By the way, the forum was packed

Democratic Candidate Forum- what's to come and introduction impressions

I'm going to try to explain my analysis as best as possible but I took a LOT of notes and explaining my impressions of the candidates with substaintiated examples of all their actions would be utterly draining. I'll do my best.

1) I will provide a candidate scorecard that shows their stance on the issues asked about

2) I'll give my impressions and rankings (both overall and just at the forum)

3) I'll summarize the questions and answers from the forum

4) I'll make a fuller analysis available for those special candidates (those who should be supported and those who should not be supported at all cost)

My Impression of the Forum

The forum was entertaining, informative, and eye-opening.  A lot of the people on that stage did not belong there.  Some of my prejudices were substantited and some were not.  The candidates were introduced by Lynn Sweet, the moderator and were each given 3 minutes to introduce themselves which they also had to use to make clear their position on gay marriage, universal healthcare, and the Oslo accords.  It was made clear it was not a debate.  She then asked questions to 1 or 2 candidates and then took volunteers after that.  That was the basic format.  

I immediately noticed that almost all the non-pols explained that they "were not a politician and we need someone to not be corrupt."  Most of them didn't realize EVERY OTHER non-pol on the stage was going to say that.  What would have been impressive, if one of them would have said, "and when I'm in congress I support A, B, and C measures on how to clean the system up."  Nobody said that.  I should note that I was impressed with Charlie Wheelan's introduction.  He did not play up the non-pol cred at all.  He probably stayed away from it because everybody else did.  I noticed it with him especially because he introduced himself later.  Overall, today was a good ( dare I say, "great") for Charlie Wheelan.

Presentation scores for their introduction (style and substance) 1-10 and my impressions

Annunzio - 5: One of these guys who is the anti-politician.  No proposals on how to change the system or counter corruption.  He is qualified because has knowledge of federal spending practices from being in construction industry.  He is pro single payer.  And when he addresseesd the gay marriage issue, he parsed his words like a politician (although not as smooth).  You had to really pay attention tpo understand that he's pro-civil union NOT gay marriage.  Suprisingly little courage for a non-politician, uness he's really thinks "marriage is between a man and a woman.

Feigenholtz - 7: The theme for feigenholtz was , NO SUBSTANCE.  Even as politicians go she was very poor today.  She is woman focused, that seems to be her only chip to play.  Her stance on the issues which made me put her in the "need for information" category, advocacy for single payer, sounded very wishy washy.  Universal healthcare is the ultimate goal.... weak!  I don't advocate single payer but if you're for it SAY YOU'RE FOR IT.   Didn't say anything about gay marriage.  She dodged a bullet there.  Weak!

Fritchey - 8: Fritchey surprised me.  I'd never seen him speak and his educational pedigree made me think he was a tee-totaler.  This is probably the type of guy who's banged a hooker in his day.  That being said, he's an in your face, these are the facts, yea I said it-type of guy.  It was nice.  It was very easy to know where he stood on isuses.  He probably raised his stock price today.  He said he was proud of his education, he attended a private highschool  in the city then went to U of michigan, then onto Northwestern law all on hardship scholarships (impressive). Said right up front he was not from Chicago (a lot of folks made it a point to mentionthey were from the city or play up their roots....who gives a fuck? You're here now, I hope. Fritchey is by the way).  He said single payer is a "moral construct." He said he had "unwavering support of his friends in the GLBT community on marriage, on ENDA etc".  Very good intro.

Quigley - 8: Immediately you could tell he was a politician, with demenaor and manner of speaking reeked of it.  He was very polished and introduced himselfwell.  Although he and Wheelan were the only ones who asserted they were more qualified than anyone else.  Wheelan did it more diplomatically, Quigley came right out and said, "I am the catalyst for change."  This saddened me.  All the other intros were hokey, sure but they felt honest.  Parts of Quigley's intro felt like he was just telling people what they wanted to hear.  He tried crafting a story about how he's always been for change and little has happened since the election (Obama has been in office for 12 DAYS!!!).  He's pro gay marriage, he feels Hamas needs to recognize Israel's right to exist (this got a HUGE applause.  I t was sort of strange), and he's pro-universal healthcare.  He asserted that he fought Stroger on higher taxes, and some other stuff.  I was annoyed that he's one of these people who pronounce "Illinois" as "E-llinois", like "ell" rhymes with "bell."  Not a substantive issue I know, but that really pisses me off.  Otherwise, a decent guy.

Thompson - 6: From the jump this guy seemed unprepared.  He could barely talk, or complete a thought, and he wasn't wearing a tie or jacket.  I'll be the first to say dress codes are stupid and you shouldn't assert people's motives from meaningless acts.  But I am abnormal in that regard.  And I wear a suit on interviews.  This was an interview.  This guy is not serious.  Probably less serious than Cary Capparelli because he wasn't at the forum.  He probably knows he has no business running and did the pragmatic thing and is dropping out.  This guy should too.  He spoke right after Wheelan and stole his "wealthiest" nation line.  There was one point where I thought this guy knew something and that was when he addressed the Oslo accords portion of the intro question he said, "it is an old agreement, it's unfinished."  At this point he was a dark horse.  And that was best his campaign will ever be.

Donatelli - 7: Her rationale for being qualified was that she worked for the Obama campaign.  She claims to have written policy papers (PLURAL) on transportation, infrastructure, and veteran affairs. I'm going to double check this with her website.  I was pretty certain that it said she contributed to A POLICY PAPER (SINGULAR).  I'm being ticky tacky but as I said with Cary Capparelli, embellishing to win a public office is not acceptable.  She supports a 2-state solution, and thinks single payer should be a long term goal.  

Bryar - 6: My first impression of this guy is that he's a weasel.  That would be supported later in the forum.  He thinks the #1 issue rigth now is to create jobs, and the #2 issue is that he's the anti-politician and he'll fight corruption.  (How?  Exactly)  He's in favor of a made in america tax cut (boo) and will freeze his pay when he's in office (so).  He favors universal ACCESS (yea), gay marriage (yea), and the Oslo accords agreement (I should read more).  

Forys - 6:  This guy meant well but.... he read his speech from paper in front of him and I frankly found it hard to concentrate.  He's a small business owner, he favors civil unions, single payer is not a political possibility right now (I'd argue with his analysis, this may be the best political environment sans economic downturn for single payer in the last 20 years), and he favors a 2-state solution.  

Wheelan - 9:  The man of the day.  Best intro out of all of the candidiates.  He was quick, rational, and substantive.  The economy is hte sinlge most important thing, he is clearly eminently qualified.  Pro gay marriage, no if's ands or buts, for universal healthcare, and supports a 2-state solution.  Because of his policy background he's been on the ground, "not as a toursit" advising diplomats, NGOs, governments etc. in Egypt, Jordan... a bunch of places I don't remember.  I think he has more national government experience than any of the other candidates which might strangley enough make him the most "qualified" to be a congressman.  

Geoghegan -6:  He sounded like he was screaming at first.  Here's another debunked first impression.  I expected him to be a loony super labor guy.  He was super labor, no mistake about it, but he sounded much more rational than I expected.  His intro was rather rambling though.  He wants to increase Soc Security to make it a real livable pension for all Americans, he wants single payer healthcare, he's anti-TARP, pro gay marriage, and oslo accord neutral. 

 

Monteguado - 6:  He's a cuban immigrant.  He sounded pathetic trying to claim to be a local because his wife is from the area and they've "owned a home" in the area for the past 15 years.  This guy is from NY.  at least that's where he's been living.  What have you done to help the community? Go get your shinebox carpetbagger.  I bet if you sat down with Dr. Monteguado he would have some very wise nuanced opinions about policy and the state.  But he just couldn't convert ANY of that intelligence today.  He constatnly stumbled over himself and added nothing to the forum.  He invoked Maslow in his intro (It was SUPER rambling).  He's pro gay marriage, and he's pro universal healthcare (but he's open to other options too). so he's not really for universal healthcare.  Gutless.