Here are a few thoughts on the LG debate tonight.1. I don't understand how on earth there can be a debate moderated by someone who's endorsed one of the candidates. Even if the moderator bends over double backwards to be fair, it's just really strange. I mean, imagine if a McCain-Obama debate had been "moderated" by Lindsay Graham or Ted Kennedy. Or, imagine if one of the Democratic Presidential debates had been moderated by Joe Trippi or David Axelrod or Marc Penn. Huh?
1a. Also, how many times did George Burke express his anger/disappointment/whatever at Jon Bowerbank not being there? OK, OK, we got the message.
1b. I don't understand how there could have been such different interpretations by the two candidates who were there (Signer and Wagner), the one candidate that wasn't there (Bowerbank), and the moderator (Burke) as to why Bowerbank wasn't at the debate (Mother's Day? biased moderator/"sham"? other?). Strange.
2. Having said all that, I wonder if Jon Bowerbank would have been better served if he had shown up. After all, the Bowerbank campaign on April 30 issued a call for debates.
"I spent last week, and the last 16 months, traveling around the Commonwealth talking about how to create jobs for Virginians and get our economy back on track. As Virginians are losing their jobs, unable to make their mortgage payments, unable to afford college tuition, and facing so many other challenges, I am focusing on these issues and I hope my opponents will join me in three debates to discuss the formidable challenges facing our Commonwealth. We need to get this election focused on the issues that make a difference in the lives of Virginians every day," Bowerbank said.Regardless of the possibly biased moderator, what other opportunities like this will Jon Bowerbank have after all?
3. I like Mike Signer very much, but I thought it was...er, ballsy for lack of a better word...of him to repeatedly compare himself to Barack Obama and Obama's campaign for president. I kept waiting for Jody Wagner to use the famous Lloyd Bentsen slam on Dan Quayle, "You're no Barack Obama."
4. Jody Wagner consistently tried to emphasize that she has more experience than Mike Signer to be LG, but I thought she overreached a bit on the issue of how many months (4? 7?) Mike worked for Mark Warner. I mean, that seems a bit petty (and apparently wasn't accurate; Mike said it was a "flat misrepresentation").5. Overall, I thought there would be more fireworks between the candidates, although there were a few. In the end, there were more fireworks from George Burke about Jon Bowerbank not being there than anything else.
6. One of the themes of the debate was about the powers of the LG office, that it's very weak and doesn't have the power to do any of the big things the candidates are talking about doing. I don't think either candidate had a great answer on that one, or why I should care who the LG is particularly (except to succeed the governor in the event of a tragedy).
7. Mike tried to contrast his "insurgent, grassroots campaign" with Jody's "endorsements, money, establishment campaign," but for whatever reason - a lot of questions, not much time to answer each one? - he didn't really develop the theme as much as I thought he needed to.
8. In the end, in debates, the frontrunner's #1 job is not to screw up, while the challenger's job is to force an error by the frontrunner. Tonight, I did not see any major screwups by Jody, or for that matter by Mike. However, given that Jody came into the debate widely assumed to be leading, I'd have to say she "won" by not "losing."
