Print This Post
Mar
29
Listen to the podcast here for last Friday’s Meet the Bloggers debate between Subodh Chandra and State Senator Marc Dann, the two Democratic candidates who seek to challenge GOP nominee, Betty Montgomery, in the Ohio Attorney General race.
Read others’ views: Word of Mouth, Buckeye State Blog, Ohio2006Elections (aka Jeff Coryell, aka Yellow Dog Sammy)
In attendance at Talkies: Scott Bakalar, Daniella Lindquist, George Nemeth, Tim Russo, Jim Eastman, Jeff Coryell (aka Yellow Dog Sammy), Tim and Gloria Ferris, Jill Miller Zimon, Jack Ricchiuto and Russell Hughlock.
Wendy Hoke, Charu Gupta, a staff writer for the Free Times which will publish a profile on Chandra this week, and several individuals with the respective campaigns also contributed to the packed and slightly more stressed feeling in the front, daylit-room. I’ve never been a sidewalk gawker on the Today Show, but Ohio City passers-by might have confused Talkies on this day with Katie Couric’s crib.
I’d say that I’ll start at the beginning, except that I’m struggling to determine where that point is.
Is it when I participated in Marc Dann’s MTB session and subsequently commented in this post that he seemed “very Ohio” to me, thereby giving him a good line before the debate, when he shook my hand and I said, “I’m Jill Miller Zimon” and he responded with something like, “I know who you are. Do I look Ohio today?” and I thought to myself, well, as a matter of fact, yes, you do – with the diagonally striped red and black tie that makes me think of Ohio State?
Or is it when I started hearing about Subodh Chandra in other people’s blogs, came to the conclusion that the Ohio Democratic Party should not endorse either Chandra or Dann, or, alternatively, endorse both, but under no circumstances just one, because both seemed worthy and capable of earning voters’ votes?
Or is it when I walked into the Talkies front room, saw Charu and her adorable pregnant self, bear-hugged her and then heard the room erupt from its already loud white noise level into all kinds of sounds? (Apparently, Wendy had entered the room a few minutes before me and greeted Charu similarly, so the folks in the room found it all the more amusing, or something, that the same happened when I entered.) (Charu and I worked together for a year on a KnowledgeWorks project, then Charu went to work for the Free Times, and now Wendy is doing the KnowledgeWorks work.)
Jesus, Jill, who cares? Write the damn review for goodness sakes.
I’ve anticipated this event since the time when I first posted an invitation for it. It took time to schedule, but the wait was worth it.
Why so eager?
Because I’d only met Dann and not yet Chandra.
Because I’d received the background info Chandra provided and didn’t get past the first few pages after I saw that he’d lived in New Haven (my hometown).
Because I’d been following both candidates’ websites and press releases and news articles and continued to feel unable to choose between them. My prior comparison of Dann (based on attending his MTB appearance) and Chandra (based on reading the transcript of his MTB appearance), had left me with a sense that Dann was a solid choice, but that Chandra’s candidacy would elicit a morning slap in the face with Mennen Skin Bracer, after which we’d say, “Thanks, we needed that.”
I prayed before the debte that I’d detect obvious distinctions that played in favor of one and against the other. This note from my scrawl, made more than halfway through the event, conveys my feelings at that moment, “This is one where I will not know and will not say. Just too close.”
First up, Tim Russo and the Eliot Spitzer references: is he your model and why. Chandra answered in a quieter but not unpersuasive manner. Dann turned on and wound up his speech style. Debate = Draw.
When they discussed the role of the AG’s office in handling consumer problems, Chandra said we should be doing more and Dann supported and expanded on that notion. In my notes, “Kudos for not being afraid to agree.” Though in my mind I was thinking, Disagree! Disagree! Disagree! (just so I could see a difference, not because I wanted them to actually possess different opinions).
I began to focus on their attire: Chandra in a blue jacket, button down relaxed-style blue shirt, a white t-shirt underneath, tan slacks with nicely tapered and cuffed pant legs that led to … very pointed and clearly well-worn (as in, he didn’t don them just for today) cowboy boots. Whoa, Nelly, indeed. Dann wore a more traditional grey-black suit with the aforementioned tie.
Back in the debate, Russell of Buckeye State Blog asked them how they would prevent pay to play and what will the mix of outside/inside counsel be. Chandra referenced his now well-known experience in cutting back the use of outside counsel while he was Cleveland law director. Dann reiterated his desire to equip the AG’s office with the best and the brightest, even if the cost of that sounded higher than people might otherwise imagine, since they’d be worth the investment.
Next up was Jack Ricchiuto whose second question captured what I wanted to ask, so the debaters addressed the first one, and later, I rephrased the second one. (And rephrased, and rephrased.)
Jack’s first: name the priorities for your first 90 days.
Chandra: pursuing a constitutional education system and ending the culture of corruption he believes is now prevalent.
Dann: select special counsel, create a public integrity unit, address school funding. Tim Russo followed up by asking the candidates if they agreed with Jim Petro’s position that the conditions which gave rise to DeRolph no longer attain. Both Chandra and Dann used strong words and phrases to say that if Petro believes that, he’s nuts (give or take a few more choice words, from both candidates).
So, by this point, I’m itching. I’m dying. Nothing is standing out. And I’m in need of knowing: HOW DO I CHOOSE? Someone has GOT to beat Montgomery. I’m not convinced that either of you have a better chance in the general election than the other. Dann has the party endorsement but Chandra creates excitement and support at breakneck pace.
So, at my turn, I said: I’m a voter. I like you both. I can see voting for either of you. I can see being happy with either of you. I see each of you agreeing with the other. Tell me three reasons why I should choose you over your opponent in the primary.
Well, Chandra wanted to go into what I’ve read from the MTB transcript: it’s a hiring choice. Who do you want to hire? I wasn’t satisfied with this framework and re-asked the question. Chandra appeared a bit perturbed to me for doing this – I messed with his flow, and he seemed to feel that he was answering my question, if I just waited and listened (I stink at that sometimes, I admit it). But, you know, I asked the question and I wanted an answer my way. Stubborn. I know.
In any case, Chandra’s answer was excellent and provocative, if also very confident and stated in a more matter of fact, this is really quite simple way. Still, when’s the last time you’ve heard any candidate frame their running for election as a job hire? I can’t recall even one.
Dann answered the question by talking about what he brings to the role: his experience in the legislature and his ability to understand and represent the ordinary people of Ohio, not just the corporations and big entities. His specific word choice and delivery, posture (leaning forward, almost urgent) and forcefulness (read: sincerity and earnestness, I thought anyway), showed great passion.
I enjoyed the way the two differed in the style of their answer, almost more than the substance, since that substance was somewhat predictable.
At this point in my notes, I wrote, “What’s clear: Dems, Ohioans, won’t lose, no matter which one wins.”
The debate devolved just a bit after this, with Dann making a slightly snarky remark about people with Yale Law School degrees being “a dime a dozen.” Having tried (and failed) to get into Yale Law School, while I worked at Yale and knew the admissions dean, that dime a dozen comment didn’t ring true for me, but again, the gentlemen showed their emotions at this point, and that I liked.
At this juncture, I wrote the already mentioned note about being unable to say who I’ll vote for. And after that, in my notes: “It’s hard to believe, without meeting her or knowing anything about her, that Betty Montgomery could win against either one” of these guys. They both impressed me that much.
Yellow Dog Sammy asked about the death penalty and Daniella asked about how you handle corruption in your own government, but what I heard, what stuck with me throughout the remainder of the debate? The way in which the two candidates now tried to distinguish themselves as best they could, as often as they could. Basically, it boiled down to a policy wonk versus a lawyer experienced in the practice and management of law.
At the very end, Marc Dann said, and I can imagine feeling the feeling that gave rise to him saying this, “You can’t know everything.” Because indeed, Chandra had an answer – and a good answer, for pretty much everything – policy and plan-wise.
My final notes on Chandra indicate that his last effort was to distinguish between a job to be done and an office to be held, and he treats the AG’s role as the former, not the latter.
So, who won the debate?
Dann did remarkably well. He did not hurt his cause or his campaign. Many folks gave him points just for being there, and maybe, maybe, rightfully so. I’m not convinced on that point. But, he closed with some comment about not taking anything for granted in the business of public service, and that resonated with me because I’ve always identified with public interest law. This thought stuck with me for a long time after the debate ended.
But Chandra?
Sigh.
I’ve come to realize that I must knock myself down. Saying who I support, who I’ll vote for in the primary, is not going to affect the outcome. Duh. But it’s important to me to emphasize how much I like both these candidates and how proud I am that we in the Democratic party have individuals such as Chandra and Dann to select.
That said, when I get to the booth, to the screen, to whatever implement I’m given with which I get to cast my vote for the Democratic Attorney General candidate, if I were to do this tomorrow? I’d have to vote for Chandra.
The deciding factor: I want someone different – not from the legislature. I like the idea of the separation between Chandra and the legislature, even though I’m thinking that that could be a handicap. But maybe it will be a plus.
And finally, against Montgomery, well, at this moment in time, Chandra’s exterior seems impenetrable to stabs and jabs and his presentation so smooth and adjustable to fit the circumstances (even if a question gets asked more than once in more than one way).
Perhaps other, relevant information will come out between now and May. But, for now, it’s Chandra over Dann, by an excrutiatingly teeny tiny fraction of a fraction.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 3:41 am March 29th, 2006 in Politics
Comments
13 Responses to “Meet the Bloggers Attorney General Debate: Subodh Chandra v. Marc Dann”
Leave a Reply
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
great review, jill. one of my favorite WritesLikeSheTalks pieces. i like the Today Show reference. Talkies does feel like that sometimes, doesn’t it?
Jill,
Thanks for your insight. Your opinion of Chandra speaks volumes to me.
Plus, didn’t Dick Celeste endorse him?
Even MORE reason for me to value your opinion, old Celestial that I am.
Well done, Jill.
Er, Tim was first up. I didn’t say much, because I was bad and showed up late…
Just making sure you read my posts, George.
My notes indicated that it was Tim but I didn’t think that seemed right since you usually do the intro for the podcast. Guess I should trust those notes better than a five-day old memory.
Thanks – I’ve corrected it.
Thanks, Tim, Frank and Wendy. This was not easy to write or frame, so, I just talked it through. Seems to work best, for me anyway.
As always Jill, a great summary of a great debate.
Thanks, Scott. I feel badly because mine sometimes come after other people have done theirs, but I really do start them before they get posted. I rarely write one in one sitting. I don’t proof all my entries, or even most of them. But ones like the debate, I like to be more careful.
Hey, Jill, terrific post! Great summary of the experience, as well as the substance. I respect the way you came to your conclusion, as well.
Thanks, Jeff. It never hurts to have others’ good work to read first.
Eliot Spitzer
Paramendra – Thank you for reading and leaving a comment. Just curious, are you following Subodh Chandra, Marc Dann, Ohio – or just blogs in general?
You have a fascinating resume – thank you for having it online. Very interesting about the trucking work – I remember so well, as I bet all of us do, the newsstories about the trucking industry boom after 9/11. Ironies.
Good luck with all your projects.