...) and where I posted some additional thoughts on today's forum.
With a clear message, relevant experience and the ability to get her message out through paid media, I believe Andrea will be our best hope for going up against Kerry Healey and Reed Hillman and the best complement to any of the three gubernatorial candidates.
She's not perfect, and none of the candidates are, but she is the one talking about the issues in a way that is different and more innovative than any of the the other three candidates. Her argument that we need to grow the pie, as opposed to re-dividing it, appeals to me. (Yes, I did post that yesterday here.) And I think it will appeal to voters who want a sense of hope and entrepreurial thinking from their elected leaders. After all, for those people in this state that are hurting, just getting by, living paycheck to paycheck: they're the real innovators in this state because they have to think of new and creative ways to keep their families fed, their children clothed, and their lives secure. They are the real Massachusetts entrepreneurs, and they deserve to have someone in the Corner Office who not only thinks like them, but actually lives like them - middle class, public schools, expensive health care, and on and on. Andrea Silbert is the only one in this field who can truly claim to be their champion because she is one of them.
Also, no one else in this race can provide the same blend of skills, experience and a plan. Andrea's is a simple, yet powerful message, and as we all know, in a crowded field and in a downballot race, there is no wiggle room within which one can educate voters on multiple fronts. The Gubernatorial candidates can and will be doing that, but the LG candidates need to "pop" and stand out. One, maybe two things about them will be remembered by voters, and her message of "jobs jobs jobs" trumps "cites and towns" and "health care" not only in its simplicity, but in its breadth. So much of what we as Democrats want to do can be started if we had more consistent revenues to utilize. Jobs get us there.
I wholeheartedly encourage my undecided BMG friends to support Andrea Silbert.
As I said, Andrea Silbert is not the perfect candidate. She is not an elected official, she has no natural constituency, she is not independently wealthy, she is not a lawyer, doctor or merchant chief, and she is not an expert in all things that state government does.
But she is an innovator and am entrepreneur, a product of the extraordinary non-profit sector that exists as a sort of "shadow government" in our state, filling in so many of the holes our government should, but cannot fill because 16 years of Republican rule and neglect.
Just imagine. Massachusetts is home to some of the most innovative ideas in the world. Don't we want someone in the Corner Office who understands these people, and wants to bring the positive forces of government to serve and promote these ideas, as well as advocate for the core ideas that make our state so proudly Democratic? With all due respect to the other candidates experience and passion for Democratic ideals, I think it's time for a 21st Century Democratic leader who brings the best of all that Massachusetts has to offer to the table. For my money (well, at least my delegate vote), Andrea Silbert should be our choice.
Thanks.

LG Forum Thoughts: Silbert wins.

2006-05-21T15:04:00.000-05:00

Here are my initial thoughts:

We didn't learn anything new today, we didn't get anything that can be used as ammo either at the Convention or otherwise. We are basically in the same place. But, I definitely got the sense that the candidates are beginning to hone their messages - as would be expected as things have developed.

Murray stayed on the local aid tip, and in doing so, beat out Goldberg, but not by as much as I would have thought. Goldberg was impressive with her statements about knowing how to bring people together, etc...

Kelley was all over the place. I thought he had landed on something with the prescription drug thing, but then kept saying weird things.

In the end, though, I think it's Silbert who comes out with the "W" here. Although her message about jobs may be getting tiresome to those of us paying attention, I think voters need to see that we can all cry for more local aid or more money for healthcare, but if the money ain't there, then you're going to have to take from somewhere else to pay for it. She beat that home today, and did an effective job doing it. My call today is that Silbert won.

As many of you readers know, I've been deciding between Murray and Silbert for a while now, unsure of who was going to get my vote at the Convention. Today, Silbert sealed the deal for me. She's got the best combination of new ideas, a clear message and an ability to provide the resources needed to win (i.e. fundraise.)

Andrea, today you earned my support.

LiveBlogging LG Forum

2006-05-21T13:30:00.000-05:00

I'm watching the stream because I couldn't make it to Lowell, so this will have to do!

Refresh for updates.

2:30: looks like I have a stream!

2:34: head over to the LTC website where there will also be a chat that you can participate in.

2:36: and we're off!

3:00 minute openings:

1. Silbert up first. Opens with comment about enrolling her kids in school. Then gets to jobs. wants to bring her skills as a proven jobs expert to the job. A bit shaky start, but got to her point.

2. Kelly: Education, health care and guarantee of a job. I'm an indivdual that tries to get people to a healthier place in live.

Plan to help local aid: buy drugs from Canada. I'll lead that charge immediately.

I can connect dots on our historic healthcare plan and navigate waters to make sure you have affordable, quality health insurance.

Need to restore confidence and credibility in corner office.

A decent start, hints of a clearer message (Czar to implement the new HC bill)

3. Goldberg: what's happened in Lowell w/ floods is why I'm running for LG and why we need dems in Corner office. We didn't see it in Greenfield (stolen line from Deval!).

Talking about background, how S&S kept profits low (1% margin). She talking about her background, her budget experience, but doesn't say where she's from or what she's done!

4. Murray: thoughts go out to flood families. (His lapel sticker is reflecting light).

Frontline of govt = local govt.

Talks about experience in Worcester w/ what he's done.

Focus should be on keeping people in MA.

says he's running to be voice for regions not otherwise heard.

Probably tied w/ Silbert for best opening statement.

Questions:

1. To SIlbert from Marie Sweeney: what is role of FedGov in Flood. Did Romney act qucikly enough, how would you handle?

Answer: Govt. is about anticipating problems. We had 5.7 million in peabody, but Romney vetoed. When $4 mill. program for womens biz was slashed, she rallied nationwide. to save and grow program. We need to get more back from DC for us. And then you have to be there immediately.

Kelley Response: agrees we need to be prepared. "I've been involved in disasters all my life" - not sure he wanted to say that!

Goldberg response: role of LG is to be interface bet. local communities and state govt. as local official, I've had to be in that position before.

Murray: slams Healey for lack of performance here.

Summary: GOldberg wins this round. Silbert's story about bringing $ back was solid too.

Kravetz to Kelley: how do we control costs of new healthcare plan?

Kelley: task force to negotiate prescription drug deals for towns. Do away w/ prior authorizations.

I missed a part of this answer due to barking dog.

Goldberg: 38% of healthcare costs are admin. Create statewide database to
Murray: munic. budgets: health ins. huge, and increasing faster at local level. Towns should be able to opt into GIC, but keep local bargaining rights.

Silbert: daughter of 2 VA docs, now I buy my own health ins. 3 things: invest in preventative care, crete jobs from investing new tech, and force people to buy more generics.

Quite concise on all fronts, with SIlbert and Murray doing well.

Question: Role of LG

Goldberg: I'm here for the long run, want kids to stay here.

My model is Duke/O'Neill: a lot to do. Right hand to gov. as local liaison. And also right hand to regional growth of economy. Work w/ Fed. Gov. to expanding rail (hello, could you be stealing any more from Silbert and Murray here?)

Invest in Comm. Colls. We don't have oil wells. We can't be 47th in national funding.

Murray: i want to be a real liaison for cities and towns. Don't want to use local officials as props. Also focus on comm. rail and cleanup

Silbert: fresh ideas, new vision, true partner. 3 things: lead econ development, bring back more fed. $, help disadvantage: end hunger and homelessness.

Kelley: glad Romney is leaving. work on healthcare to bring bulk prescription drug purchasing and make new law afford. and accessible.

Summary: Murray beats Goldberg on local issues, but SIlbert has clearest message.

Kravetz to Murray: can we afford more local aid and increasing rail service?

Murray: CT did it by dedicating portion of oil tax and raising other fees. Cabral's bill last week did it. Might involve tax increases. we need to talk about how to pay for it. Romney hasn't ID'd how to pay for it. Don't support rollback.

Don't let Healey say she hasn't raised taxes.

Silbert: regional rail important - from Maine to CT. Second, we need to increase jobs and wages which fund income tax receipts. I'm only one who's created jobs.

Kelley: must rein in costs of housing and improve access to healthcare.

Goldberg: all these are great ideas, this is a 5-10 year plan (local aid and rail expansion). You need to have local experience and employer experience. I have those skills.

Summary: Murray did well, SIlbert's message is clear.

Next: Kravetz to Silbert: talk about your plan for statewide wifi.

Silbert: we should be leading the charge. Too bad Philly won. We need to lead nationally on this topic. I was able to work from home. it doesn't cost a lot. A woman who started ZipCar now wants to have wifi networks in cars.

Kelley: there may be Fed. issues for state doing it.

Goldberg: great idea, but how do you get it done? We need local experience, I brought in competition in Brookline.

Murray: ditto. Romney dropped the ball.

Summary: No one answered how to pay for it. I'm curious about that car thing!

Sweeney to Kelley: do you support new payroll tax to fund Trav's paid familiy leave proposal?

Kelley: grow revenues.

Goldberg: I'm an employer right now: all 7 of my staffers get dental and health.

Murray: As Dems, people opposed us on Soc. Sec, etc... we need to support Trav's concept and a payroll tax to do it.

Silbert: as a mom of 3, nothing is more important than maternity leave. I don't know if payroll tax is the right way, and 12 weeks at home is key.

Roundup: Kelley didn't answer. Others did. a clear difference between Murray and SIlbert emerges, perhaps.

Next question: Cape Wind.

Goldberg: MA residents need to be beneficiaries on this. And there wasn't bidding on this. (Sounds like Reilly, a bit). Initial reaction was favorable, but now wants to create a system. EIS must finalize.

Murray: work with colleges and green buildings. This is a public nat. resource, need to

Silbert: oppose giving veto to Gov. Finish process. If no red flags in the enviro review, let's go for it.

Kelley: cell phone towers should be windmills.

Summary: Silbert was clear, but no one took a position.

Next: Are we fooling ourselves about public schools?

Murray: Romney/Healey are by underfuding ed reform. Compact there was broken. I know what local budgets are dealing with.

Silbert: I went to public schools, my kids will, we must make them work. Education has a cashflow problem now, so if we don't create to jobs to get more $$ in the budget.

Kelley: me too. Early childhood ed. is the key.

Goldberg: R/H has used smoke and mirrors to fund education. Need to put direct $ into reducing class size and increasing teacher #s. We added teachers in brookline.

Summary: Murray knows his stuff, Goldberg does too. Sam good on Early ed., Silbert brings it back to her message.

Lightening Round:

1. Silbert wants to look more at Slots
2. Kelley on charter school cap: didn't answer.
3. Goldberg says increased Ch. 70 and local aid can help avert prop taxes.
4. Murray: Romney correct not to suspend gas tax. Election year false promises, bad leadership. God help us.
5. What has this admin. done right? Silbert: Helathcare: legis. did some work.
6. Seatbelt law: Kelley suports its enforcement.
7. What one bill would you get through? Goldberg: Increased education funding.
8. Auto insurance reform, favor?: Murray: expand State Police fraud unit.
9. Silbert: judicial appt.s should be diverse, not put forward as partisan choices. Opposed to Repubs packing courts.
10. Regional Greeenhouse gas initiative: Kelley: supports. Notes he is an environmentalist.
11. Goldberg on State Parks: open space at a premium, we need to improve so that people can ring cows to Boston common.
12. Murray on what Gov can do to bring back afford. housing: Comm. Rail is key. Helps outlier cities, "limited strategic investment."
13. MCAS: support it? Silbert: shouldn't be necessary in every case. Have to test to know what kids need. More important issue: why are kids dropping out?
14. Kelley on capping public college fees: everything more expensive now. In favor of reducing costs.
15: Goldberg on debating Hillman: I was police and fire commissioner. Reed doesn't own public safety issue. We're also competing against each other.
16: Murray on first suggestion to New Gov: make sure LG plays a key role.
17: Howe: I'm chair of citywide parent council. New Bedford School. Comm. on this. Each, one minute on this:

Silbert: we need to know how our kids are doing, but we have to make sure the test is testing the right thing - critical thinking skills, not just rote knowledge. But I want to get to the source of the problem: is MCAS causing higher dropout rates? If so, it's a huge problem.

Kelley: I take care of kids for a living. Teens are worried about mcas, leads to depression, and yes, they do drop out and take a GED. It doesn't measure hope, aspiration.

Goldberg: I stood with lang on this. A rifle kills people, schools save lives. Mel Levine says that you can't judge every kid on one stndard. (What is she talking about here - rifle? I don't get it.)

Murray: Worcester and Lawrence have added value added tests, but people aren't willing to put money where mouth is.

Open Round: talk for 2 minutes:

Silbert: Zip Car is great example of what I did at CWE. I helped her raise $$ to get started. IRobot - Roomba: helped them get started. (She DID? Wow! i LOVE my Roomba.). Christine Dolan: precious cargo is her biz, transporting kids to and from day care. (This is a GREAT story.)

Kelley: states his liberal credentials.

Goldberg: practical experience w/ Dem. values - what we need. I come from S&S, where we had values, and I put them to work in the public sector. Bridge to legis. and Gov.

Housing: focus on multiuse development. Capture expiring use properties.

Murray: Government can't do it all, but can do things that biz can't do. Public higher ed is one area. these grads fuel the state. We need to produce graduates to serve the jobs we want to create.

All were great!

Closing Statements:

Silbert: We're all progressives in this field, so what's the difference among us? I've walked the walk: saw a problem (Feminization of poverty) and made a big difference. I've had an impact on 100,000 of lives. Now, how do I impact millions? By running for office. New ideas, fresh voices. I can point results - people whose lives have been impacted by my work. Finally, I NEED to make this state better because I have kids.

Kelley: I've worked all of my life taking care of people. We take care of 1000 people per day at MSPCC. I'll hit ground running to bring back local aid. I take care of people. And #3, I'm the only person who can connect the dots to make sure the health care reform plan work for everyone.

The karl Rove playbook will be thrown at us. I have studied him and push out our values.

Goldberg: we need tested people in Govt. I know how to make govt. work. I took my private experience and used it effectively in the public sector. You need to get diverse people to the table and work together. I rose to that challenge. We need that more than ever on healthcare now as we figure out how to pay for it. I know how to get insurers to the table to make sure that 100% of people are covered.

Murray: 3 great candidates for gov. But we need someone with local experience, that understands that cities towns, teachers feel. I've created great partnerships in Worcester. We need people who know how to make people work togther. We need people who know the names of the legislators and what districts they represent. Our governor and lt. gov. don't know basic lessons of shcoolhouse rock -- coeqal branches of govt.

Patrick Wins Debate

2006-05-19T08:26:00.000-05:00

Or at least that's MY opinion.

I listened to the debate on WBUR last night and felt that Deval Patrick won the debate.

Chris Gabrieli came in second.

Christy Mihos came in third.

Tom Reilly came in last.

Expanding on the above assessments: what was Tom Reilly doing? He wasn't answering questions, he sounded exactly like the obfuscating, non-answering politicians that have caused us to lose not only locally but nationally as well. He was trying to stay on message, but he had no message to stay on! I suppose he may also have been going for a n0-gaffe performance, and he accomplished that (as did the others). But I just don't get why, when faced with two charismatic and substantive primary opponents, and one (at this stage in the campaign) goofball candidate, he didn't try to stand out more as the statesman. It baffles me.

As for why Patrick won, it was because of the combination of substance and passion. He knows his stuff and believes it. I thought the questioning from Alison King was a bit much though. She accused (not asked) him of being two-faced on taxes. C'mon Alison, don't try to make news where it ain't. Deval made himself very clear last night: no plan to raise income, gas or sin taxes, but he did consider raising sin (i.e. ciggs) taxes to pay for the new healthcare plan, but that issue was taken off the table. One cannot rationally call that two-faced. Rather, it's a clear statement, to me at least, that taxes are not going to go up if we continue on the economic road we're on and if we improve that road with his policies. Shameful questioning, in my book. Overall, though, the questioning and format was excellent, I thought.

Why Gabrieli second? Because he knows his stuff too, it's just his aural presence (remember, I was listening on radio) that didn't hit me as well as Patrick. Perhaps it's his slight speech impediment, perhaps it's his wonkishness that shone through, I don't know. Without Patrick there, this guy would have been off the charts ahead of Reilly and Mihos as the clear winner. I like Chris, but wasn't moved by him.

And Mr. Miho- oops, I mean "Christy"? As many said this morning, he is not ready for prime time. But you know what, he doesn't have to be. Plus, he IS going to be there at all the debates in the fall and he has time to button up his message. Hearing him speak explained to me why he does NOT speak in the ads he's running on the radio. If he can translate his "throw the bums out" message into something short, concise and coherent, I predict he will be a major force in the fall. He's got the gimmicky ad guru on his side, so who knows.

MA Cultural Politics: The Old Boy Network

2006-05-18T10:41:00.000-05:00

There is a great post over at Flash and Yearn by Sachem Head that dives into an issue I've been curious about for a long, long time: the way politically active people categorize the various constituencies in Massachusetts.

Basically, he was attacked by a poster as being racist for referring to a portion of Reilly supporters as "Irish Power Brokers." While perhaps this description of Reilly's support may have been accurate wer Reilly running a generation ago, I think a more apt term is "Downtown Power Brokers." Or, more simply, "The Old Boy Network."

It's an interesting dynamic. On the one hand, the Old Boys can weild tremendous power. On the other, given the $500 giving limit, that power is reined in more here than in other states with higher giving limits, like New York.

What do you all make of Reilly being the Old Boy candidate? Do you agree? What about in the other races? In 1998, that same group got scared of Lois Pines and helped her win. But in 2002, it didn't help Steve Murphy or Jim Segel beat an unknown county treasurer.

Cape Wind as Environmental Barometer

2006-05-15T15:21:00.000-05:00

I am bit distressed that this year, a candidate's position on Cape Wind seems to be the sole barometer of whether or not someone is enough of a friend of the environment. For example, Tom Reilly is getting hammered on it in some circles but his environmental creditials are quite solid. He's prosecuted polluters and his office has been amongst the leaders in joining with other states to oppose Federal weakening of environmental protection regulations by the Bush administration.

We certainly have a lot of energy problems in this state, but Cape Wind isn't the only solution. (Like Andrea Silbert - at least according to this chart over at BMG - I am in favor of allowing the permitting process to continue, but want to see what the environmental impact reviews reveal. But I am also in favor of imposing stricter requirements on power plant smokestack scrubbers and reducing mercury output - two of many things that need to be addresses ASAP before our water and fish stocks become any more contaminated. I know Cape Wind will help those things, but shouldn't we just do those other things anyway?

I dunno, just a random thought this afternoon.

LG April Money

2006-05-14T22:44:00.000-05:00

Here's an update on where the candidates stand as of April 30, 2006, based on Cash on Hand.

Analysis follows

1. Deb Goldberg:

Starting Balance: $155,479.94
Receipts: $1,034,250.83
Expenditures: $44,964.94
Ending Balance: $1,144,765.83
Net: +989,285.89

2. Andrea Silbert:

Starting Balance: $408,226.86
Receipts: $62,825
Expenditures: $19,360.73
Ending Balance: $451,691.13
Net: +43,464.27

3. Tim Murray

Starting Balance: $323,234.76
Receipts: $49,871.09
Expenditures: $42,926.33
Ending Balance: $330,017.99
Net: +6,944.23

4. Sam Kelley:

Starting Balance: $26,039.26
Receipts: $9,625.00
Expenditures: $22,046.32
Ending Balance: 13, 617.94
Net: -$12,421.32

Obviously, Deb Goldberg's insertion of $1 Million of her own money is the most significant development to happen in the LG's money race thus far. However, Murray's hot and cold fundraising is baffling to me. I guess that's the strategy - focus for a month, catch breath for a month, and so forth. If the pattern holds, May will be a big month for Murray.

But his failure to continue his catch up to Silbert is ominous nonetheless. From what has been posted in comments on this site and others, he's throwing a huge party at the Convention. That's going to cost him a lot, and I'm sure he's going to be spending on other stuff to try and woo delegates so that he can do what he has to to to remain viable - win the convention. As I've said before, Murray can't let one of the others win or even come close - otherwise it's lights out. I think the darkhorse that I'm hearing about is Silbert. She's picking up steam, is doing better than any first-time and non-uber-rich candidate has ever done, and actually has something to say. If she can pull off a second place finish, I think all bets are off because then she becomes the one people want to contribute to, she raises some more dough over the summer and competes on the airwaves with Goldberg. But if Tim does his job and wins handily as the conventional wisdom expects, then we're in to the trenches of a long, hot summer.

Here's an interesting tidbit I picked up from reviewing these:

- Sam Kelley paid $16,000 to Spoonworks for signatures. Looks like he only paid for about 4000, according to today's Globe. Other candidates' and parties' payments in that article too. Deb Goldberg paid $12,000 for her signatures to J&F Associates. Probably not for all of them, unless this was some upfront fee, with more being paid later.

- Here are the salary payments for each candidate this month:
Goldberg: $15,145.26 (after taxes)
Silbert: $8,845.59 (after taxes)
Kelley: $6,000 (consulting fee)
Murray: $10,840 (He appears to not be giving his employees healthcare and instead is treating them all as consultants - but I'm not a benefits expert, so correct me if I'm wrong.)

LG Forum Wrap Up & Straw Poll Results

2006-05-07T21:18:00.000-05:00

It appears that the LG candidates held a forum/debate out in Westfield last week. You can read a wrap-up of it here courtesy of the T&G. The article doesn't say anything particularly new, but it does include an interesting nugget at the end:

An exit poll by the debate's student organizers had Mr. Murray winning with 34 votes, Ms. Silbert in second with 32, and Ms. Goldberg and Dr. Kelley tied with 6. Nine respondents said they were still undecided.

A sampling of that size - 87 respondents - can be trusted to a certain degree. However, they are not typical voters because they voted after learning more about the candidates than the average voter will ever come close to learning. With all the information, they still could not pick a clear winner. However, they sent a clear message: Silbert's and Murray's messages resonate the best. The others', simply, don't.

If I were Deb Goldberg, I'd think about shaking up her campaign team in a hurry. This kind of result is not something that dollars can cure. She can't throw money at a landslide like that and expect to win. It can't be good times in the Goldberg camp, despite the fact that they're probably all giddy
about the money they have to spend. As an undecided delegate who wasn't going to support Goldberg anyway, this confirms my concerns about her. She's unelectable and will be a drag on the democratic ticket if she wins the primary. Her money will diffuse any ability we have to criticize Kerry Healey for being out of touch. I think having only 6 people vote for you out of 87 after they've heard you and the other candidates for an hour is a bad, bad sign.

As for the winner here, it appears to be Silbert. She's positioning herself to be the outsider underdog battling the insiders, and if she keeps running like this, then she could surprise a lot of people come September. I'd be ecstatic if I were over at the Silbert HQ after this result.

Murray's take? Mezzo-Mezzo. He is (and ought to be) the early favorite. His political pedigree makes him initially appealing to people and he says all the right things that we Dems like to hear. I think his getting the most votes is great for him, but I think he probably would have thought he would win more handily. The Murray folks gotta be looking over their shoulder.

Kelley? Not a surprise. He's single issue and that's the kind of result single issue guys get.

All in all, another interesting event in the LG race.

Can't wait to hear what happens at the upcoming LG forums.

(Incidentally, it appears that this guy Sutner at the T&G is the only reporter in the state on the LG beat. Good luck and thanks to him!)

MA Dem Convention: Friday Night - Worth It?

2006-05-03T22:18:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the non-substantive post, but I figured this was as good a place as any to ask:

Should I go out to the Convention Friday night? I know there are the non-contested races and Kennedy speaking, but I have another thing I could go to closer to home with some friends. However, if there's a decent party or two planned that anyone knows about Friday night that should convince me otherwise, let me know and I'll probably come out Friday night. That's always been a very fun, and long, night, but I'm 4 years older now than last time around...

Any thoughts/info on the Friday parties? Anyone throwin' a bendah?

P.s. - I was inspired to post this after reading about Murray's "tent" over at BMG. Is he really having a tent somewhere? Fun!

Does Mihos Need a Running Mate?

2006-05-03T15:22:00.000-05:00

Anyone know what happens if Mihos doesn't pick a running mate and then ends up winning the general? Do we not have an LG? Can he even be on the ballot without one?

Anyone read the MA constitution lately? I know I sure haven't...

Also, are Mihos's signatures due now or later in the summer? Could this be why he hasn't chosen anyone yet?

Murray Gets to 10K Sigs First...

2006-05-03T12:21:00.000-05:00

Or does he?

yes, he does.

Link to release here

Enough discussion over at BMG here and here.

MURRAY CAMPAIGN FIRST TO REACH 10,000 SIGNATURESWORCESTER, MA – As of 4:30pm yesterday (May 1), Timothy P. Murray, Mayor of Worcester, was the first candidate in the Lt. Governor’s race to reach the required minimum 10,000 signatures to qualify for the primary ballot.

“I am ecstatic that our team is the first to reach 10,000 signatures and I am grateful for the support of hundreds of volunteers around the state that made this possible,” said Tim Murray. Of Murray’s 10,000 signatures, only 3,219 came from the city of Worcester, showing the campaign has a broad base of support across the state.

As of 4:30pm yesterday, Andrea Silbert’s campaign had 7989 signatures, Deborah Goldberg’s campaign had 8880 signatures, Sam Kelly’s campaign had 1028 signatures, and Reed Hilman’s campaign had 4086 signatures.

The deadline for submitting signatures to the various town clerks’ offices for certification is May 9.

Silbert Announces Jobs & Economic Growth Plan

2006-05-02T08:25:00.000-05:00

From her website, it appears that LG candidate Andrea Silbert has announced her jobs plan. Full text below, but it appears to be a four-point plan:

1. Jumpstart and Invest in Entrepreneurs and Businesses from the Ground Up
2. Reinvigorate the Innovation Economy – Invest in Sciences and Technology
3. Invest in our Physical Infrastructure
4. Invest in People – Our Human Capital

The plan appears to include a lot of specifics, including, but certainly not limited to, beefing up the Office of Business Development, streamlining zoning and land use permitting, establishing a Venture Guarantee program to encourage venture capital investment, and universal pre-school and all-day kindergarten.

Also, it appears that she has seen Tim Murray's commuter rail wifi proposal and raised him: she proposes investing in statewide wifi. Touche, Mr. Murray, touche! (Seriously, both great ideas and both ought to be implemented in this most technologically advanced of states, particularly in dense, poor urban communities where it should be offered free or at a reduced rate.)

All in all, this is by far the most comprehensive proposal put out by any of the LG candidates so far this year. Murray has put out his two proposals as well, and those, combined with this economic revitalization plan, are great starts. They also show how far apart Silbert and Murray are from the others in the field. Goldberg's recent injection of her own inheritance into her campaign can't be a good sign. She didn't even earn the friggin money, for chrissakes. At least Gabrieli, Deval and even Healey can claim that they, or their spouses, worked to earn their money. She got it from Mommy and Daddy. Not good and not the image we Dems want to be sending out there.

So, it looks like the "issues" game is on and it's a two-horse race.

Look forward to your comments and thoughts.

Andrea Silbert Releases Economic and Jobs Growth Plan for Massachusetts
I am running for Lieutenant Governor to re-energize Massachusetts through job creation and innovation. My first priority will be to lead the state’s economic development efforts, working with the Governor and Legislature to present a bold vision and a clear plan to replace the 170,000 jobs that our state has lost since 2001. Massachusetts is a national hub of innovation and entrepreneurship. In recent years, however, we have faced significant challenges and we have not lived up to our potential. While corporations continue to invest in research and development and entrepreneurs continue to innovate in the Commonwealth, job growth remains stagnant. Massachusetts is one of the few states in the country losing population as young, educated residents seek opportunities elsewhere. My goal is to reverse this trend and return our state to its position of leadership.
I am confident that we can do better. I have devoted my life’s work to economic development and job creation. As the former CEO and co-founder of the Center for Women & Enterprise, my team and I helped individuals create over 14,000 jobs that now generate $400 million in new wages each year across Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Small and medium-sized businesses are the lifeblood of innovation and opportunity and they are the big businesses of tomorrow. When an entrepreneur starts a company he or she hoists a sail. I know first hand how state government can get wind into that sail in the form of capital, training and technical assistance. With strong leadership and a vision, state government can create and execute programs that will tap the potential that exists here in Massachusetts and get our economy moving again.
Job creation is at the top of my list of priorities. I agree with Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s decades old argument that the best social program is a good job. I also know that the number one source of revenue in the Massachusetts state budget is income taxes. Income taxes come from wages, and to improve the quality of life in our cities and towns we must create new jobs. Jobs generate the money we need to invest in education, expand workforce housing, protect our environment, fund universal health care and make sure the social services are there for people who need them.
My four point plan to grow our economy is as follows:
1. Jumpstart and Invest in Entrepreneurs and Businesses from the Ground Up
Over the last 10 years, our state government’s economic development agencies and programs have been severely cut. These agencies and programs play key roles to help homegrown companies stay and grow in Massachusetts, to sell Massachusetts to new employers, to reduce red tape, to speed up permitting and to enforce consumer protection and competitive policies. Under my plan, we will:
• Re-invigorate the Massachusetts Office of Business Development and staff the office with proactive, highly-trained professionals with small business expertise. This office and I will work closely with the federal Small Business Administration to maximize federal dollars flowing to Massachusetts small businesses.
• Remove and/or streamline burdensome regulations. The permitting process at the state level often adds unnecessary time, cost and hassle for new and expanding businesses in Massachusetts. While retaining environmental protections we can streamline this process and other regulatory hurdles.
• Continue to fund Public-Private Partnerships that Work Directly with Businesses. Accessing programs like the Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership, the Smaller Business Association of New England, the Commonwealth Corporation, the Workforce Training Fund and the Center for Women & Enterprise are all inexpensive ways to leverage public dollars.
2. Reinvigorate the Innovation Economy – Invest in Sciences and Technology
Innovation has been the engine for job creation in the Commonwealth for more than thirty years. We must continue to capitalize on the entrepreneurial and innovative spirit of our populace. Under my plan, we will:
• Encourage investment in our most innovative companies and industries. Create a Venture Guarantee program to stimulate equity funding to companies in major growth sectors of the twenty-first century including life sciences, renewable energy, security technology, high technology and robotics.
• Make Massachusetts the center of innovation in the life sciences. Promote expansion of key industries such as biotechnology, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and healthcare services by bringing together universities, hospitals, venture capitalists, groups like the Massachusetts Biotech Council and state agencies.
• Introduce and support legislation, especially for stem cell research, that will enable life sciences organizations to operate and innovate within a clear and predictable legal and regulatory framework.
• Make Massachusetts the center of innovation in one of the most important pursuits of our day: the search for renewable energy alternatives. We will create a strategic plan to work with our public and private higher education institutions and businesses to encourage innovation and growth.
3. Invest in our Physical Infrastructure
We must urgently create more housing for workers and public transportation for commuters. I believe we should invest in economic development from the inside out, revitalizing our main streets and urban centers. Never is the term “if you build it, they will come” more apt than in economic development. Once upon a time, Route 495 was just a new roadway. Now, the 495 beltway is one of our country’s software and high tech Meccas. Rail routes will be our next gateway to development. Under my plan, we will:
• Win federal funds for a regional rail system. Along with colleagues in other states, I will lobby Congress for money for regional rail from Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont down through Massachusetts and on to Connecticut and Rhode Island. The best way to raise the money we need to expand rail in our state is to work jointly with the rest of the New England states to win federal dollars.
• Expand commuter and freight rail service throughout our state, beginning with Southeast, Central and Western Massachusetts. Increased rail service will enable residents to live in more affordable and underutilized sections of the state and commute to their jobs. Rail is a first step in revitalizing communities; rail enables us to bring jobs to communities where people live rather than the other way around. Increased freight rail capacity will cause companies to look to these regions as places to grow their businesses.
• Create workforce housing. Housing and job creation are two sides of the same coin. We are losing population in large part because the cost of housing in Massachusetts is so high. By increasing transportation to the more affordable areas of the state, we can provide reasonable commute times and keep our people here. We must also continue to invest in programs that help working families afford homes, such as the soft-second mortgage program or rental programs for younger workers.
• Revitalize urban downtowns and the main streets of our small towns. I will advocate for revitalization through the Main Streets Initiative, a public-private partnership program created by the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
• Encourage cities and towns to create economic development plans. I will create a competitive grant program that cities and towns can compete for by submitting their economic renewal plans. State investment will focus on helping revitalize downtowns that are underutilized, in such areas as Worcester, Pittsfield, Lawrence, Fitchburg, Springfield and Fall River.
• Renew our “brownfields.” I will advocate for more funding to restore brownfields and create programs that provide incentives for companies who choose to re-use and revitalize former brownfields for their new construction.
• Roll out wireless Internet access throughout the Commonwealth. A simple way to help Massachusetts’ small businesses and increase the productivity of all Massachusetts workers is to build incentives for providers to roll out wireless Internet access throughout the state.
4. Invest in People – Our Human Capital
The organization I started and ran, the Center for Women & Enterprise, is an education and training organization. I know first hand how important preparing people to be good business owners or employees can be – in today’s global economy this is now more important than ever. Massachusetts is not just competing with North Carolina or California; we are also competing with Bangalore and Beijing. Our employees need to be trained to the highest levels and that training must be aligned with the needs of our current and potential employers. In some cases, our work force needs to be redirected and retrained to compete in our twenty-first century knowledge-based economy. Under my plan, we will:
• Get children off to a head start. Universal pre-school and all day kindergarten are critical to preparing children to excel in school. They are also essential because most adults – both women and men – are engaged full-time in the workforce and need high quality and dependable childcare and pre-school.
• Invest in a strong foundation for our children – particularly in math and science. K-12 education should make sure that all students have core language and math skills ensuring that all graduates are prepared for further training. Additionally, I want Massachusetts students to receive a strong foundation in math, science, financial literacy and engineering regardless of what careers they choose.
• Invest in our workforce by increasing funding to our public institutions of higher education. 85% of the graduates of our public universities stay and work in our state. These graduates are our workforce, and they must receive a world class education that is as good as the education our private universities offer. I will look for creative ways to encourage our graduates to stay, innovate and work in Massachusetts.
• Invest in workforce training programs. We must immediately invest more to equip our adult workforce with the skills and education they need to compete in the 21st century economy. Employers have stressed the need for more English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) classes, Adult Basic Education, job readiness and job training programs. Forming public-private partnerships with industry groups – particularly in health care, high tech and higher education – as well as with non-profit groups will help align government policy with employers’ workforce training needs.
• Coordinate all workforce training programs. We will encourage collaboration between community colleges and universities, large employers and non-profits/social service providers to provide workforce training to all workers who need it, including our immigrant population.
Join Us
If you believe as I do that we can do better at making the Massachusetts economy robust and vibrant for the twenty-first century, join me in helping create good jobs and a renewed sense of hope in Massachusetts. I invite you to share your thoughts on the points outlined in this paper via a written note to Info@AndreaSilbert.com. Together, we can make a real difference for Massachusetts.

LG May 06 Money Preview

2006-05-01T11:26:00.000-05:00

According to this post over at BMG, Deb Goldberg has given $1 Million to her campaign.

I'll analyze this more later after the others' results are in, but my initial reaction is this:

This will help her for sure, but will also help Silbert and Murray raise a lot more money this summer because they will be able to argue that Goldberg's wealth hurts the ticket. If I were working for those two campaigns, I'd immediately begin calling Goldberg's supporters and asking them for money since they can't give her any more and since, as da clerk points out over in the BMG post, she didn't really need their money in the first place.

I also would caution Silbert and Murray against running a "woe is I" campaign. That makes you look poor. In the 2002 LG race, I recall Pines and Slattery saying at bit of the "the voters can't be bought" to try to get traction against Gabrieli's millions. The difference there was that they didn't have NEARLY the funds that Silbert and Murray have now. According to OCPF, Silbert and Murray will go into the Convention each having hundreds of thousands more than any downballot candidate in history. (Click here to see 2002 Cahill, Segel #s as opf 5/31/02.) That's an amazing feat, particularly for Silbert (who could be pushing 500K COH) as a first-time candidate with no personal wealth.

I also think that this is probably only the first of a couple more Deb's willing to put in. (If you have 1 million, surely you have a couple more you can afford, right?). If she puts up a $2 million ad campaign against an 800K effort from Silbert and Murray, I don't know who wins, especially given that there's going to be a ton of Gov. ads on the air.

All very interesting.

Romney Nominates 4 Female Judges

2006-04-26T17:20:00.000-05:00

This guy is so wacko. Now he goes out and tries to mend the gender gap so that Healey can say "we've nominated as many women as past adminstrations have." Dope.

Notable amongst the nominees: Merita Hopkins, longtime Corporation Counsel for the City of Boston and more recently Menino's Chief of Staff. I believe she's former FBI and is well-respected around town. While she's clearly being rewarded for her years of service, she's also eminently qualified for the job.

LGs and Rail

2006-04-25T21:51:00.000-05:00

During a commercial break in the Sox game, I click over to NECN and who do I see but Andrea Silbert and she says that she's announcing her Jobs Plan tomorrow. It should be interesting to see what she comes up with, given that it's what she's been hammering away on in her campaign appearances. When I saw her a couple months ago, she was also talking about investing in rail with more Federal dollars that she'd lobby for. She mentioned that again today on NECN.

Interestingly, Tim Murray put out his rail proposal today. You can get there by clicking here.

There are two competing proposals emerging here on the rail front, both valid, both require faith by the voters that their chosen candidate can pull it off.

On the one hand, you have Silbert arguing for her ability to lobby for more federal dollars. On the other hand, you have Murray advocating for a new post in the transportation department to coordinate rail efforts.

I have NO idea which is more realistic, but I'll say this, one of them seems more ripe for Republican attack and that's Murray's. Here's Hillman's argument: more Democratic bureaucracy, more government waste, yet another "government-as-solution" plan.

Silbert's has its weaknesses too: how can we expect a Democrat from MA to win more Federal transportation dollars? (By convincing Mike Capuano who sits on the transport committee, that's how. But that's another story...)

Interestingly, reading through Murray's White Paper, it contains a heckuva lot of job creation wording, which is interesting. He must have heard something about the jobs message if he's moving towards it.

Good on both of them for these ideas, and let's see who comes out ahead.

Side note: it's very apparent that Silbert and Murray are pulling farther and farther ahead on the substantive policy end of things in this LG race. Nary a peep from Goldberg recently on anything, and Kelley's a one-man band on health care these days as usual...

Revolutionizing the Debate Format: LG Virtual Debate Synopsis

2006-04-25T08:25:00.000-05:00

Well, this is pretty amazing. The folks over at Saint Kermit, who appear to include former Green party LG candidate Tony Lorenzen, have a weekly podcast that they produce.

This week, they have done something which I think could revolutionize the way debates are held in America.

They have created a "debate" out of responses to a series of questions that have been posed to 3 of the 4 LG candidates. Why does this have the potential to revolutionize how debates are held? Well, no longer will candidates have as much of a reason to dodge debates. Instead, they can simply respond to questions while on their cellphones (as 2 of the candidates here appear to have done) while driving somewhere, while sitting at home, while doing the laundry, whatever. Granted, it doesn't give the opportunity for rebuttal, but that's actually sort of nice, because the candidates actually answer the questions and aren't posturing for the camera or for a constituency. I think what they did here was interview each of the candidates individually and then splice their responses together into one mp3 file. (If that's incorrect, let me know).

Check it out here and let me know what you think.

Here's what I think:

Sam Kelley sounded quite chipper, but freaked me out a little - he's a bit squeaky sounding, which, if matched with Deval, wouldn't make for the most "baritone" of tickets. Also, after listening, can you remind me again what advanced degrees he has? Sheesh! Sam, let it go, dude. We know we're not as smart as you! As for his positions, he's clearly gunning for the enviro/health care votes and CLEARLY knows his stuff. He's the kind of person you'd want advocating on your side.

Murray: polished and clearly on message, but can't answer a question without working in his talking points. A bit Kerry-esque in that way, and sounded like a typical politician too often. I didn't get a sense of who he was like I did with the others. What do you do every day in your life? Is it all about politics? Where do you live? What's your neighborhood like? What gets you excited outside of politics? I need to feel that there's someone behind the political mask. He seems to have a bit of knowledge about a lot of issues, but I can't tell where his passion lies.

Silbert: had some surprising positions: support testing students, just not as MCAS does it; also supports graduated the income tax. Andrea, which are you? Liberal? Moderate? Actually, I think those two may be indicative of the typical mom that decides elections - wants kids to assess kids, but on realistic stuff. And doesn't like how uber-rich get away with shit like paying nothing in taxes because their accountants hide it all in trusts. She pays her fair share and wants others to do so as well. I was surprised that Silbert's buying her own healthcare and not getting that good coverage. I can't imagine having to pay for healthcare right now. It'd bankrupt me.

Here are my barebones notes on the Q&A:

Q: Health care - is it a right? Kelley: yes, and we should have single payer. Silbert: fundamental right. I know it from all angles. My parents were VA docs, and talked about it as a kid. As an employer, I provided it for 30 employees. And now I buy thin coverage because it's all we can afford. Murray: I like to think of it as a right. I joined Cong. McGovern that got signatures to support HCFA ballot question. I supported House health care bill. Companies not doing the right thing should pay the price for not doing the right thing.

Q: H. 4491 would authorize development of surplus land. Would this undermine reuse of property by localities to reuse it? Silbert: Need to see before telling how I'd vote. But local control is crucial for more afford. housing. I'm also harwich Conserv. trustee, so open space is crucial. But I wouldn't want state to be able to come in a grab land. Murray: same, I can't tell you how I'd vote. But takings should be allowed, but w/ local input. Worcester has done well preserving open space. There is state prop. in our city that should be used for either open space or econ. development. Cities and towns need prop. tax income. Kelley: I support open space and clean environement. I have masters in enviro. bio. But afford. housing is important too, and is why people are moving south. But to grow afford. housing, we need to improve rail to 495 belt.

Q: MCAS: good? Kelley: no. Murray: Ed reform gains lost under Romney; Silbert: while testing is a decent principle, it needs to be done to test ability not memory.

Q: how would you reform MA taxes to make them more fair? Silbert: graduate income tax. Kelley: prop 2.5 is unfair, we need to reform. Murrray: oppose rollback, prop tax too regressive; close loopholes like telecom site exemption.

Q: How do you convince nonvoters to come out in general? Murray: we need leadership, get people more competitive. We're low in job growth nationally). Silbert: my life is thinking entrepreneurially, in addition to Dems being excited about me, Ind's and GOP even are excited about my candidacy. Kelley: I'm a listener and negotiator. I will be pulling the other LG candidates onto my team. Clean enviro., safe neighborhoods.

Q: What does green mean to you? Murray: Kermit, St. patty's day, money, brownfields clean up, green buildings. Look at IBEW 103 windmill, reduce greenhouse gas from public vehicles. Silbert: green means how you live your life. I'm a self-proclaimed tree-hugger. Worked in Costa Rica as a kid, now I compost organic waste, I drive fuel economic car; husband is a fly fisherman. Kelley: healthy forests, renewable energy, revitalize open space, clean air, reduce CO2. Healthy balanced ecosystem.

Patrick's Call for Unity & Debates

2006-04-21T13:19:00.000-05:00

Just got an email from Deval that included his letter to Tom and Chris calling for unity and, at least, monthly debates in May, June, July, August and September.

You can read the letter (and press release) here.

This strikes me as a good plan, but here's my worry: if Tom and Chris agree to debates, will the media broadcast them in substantive timeslots? Remember 1996 when Kerry and Weld had debates that started right about now in the year, and kept them going through to November? That was cool. And they were in cool places too, like Mechanics Hall and Faneuil Hall.

I'd love that to happen now: hold debates in big open places where people can come and see them, and where you get a sense of how important the debates really are. I know the TV stations want to create these fancy red, white and blue sets, but the debates end up sounding just like news broadcasts.

I also hope that the big radio news outlets (WBZ-1030 and WBUR-90.9) agree to hold two hour debates from like 7-9 pm, perhaps even on multiple occasions.

Or, and here's my dream scenario, all 6 networks (4, 5, 7, Fox, WB and GBH) agree to broadcast three TV debates amongst the candidates. Unlikely given the ratings and access each station wants to claim as its own, but who knows.

A 'BUR, GBH TV/Radio debate could be cool too.

And, all things being equal, the LG candidates should get at lesat 2 statewide TV debates (and not only on shows like Kellers or the dreadful Greater Boston). The LG debates should be in the 7-8 timeslot.

Thoughts? I know, I'm reaching here.

En Espanol: Patrick & Silbert Get It

2006-04-20T17:08:00.000-05:00

So I was trying to think of other ways to analyze the races for Governor and LG and came up with this: let's see which candidates have multiple languages on their websites.

I was sorely disappointed.

Only Deval Patrick and Andrea Silbert have a link to click on to read about them in other languages. Deval has pages in Spanish, French and Portugese. Andrea has an intro page in Spanish and a Spanish bio page as well. I've heard that she knows Portugese too, so I don't know why she doesn't have a page for that community as well.

Kudos to Deval and Andrea and I hope that the others get hopping. You'd think they'd want to be able to appeal to that diverse crowd of voters whose first language may not be English.

Shame also on the MassDem party. Its website does not contain any Spanish, nor does the new Victory06 website. Come on folks, let's truly be the party of ALL people. The MassGOP website has no Spanish, nor does Healey's. This is an opportunity for us, and given the fluff that the press has been writing about, this seems to be perfect fodder for those reporters who are too lazy to delve into actual substantive issues. (Yes, I'm also too lazy for substance, but hey, my job isn't to write for a newspaper; it's to post blog comments all day.)

Globe Double Speak

2006-04-20T10:11:00.000-05:00

.08 Acres and a Donkey beat me to it, but this morning's editorial in the Globe is a bit two-faced, dontcha think? One day they want all tax info released, the next day they're slamming coverage of candidate wealth? C'mon. I agree with this editorial, but have they read their own paper?

In fairness, the truth is that these stories don't materialize on their own. Campaigns put them out by dropping them to the press who runs with them. The following stories were clearly put out by campaigns: Patrick's mortgages (by Reilly to make him the regular guy); Murray's fundraising woes (by Murray to lower expectations before a big March); private schools (Reilly, see above). I could go on...

Also, in fairness, this is the opinion page, so maybe the silver lining here is that we have evidence that the editorial and news divisions really are divided by a wall! Hooray!

UPDATE: Commenter MaverickDem makes a very valid point below: Patrick's people likely did push that story about Reilly's fundraiser. Anyone else have other examples, feel free to comment and I'll note them here.

Dumb Ethics Ruling on Politics in State House

2006-04-19T08:37:00.000-05:00

The Boston Globe this morning details this State Ethics Commission Ruling that bars elected officials from engaging in political activities in the State House and other state facilities.

While this makes sense in principle, the breadth of the ruling is dumb and impractical. In the example given in the article,

under the new rules, once political questions dominate the news conference, it must be stopped. ''The press officer should conclude the interview by referring the media representative to the campaign for further discussion," the advisory says.

That's so impractical as to be absurd, and what Rob Gray said in the article is right: this allows Press Secretaries or officials to simply say "oops, can't touch that question, too political."

C'mon.

BrewHaHa

2006-04-18T15:00:00.000-05:00

Well, there was quite a brouhaha over at BMG regarding the future of Worcester. Thanks to Frank Skeffington for linking to MassChange and to Bob for promoting that post! I hope all you readers enjoy this space!

Worcester Headed for Bankruptcy?

2006-04-14T08:46:00.000-05:00

Following on this comment to my earlier post regarding Worcester having to close schools due to financial difficulties, I was intrigued to see what the anonymous poster was referring to when s/he said that Worcester was headed towards bankruptcy if the firefighter contract is not settled. (BTW, have the cohones to ID yourself or at least give some name, even if you - like I - don't want to reveal your true identity).

I looked at the T&G website and have to correct the anonymous commenter: this assertion was NOT made by "the T&G" but rather was made by columnist Robert Nemeth in his column from Sunday, April 9th.

That said, even taking Nemeth's column for what it is - opinion and not news - it does not present the rosy picture of Worcester that has been emanating from that city's muncipal leaders.

In that column, Nemeth quotes from remarks made by MA Secretary of Administration and Finance Thomas Trimarco at a forum hosted by the Worcester Research Bureau. At the forum, Trimarco

delivered a stern warning: "You are on an unsustainable road. Unless you turn around, you’ll be Springfield-like. Your stability factor is zero."

If this is true and the City's finances are not in good shape, then this could have a huge impact on Mayor Murray's statewide aspirations. If Worcester is the Enron of Massachusetts municipal finance...

Now, Trimarco's comments must be taken with multiple gains of salt. For one, he is a Republican. He has served in the Malone (as Deputy Treasurer) and Romney administrations. 'Nuff said. Second, he has just come off of a stint on Springfield's Finance Control Board. While this would appear to give him credibility on the subject, it also clouds his judgment: he saw the worst of the worst over in Springfield. Unless Worcester's municipal leaders are papering over their problems, or unless they are oblivious to their problems, Trimarco's comments may not hold as much water as Nemeth would like them to.

That all being said, if Worcester's fiscal situation is as precarious as this column indicates, watch out - that thing falling on your head might be the Murray campaign's chances in September. If Murray can't repair his own ship's leaking holes, how can he be trusted to repair the damage inflicted by the Romney Healey nightmare? I'm sure we'll hear more about this in the coming months.

Woodlief on Convention

2006-04-13T10:48:00.000-05:00

Interesting post by David over at BMG regarding the Convention. I commented there and won't waste bandwidth here.

Worcester Schools Shuttered

2006-04-12T11:09:00.000-05:00

Following on this thread I participated in over at BMG earlier this year, it appears that the Worcester School Committee has voted to close four elementary schools in Worcester. It remains to be seen what impact this will have not only on the City of Worcester but on Tim Murray's LG candidacy.

There were some interesting comments over at the BMG thread and I encourage you all to read through it. Now that we're 2 months past that thread, what do you think will happen? What will the political fallout from this be?

Needham Override Fails

2006-04-12T08:12:00.000-05:00

From this morning's Globe:

NEEDHAM
Voters reject override for school programs
Voters last night rejected the School Department's proposed $1.48 million override, which would have funded several programs such as the Science Center, elementary Spanish, high school athletics, and the hiring of 16 teachers. Voters approved a $597,370 override to support town expenses, including two police officers, one firefighter, library materials, and money to revamp the website. The failed school override will mean the Science Center will be closed next fall and athletic fees will increase to $285 per student per sport.

I think we all know who we can blame for Needham having to be put in the position (he works on a hill in Boston, but doesn't spend much time there...)

But here's the question I pose to all of the candidates running statewide: what the Eff are YOU going to do about it? Raise the income tax? Cut the income tax? Re-allocate spending to local aid?

Want to know what I think? Here goes: we need more than what Healy has done (i.e. nothing) in her role as the "liaison" to cities and towns. Where has she been fighting on their behalf? Nowhere. But here's the bigger question: what could she really have done? Pounded on the Governor's desk, demanding that he order his executive budget-writing staff to allocate more $ to local aid? Uh, no. Could she have lobbied the Senate Prez and Speaker for more aid? Sure, but that wouldn't get her anywhere. So, I presume she's essentially been powerless.

Now, how is that going to change in a Dem administration? I dunno, it depends on how much attention the Gov wants to pay to local aid. And all the hooting and hollering by the LG candidates ain't going to make much of a difference. Be wary of the LG candidates who say that they're going to "fight for cities and towns." While that will certainly be accepted more under a Dem administration than under this current one, running on a platform to fill that role seems a bit narrow. And what about the other LG platforms? Jobs? Do we want a jobs or healthcare czar in that role? Would that be more "effective" than having an "advocate for cities and towns"?

Discuss...

p.s. - yes, I know this post is loaded with innuendo about the various LG candidates. I'm closing in on a selection, but still need to be convinced as to who I'm going to support at the convention. I await the onslaught of posts from the campaigns...

LG March Money

2006-04-10T16:59:00.000-05:00

Here's the LG money roundup for March, in order of cash on hand.

1. Andrea Silbert: $408,226.86
Starting Balance: $389,255.36
Receipts: $ 47,388.74
Expenses: $ 28,417.24
Net + $18,971.5

2. Tim Murray: $323.234.76
Starting Balance: $237,954.18
Receipts: $140,117.74
Expenses: $54,836.76
Net + $85,280.58

3. Deb Goldberg: $155,479.94
Starting Balance: $143,606.11
Receipts: $ 57,030.44
Expenses: $ 45,156.61
Net + $11,873.83

4. Sam Kelley: $26,039.26
Starting Balance: $18,709.00
Receipts: $14,090.00
Expenses: $ 6,760.54
Net + $7330.26

All in all, an impressive month for Murray. He's clearly come back after his slow-ish start to the year (hat tip to da clerk over at BMG). Feb. seemed status quo for all candidates, but this surge by Murray is noteworthy. However, his burn rate has to cause a bit of consternation. Looking inside the numbers, it appears that he spent a lot of money on invitations/printing in the first half, which is understandable because he must have had a lot of events to raise all that dough.

If Murray wants to compete with Silbert on the air, he needs to a) have another month like this in April, b) win the convention and c) start racking up political support outside of his geographic area.

Silbert, on the other hand, needs to step up the fundraising. She's plateau'd a bit, but it appears as if she expected that to happen because she hasn't been spending as freely as Murray and Goldberg have - and yet she seems to be resonating well among the people I talk to. If she goes into the Convention in the money lead and comes out with a 2nd place finish, then in my mind she'll have exceeded expectations. Even getting on the ballot will be something her campaign will be able to be proud of, given her newcomer status.

As for Goldberg, I need help: what is her deal? Is she planning to write a big check to pay for media? Is she just raising enough money to pay staff and keep a comfortable nest egg? I can't figure it out. She has all that staff, and must be thinking she's going to build political support. If someone could enlighten me as to her strategy, I'm all ears. I would love to hear from someone on the inside who can credibly, even anonomously, fill me in on her plans. I like her, but I guess I need to see more evidence that she's into this, because I just don't see her winning unless she either writes the check or has something else up her sleeve. She could, however, be planning a "June Surprise" at the convention. If she can engineer a win, then that would be a significant upset. If she can keep Silbert off the ballot (seems doubtful), then that would be even better for her. Both are unlikely though, and Murray has to be the favorite to win.

(As I've said before, Murray finishing anything but first at the convention is a shocking loss that could prove devastating to his effort. Even though the winner of the convention doesn't always go on to win the primary, and even though some might say it's a jinx to win the convention, in this case, Murray is such an insider that for him to fail to come out on top would not be good. And after raising so much and, more importantly, spending so much recently, if he doesn't win, that's bad. Also, he has been talking a fair bit recently about how he already has his 15% and has almost finished his signature gathering. To make those bold statements and not win the convention would be a failure.)

And Kelley: I'm also now wondering if he's planning to write his own check. He appears to have a small staff, but how on earth is he getting his signatures? Does he have a squad of volunteers like the others do? Perhaps, and let me know if you know. It would be a shame if he didn't get on the ballot. How is his delegate outreach going? I have heard from the others (enough, Tim!), but not from him. His Deval endorsement was bold and might put him over the bar and if so, kudos on that.

So another month of fundraising is done and things are pretty much the same. I think it's going to take a surprise at the Convention to really shake this race up. Whether it's Murray not winning, someone not getting on the ballot, or something crazy happening, this race needs a shakeup if it's going to get any attention. If that doesn't happen, then it will plod along all summer.

Look forward to your comments.

Patrick Leads Reilly 36-33

2006-04-10T12:02:00.000-05:00

Here's the link over at CBS4.

36% said Patrick
33% said Reilly
19% said Gabrieli
11% are undecided

Probably not the best poll, but a pretty big deal nonetheless.

All the Stupid Articles...

2006-04-09T19:42:00.000-05:00

What's with the flurry of dumb, non-substantive articles about the Governor's race recently?

There's this article about lawyers' donations.

There's this article about the Gov candidates living in luxury.

There's this article about the money being paid to consultants.

There's this article about Reilly's tax returns.

There's this article about Patrick's "bogus" blog vids.

OK, maybe these aren't stupid, but they feel so unoriginal. Especially that lawyer money article - why did Frank Phillips and his intern spend so much time and effort researchng that? Is it relevant? Probably. But is it news (i.e. is it new, original, etc...?) abosolutely not. We all know that while Tom Reilly is not a "good politician", he's also not someone who can easily be bought, so this kind of journalism is a waste of time. The fact is that downtown Boston has tons of lawyers, and tons of lawyers also work in other professions. So it's no surprise that people with a JD gave $$ to candidates.

Bottom line: if Frank and his intern spent as much time reviewing job creation or environmental proposals and wrote nearly a whole page about that, we as a populus would be much better off. And don't give me the "we'll cover substance as the election approaches" argument. That's crap. We need to know this stuff now and we're big enough and smart enough to be able to take it all in - contrary to the patronizing view you may have. These articles are why people get pissed off at politicians and talk about it at the water cooler or on the bus. This is why when I'm in a cab and the driver as jay Severin or Howie Carr on and the cabbie starts railing to me about how awful our politicians are, I get mad. It seems to me that a pretty simple shift in approach by these newspapers would have the potential to lead to people saying "Reilly's new ______ idea sounds interesting" or "Gabrieli's record on after-school programs is interesting." It wouldn't take much, folks...

Gabrieli: Good Start

2006-04-07T12:40:00.000-05:00

Despite some snarking (both legit and not) on various websites, Chris Gabrieli appears to have gotten off to a pretty good start. He benefits from having credibility with the media because a) he didn't instigate the St. Fleuriasco, b) he was already vetted in 2002 and c) he's a likeable guy. I still resent his coming into this race at this stage, but I don't deny his right to do so. I also don't care that he's paying for signatures - I'd do the same thing if I felt strongly about getting my name on the ballot. The truth is that while he'll have some volunteers supporting him, he could never have a standout, never have an unpaid mailing and never have people sending "dear friend" cards and he'd still have as good a shot at winning as the others. Campaigns at the Governor's level can, theoretically, be won without a "ground game" if you can pay for TV ads, mailings and robo-calls to combat the lack of troops on the ground - and that's as legit in America as running a grass-roots campaign on a shoestring.

It appears that Gabrieli is also out there hiring people away from other ventures (read: David Howard from the Mass Dem Party). Again, I do NOT begrudge anyone for doing that either. Think of it this way: work for the Party behind the scenes, help Dems win in November, get no love post election. Or, get paid a bunch of dough to leave your job to work for Gabs, have a legit shot at winning, and get a plum post in the Gov's office if you do win, which then leads to a plum private sector job down the road with mucho $$. And if you lose, go work for Mass2020 and make the world a better place. Doesn't seem to hard of a choice to me!

All in all, kudos to the way in which Gabs has made his entry. Boos for entering the race at all.

Understatement of the Week

2006-04-06T08:49:00.000-05:00

From today's Globe: "Gabrieli Facing Charisma Questions"

I don't think there are any questions... when I saw him speak in 02 and he was "fired up" he just sounded like he was trying to be fired up and didn't give me the impression that he was serious. I know he is seriously passionate about issues, but he does not fall into that category of "inspiring public speakers" with his oratory. The words are good, though, so that's important. I will still probably support Deval, but will obviously vote for any of them in the general.

Picket Line at Convention?

2006-04-02T20:00:00.000-05:00

Get this: there may be a picket line of firefighters at the convention if the Worcester FD and the City don't come to a resolution.

Here's the link to the T&G Story.

If this happens, it will NOT be good for us Dems. After the St. Fleuriasco and Gabrieli jumping in, this would be yet another reason for MA voters to say "You know what, they're a mess. Let me stick with Healey who at least has her sh*t together."

I'm not excited about this prospect at all.

Kudos to CS Monitor

2006-04-02T15:03:00.000-05:00

This photo montage over at the CS Monitor's website is fabulous. Kudos to them for how they are handling the PR of this thus far. Awesome. And shame on ANYONE questioning Jill's patriotism. We will not let Jill be Swift-boated by you and the weasels you run with.

LG March Fundraising Preview

2006-03-31T15:30:00.000-05:00

In this post over at BMG, Tim Murray apparently has raised $136,000 in March. That is a huge number and very impressive.

If he spent no money in March, that would leave him with around 375K. Assuming he kept the same burn rate as prior months (let's say 30K), then he'd have 345K.

Assuming Silbert fundraising continues to slow and she raises 30K and burns 20, she'll be in the 395K range.

As expected, a tightening race that will not only come down to who can afford to be on TV, but rather will be determined by who has the best ads.

Ooh, baby, it's heatin' up!

"Las Vegas of Marriage"

2006-03-31T09:29:00.000-05:00

Puh-leeze.

I hope that when Democrats get elected this fall we see the phenomenal tourism opportunity that lies in luring same sex couples to Massachusetts to spend their tourism dollars here.

First, the legislature should repeal the 1913 law that was upheld yesterday. State in it that marriages that are entered into here are valid here only unless recognized elsewhere. That way, people can come here, get married, go home, ask why their marriage isn't valid there. the 1913 law was meant to discriminate against African Americans. Period. Therefore, it's unconstitutional. 6 of the 7 SJC justices are wrong.

Second, invest in expenditures in media targeted to the GLBT community, inviting them to come to our city. We have a ton of hotels bordering on, and in, the South End, which is a wonderful gay-friendly community. From there, trips to all the major American tourist destinations based in our area are easy(ish) to get to.

Third, be poised to offer economic development assistance to the businesses that will sprout up as a result of the needs generated by the increase in GLBT tourists and their families coming here to marry.

My Take on Tax Returns

2006-03-31T09:06:00.000-05:00

In light of Scott Lehigh's column today on Reilly being more open for releasing his tax returns and the recent Globe excerpt article from NECN's interview with Deval Patrick, here's my 2 cents on this issue.

Quite simply, it's a distraction from real issues. If it's going to be used at all, Democrats should only use it for political reasons against Republicans, but there should be an "11th Commandment" for us Dems that if we have wealthy candidates running, we shouldn't hurl stones because if there are rich Dems in office, that's good because they'll (generally) advocate for better issues than Republicans will. (Example: who cares more about the little guy: Mitt Romney or Chris Gabrieli? Easy answer, I would think.)

That said, Dems won't stop using it against other Dems if they're fearful of a rich (or even well-funded) candidate opposing them in a primary.

Welcome Ted Kennedy Fans!

2006-03-29T10:17:00.000-05:00

In one of the comments I didn't know how to view, Crystal from Ted Kennedy's campaign weighed in and noted that they'd added me to their blogroll! Thanks so much!

Here's a link to TedK's campaign website and here's where to go to help him get his signatures to get on the ballot.

A note from Scott Ferson

2006-03-29T10:10:00.000-05:00

This post is cut and pasted from its source over at BlueMassGroup

As I noted in a comment over there, my apologies go out to all for my technical shortcomings here as this thing gets rolling, and I'd like to apologize to Scott for not looking into his background more thoroughly.

A note from Scott Ferson
by: David
[subscribe]
March 29, 2006 at 08:57:04 EST
Scott Ferson, Lt. Gov. candidate Tim Murray's spokesman, sent an email this morning in response to this post and comments, as well as some posts over at MassChange. Here is Mr. Ferson's email, in full.

I find myself the subject of some traffic on your site, and wish to respond. “Hoss” has posted statements questioning my Democratic credentials, and your site has promoted his new blog. I attempted to post my response there, but his site has a filter that responses must be approved by the moderator, presumably “Hoss”. He has chosen not to post my response, but to take a comment out of context and post another attack, so I thought I’d try here.

Christy Mihos was a client of mine, and this should not be breaking news as it has been reported in various publications since 2001. I did not know him when he hired me after he was fired by Jane Swift (Republican). I was asked by a mutual friend who is a Democratic operative if I would be interested in helping, and I agreed. I think he was wrongly fired and the Supreme Court agreed. I wish Democrats at that time had used the opportunity to stand with him in his fight, but that wasn’t the case. He remains a friend, but not a client, and I do not think that his decision to run for Governor as an Independent changes that.

I’ve never been accused of being a Republican. I have been on staff of Senator Kennedy and Chet Atkins, have worked in both presidential campaigns for Dick Gephardt, and Stephen Lynch, John Connolly, and John Rogers have been clients of my firm, as well as Tim Murray. I will confess to voting, and working for, John Anderson in 1980, and I will not apologize for that. I do agree that Tad Devine is a top notch media consultant, as is Steve Murphy whom I know from the Lynch campaign. I will also confirm that the T&G article was not “planted” by the Murray campaign, although I do like the theory that it is part of some grand strategy.

Scott Ferson

David :: A note from Scott Ferson
Tags: Massachusetts, BMG, Vote 9.19.2006, (All Tags) :: Add/Edit Tags on this Post

More on Republicans Working for Dems

2006-03-28T18:58:00.000-05:00

There has been lively back and forth over at BMG regarding the revelation that Murray's press guy, Scott Ferson, worked for Christy Mihos. Here are my additional 2 cents.

Ferson and Mihos are more than friends; Mihos asked Ferson to be his spokesperson and Ferson said yes.

There are a wealth of Democratic media consultants out there, and Ferson, without his Mihos past, would be one. However, here's my point: Democrats in Massachusetts don't need unnecessary baggage. Having a guy working as a high profile consultant who is a Republican doesn't help. Is it fatal? Who knows. But at least keep him off payroll and out of the press. It's just not worth it.

Welcome BlueMassGroup Readers

2006-03-28T10:31:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Bob for his post directing people my way! I look forward to the conversations that we will have here. Fear not, I will still post over on BMG. I just wanted to have a bit more flexibility and ability to branch out.

I look forward to reading your comments.

Murray Hires Republicans?

2006-03-28T08:21:00.000-05:00

In a post over on BMG this morning, FieldGuy (a clear Silbert fan) suggests that Murray's spokesman is somehow linked with Christy Mihos.

A quick Google search turns up some pretty damning evidence:

Scott Ferson, Tim Murray's spokesman, has been called a friend of Mihos in both the Herald and Globe.

Ferson was apparently hired by Mihos to win his job back when he was fired from the Turnpike Authority.

This is unacceptable. I know people want good help, but please. Is this all that Murray could come up with?

Silbert has hired one of the best Democratic media consultants in Tad Devine.

Deb Goldberg has as well.

As a delegate who was considering Murray as the LG candidate to support, I am quite disappointed that he would add someone who has so clearly worked for people opposed to the values we all espouse. Silbert and Goldberg have moved up a notch in my decision-making tree now.

LG Rant

2006-03-27T22:43:00.000-05:00

So, anyone who has read my posts over on BMG knows that I'm way into the MA LG 06 Race. I should probably pick sides, and I'm most likely gonna soon. Check out my latest rant over there.

Why Competition Is Good, but Not Too Good

2006-03-27T21:10:00.000-05:00

Chris Gabrieli. What to think of him. On the one hand, he's smart: he sees that there's a hunger for something new out there, and he has the ability to pay to make himself appear to be that person. But why? Ego? Ambition? Desire to help? I dunno. But what I do know is that he has not learned the lessons all of us Dems should have learned a long time ago: 2-person primaries are good. Any more, then it's bad.

Gore was strengthened by Bradley, but Clinton got the nod because of a crowded field (arguably in the general in 92 too). Deval and Reilly would have been great, and the winner stronger for it. But now comes Chris to muck it all up. I wish he would just stay out of it.

My First Post

2006-03-27T20:47:00.000-05:00

Well, I decided to branch out on my own and start my own blog. You probably know me as Hoss from BlueMassGroup, and I'll keep posting there, but I wanted a place where I could espouse some positions as well. Thanks to all the progressive Massachusetts bloggers out there who have inspired me to do this. I'm excited to see where it takes me.