More Debate Coverage

In an interesting twist, we have the Tribune's take on the Debate hosted by the Arizona Republic last night. I watched some of the debate and I will tell you that I didn't think the performances of any of the candidates were all that inspiring. I thought that Walters attacked Smith a lot and Griswold was pretty smart to stay out of the fray. However, Griswold also didn't really answer very many of the questions either.

Jason Masaad seems to be having a small love affair with Griswold. I certaintly didn't think that Griswold was "sounding an urgent note that the city needs to change its ways" while the other two candidates made it sound like everything was a-okay. This is not the first time where Masaad has glossed over the other candidates and put together a more favorable review of Griswold.

I also thought that Walter's "4th vote" comment just reitterates how entrenched she is in the procedure. It sounds very hopeless and it smacks of being too close to the problem. There is a difference between understanding how government works and being so close to government that it becomes almost too difficult to change. She continues to say that they found the financial problems and have started to fix them, when many people knew for a long time that there was a problem and no political will to fix it.

Smith had his one liners, but I am waiting for more substance. He has carried the "outsider" flag well, but the other two have coopted his change message. Now, he needs prove why he is a better candidate than the other two. Clearly, at least Walters is put off by him because she attacks him every chance she gets.

The attacks help her stand apart from Smith, but it doesn't really set her apart from Griswold. Are we heading towards Smith/Walters mutually assured destruction leaving Griswold standing at the top of the heap simply by staying quiet and telling people what they want to hear?