If you didn't hear the hour-long debate on WTKK radio this morning, you can read my effort at live-blogging it here. I'm sure WTKK will post the audio shortly.
Khazei was the one who was most consistently able to articulate a clear stand on the issues and a vision of the office that was different from the others. Not everyone will agree with what he had to say -- he was squarely in favor of raising the charter school cap, squarely against casino gambling regardless of how many jobs it would create, against the earmark process regardless of how much pork it brought back to MA, and (maybe most controversially) squarely in favor of allowing Ray Luc Levasseur to speak at UMass despite being on parole from convictions for bombing and terrorism. Khazei's position on Levasseur was (I'm paraphrasing, but I think this is pretty close) that we should trust the students to listen to his views and totally reject them. And he was bold about this: he said either you are for free speech or you're not. Needless to say, the others rejected his framing of the issue.
Even if you disagree with Khazei on some specifics, it did seem to me that he was consistently able to explain why he took the positions he was taking, even despite the very short time limits on answering questions. He certainly gets the "most improved" award -- it was a far better performance than in the televised debate a couple of weeks ago. He didn't mention even once that his father is a doctor! :-) I do question his decision to use his closing statement to badger Coakley about more debates, rather than summing up why voters should support him. But otherwise, he did well.
As for the others: Coakley generally played it pretty safe, which is to be expected from someone with as big a lead as she seems to have. But in so doing, she didn't show much of what she claims she is in her closing, namely, "a different kind of leader." With the exception of saying that she would have voted to kill the health care bill before it got out of the House (a good thing??), what is different about her, exactly? She didn't make that case today, IMHO.
Capuano continued to hammer away -- and I do mean hammer -- at what he sees as his biggest strength: that he's the most insideriest insider you've ever seen. I continue to doubt that that is a winning strategy, particularly for someone who is as far back in the polls as he appears to be. His vigorous (to put it mildly) defense of the earmark process is not going to win over anyone who is the least bit dissatisfied with "the way things are going" in Washington. And since that's just about everyone, I really wonder who he thinks he's going to bring on board with that approach. The folks in his district no doubt appreciate the federal money he has brought home to them. But they are going to vote for him anyway. Folks in the other nine districts, on the other hand, might read this Globe story about earmarks and wonder whether this is really the best way of spending taxpayer money.
Also, if anyone had any concerns about Capuano's temperament, this debate is not going to assuage them. He and Margery Eagan were practically shouting at each other several times during the proceedings.
And as for Pagliuca, let's just say that this quick question/answer format does not seem to favor him. He certainly made some news by stating that he (alone among the candidates) favors restoring a military draft, but I doubt that's going to be a huge vote-winner. Otherwise, though, he did not make a lot of headway, and I didn't hear anything that would make an undecided or leaning voter gravitate toward him. However (and perhaps not surprisingly), he does appear to be the first to get an ad up regarding the recent health care/abortion kerfuffle. It's a 60-second radio ad -- here it is:
