For us to chew on until the video is available. :)
Reflections on the Bennet-Romanoff debate...I entered with a distinct, though not overwhelming, preference for Romanoff, based on his long and effective experience in the legislature. RSB, who favored Bennet, and I decided to go against our grains: I would focus on Bennet and he on Romanoff. Those preconceptions probably primed me to be impressed by Bennet's performance and he made good use of the opportunity.
(snip)
So why would I say that Bennet "won" this sole head-to-head matchup before the March 16 caucuses? Three reasons:
1-The expectations game. Bennet certainly didn't overpower Romanoff. But he did well in a forum that seemed ideal for Romanoff. The crowd seemed evenly divided -- but if Romanoff can't dominate a crowd of Denver Young Democrats, what venue can he beat Bennet in?
Don't make too much out of this: the YDs tried hard to balance supporters and be polite to both sides. But their own members had first choice on tickets. If Bennet fought Romanoff to a tie on the former Denver legislators "home field," that bodes well for Bennet in other venues.
2-The two areas where these ideologically similar candidates differed did not, on balance, show Romanoff in a good light. He repeated his vow not to take corporate or PAC contributions. That is superficially popular but most Democrats know, however much they like that notion, that they will face a cataract of cash in November as Republicans and third party "Independent campaigns" funnel money into Colorado to buy a Senate seat. A seat in Colorado, after all, is still a bargain compared to one in New York, California, or other megastates. Democrats may hate the rules of the money game. But most instinctively know you can't change those rules by getting the hell beat out of you. Ask William Jennings Bryan how well he did when "Dollar Mark Hanna" opened the floodgates of corporate cash to crush his populist insurgency.
Likewise, Romanoff several times repeated the silly ass notion -- let's call it what it is -- that Senators shouldn't accept health care benefits for themselves until all Americans have such benefits. It's a flashy idea -- in the same way that a streaker running across the field at the Super Bowl is flashy. And it wouldn't bring health care to a single needy American. It also wouldn't seriously hurt that millionaires club called the United States Senate. As he repeatedly touted this silly symbolism, I flashed back to the sophomore "Whip Inflation Now" buttons of yesteryear.
Such off-point gestures were a poor contrast to Bennet's quiet and compelling calls to renew American investment in our schools and infrastructure, to provide for our children as our parents did for us. Bennet is a substantive but often not very charismatic man. Tuesday, he was both substantive and compelling in his low key but sincere and humorous delivery....
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
