A Slew of Announced Democratic Candidates in NY-19
Republican Sue Kelly has held my “new” Congressional district since, I believe, 1994. In fact, I do not believe she has ever faced a serious challenge. Well, that is about to change. Perhaps emboldened by the big Democratic gains in the area back in November, there are now 5 announced Democratic candidates vying for her seat.
They are:
I don’t yet know enough about any them to pick a favorite. I do know, however, that John Hall is/was the lead singer of the band Orleans. He took on the Bush Campaign last year when they attempted to use the Orleans song, “Still the One” at campaign stops. Aydelott, who was formerly a Republican, was the first to enter the race and, has raised $200,000 since Labor Day .
take19 is a blog that is completely focused on the race. They have the scuttlebutt on the dealings of Sue Kelly.
The DCCC has a Races to Watch site where you can find your own district. Interestingly they seem to be framing the overall congressional campaign strategy as a referendum on Tom DeLay. That seems like a good idea to me. Here is what they have to say about Sue and Tom:
Some facts about Sue Kelly and how tied up Rep. Kelly is with Tom DeLay…
- Sue Kelly has taken $12,020 from Tom DeLay’s ARMPAC. No surprise that Kelly voted with Tom DeLay 90% of the time between Jan. 1 2004 and March 31 2005.
- Sue Kelly voted to weaken the ethics rules in a move that many say served only to protect Tom DeLay.
- When Republicans realized it was “impossible to win the communications battle” over the gutted ethics rules, Kelly flip-flopped and voted to put the old rules back into place.
- When Democrats offered a solution to clean up the House by strengthening ethics rules, Sue Kelly voted twice to make sure it never even came to an up or down vote.
- Sue Kelly voted to allow DeLay to continue serving as Leader even if he is indicted.
With all these candidates, the primary should be interesting. I’ll update the blog as I learn more about the candidates.
[UPDATE 12/6/2005] It turns out that Ben Shuldiner was the first candidate to officially enter the race as Radha Iyengar notes in the comments :
Ben Shuldiner was actually the first candidate to enter the race, filing with the FEC long before Judy Aydelott.
Ben is the founder and principal of a public school in New York City. His school has had enormous success and for this he was named the Greatest Public Servant under the Age of 35.
I apologize for the oversight.
Belated Giant Presidential Head photos
Former Houstonian (and soon to be proud daddy) Rob of Get Donkey! seems to have reacquired his blogging groove, and…
Trackback by Off the Kuff | 12/2/2005
Ben Shuldiner was actually the first candidate to enter the race, filing with the FEC long before Judy Aydelott.
Ben is the founder and principal of a public school in New York City. His school has had enormous success and for this he was named the Greatest Public Servant under the Age of 35. To find out more visit http://www.ben2006.com.
Comment by Radha Iyengar | 12/4/2005
Ben Shuldiner has my support at this point. His ability to found a high school (called “The High School for Public Service” no less) and his commitment to making the community a better place really made me stop and take notice.
Further, he’s is upfront, to the point, and presents a plan on issues. Not ideas, or “this/that is bad, I don’t like it” dribble, but real plans. I Like that. Ben isn’t just saying “I’m going to be a good Dem”, he’s saying “Here’s what needs to be done, this is what I’m going to do.”
Do check out Ben’s site: Ben2006.com
Comment by sethf | 12/9/2005
Ben is actually the least impressive of them all to me. His inexperience and lack of connection to the Congressional District is troublesome. His “hometown” Democratic committee doesn’t even know who he is or ever heard of him. He should start out smaller and work his way up.
Comment by Northern Westchester | 12/12/2005
Northern Westchester’s statement that Mr. Shuldiner’s hometown Democratic committee doesn’t know who him is completely false. I don’t know which committee he/she is talking about, but I know for a fact (through my involvement in local politics and by attending local committee meetings) that Mr. Shuldiner is close with Democrats in Yorktown (where he resides), Putnam Valley, and Peekskill - the 3 closes towns to his home. I have been at numerous meetings that Mr. Shuldiner has attended and addressed these committee members at. He seems to be raising a lot of money and doing a lot of ground work and has gotten some impressive national press for his public service achievements.
I don’t know who I’m throwing my support behind yet, but I’d rather have one of the less “experienced” candidates if experience means being part of the gentrified Washington machine. Ben, for example, isn’t an experienced politician, but an experienced politician is precisely what I don’t want. I like that he, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Rigger are not “experienced” in that way. I also like that Ben is very experienced when it comes to being an entrepreneur and the manager of a public school in one of hte most difficult school districts in the country (NYC). To say that the guy who was named “the greatest public servant in America 35 years or younger” - an award won by the likes of Lance Armstrong and Wendy Kopp - is the “least impressive” is absurd in my humble opinion.
Comment by ajm | 12/15/2005
I am a long-time resident (15 years) of NY-19, and completely fed up with both Sue Kelly and the anemic Democratic challengers of years past. Like the initial poster in this thread, I am excited about the Dems’ prospects for 2006, and think we have a good field.
I’m writing this because I strongly disagree with what I take Northern Westchester to be saying. A few disclaimers before I launch my response:
1. I am an avowed Shuldiner supporter. I have known the candidate for about seven years, and occasionally consult (for free) for his campaign. I don’t think that makes me “biased,” exactly–I support Ben as a candidate because I like where he stands–but I say this in the interests of full disclosure.
2. I realize that Northern Westchester’s post is short, and may not imply all the things that I impute to it. So I don’t want to be jumping down NW’s throat, but I think the post raises very important issues that all Dems should think about.
So here goes.
Contrary to NW’s suggestion, Ben Shuldiner is very well “connected” to the District, if that is supposed to mean something like “he has deep roots in the community.” Ben lives in a house that his family has owned for three generations and something like fifty years. I met Ben in 1998 while he was lifeguarding at Mohegan Lake in Crompond, a small community between Cortlandt and Yorktown in northern Westchester County. I have other friends from Crompond who have known Ben from the area since much earlier. So Ben Shuldiner is pretty much a homegrown candidate.
Northern Westchester might be complaining that Ben is not “connected” enough in the sense that he doesn’t have enough ties to the local political power structure, whether in terms of the Democratic party or local government–ie, that Ben doesn’t have the right “connections.” I don’t know enough about the nuts and bolts of Ben’s campaign to know if that’s true, though ajm (posting above) seems to think Ben is a known commodity. If this is the thrust of NW’s objections (as is suggested by the complaint, also challenged by ajm, that Ben isn’t known to local Democratic committees), then I think that represents an extremely poor method for selecting candidates, and one that the Democratic Party would be wise to renounce.
To say that we should prefer only candidates who are “connected” to local insiders is to promote the worst kind of machine politics. It is to return us (keep us?) in a Boss-Tweed style political system where the only successful candidates are career pols who patiently climb the ladder by doing the right favors and toeing the right lines. Such a selection method would surely skew the candidate field and diminish the talent pool. It will certainly eliminate people (like Ben) who devote significant career time and energy to non-political public service, and will ensure that our candidates are more beholden to the party than to the people (or even to the Democratic platform). The issue here isn’t “experience”–Ben was founder and principal (read: CEO) of a high school, a complex administrative position involving tight budgets, policy-making, difficult trade-offs, and consensus-building. The issue is whether or not we have a “political insider” litmus test. I think that test is perverse–after all, it has produced nothing but failure for decades in this district.
I am certainly not saying that Ben or any other candidate should flout the party, ignore the voices of local committees or party members, etc. That would be suicidal as well as arrogant. And, to my (limited) knowledge, Ben *has* reached out to local Democrats throughout the district, both by speaking at meetings and by good old-fashioned door-knocking. I’m just saying the fact that someone hasn’t lived their life as if they want to one day run for Congress is by no means a bad thing, and may well be very positive. What we as Democrats–and as citizens–should care about is the candidate’s values, skills, and ideas. Whether he or she is “connected” has only the smallest relevance to those core concerns.
Ben Shuldiner has impressed me. Whether he impresses NW, or anyone else, is obviously for them to decide, but I hope people don’t make snap judgments about Ben, or any other Democratic primary candidate, based on facile judgments about how integrated he may be in local party institutions.
Comment by Jim Wilson | 12/15/2005
Perhaps I am mistaken. Clear a few things up for me. Where did he go to school? My understanding is he is not “homegrown.” Where was this growth and in what instutions? High school or elementary school? I have never seen him at a function in Yorktown, Peekskill, or Cortlandt. Who is he close with in those communities or on those committees? Does he have the backing of his home committee or local elected officials?
The problem with the race the last time was that none of the candidates had any elected experience or a network within the party that could help them raise the necessary money or beat on Sue Kelly. Does Mr. Shuldiner have the support of fellow Yorktowner Andy Spano? Has anyone publicly backed Mr. Shuldiner? The problem with this district last time was the misinformation the candidates put out about themselves last time. I want hard facts about the candidates, not vetted biographies that don’t make definitive claims.
I think perhaps Mr. Shuldiner should get to know his home county a little bit better first. That’s all. I’m sure he’s a fine upstanding young man, but he should probably pay his dues first.
With all due respect, no point getting nasty about it. The only candidate I am aware of that is remotely “homegrown” is Councilman Martorano in Yorktown. He has been here in Cortlandt and he has connections to the party.
I’m just putting my opinion out there, like you. Please be more kind in your replies.
Comment by Northern Westchester | 12/15/2005
NW: Not to put too fine a point on it, but your questions are the wrong ones to be asking.
It seems to me that it’s a good thing that Ben Shuldiner doesn’t have these so-called “connections” that you are asking about. Like Jim said above, making a candidate “pay his dues” before he can run for national office would return us to the type of political machines that ran everything in the early twentieth century and were so corrupt.
Ben Shuldiner has impressed me with his work in public service, even though it isn’t political in nature. What I particularly like about him is exactly what you seem to dislike - that he hasn’t wasted his time or money on getting into the existing system. It’s time to change this system of committees and favors and replace it with one that truly gives the people a voice.
I support Ben Shuldiner because I think he is an excellent candidate to start taking back the government from the political machines that dominate it now. A grassroots campaign of this nature is exactly what we need to put the country back on track.
Comment by Sam K | 12/15/2005
If you want to see Ben and the other four candidates vying for Sue’s seat, they’ll all be at the Peekskill Democratic meeting tonight (12/15) which begins at 7 p.m. in a room at the Field Library in downtown Peekskill.
As a group — we formed Take19 last year to take back the 19th district — we’ve met with all five of the candidates and each has their plusses and minuses. Though we don’t plan to endorse anyone right now, we’re more than a bit concerned with some of the misinformation being pumped out into the blogosphere about Ben, primarily on DailyKos and primarily by some of the same people who have posted here.
So if you’re tired of being spun by a few posters, come to tonight’s event — there’s more info on the Peekskill Dems site — and make up your own mind about the candidates. Clogging the blogosphere with misinformation about the candidates only helps Sue Kelly. Many of us are working way too hard to see that happen yet again.
Comment by Take19 | 12/15/2005
To Take-19: What are you referring to as misinformation posted about Ben? By the way, WHO IS TAKE-19??? You keep saying you’re “a group to take back the 19th district”, but who is in this group? I’m curious as to who this nebulous “we” you speak of is. What is your function (other than “taking back the 19th district”)?
Also…I admit that sometimes the tone of bloggers becomes a bit heated and I can be found as guilty of that as anyone else that is worried about the future of our District and our Nation, but that is healthy. Please let us know the truth about Ben Shuldiner (as opposed to the misinformation that has been posted) and please, everyone reading this, take the advice of Take-19 and listen to the candidates speak tonight. Being passionate about this race is important.
Comment by ajm | 12/15/2005
I have been contacted by Ben Shuldiner and can vouch for him. He seems like a really impressive guy. We have family friends that know him personally, so I can also vouch for the fact that he is from, lives in, and knows the district. I’d love to see someone like Ben win this election - he’s a real down to earth guy that has an impressive resume, a great list of achievements, and seems like he has real plans for making the 19th district and our country better off.
Comment by Mike | 12/15/2005
Northern Westchester, I’m glad you posted a reply quickly, so we can work out these important issues together.
I certainly didn’t mean to be unkind in anything I posted above, particularly regarding you personally. As I said in my disclaimer #2 above, I fully realized that your post was short, and in some ways a little ambiguous, and that you might not have been saying some of the things that I went on to criticize. So this disclaimer was meant to say, and I’ll emphasize it again here, that my post was not aimed at flaming you, but at addressing an issue that I think affects the Democratic party across the board: too much emphasis on the party machine.
I should also add another disclaimer here, namely that I do not speak at all for Ben Shuldiner or the campaign. I mentioned that I occasionally consult (for free) for Ben only in the interests of full disclosure, to allow readers to judge whether my opposition to machine politics was genuine or motivated by a sneaky desire to plug Ben. (Obviously, I think the arguments stand on their own–but you decide.) This is to say that absolutely nothing I write is “vetted.”
So, with that out of the way, let’s get back to substance.
I think that almost all of the questions NW raises in his/her second post are both legitimate and important. It’s obviously fair (and smart) to ask whether a candidate has ties to the district. I don’t know all the details of Ben Shuldiner’s biography, so I won’t try to answer all of your questions here. I will just say that from my own personal experience I know he has at least fairly substantial ties. I met him, as I said, while he was lifeguarding at a local lake, so I presume he spent his summers during college in the district. I have friends who have lived in the district for 70 years that have known the Shuldiner family for decades, and I have younger friends who have known Ben from around town for much longer than I have. (By the way, I think it’s unfair to refer to anything I said as “vetted biograph[y] that doesn’t make definitive claims.” I may have been unclear about my relationship to the campaign, so I’ll forgive “vetted,” but my claims about Ben’s connection to the district were all specific facts based on my own personal experience! Pretty definitive, I think, though I’ll admit “homegrown” is vague–and explicitly acknowledged as much by my the “pretty much” modifier.) So there’s good reason to believe that he has a fair knowledge of the area, though for details obviously we need to hear more from the candidate.
NW’s questions about local endorsements and Shuldiner’s appearances at local functions also seem like fair game. I can’t answer them, because, as I said above, I don’t know all the details of Ben’s campaign, or of the workings of local party meetings, etc. Posting above, ajm suggests that Ben has been involved, but again, I can’t really speak to that.
So NW and I in agreement on most of the above, though again I think s/he is being a bit quick in claiming that Ben (and other candidates) are not “remotely homegrown.” The sticking point still seems to be, however, the emphasis that should be placed on a candidate’s connection to local party institutions. Surely, this cannot be definitive, or even that central. Nobody disputes that a candidate and a campaign need to be efficient, and that efficiency requires some structure for fundraising, organization, rallying support, etc. I should also say that I have never heard Ben say anything remotely negative about local party institutions. But we should be very careful about requiring that a candidate climb an internal party ladder to merit our support, because I think that creates all of the problems surrounding career politicians and machine politics that I discussed in my above post. The GOP has been (at least since 1994) explicitly willing to support relative outsiders whose ideas and skills capture their attention, and that was at least part of the reason they have been whipping the Dems in congressional elections for the last 10 years (of course, gerrymandering helps). So I think it’s important not to be too complacent about prevailing institutional structures for party decision-making.
Finally, I don’t know if Take 19’s jabs are aimed at me, but if so, I would respectfully request that an ostensibly honest broker not accuse Shuldiner supporters of “pumping” misinformation. It is ironic at best that a poster preaching good internet ethics cast an accusation without making any specific charges of what actually constitutes misinformation or unfair spin. I will absolutely vouch for the truth of everything I posted. It’s also unfair to cast aspersions on the Shuldiner supporters in this thread, when Northern Westchester has made completely unverified claims about Shuldiner’s not being known to any local committees. I support fully Take 19’s interest in keeping things clean and fair, but I’m not sure these negative comments really serve that purpose.
Comment by Jim Wilson | 12/15/2005
Jim,
Your posts are fantastic. I agree that while party ties can be effective in getting a candidate’s name out there, they are not the end-all of a candidate’s qualification. Personally, I tend to be more interested in outsiders. I truly think the party could use some shaking up at all levels. New blood is not a bad thing.
It would be great if the supporters of other candidates would post more about why they support their chosen candidate. It would be fantastic if they were as eloquent and thoughtful as you are, Jim.
Comment by Rob | 12/15/2005
I just want to say that I know Ben personally from local community events - I think he is a very impressive man and I am proud to support him. Last year, I met Ben while he attended Easter services at St. Basil’s Academy - an orphanage in Garrisson, NY. I have also spoken with him at the Town Fair in Yorktown and the grand opening of the Mohegan Diner in Mohegan Lake. Also, I have friend and acquaintances in the Yorktown Town Council and in the Peekskill Democratic Party that know Ben well and have listened to him speak. I think it is about time for a change in Westchester and I think Ben is a good fit for us. I like his message and I like his experience.
Comment by Yiannis M. | 12/15/2005
Also, I want to say that I think Jim should run for Congress. Jim, you are very articulate and make fine arguments.
Comment by Yiannis M. | 12/15/2005
Dear Northern Westchester,
My name is Mike Benz. I am a student at SUNY Cortland. I grew up in Northern Westchester. I went to Lakeland High School and live in Cortlandt Manor, NY. I read with great interest your post about Ben Shuldiner. I have been interested in the 19th District for a while and have been reading about it on the web in order to get better informed of who to support. After reading your post about how Ben is not even known by his local democratic committee, I started to question his credentials to run. I had originally wanted to support Ben, but your post gave me pause. So, I called his office. I figure why not just try to talk to him or at least his campaign. When I called the office he actually picked up the phone. I asked him “Someone wrote that your local Democratic Committee doesn’t even know who you are, is this true?”
He was shocked to hear that someone was making this accusation. Ben explained that he lived in a place called Lake Mohegan which is in Cortlandt. Ben thought it funny that someone would say that the local committee doesn’t know him, when one of the Cortlandt Democratic town councilmen has not only donated money to his campaign, but had Ben over for his annual Christmas party this Saturday. Even more hysterical to Ben was that the Town Supervisor, Linda Puglisi has actually known Ben all his live. Linda’s son used to teach Ben how to play tennis at the local tennis courts. Ben also mentioned that he was invited to and attended the Cortlandt Democrats Election Night Party as well as the Cortlandt Democrats Breakfast at Crystal Bay and thought that it would be hard for his local committee to not know him if members of the committee were inviting him to their events.
So after talking with Ben, your accusations seem not only baseless but a clear attack on Ben. In the internet world it is easy to hide behind names like “Northern Westchester” and accuse people of anything. But in the interest of full disclosure, which you seem so desiring of, I think you owe this blog an explanation of who you are. Additionally, it also seems like you own Ben Shuldiner a huge apology. I have always liked politics, but it is your kind of dirty, anonymous, false accusations that make people turn away.
Please tell us who you are so that we can judge for ourselves the reason why you might have made up these stories about, what I can only say now is a good and honorable man.
Sincerely,
Michael Benz
Comment by Michael B. | 12/16/2005
Last night I attended an event in Peekskill NY that marked the first time all 5 congressional candidates in District 19 got together to speak. While this event, hosted by the Peekskill Democrats, was not a formal debate, it gave the candidates the opportunity to state their case and answer questions from the public.
Of the five candidates, Ben Shuldiner was the shining star of the night. I’m leaning towards supporting him at this point. He was a far more informative and inspirational speaker than the other four and actually kept his speech to about 8 mins while the others went on for 15 minutes (which often seemed like an eternity). He was also the only candidate that didn’t end the discussion at “what needs to get done”, as he went into “what I will do for you”.
I wish Darren Rigger had taken the opportunity to speak. Unfortunately, he passed. He seems very energetic and like he has some good ideas. The only thing i didn’t like about him was how many times he he brought up being arrested for protesting the war in Iraq. It seemed a little inappropriate given the audience (Peekskill committee members). I want to see more from Darren in the future - he seems like he can motivate people.
Jim Martorano did well, but seemed rather timid. He is clearly the candidate with legislative experience, but had a hard time tying that in to what he will do for us if elected. Jim also made the blunder of the night. When asked why he is should be the one to get elected, Jim ended with “I am for good and against bad. Well I’m not always against bad. Sometimes bad is good.” It made him seem a little ridiculous.
John Hall was an excellent speaker in my opinion. He has a commanding voice and posture and can relate a lot of the issues facing NY-19 to personal experiences. I think he lost people in going on for too long about windsurfing in the Hudson River and sitting on some school board in Dover Plains. His speech was very tangential.
The biggest disappointment of the night for me, though, was Judy Aydelott. It turns out Judy is a bad speaker (sounds nervous, gets off-topic, and goes for breadth over depth on the issues). This struck me as odd given her career as a trial lawyer.
So the rankings are…
1) Ben Shuldiner
2) John Hall
3) Jim Martorano
4) Judy Aydelott
- Darren Rigger (didn’t speak. if he did, he seems like he’d place somewhere in the top 3)
Comment by ajm | 12/16/2005
I was at the Peekskill event as well and pretty much agree with what ajm said. I think Ben knocked ‘em dead. He did a fantastic job. I hope we can hear more about the specific issues from all of the candidates in the future, though. The event wasn’t as informative as I thought it would be. Especially since most of them spent all of their time talking about biographical anecdotes. I also wouldn’t rank Judy last. I agree that she’s just a bad speaker. I think ajm evaluated delivery over content, though. In terms of the substance of their speeches, my ranking would be as follows:
(1) Ben; (2) John; (3) Judy; (4) Jim
I think Jim shot himself in the foot with the crazy “I am for good and against bad” stuff. He almost sounded like Dubya on that one. I’d like to hear other peoples opinions as well…
Comment by barbara | 12/16/2005
The Peekskill event definitely showcased Ben Shuldiner’s excellent campaign skills. He’s not only very articulate and dynamic as a speaker, he really engages and compels his listeners…he laid out what he wanted to accomplish with this election, and I think succeeded in charging people up to do just that: to believe that government can be a force for good, that District 19 can be won by a Democrat, and that he’s the guy who can win and then go about being a force in good government.
Elections on a smaller scale, such as congressional races, are about getting people to care and getting people to work to make things happen. Shuldiner displayed an ability to inspire listeners the way that will be necessary to defeat a long-entrenched incumbent.
Comment by boris k | 12/16/2005
I couldn’t disagree more with some of the comments above. Ben reminded me of that annoying guy in high school — the one who thought he knew all the answers. The silly little comments, like Go Packers when one of our committee members mentioned he was from Wisconssin. And how many times did he bring up that Jefferson Award? And the way he talked about it, like “I don’t know what it means to be called the greatest public servant under 35, but I know that Lance Armstrong and Sally Ride got the same award.” As if he’s in the same league as them. Comments like that made a few of us gag, not to mention made the other candidates roll their eyes. And if that’s our reaction, you can imagine how the Republicans will make mince meat out of him.
I do agree that Judy needs work — a lot of work — on her speaking skills. She seemed nervous and that was very surprising because I thougt she had trial experience. John and Jim were both interesting, but a bit too far afield for the audience they were speaking to.
In my mind — and the other people I’ve spoken to over the past few days — Darren Rigger was the most effective, though in fairness he only spoke very briefly and his message also might have worn thin if he spoke for the whole 15 minutes.
Bottom line: all of these people need media training. I know the Poughkeepise Journal isn’t exactly the NY Times and that it’s still early, but all of these folks need a lot more work.
Comment by peekskilldem | 12/17/2005
I agree with peekskilldem that all of these people need media training. I also agree that Ben could have been better. I really don’t see any way, however, that Ben could not be seen as coming out on top after this event given the pool of candidates that participated. I’m trying to evaluate the speeches (or lack thereof) as objectively as possible, and yes, maybe I am focusing on delivery a little more, but I think Ben kicked ass and took names. I didn’t see his comments as annoying or obnoxious - it seemed like he tried to be as humble as possible in saying that he was named the greatest public servant in America under 35. Since Representatives are pubic servants, I think that is an important piece of information to highlight. And by the way, since Ben Shuldiner, Lance Armstrong, and Sally Ride all got the same award, it seems to me as though they *are* in the same league.
As for the others, I think John was very interesting and very commanding of the audience’s attention. I wouldn’t call Jim interesting, though. He seemed too quiet and unsure of himself. I also don’t understand how you could *objectively* think Darren Rigger was the most effective when he gave up his chance to speak. He essentially just said his name, that he was hanging out with Spitzer that night, and that he’s been arrested for political protest. Don’t get me wrong. I like Darren. A lot. He is definitely one of the higher ranking candidates on the “coolness” scale. I just expected more from him. I came away with no insight into Darren Rigger the congressional candidate and he seemed a little cartoonish at the event.
Comment by ajm | 12/17/2005
to peekskilldem:
just curious…how would you rank the performance of the candidates in the peekskill event?
by the way, i found your post interesting and would like to hear other viewpoints from people that attended (i know there weren’t many there and probably even less that will bother to read this).
Comment by ajm | 12/17/2005
Darren, Jim, John, Ben, Judy, in that order.
I am not certain we were looking at the same forum. Peekskilldem seems to be a bit more on the money than the rest. I am guessing that besides the delegates to the Peekskill Democratic Party that there were probably another 10 people at most that came to the forum. So either 50% of them read this blog or there is some serious political spin going on.
Comment by Northern Westchester | 12/19/2005
NW, I think it’s bizarre to rank Darren first when he didn’t even show up until an hour into the forum. I’m happy to acknowledge flaws in each candidate’s performance. But how does one rank a guy who, all told, talked for about 5 minutes over the course of the evening? And was rather non-specific during those 5 minutes?
Comment by boris k | 12/20/2005
He spoke for 5 minutes, yes, but during the question and answer period, which he did participate in, he was much better at connecting with people. This is what I am looking for: someone who can connect with the audience and doesn’t seem forced, someone who can rip Sue Kelly and throw a nice sound bite together. Someone who is polished and has some campaign experience.
Unlike the others who either tried really hard to act “Congressional” or who didn’t have “the stuff,” Darren seemed to have it. I’ll be interested to see the numbers he posts in January. It doesn’t mean he’s my guy, but overall, he had more of “all” of the qualities needed to take on Sue.
Comment by Northern Westchester | 12/20/2005
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - I like Darren’s style. But come on…the guy was a no-show at this event. How can you rank him at all, let alone rank him first? He didn’t have time to “connect” with anyone. He barely answered the questions that were asked at the end of the forum. I thought Ben Shuldiner and John Hall were more engaging and on content, I think Ben came out on top. I don’t know about saying Darren came away a winner or had more of the qualities needed to take on Sue if he was a no-show. Talk about political spin….
By the way, I’m becoming a bit sceptical of “Northern Westchester” given his/her unfounded assault on Ben in previous posts. I can’t wait for Take-19 to post the podcasts so people can judge for themselves.
Comment by ajm | 12/20/2005
I wasn’t aware I was assaulting anyone. If that’s what you’re taking from my post, I apologize. I think any of them would be better than Sue Kelly. I just disagree with you that’s all. I don’t think Ben is the best of them and I don’t think he gave the best presentation either. Some people like Coke, others like Pepsi.
Darren Rigger was late, yes, but he made it clear he had an event before hand. To say he was a no show is disengenous. He was doing something with Spitzer he said.
The podcast will be good, I agree. But I think even more important than that will be to see who raised what come January 15th. Judy already had close to $200K on hand, Ben had somewhere around 80K and the others hadn’t started raising or didn’t announce until just recently. I would like to see what Darren is able to raise in the short time since he has announced as well as John Hall.
It’s OK that you support Ben, that’s great. It’s good to see he has fans. I’m just not sold on him, that’s all.
Comment by Northern Westchester | 12/20/2005
Speaking of the podcast, we’re having some trouble figuring out a way to get them onto our site. Our resident techie is away for the holidays. So if anyone has any bright ideas on how to get them onto the site, we’re all ears. The easier, the better since our techie is away.
As we’ve said before, we’re not going to give an opinion of what we thought about the event last week. If we can figure out the podcasting thing, we’ll post it. If not, we’ll try to figure it out in time for the next set of forums in early January.
Comment by take19 | 12/20/2005
Mutual Funds and Market Research…
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…
Trackback by Mutual Funds and Market Research | 11/13/2007
Family Christian Bookstore…
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…
Trackback by Family Christian Bookstore | 11/29/2007