Marcy Winograd was the clear and concise progressive who closed with great passion demonstrating the obvious differences in this campaign to succeed former congresswoman Jane Harman.
Armed with the facts and unafraid to have a firm position on each and every question asked, Marcy Winograd was to the point and unafraid to challenge the failed foreign policy debacles of the past as well as the present especially on the question of Israel where her knowledge had no peer.
Overall, the debate was more of a discussion of sorts while Marcy did make some telling points that contrasted her from the competition.
Her obvious references to the Bowen record on the death penalty as well as “three strikes” were on the money and persuasive for a real case for change!
To Bowen’s credit, she is a clever and articulate public servant who has a body of achievement in the legislature which she noted in rapid fire response.
Her strong suit is obviously domestic policy and creating “out-of-the-box” solutions such as eliminating color print to voting guides, etc.
Her answers pertaining to foreign policy were at best wishy washy as she seems to be searching for positions that will please both the center as well as the left.
In this case, it was hard for her to straddle that fence with Winograd so clear and concise on every question while not being afraid to take a different approach on the topic of Israel.
Maybe Secretary Bowen should share that “Profiles in Courage” award with Marcy when she’s sworn to office after the runoff!
Calling herself the “conscience of the state senate” was a bit much and it just had me thinking Barry Goldwater and his book, Conscience of a Conservative published in 1960!
I think in future debates Bowen will need to be a bit more specific in areas of foreign policy and I think Marcy should engage her obvious “right-of-center” legislative record in Sacramento!
Mayor Mike Ginn of Manhattan Beach was seemingly just happy to participate and his self description as an “independent Republican” was strange in that he seems to oppose every GOP principle, talking point or point-of-view!
The question I kept asking myself is why is this candidate a registered Republican?
Los Angeles Councilwoman Janice Hahn was weak in many ways and just not properly prepared in my opinion to handle the foreign policy portion of the discussion.
Her inability to articulate the Libyan question was disturbing and her failure to truly demonstrate any coherent foreign policy agenda tells me she’s just not ready to go to congress at this time.
Her answers were vague, stock, and quite frankly disappointing given the fact she was the party’s nominee in 1998 for this seat and she’s had an obvious head start in this race to succeed Jane Harman over the others.
To claim that being a city council member is the proving ground for members of the HOR was equally disappointing.
She talked jobs, but had no plan.
In addition, it was hard for her to reference her fiscal record when the city is staring down the barrel of a $400 million dollar deficit!
I found it very telling that neither Bowen nor Hahn bit the bait so to speak when Marcy called them out on their past support of the “Blue Dog” Democrat, Jane Harman.
This is clearly a problem for both them.
They supported Harman, but not her policies?
At some point, they’ll need a tangible answer to a question that will not go away!
It is this issue where Winograd’s candidacy is logical and her choice obvious to any reasonable progressive or grass roots Democrat seeking a real change inside the Beltway!
Hahn’s strong suit continues to be the endorsement game and her best volley was referencing her family’s long public service in that of her brother and father along with the endorsement of Senator Feinstein.
I thought Hahn should have expanded her impressive list of endorsements and none of the candidates referenced Wisconsin which I thought was a lost opportunity, especially for Marcy Winograd being the only dues paying union member running in this contest.
Most people believe signs don’t vote and debates don’t matter.
There may be some truth to that in the age of TWITTER, moment by moment analysis and rapid opinion.
But debates tell you something truly different.
Who is comfortable in a true policy debate?
Who can make a true case for change?
Who had a consistent message that was supported by clarity, conviction and a sense of confidence?
If that is the standard, Marcy Winograd in many ways controlled the conversation and offered that clarity many voters truly desire.
The campaign began tonight and Marcy Winograd after five years finally got the chance to say what was on her mind.
I thought her closing comments were forceful and out-of-the-park, on the money!
Now we truly have a campaign.
A campaign that will certainly be a marathon and not a sprint by any reasonable yardstick!