I would grant that my examples aren’t perfect and aren’t as concise as we may like. But I would argue that we have more to go on by using examples of the hundreds of hours Terri has served in the recent past than we do by taking what other candidates say they are going to do in a 30 minute debate.

You put the credence in the potential of the candidate based on soundbytes, fine. I put my faith in the candidate’s proven track record. I want to know how they have performed, not just how they present. Fundemental difference.

This is the usual storyline. State something that is unquantifiable to smother any deserving new candidate.

I’ve seen how Teddy Mondale and gang in SLP play this game where they continually endorse their buddies citing unquantifiable accomplishments. And once these buddies get elected they continue that grand old tradition and on and on.

DM - If you have seen Bonoffs accomplishments in the HLAC, please tell us some of them. What was her leadership role when the Hopkins School District went broke. Give us a few facts.

But the fact of the matter stands that they rushed out their “pass the pillow endorsements” even before the first debate.

It speaks a lot about a party leadership that lectures diversity, but then don’t even give the new guy a chance to present himself.

Bonoffs “argue her points” abilities are well on display for the whole world to see.

I completely disagree. If you are close to the legislature, you have gotten to know someone like Bonoff in an ACTUAL WORK setting. You’ve seen her working with constituents, you’ve seen her argue her points WHERE IT MATTERS - in St. Paul.

I would maintain that someone who has seen Terri in action, doing the mundane part of a public servants work, has more reason to support her than someone who is choosing a candidate based upon debates that bear little relation to what you’ll actually be doing in the job.

Same goes for Hovland. Talk to anyone who has actualy worked with Hovland over the years on issues, and they feel very strongly that he would be the right leader.

I am well aware that there are still companies that conformity is the norm. I have a good job where my analysis is well respected because I am candid and without an agenda.

rm - “makes me not want to support your candidate”

I have no candidate. I have only interests. In this case I have an interest that the best candidate actually. For the DFL party leaders to endorse a candidate before a single debate states a lot regarding their own agenda.

being elected to a state senate election where about the only scrutiny one gets is thru that rag called the Sun Sailor, where a candidate and all their buddies get to write form letter op-eds is not exactly scrutiny.

voter - “Not for her ability to speak in public, as she does not have that background that a lawyer brings to the table.”

“her ability to speak in public” - now thats an understatement. This has come up because she claims she was this “successfull business executive”. One does not have to be a lawyer to put forth a coherent thought. I have to do it at work too.

voter - “suppose only she or her business associates can speak to that — certainly not me, and probably not you, either”

Maybe not you. but a corporate hack like me can see thru “business experience” a mile away.

by whom, that rag called the Sun Sailor? If she has been vetted, how come her debate performances are so pathetic.

Voter - “unfounded garbage you bring to the conversation”

thats why i see that you cannot seem to answer my basic question. what exactly was her “corporate experience”. because we don’t see any corrollation in her debates and public appearances.

the truth must hurt. you are entitled to support any … you chose.

Voter - “I guess that’s what brothers are for…”

As i said I have met Ashwin once at one of these public forums and i saw the difference. I have said that the owners of this blog are welcome to contact me and determine for themseleves as to who i am….

And found nothing that i what i had posted was in direct response to what he had posted.

Voter - “Yours, however, are a broken record, tiresome, repetitive and still, baseless.”

With nothing but hot air from you to contradict anything i have posted about Terri.

Go do your homework a little better before your analytic incompetence gets boring…

“more so than the baseless, veiled implications you continually throw out in the blogs.”

I don’t throw baseless allegations. I continually point out the lack of correlation between Bonoffs supposed “executive experience” and her performance in debates. Almost every blog that reviews her debate performances come up with huge disappointments about her performance.

I have enough corporate experience to spot an empty suit a mile away. Maybe u should get some.

Hovland give the Dems the best chance of winning.

Bonoff does come off as a little light at times and leaves you scratching your head more than occasionally. Madia is obviously good on the campaign trail but heavy on the soundbytes and I hear the same rotation of answers to each question. I also question how well his style would collaborate with the other party.

Hovland is more and more giving thoughtful, original answers that directly address the question asked. He also sheds light on his thought process which indicates to me he is giving you a piece of himself and not just his rehearsed snippet.

I’ll tell you this, though, Paulsen will have done his homework and will be well-versed on the facts and data. He might be a softspoken guy, but there will be no lack of substance behind his answers.

I pledge to all three candidates: Which ever wins the endorsement, will have my full support!

I would encourage everyone though to remember that we are in the wonderful position of having three fantastic candidates, anyone of which is head and shoulders above the rest.

And all the Ash supporters here, lay off the negativity towards Terri. It’s not needed and it isn’t helpful.