"Anonymous" asked for some debate about the Monday Rainville-Welch debate. Let us not forget, too, last night's Parker-Douglas debate.
I caught just the last bit of Monday's House debate on account of family obligations. Ergo, some members of our staff who are in the witness protection program filled in with the "staff report" that appeared in the next day's paper. AARP might have done a better job getting the word out that the debate was being televised on VPT. Nonetheless, a fine thing to provide the forum.
I tuned in in time to hear Martha Rainville say Peter Welch has not done anything in the campaign to particularly annoy her, not that she was willing to admit anyway, lest she be accused of being negative. Not the most revealing or riveting aspect of the debates to date.
Riveting might not be the right word for political debates, but the House debates, as well as last night's gubernatorial debate, have beeing revealing. Vermont voters have had a chance to see a good contrast in political offerings. These are not the sort of debates where you walk away thinking, despite what Liberty Union gubernatorial candidate Bob Skold tried to say, that all the candidates are the same.
What did you, the viewers, think? Were there clear winners or losers in the debates in either race? On what grounds? Don't just say "Wonderful Candidate X kicked butt because I like X so much better than worm-sucking Candidate Y."
Were there questions not asked that you'd like to see asked? Did the debates reveal what you wanted revealed about the candidates? Please, do tell.
- Terri Hallenbeck