Dem AG Debate rant
Submitted by Tim Russo on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 9:29am.
Ok....I know everybody likes Subodh, I'm probably going to vote for him in the primary (I say probably because I usually wait until the last second on primary decisions), but I have to say this.
Enough with the "I'm qualified, you're not" schtick. I realize this is pretty much the centerpiece of Subodh's campaign, and it has to be pounded relentlessly, but I just proofed the debate transcript (should be posted shortly), and I gotta say, there is an arrogance that comes across that only a guy who went to Yale can pull off.
Subodh...there is only one qualification for being attorney general, and that is winning an election. The guy who gets the most votes is the guy who gets to be AG. That's it.
Yes, we need a better kind of AG than we've been getting, and yes, experience should matter more, but this is NOT some application process for a job, it is an election. It is politics. Deal with it. Marc Dann says this in the debate.
Furthermore, having practiced law (briefly) myself, and having had to work around guys who, because they went to the better law school wrap themselves in this "I'm qualified" crap ad nauseum, such hubris has always struck me as ridiculous. George W. Bush went to Yale, too. They got the privelege of the big law school, the big connections, they rode this absurd bias in favor of the blue blood schools to higher places, that doesn't make them better qualified than someone who didn't. It just makes them lucky.
Subodh likes to say this is a hiring choice..."who would you want as counsel if your life, liberty, or property were at stake?" Well, give me a commuter school trained lawyer who got the degree going part time to night school with a chip on his shoulder over an Ivy League thinker clutching Prosser or L. Tribe any day of the week. If the Ivy Leaguer manages to have the same chip on his shoulder, all the better.
Enough with the "I'm qualified, you're not" schtick. I realize this is pretty much the centerpiece of Subodh's campaign, and it has to be pounded relentlessly, but I just proofed the debate transcript (should be posted shortly), and I gotta say, there is an arrogance that comes across that only a guy who went to Yale can pull off.
Subodh...there is only one qualification for being attorney general, and that is winning an election. The guy who gets the most votes is the guy who gets to be AG. That's it.
Yes, we need a better kind of AG than we've been getting, and yes, experience should matter more, but this is NOT some application process for a job, it is an election. It is politics. Deal with it. Marc Dann says this in the debate.
The Attorney General makes policy, makes decisions, sets the direction for the office, accesses the resources that are necessary, and moves the state forward and, frankly, you know, guys with Yale law degrees are a dime a dozen. Guys with the heart and passion to do what’s right for the people of the State of Ohio are a little tougher to come by, day in and day out, and I think that’s what this is about.Subodh responds that this is "faux populism". I think not. I think Marc is absolutely right, Ohio needs a ratfucker in the AG's office who has seen people get screwed, either as their lawyer in a small practice, or as a legislator dealing with constituents' problems, or through their own experience. I know Subodh has this experience just as much as Marc has it, in different ways, and I wish Subodh would quit dismissing it as some politician's spin and perhaps argue a little bit of it himself.
Furthermore, having practiced law (briefly) myself, and having had to work around guys who, because they went to the better law school wrap themselves in this "I'm qualified" crap ad nauseum, such hubris has always struck me as ridiculous. George W. Bush went to Yale, too. They got the privelege of the big law school, the big connections, they rode this absurd bias in favor of the blue blood schools to higher places, that doesn't make them better qualified than someone who didn't. It just makes them lucky.
Subodh likes to say this is a hiring choice..."who would you want as counsel if your life, liberty, or property were at stake?" Well, give me a commuter school trained lawyer who got the degree going part time to night school with a chip on his shoulder over an Ivy League thinker clutching Prosser or L. Tribe any day of the week. If the Ivy Leaguer manages to have the same chip on his shoulder, all the better.
maybe i wasn't clear
Submitted by Tim Russo on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 10:02am.
i don't mind the qualifications debate, but what i do not like is this utter dismissiveness of Dann's record as a legislator, an attorney, and in the public eye as an advocate against corruption.
Marc Dann is just as qualified to be AG as Subodh. does Subodh have more specific experience, i.e. law director, big firm, etc.? sure. does Dann have more experience fighting for the little guy? sure. is one better than the other to the point that Subodh has to demean it every chance he gets. hell. no.
Marc has some experience dismissing his opponents' background. he tried this with Tim Ryan in 2000 for state senate, he even repeats his line of attack against Tim in the AG debate, saying Tim had "never held a job". it didn't work for Marc in 2000.
you know why? because voters want more than your resume.
Subodh is really not helping himself with this constant resume comparison. i want him to tell us about how he helped this person or that person, give us a reason to believe that he's got the fire in the belly that this state needs, and stop dismissing it as populism. that's the point.
Marc Dann is just as qualified to be AG as Subodh. does Subodh have more specific experience, i.e. law director, big firm, etc.? sure. does Dann have more experience fighting for the little guy? sure. is one better than the other to the point that Subodh has to demean it every chance he gets. hell. no.
Marc has some experience dismissing his opponents' background. he tried this with Tim Ryan in 2000 for state senate, he even repeats his line of attack against Tim in the AG debate, saying Tim had "never held a job". it didn't work for Marc in 2000.
you know why? because voters want more than your resume.
Subodh is really not helping himself with this constant resume comparison. i want him to tell us about how he helped this person or that person, give us a reason to believe that he's got the fire in the belly that this state needs, and stop dismissing it as populism. that's the point.
resume comparison
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 10:10am.
Chandra is winning crowds with his game plans for fixing problems. His resume just shows that he can back up his campaign promises with real results. Should he not talk about them?
OVER and OVER and OVER again I have heard Chandra praise Marc Dann. More recently I have heard him get more and more pointed as he's gotten hit with back room power plays by the ODP and their union buddies. (remember them?)
Go ask the Teachers Union why they didn't vote to endorse in the AG race when so many of their members were impressed and ready to do so. Find out who made the calls to fuck Subodh Chandra. There's the real story. Remember the players who fucked you Tim? They're doing the same shit to Subodh Chandra. Welcome to hard ball Ohio style: dems fucking other dems.
Chandra is fighting back by telling the truth. Boo fucking hoo.
OVER and OVER and OVER again I have heard Chandra praise Marc Dann. More recently I have heard him get more and more pointed as he's gotten hit with back room power plays by the ODP and their union buddies. (remember them?)
Go ask the Teachers Union why they didn't vote to endorse in the AG race when so many of their members were impressed and ready to do so. Find out who made the calls to fuck Subodh Chandra. There's the real story. Remember the players who fucked you Tim? They're doing the same shit to Subodh Chandra. Welcome to hard ball Ohio style: dems fucking other dems.
Chandra is fighting back by telling the truth. Boo fucking hoo.
i think we're talking past each other
Submitted by Tim Russo on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 10:29am.
subodh isn't fighting back by telling the truth, he's defaulting to waving his resume in the air, more loudly every time. that isn't gonna fly.
if Dann has personal experience that Subodh can match, Subodh needs to talk about it more. show us the real world effects of his work on average Ohioans. don't poo poo on it.
if Dann has personal experience that Subodh can match, Subodh needs to talk about it more. show us the real world effects of his work on average Ohioans. don't poo poo on it.
OK
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 10:37am.
While I don't buy the victim Dann crap, I do think you're right that Chandra needs to focus on Chandra. He's got so much going for him that slamming Dann does't do him any favors. After all, that's what bloggers are for ;-)
victim Dann crap
Submitted by Tim Russo on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 10:42am.
is not what i'm arguing. i'm arguing that Subodh is just too dismissive of what Dann brings to the table, it doesn't help, it reflects poorly on Subodh, and it ain't gonna win him the election.
What Dann Brings To The Table
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 10:48am.
Is that he's a fighter. I respect that A LOT. Should Chandra point out that Dann may not have the real world experience to deliver on his promises? Chandra is right that sponsoring legislation that has no chance of passing is not the same thing as taking the mortgage industry head on. Should we not talk about that?
Hey,
Submitted by SusanD on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 10:43am.
The two times I heard Subodh speak he didn't make a big deal out of where he went to school. He talked about what he did *after* he got out of school. And that was pretty darn impressive.
He talks about verifiable things he's done. Cutting the budget pretty drastically in Cleveland, fighting against predatory lenders, etc., etc.
Dann must be feeling the heat if he needs to sneer at Subodh's school. Maybe it was all he could safely attack?
He talks about verifiable things he's done. Cutting the budget pretty drastically in Cleveland, fighting against predatory lenders, etc., etc.
Dann must be feeling the heat if he needs to sneer at Subodh's school. Maybe it was all he could safely attack?
I never heard Chandra mentrion where he went to school
Submitted by AmberCat on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 10:47am.
I found it out by reading his resume. Tim, you may prefer the particular kind of experience Dann has over the kind Chandra has, but as Oh-2 says, Chandra is winning people over by articulating clearly and succinctly what he will DO in office and communicating his enthusiasm for doing so. I have heard him speak many times and Saturday was the first time I heard him make ANY negative reference to Dann
Amber, you really need to read these posts before commenting
Submitted by Tim Russo on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 10:53am.
i don't support Dann. i even said in the post that i'm likely to vote for chandra.
listen to the debate. the "i'm qualified you're not" thing is a constant refrain. it turned me off.
listen to the debate. the "i'm qualified you're not" thing is a constant refrain. it turned me off.
Down, Tim
Submitted by AmberCat on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 4:32pm.
First of all, I wasn't implying you are a radical Dann supporter. I was refering to your support if him in this diary. And like I said, I have heard Subodh speak on numerous occasions and Saturday was the first time he even referred to Dann.
I've heard Subodh twice and
Submitted by scurrvydog on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 11:00am.
if he has mentioned Yale and Dann it certainly didn't stick in my mind. What DID stick is his desire to be the AG and the worthlessness of Montgomery and Petro, of course what Subodh means in Sanskrit and the fire in his belly.
The Reason
Submitted by TheCablinasianRam on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 11:37am.
The reason why everyone is praising Subodh is because he didn't get any love from ODP. Subodh is as qualified, if not more so than Dann, but the ODP went with the other guy. The ODP should have not endorsed anyone in the race.
The AG is the lawyer for the entire State of Ohio. I would like to see someone who is the best man for the job. Does that mean Dann isn't it? No, but if he wants to win, he needs to get the message out on what he'll do. The problem isn't with Subodh being pimped by everyone, it's the lack of pimping done by the Dann campaign.
I think Subodh will ratfuck with the best of them. Also, if Yale Law degrees are a dime a dozen, where can I get one?
97X . . . BAM
The reason
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 11:47am.
The reason why I'VE been praising Subodh for over six months now is because he's one of the best candidates I've ever seen, PERIOD.
When I see candidates that I love I fight for them, HARD. Paul Hackett was one. Subodh Chandra is another.
I've been a huge fan of Marc Dann. The way the ODP has treated Chandra has soured me to Dann a bit. Company you keep, I guess. I'm sure I'll get over it once the primary is done with.
When I see candidates that I love I fight for them, HARD. Paul Hackett was one. Subodh Chandra is another.
I've been a huge fan of Marc Dann. The way the ODP has treated Chandra has soured me to Dann a bit. Company you keep, I guess. I'm sure I'll get over it once the primary is done with.
ditto here
Submitted by plunderbund on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 12:13pm.
before commenting i always peruse to see if someone has said what i'm about to say before. this one hits the same nail I would have. subodh seems to have qualifications, energy, passion, and an unreal capacity to communicate it all. it's another case of not disliking the other guy one bit, but really being motivated by the other. funny how both got little party love...
"You better get politics or politics will get you" - my grandmother
"You better get politics or politics will get you" - my grandmother
I've made it obvious that
Submitted by Jill on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 11:55am.
I've made it obvious that I'm conflicted but that I will most likely vote for Chandra.
That said, the MTB debate transcript will reflect that Marc Dann brought up Subodh's law school, not Subodh. I've not heard Subodh anywhere else (except his own MTB one on one). I didn't realize he'd gone there until I saw his released background info, just before the debate.
Dann is appealing, and this decision is tough, precisely because of the points provoked by this post and the comments - like Tevye the Fiddler - on the other hand, and on the other hand, and on the other hand.
But Tevye had to choose eventually, and we can only vote for one candidate, and then do every damn thing we can to help them get elected in the general.
Unlike Senate '06
Submitted by plunderbund on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 12:20pm.
This will be a case in which whoever wins the primary I'll do every single thing possible to get them elected. I think that is one thing Subodh is doing that benefits both candidates is impressing upon people that they should care about this elected office.
"You better get politics or politics will get you" - my grandmother
"You better get politics or politics will get you" - my grandmother
P-bund said: "one thing
Submitted by Jill on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 12:50pm.
P-bund said: "one thing Subodh is doing that benefits both candidates is impressing upon people that they should care about this elected office"
Excellent point, Eric.
Tim, you’re not the
Submitted by NAB4SE on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 12:02pm.
Tim, you’re not the only one who has picked up on this arrogance. A lot of lawyers in Cleveland have stories about Subodh’s lack of respect for those who didn’t graduate from a top-tier school or don’t have white-shoe firm experience. Does that make him a bad candidate? I don’t think so. But it does make him one of “those guys” and a lot of lawyers resent him for that.
Bathroom
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 1:06pm.
Great... more bathroom hearsay BS. Typical tactics from someone who's got nothing.
I support Chandra...
Submitted by NAB4SE on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 1:21pm.
and will probably vote for him. But there are a lot of lawyers in Cleveland that don't like him because of what is perceived to be a holier-than-thou attitude.
Up Against The Glass
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 1:31pm.
They wouldn't happen to be White males, would they?
Hillary's a bitch. Spike Lee's arrogant. Subodh Chandra is holier than thou. You've got to be three times as good and ten times as humble to compete.
Yessah Massa. I'is be's a goodum Attur... Attuur... Attatturr... lawurs for you'sum.
Hillary's a bitch. Spike Lee's arrogant. Subodh Chandra is holier than thou. You've got to be three times as good and ten times as humble to compete.
Yessah Massa. I'is be's a goodum Attur... Attuur... Attatturr... lawurs for you'sum.
gimme a name
Submitted by staff on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 1:40pm.
1 name. ortherwise it's "some people say" bullshit.
You want me to out..
Submitted by NAB4SE on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 1:59pm.
attorneys who don't like a man who could be the next attorney general? Are you nuts? Do you think every attorney in Cleveland loves this guy? I mean, is it hard to believe he's arrogant? YLS, Big Law? Have you met attorneys before? They are all arrogant. This one just particularly so.
Bullshit
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 2:01pm.
Damn Chandra. Doesn't know his place. More so... how do you know? What has he said to you that makes your case? Prove it. Prove that Chandra is more arrogant than others.
Such bullshit. Pathetic bullshit at that.
Such bullshit. Pathetic bullshit at that.
That's right...
Submitted by NAB4SE on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 2:08pm.
he's such a victim. He just treated every solo practitioner and small firm lawyer like they went to St. Thomas Law School. Don't believe me? "He fills an important need in our state, handling divorces and fender-benders. But that is no basis to be elected attorney general." What does that say to you?
LOL
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 2:13pm.
Sounds like a good point to me. Should AG candidates not point out why they are more qualified than their opponent? Isn't that what the process is all about?
Poor sweet baby. Chandra made a valid point. (Maybe it was a bit pointed... that I'll give ya that. Me, I do like a good fight.)
Chandra has every right to feel proud of himself. He's that damn good.
Poor sweet baby. Chandra made a valid point. (Maybe it was a bit pointed... that I'll give ya that. Me, I do like a good fight.)
Chandra has every right to feel proud of himself. He's that damn good.
What do you think
Submitted by NAB4SE on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 2:22pm.
Paul Hackett did for a living? He didn't work for Skadden.
Get off your knees, Ohio2nd . . .
Submitted by Mr. Common Sense on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 2:23pm.
. . . and accept that attorneys in Cleveland have said that Chandra is arrogant and looks down on attorneys without big-firm experience or who have not graduated from "elite," Ivy League law schools.
I can attest to Chandra's behavior at political functions back when he was the Law Director on Cleveland. He was arrogant and dismissive. Further, I have enough friends who are attorneys who have said that in legal circles in Cleveland, Chandra is not well-liked because of his elitist attitude. Maybe he's toned it down and turned on the charm to get people like Ohio2nd to give him political fallatio, but prior to running he had a reputation in Cleveland.
And you're not getting any names, boys. Don't want to believe it? Just look up a person in Cleveland who runs his or her own law practice and see what their opinion is.
I'm shocked that I'm actually agreeing with Tim on anything, but on this issue, he couldn't be more correct.
OK, let's rumble
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 2:30pm.
Should I talk about what I'm hearing about Dann? Is that the standard? You may play that game, but I don't. It's bogus.
If Chandra said something that gave you that impression, say what it is and explain why. My bet is that it will tell everyone a lot more about you than it will about Chandra.
As for the get off your knees crack, fuck you. I support Chandra and hit back when people do this kind of school yard gossip BS.
If you want to attack, attack. Offer proof. Provide quotes. Back it up. You've got nothing. Your arguments are weak.
Head to head it's obvious who's the better candidate. That's why you're resorting to this crap. LAME.
If Chandra said something that gave you that impression, say what it is and explain why. My bet is that it will tell everyone a lot more about you than it will about Chandra.
As for the get off your knees crack, fuck you. I support Chandra and hit back when people do this kind of school yard gossip BS.
If you want to attack, attack. Offer proof. Provide quotes. Back it up. You've got nothing. Your arguments are weak.
Head to head it's obvious who's the better candidate. That's why you're resorting to this crap. LAME.
I'd like to know...
Submitted by NAB4SE on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 2:34pm.
what you've heard about Dann...put it out here. What's his reputation? That's all we're talking about. And since I actually live in Cleveland, I think I have a decent idea.
That's convenient, Ohio 2nd.
Submitted by Mr. Common Sense on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 3:13pm.
You get called to the carpet, and now you're suddenly "not interested?"
Gimme a friggin' break.
Called on the carpet
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 3:26pm.
What are you talking about?
Basically you guys are saying that any hearsay should just be spread all over the place. Right? That's your standard? But when a candidate points out publically the flaws of his opponent, that's below the belt.
You guys are crazy.
Basically you guys are saying that any hearsay should just be spread all over the place. Right? That's your standard? But when a candidate points out publically the flaws of his opponent, that's below the belt.
You guys are crazy.
Agree
Submitted by Muffet on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 3:40pm.
Spreading gossip without a source is just another whisper campaign.
Again, I don't agree that he was pointing out flaws. He was pointing out differences. Not the same. One may simply be more qualified than the other because of the kind of work he has chosen to do. I represent people injured at work. That's not a flaw. It's my work. I'm not qualified to be the law director of a city, but I sure am qualified to be an Industrial Commissioner.
You know,
Submitted by AmberCat on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 4:30pm.
I have probably met and talked to Chandra at least a half dozen times now. He's always been completely pleasant in his attitude, neither condescending nor exceptionally obsequious because he's groveling for your vote. I have no idea what he may be like behind the scenes or in the past and I have no reason to believe these nameless attacks, because I would prefer to believe what I see and hear msyelf. When I left the candidates' forum on Saturday morning, Chandra was having a nice, normal-sounding conversation with a couple of very typical blue-collar union guys. He was asking them questions about themselves and was answering theirs. I stopped to comment on something he'd said in his presentation and chatted with all three briefly. I didn't see Chandra copping an atttitude because these guys clearly hadn't gone to Yale.
How do some of you who are claiming that once out of the public eye Chandra is "condescending" explain why it's ok for Sherrod Brown and his staff to act condescending and elitist ALL the time?
My perspective from my time at the Law Department
Submitted by Mike Cosgrove on Tue, 04/04/2006 - 9:38am.
I worked in Cleveland's Law Department for all but a few months of Chandra's tenure as law director. He did many things for the department that greatly improved the work environment, including bringing outsourced work back to the department because the department's attorney were just as qualified to do the work as the big firm lawyers that previous law directors doled out the work to. (Imagine the changes that could come to the Ohio Attorney General's office!) That doesn't sound at all elitist to me.
Chandra also fought hard to improve the pay for his department's attorneys (I was making $36,500 when I first came on, but that number rose quickly). He showed confidence in us and backed us up--whether we were Ivy League/big firm attorneys or not.
As Cleveland's law director, Chandra showed the strength of his skills in leading a large public-interest law firm. He is an excellent leader and a great lawyer. I can't imagine a more qualified candidate for Attorney General.
so
Submitted by staff on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 2:01pm.
you can just throw out generalizations and not have anything to back it up.
If lawyers are saying that obviously they havent been too shy - otherwise how'd you hear it ?
Gimme a name
Call the Law Director's Office...
Submitted by NAB4SE on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 2:04pm.
I'm sure they have a list of people.
It's your attack
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 2:11pm.
back it up or withdraw it.
I hear people say Marc Dann doesn't use his left turn signal. Oh yeah, prove it. Just ask anyone that drives behind him... they'll tell you.
Lame.
I hear people say Marc Dann doesn't use his left turn signal. Oh yeah, prove it. Just ask anyone that drives behind him... they'll tell you.
Lame.
Who told you...
Submitted by NAB4SE on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 2:21pm.
Blackwell was dropping out of the governor's race???
And like I said...
Submitted by NAB4SE on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 2:02pm.
I like Chandra. I like that he's arrogant. I just think knocking Dann because his legal practice consists of "divorces and fender-benders" is cheap.
I don't think
Submitted by Muffet on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 2:47pm.
he knocked him. Chandra said, according to NAB4SE, that lawyers who do that kind of practice fullfill a need. That's a fact. Lawyers who are law directors or prosecutors fill a need, too. Not everyone has that kind of interest or expertise.
I'm a lawyer. One who represents people who get injured at work. I fill a need. I like it. I have some expertise. I did work for a "white shoe" large defense firm for the first 4 years of my practice. Not for me. I wouldn't want to be a prosecutor or a civil defense lawyer. That's not my niche. I think I could do it as well certainly as Betty Montgomery or Jim Petro, but that's not the issue. Who is more qualified in this race: Chandra or Dann? I really like Marc Dann. He went after Tom Noe with a vengeance, and in my area of practice, that was pretty important.
I had no idea Chandra went to Yale until this discussion. So what? My son went there, too, and he's running a business doing maintenence for gas stations. And he's damn good at it.
And I think Chandra would be a damn great attorney general, even if he did go to Yale and isn't embarrased by who he is or where he came from. Good for him.
muffet,
Submitted by RMC2000 on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 3:57pm.
hope you had a lovely weekend. not too many cocktails, i trust. i can see where what subodh said about the senator's legal practice could be taken as an elitist statement. if i said that exterminators fill a need, but that doesn't qualify them to be the house majority leader, our friends in the grand old party would pour my latte all over my head. i do like mr. chandra from what i know of him, but sneering at how a man puts food on his table is just a bit unseemly. afterall, as somone already pointed out, that is how our good friend mr. paul lewis hackett the third made his living. so here's my suggestion to the candidates in the race to become attorney general for the great state of ohio: play nice. the party will remember you for it.
muffett, what courts does your practice bring you before? i have some old friends on the bench up in celveland. maybe i can put in a good word for you ;-)
I Love the Double Standard
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 4:02pm.
Chandra's comments are elitist. Nothing about Dann's cracks about hiring Chandra and him being a dime a dozen.
Is Dann as qualified to be AG as Chandra? Yes or no? If yes , why?
Chandra has made the point that Dann's legal experience has not prepared him to take on the type of work that he will be doing as AG to nearly the same degree as Chandra's own experience. Is he right, or wrong? Why?
Talk about real issues. Make your case. This line is irrelevant.
Is Dann as qualified to be AG as Chandra? Yes or no? If yes , why?
Chandra has made the point that Dann's legal experience has not prepared him to take on the type of work that he will be doing as AG to nearly the same degree as Chandra's own experience. Is he right, or wrong? Why?
Talk about real issues. Make your case. This line is irrelevant.
you seem
Submitted by RMC2000 on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 4:12pm.
awfully upset at such an irrelevant line. may i suggest some gin?
Thank You
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 4:18pm.
I'm not the person throwing around words like elitist and arrogant. I have absolutely no problem Dann swinging back against Chandra. I just think that it's curious that you want to slam Chandra all to hell for making a point, but don't want to slam Dann for doing something very similar. I suggest that you look into the own motivations for your biases.
And, I've sworn off gin, as much as I love it. The hangovers are murder.
And, I've sworn off gin, as much as I love it. The hangovers are murder.
I'll name names:
Submitted by Castro_Democrat on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 4:23pm.
Gary Condit said that he liked Chandra, but his actions speak louder than his words.
I think that Ohio 2nd owns an IP firm, and is looking to get some work from the state.
Lastly, this argument is absurd. The point that [heretofore unnamed] people think Chandra is an arrogant prick seems to be one of interpretation. But, I'll weigh in nonetheless: Chandra certainly sounds like a prick. But, he's a prick that's going to get my vote because he's from Cleveland.
Oh, and because I'm impressed that he worked for a firm that apparently requires white shoes. That takes balls.
I think that Ohio 2nd owns an IP firm, and is looking to get some work from the state.
Lastly, this argument is absurd. The point that [heretofore unnamed] people think Chandra is an arrogant prick seems to be one of interpretation. But, I'll weigh in nonetheless: Chandra certainly sounds like a prick. But, he's a prick that's going to get my vote because he's from Cleveland.
Oh, and because I'm impressed that he worked for a firm that apparently requires white shoes. That takes balls.
Prick
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 4:33pm.
Slander, falsehoods, lies. Who's the prick here, asshole?
You know SHIT about me. I don't just think, I KNOW you are full of shit by your comments.
Go talk to Hackett people about what I did for their campaign. Last week the Ohio 2nd blog was the first in a long list of people that Paul Hackett thanked in his speech before the Hamilton County Dems. (Audio provided in the link fuckface - how's that for proof?)
Now take my name, Chris Baker, and go look up how much money I got paid by either the Hackett for Congress or the Hackett for Senate campaigns... After you find that the number is ZERO, go take your comments and shove them up your ass.
You do someone like Marc Dann a great disservice with this crap. I'm not liking the company he keeps AT ALL. He needs to find some new friends who know how to convince people to support him, instead of using slander, guesswork, and lies to try to make his case.
You know SHIT about me. I don't just think, I KNOW you are full of shit by your comments.
Go talk to Hackett people about what I did for their campaign. Last week the Ohio 2nd blog was the first in a long list of people that Paul Hackett thanked in his speech before the Hamilton County Dems. (Audio provided in the link fuckface - how's that for proof?)
Now take my name, Chris Baker, and go look up how much money I got paid by either the Hackett for Congress or the Hackett for Senate campaigns... After you find that the number is ZERO, go take your comments and shove them up your ass.
You do someone like Marc Dann a great disservice with this crap. I'm not liking the company he keeps AT ALL. He needs to find some new friends who know how to convince people to support him, instead of using slander, guesswork, and lies to try to make his case.
Poor sweet baby
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 4:43pm.
Let's kiss and make up. SMACK.
I love you trolls. No proof. No nothing but bullshit, and then when you get called on it you play the victim.
He's mean. He hits back. Not one word to counter what's been said. I've got your elitist right here, pal.
I love you trolls. No proof. No nothing but bullshit, and then when you get called on it you play the victim.
He's mean. He hits back. Not one word to counter what's been said. I've got your elitist right here, pal.
I know that
Submitted by Castro_Democrat on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 4:41pm.
I know that you’re sensitive and prone to supporting losers.
So we agree
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 4:45pm.
I'm sensative and prone to supporting losers (true). And you're a lying sack of ____.
Glad we could agree on something.
Glad we could agree on something.
Also true:
Submitted by Castro_Democrat on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 5:19pm.
You’re an irate idiot.
We agree on (almost) everything in this thread. You said “this line is irrelevant.” I said that “this argument is absurd.” We both support Chandra. Take a step back and join Amber in reading the posts before commenting. Rookie.
Whether or not I’m a lying sack of _____ has never been put to the test. I’ll post the results in this space. Enough about me…
You're either a troll or trying to drive traffic to your blog, wishing you had BSB's success. Look at the pot you stirred…and stirred…and brought others to the mix. I think that you’re confusing my charm with your want for hate. Take the advice that Hackett never did: move on.
I am not following any links to goatse or the audio from twice-has-been Elk & Elk wannabe. Your half-second spot in the not-so-lime-light might give your parents hope that you’re significant, but you’ve earned nothing with me.
PS Here’s the text from my time in front of the World Health Assembly. I’ve outlived five US Presidents.
Fuckface.
Crossing a line
Submitted by staff on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 5:33pm.
Dude, your crossing a line here. Won't be a second warning. People can disagree without being disagreeable.
Actually
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 5:40pm.
On second thought, it's a funny post.
Staff, I beg mercy on the myself and the former cigar smoking dictator.
Staff, I beg mercy on the myself and the former cigar smoking dictator.
If you're that old,
Submitted by Muffet on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 5:53pm.
maybe you should rest your tired fingers.
agree with staff
Submitted by Tim Russo on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 5:53pm.
have you noticed there is a different standard of discourse on Ohio blogs, Castro?
My button
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 5:56pm.
If there's one button that really sets me off it's some anonymous troll accusing me of doing this to shill for a job. This crap is about as thankless as a job you can find. No money and some national blogger waiting to take credit for everything you do on CNN.
i'll back editor
Submitted by bryan on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 7:26pm.
editor didn't receive a dime from either hackett campaign. yet he worked harder than just about anyone else. hell, he knows hackett better than most of us who actually got paid!
that's a testament to two things -- the way paul hackett cuts through all the shit and recognizes the people who really matter in politics and the way editor throws himself into a cause and makes it his own.
i hate to see the anonymice trolling about on staff's pages, but i love to see editor rip 'em to shreds.
my advice -- don't take on a fight you can't handle, castrol and rnc. i sure as hell wouldn't take on editor -- and i do this shit for a living.
ba humbug
Submitted by staff on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 7:32pm.
Editor told me that Hackett gave him "the bus" heh.
ebay
Submitted by bryan on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 8:09pm.
i thought they were selling it on ebay. oh well, i guess editor can take us all on a real ohio blog tour this year. i'll pony up for a tank of biodiesel.
(besides, you already have a sweet ride. its a wonder you still have a license w/ that thing!)
heh
Submitted by staff on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 8:12pm.
i have actually gone over 12 months without a ticket now !
Guess what?
Submitted by Muffet on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 4:28pm.
That particular exterminator is no longer majority leader, and I hope he is no longer even a member of Congress soon.
Thanks for the offer to "put in a good word" for me. I actually do my work based on merit. It seems to work out really well that way.
I had way too many cocktails on Saturday night watching the boring b-ball games. My husband learned how to make killer Long Island Iced Tea.
muffett, how did you do that?
Submitted by RMC2000 on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 10:31pm.
can you hope that i win the lottery, too?
Arrogance
Submitted by plunderbund on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 12:16pm.
The most telling comment for me that came from the debate was when Dann said the first person he would hire if he was elected was someone like Subodh. Is there not some underlying arrogant elitism in that statement? I'm the boss and he's an underling type who should be doing my dirty work. Elect me and I'll hire him.
I say we just go ahead and "hire" the right guy in the first place. I don't disagree with the hiring mantra. I think it's appropriate and plays to the disgust with politics as usual and corruption that can easily ensue from such a thing.
"You better get politics or politics will get you" - my grandmother
I say we just go ahead and "hire" the right guy in the first place. I don't disagree with the hiring mantra. I think it's appropriate and plays to the disgust with politics as usual and corruption that can easily ensue from such a thing.
"You better get politics or politics will get you" - my grandmother
You heard it here first...
Submitted by Castro_Democrat on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 12:20pm.
Gary Condit is going to join the Dann team just to intimidate the f**k out of Chandra.
When the Levy breaks . . .
Submitted by TheCablinasianRam on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 12:40pm.
This is one of those elections where I hope both candidates succeed. Does anyone know if Dann is giving up his State Senate seat?
97X . . . BAM
AG
Submitted by TuckerCarlsonFan on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 2:31pm.
I saw both of them speak in Kent this Saturday. Marc Dann (who I am planning on voting for) gave a very good speech saying why we need a Democrat in the AG's office, he did not say one word about his primary opponent. Then Chandra got up..I had never heard him speak before, he spoke about his background and his ideas in the first few minutes and I was very impressed...then he started attacking Marc Dann on things that do not need to be discussed.
I think what people need to remember is that Democrats are in the position they are in because of Marc Dann. He was the one who kept Coin Gate going...he is the one that sued Bob Taft and he is the one who should be our nominee!!
Russ Feingold For President!!
Group Hug!
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 2:37pm.
Man, I hate this touchie feelie brand of politics that some Democrats like to play. Let's all put on our happy helmets and sing each other's praises as we loose election after election.
I like a good clean fight. What did Chandra say? Did he make good points? If not, why not?
The Republicans in Ohio seem to have no problem running energetic, agressive primaries. It generates good press. It gets the word out. Meanwhile, let's all join in another verse of Kumbaya as we sail into the sunset.
I like a good clean fight. What did Chandra say? Did he make good points? If not, why not?
The Republicans in Ohio seem to have no problem running energetic, agressive primaries. It generates good press. It gets the word out. Meanwhile, let's all join in another verse of Kumbaya as we sail into the sunset.
I guess
Submitted by Muffet on Mon, 04/03/2006 - 4:37pm.
that singing Kumbaya is no longer an option .
Thanks for your straight talk, Chris.
Qualified
Tim, you are being disingenuous. Chandra isn't using his Yale degree to say he’s qualified. He’s running on his very long record delivering real results. Who has run a large law office and saved millions while doing so? Who has prosecuted complex cases against massive corporations? Who has done the real work that would be required as AG?
Chandra has a real resume that he is running on. Should he not point it out? Should he just smile and be a good boy and say vote for me? Should he not point out that Marc Dann has no experience in delivering what he’s promising and Chandra does?
I like candidates that fight for their jobs. I like the back and forth. Boo hoo if you don't like Chandra telling the truth. Politics is a tough business. Roll up your sleeves or go back to bed.