Sorry this didn't get up sooner. Here are some quick hits from tonight's gubernatorial debate:
First of all, I thought Keller did a terrific job moderating, firm and fair. Congratulations to Jon.
It was a good format for such a short time; and it seemed like for the most part, everyone got a chance to express themselves -- with the glaring exception that Patrick did not get to ask his question of the others. But as Patrick said in the post-debate gaggle, this was the most substantive of all the debates.
The general impression was that Patrick was more specific than previous debates. I don't know ... maybe I'm too close to it, so maybe I wouldn't recognize if that's true. I couldn't say he was more or less specific than before.
Patrick claimed he doesn't remember how he voted on the rollback vote in 2000. He admitted he "hedged" in the post-debate gaggle, because (as was reported in the Herald) he missed a few votes, and couldn't remember which ones. Apparently he did indeed vote in 2000.
His non-answer is a bit surprising, because I can't imagine how it would hurt him or help him either way. Make of that what you will ...
Patrick really had Healey on the run regarding the administration's handing contracts to companies that hired illegals, and Healey blaming that on the AG. Yeah ... that doesn't look good. To my mind, that was worth a lot more than Healey's number-gotchas.
I don't think there can be any question that we saw a different Healey tonight, at least at the beginning. She obviously wanted to tone down the negativity, and it was a hell of lot easier to take. And she scored some points, but her gotchas didn't quite resonate. (Whether the % of local aid is 23% or 19%, 40% is a long way off.)
In the second half, however, it was still clear she has predicated her campaign on taking down Patrick. The realization that she hasn't accomplished that has sunk in a bit, and she seemed resigned to that, to defending the record of the last four years, as with the student/teacher ratio bit at the end. If "two weeks is an eternity in a campaign", as she bravely claimed after the debate, I suspect an eternity isn't long enough.
Grace Ross had several fantastic moments; perhaps the best was talking about the importance of on-demand treatment for substance abuse, and noting that the illegality of the subtance in question is only tangential to issues of addiction.
She's outstanding because she truly represents a progressive framework of ideas: Everything she says fits with everything else so consistently. To have that represented so well and clearly in a high-profile event is very, very satisfying to me. Even the most progressive Democrats feel they can't afford to be so honest and elegant in their thinking; it's the third-party status that allows her to make perfectly sensible arguments that have absolutely no chance in the real world. But they should be heard.
Well, that's it for now. I'll have audio of the post-debate gaggle soon.
