Tuesday Will Be Huge: Endorsements

Smearing the ovals is always important and even more so November 5, 2013. Obviously for Bostonians, choosing a new Mayor will likely set the new tone and agenda for 12, maybe even 20, years.

The City Council composition will change more than it has in memory. Going beyond the strong-Mayor/weak-Council cliché, we need only look at how much the Council has done beyond its statutory budget-approval power. We expect and demand much more than replacing toppled stop signs from the crew of 13.

This time, with four Councilors not running for reelection because they ran exclusively for Mayor, the change will be dramatic. I confess that I regret that Arroyo, Consalvo, Ross, and Connolly will be gone. Each has been active and brought his own visions and schemes.

I sometimes make light of their grandiloquent claims of being legislators. The archaic MA Home Rule system means that all municipalities here, even the biggest one, have to beg the commonwealth for any changes in governance and any plan to raise revenue. Yet if you look through the résumés on the Councilor pages at cityofboston.gov, you can see what each has accomplished. It's impressive and a good reason to consider Councilor votes carefully.

Only one district Councilor (Frank Baker in D3) is unopposed. The other incumbents should win reelection easily...except for do-nothing Bill Linehan (D2). There, Suzanne Lee, who almost unseated him two years ago and lost by only 97 votes, has a great chance of winning.

I'm not in that district and maybe shouldn't comment. She's a great progressive with a solid platform. Were I in D2, I'd vote for her.

Where I can vote is in my D5, for at-large Councilors and for Mayor.

• District 5 Council. My preferred candidate, Mimi Turchinetz, just missed the runoff. Neither remaining, Tim McCarthy or Jean-Claude Sanon, excites me. Rob Consalvo was great on both constituent services and implementing improvements. I can't see either of the two coming to his level. However, McCarthy at least has done the services job for the Mayor for years. So he has the slight edge here. 
• At-Large Council. You can pick up to four out of eight running. Two existing ones definitely need to return. Steve Murphy is the one all Councilors turn to with the can-we-afford-that questions. He knows money. Plus, he's been a worthy Council President for the past three years, keeping everyone on track and making sure the key discussions and votes happen. Ayanna Pressley is a strong social activist, particularly on issues for women and girls, including violence. Then I urge turning to, if you pardon that overworked term, new blood. Michell Wu has specific planks for jobs, education and safety and good credentials already. and Jeff Ross is a youngish lawyer with big social visions, oh, and he's comfortable saying he'd be the first openly gay Councilor. He'd be a good addition to help keep the Council acting for the right reasons as well as toward the right goals. We can't have too much of that. 

The Big One

Mayor. I wish I had the perfect candidate, someone I could get as excited about as Elizabeth Warren for US Senate. At least along with my research, stump-speech visits, and forum and debate attending and watching, I had the benefit of talking with both Marty Walsh and John Connolly at Left Ahead. In fact, I held off until the recent chats to make a final decision. Both are liberal-to-progressive sorts with good positions on nearly everything. Either should be a good Mayor.

Neither is a great orator (although Connolly has an edge in public speaking) nor a charismatic presence. Of course, our beloved Mayor Thomas Michael Menino was not and is not, not when running for D5 Council nor for Mayor. He both won again and again and again, and has done a fine job.

I ended up deciding to go with John Connolly for several key factors. Emotionally, I have been appalled at the calumnies against him, even at lefty joints I frequent, like BlueMassGroup. Five or six folk who post diaries or comments there have pounded him for months, with often false and even paranoid slanders. For example, he has long said and written that he was a former teacher for serving as such two years at a Jesuit middle school in NYC and the one year at a charter school back here. The anti-Connolly types repeated the lies that he claimed to be a career teacher and was thus a fraud. Instead, he said that those three years made such an impression that he has worked to improve schools for all and eagerly took on the arduous duties of the Council's education committee for four years. They, and amusingly enough those who comment on the Boston Herald site, also love the loony rap about his surely, absolutely (but without any evidence) brief career at Ropes & Gray as proof of something nefarious and terrible. In fact, his two-plus years there had him as a junior, a newbie, who really didn't get connected to big shots and others the slanderers irrationally hold that somehow must have happened. They have him as a 15-year "corporate lawyer," as a mark of shame. Both the time and duties are false. Also, his irresponsible accusers take him to task for "privilege," as in attending private prep school in Boston (even though Walsh did too), having graduated from Harvard and getting a BC law degree. By any local standards, all those things are traditionally virtues and suggest competence and smarts. Trying to twist them into insults is beyond silly.

Finally for Walsh, I really only have one serious problem with him and he hasn't been at all helpful here. He's had a life as a union leader, getting into it as naturally via his father as Connolly did via his Secretary of the Commonwealth dad. He's made many hundreds of thousands from union pol positions. I have been a union member and support unions strongly. However, Walsh's trust-me attitude sucks. He has tried repeatedly to get Beacon Hill to pass legislation that would mandate arbitration rulings on municipalities, as in taking away budget approval power from the Boston City Council. His response to questions about this, as in the recent Boston Police Patrolmen's award was to trust him. Trust him that the contracts would never get to an arbiter. Trust him that he'd be so on top of union issues that he'd work out a deal before a crisis. I can't do that. I've seen and known far too many politicians for far too long to accept just trust me. (I think of the POTUS an his spying and drones crap. I don't trust him on either.)

It is not a begrudging endorsement of Connolly. I ate their platforms repeatedly in the many ways they served them to me. Connolly has the edge on vision and path to his goals.

The Picks

• Mayor — John R. Connolly
• At-Large — Stephen J. Murphy, Ayanna S. Pressley, Michelle Wu, Jeffrey Michael Ross
• D5 Council — Timothy P. McCarthy

Peepers and Leapers in Boston Mayor's Race

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonourable graves.
        —Cassius in Julius Caesar, Act I, Scene II

Some peep. Some leap.

Local pols waited until the bet was not such a long shot, but a cluster have endorsed Marty Walsh for Mayor of Boston. Those have been City Councilors Tito Jackson and Felix Arroyo, State Reps Gloria Fox, Russell Holmes, Carlos Henriquez, Liz Malia and Dan Cullinane, State Senators Linda Dorcena Forry and Sonia Chang-Diaz and US Rep. Mike Capuano, and former mayoral preliminary also-rans John Barros and Charlotte Golar Richie.

That's the game, you might say, as Walsh's campaign has. Yet, perhaps as telling is who remain the peepers.

Sure enough, the Mayor here is a relative Colossus, at least in this burg and the Eastern third of the commonwealth. Also, under the past three in that office — White, Flynn and Menino, the power there has solidified and expanded even beyond the city charter. The peepers have reasons to, as the Greeks used to put it, kick not against the goads.

There are some likely surmises about the state and federal level endorsers, and the city ones separately. Certainly the State Reps and Senators are likely to have some doings with the new mayor. They may even want favors for their constituents that Walsh or Connolly could command or heavily influence. On the other hand, their reelection and advancement do not not depend on our City Hall. That's more so with Capuano. He's insulated from our Mayor's not-all-that-super powers. He's pumped the hand and slapped the back of another strong union advocate...not a sin in his district, not at all.

The two who didn't make the mayoral final and Arroyo have taken a bit of a gamble.Sure, they'd like to be behind the winner. There might be a solid, even cabinet-level job in it if they pick the right guy. For Golar Richie in particular, that has been her career — walking under Gov. Patrick and Mayor Menino figurative legs as important functionary. For his part, Arroyo is still very popular (just not as much as he had figured) and has a real record of achievement in Council. Jackson likewise remains beloved. He more than survived taking the still warm seat when Councilor Chuck Turner was sent to a WV prison. He fabulous attitude and solid Council performance insulate him. Barros, who knows? He has a confidence, even arrogance, that suggests he'll bull his way into a good position even if it's not in City Hall.

Beyond them, most local pols are sitting this out. They have the disadvantage of no prohibitive favorite. Connolly had a narrow lead going into the preliminary, according to numerous polls, but Walsh topped the ticket, albeit by only 18.47% to 17.22% of the total out of the 12 candidates. It was still a win for both of them, a little more so for Walsh. I'm sure he'd be delighted to finish with 1.25% more of the vote than Connolly on Nov. 5th.

A few respected influencers have said up front that they are sitting this one out. Councilor Ayanna Pressley is likely most notable. She has a big base, including in the various Latino and black neighborhoods and subneighborhoods. She's in the at-large reelection campaign and has remained uncommitted. For someone who surely has higher office in her future, and in her mind, that is savvy.

One might expect Council President Steve Murphy to speak up. One would expect vainly. Murphy has been President for three terms. It's probably someone else's turn, but he nevertheless is also wise not to kick against either the Connolly or Walsh goad, lest he make an enemy of the new Mayor.

Supposedly Menino has been nudging donors and political influencers, very quietly, to support Connolly. He seems to be legacy driven and part of that appears to be holding to his promise to stay (at least publicly) neutral.

Barring the unlikely Halloween-week shocker that suddenly makes one candidate or the other the certain winner, I don't expect any meaningful new endorsements. Walsh filled his dance card and Connolly did not.

Similarly but to probably less effectiveness, Connolly has been more personable, smarter and rational during the televised debates. Neither guy is a Bill Clinton-level orator, but Connolly has skunked Walsh in the first two. Fortunately for him, viewers levels have been low, particularly for the first one, which was up against a Red Sox-Tigers championship game.

There's one more, next Tuesday. Even if the Series goes beyond four games, there won't be one that evening. While it is only a week before the final election, there's no reason to suppose a large number of the 19% who say they are undecided will watch. The rest of us probably have immutable decisions.

Who Do You Trust?

When I was a kid, Johnny Carson was the host of a TV program Who Do You Trust? Therein, a hubby would have to decide upon hearing a question category whether he'd gamble on his wife's answer or trust his own.

Here and now, we have to consider which of these two progressive sorts we believe. Again, in Walsh's favor, the televised debates are not popular. A knock against him is that as a long-term, highly paid union official, he would give away the coffers in contract deals. His comeback is that he knows how to negotiate after decades of doing it, therefore he can tell union reps what is and isn't possible, and they'll be reasonable. His efforts as a legislator to make contract arbitration binding on municipalities by law undercut that contention seriously.

The knock on Connolly is vague and two-elbowed. He says incessantly that he taught school for three years between graduating and entering law school, seminal years that informed his public concerns and policy. Stressing that and his Councilor experience, he underplays a few years as a junior (non-senior/non-partner) at two big law firms and a founding partner in a much smaller one. Critics and cynics say without evidence that he claims to be a career teacher and that there just has to be something terribly damning in the list of clients he represented. He does not discuss the clients, claiming to protect confidentiality.

One more time, it's good for Walsh that the debates don't earn many eyes. He comes across as evasive addressing any thorny question. So, for him, it comes down to do the few viewers believe he'd be able to stifle decades of pro-union experience, as he very strongly swears he would?

Likewise, for Connolly, does his easy manner and frequent grin lead you to trust him or make you think that you don't know what it is, but he must be hiding something?

Muddy Sprint

Two weeks to go and we know a few things. One is that the two campaigns and their outside supporters will certainly pay for mailed and broadcast ads. Experience so far suggest that both campaigns and Connolly's supporters will keep their messages positive and focused on their candidate and his views. Alas, if very recent evidence holds, Walsh's outsiders will remain dirty and get nastier. I am pretty sure that will turn off more voters than it brings to their guy.

Both candidates are convinced that the ground game will make the difference. They both have enough money for ads and both have solid political organizations to get out the vote. I'm with them in thinking that neither the debates nor the endorsements will settle this.

If you haven't gotten enough of the race and the duo, you can catch their chats with me on Left Ahead.

• Walsh is here.
• Connolly is here.

I really love this stuff and am going to miss it.

Boston Mayor Final, Thing 1, Thing 2

Here in Boston, we're loving choosing a new mayor after 20 years of a good, beloved one. As much as some locals like to brag about how dirty and nasty local politics are, the relatively polite preliminary and final, dealing mostly with concepts and issues, has been refreshing. We could get used to this.

Following a dozen candidates for mayor and interviewing many of them was like a real job, and confusing. I even ended up in an uncharacteristically personal live reasoning about whom to vote for in the preliminary. That was far more revealing and extroverted than I typically am. That was raise-the-glass stuff, the origin of symposium.

We ended up with two solid progressives for the final on November 5th. Either would make a good or maybe very good mayor. That's fabulous to have such a choice.

Over at Left Ahead, I chatted with the finalists, Marty Walsh and John Connolly. As a disclaimer, Walsh is only a casual acquaintance. Connolly is what Stephen Colbert refers to as "a friend of the show," having been on LA numerous times.

Below are players for the interviews. Walsh is on top and a half hour. Connolly was today's. He was between events and gave me 17 minutes, starting at 8:30 minutes in.

Maybe Mayors Nudge It Out

The Sox won tonight 1 to 0, which was about the score for the first of four John Connolly v. Marty Walsh debates. The latter needs to up his game.

The vid will surely be up by tomorrow on WBZ and the Globe. If you track it down, you won't be rewarded with the best hour spent.

Neither candidate is charismatic and both are out of practice in one-on-one debates, but Connolly tromped all over Walsh. John was occasionally smarmy and Walsh too often dour.

On the plus side, neither was catty or dishonest. Neither slandered the other and the digs were subtle enough to pass without pissing off anyone. There was no class warfare and neither ridiculed the other for his upbringing.

Connolly was clearly the more comfortable. This probably related more to their personalities. Walsh is super sincere and does not exhibit the compassion those who know him speak of constantly. Instead, he seemed hesitant and on numerous questions when given the last chance for a brief rebuttal said to just move on. He didn't play the game this time. Maybe he'll do better in the next three debates.

Interestingly enough, Connolly was quick to refer to his three years teaching school. That could well have been an opening for a nastier opponent. On various websites, pro-teachers-union and other comment leavers deride Connolly's two years in an NYC Jesuit school, working only for room, board, and a $200-a-month stipend, then a year in a non-district charter school in Boston has not really teaching. That's loony, partisan talk, but one easy flank of attack, one that would be hard to argue succinctly.

To his credit, Walsh did not take that low road.

Connolly in contrast was snarkier a few times. Walsh left this opening much as Connolly's teacher gambit with referring several times to this or that piece of legislation he voted in favor of (not that he sponsored), as though a vote gave his full credit for any benefit. On his turns, Connolly said that Beacon Hill failed Boston in this way or that, as a minor slap.

The only big assault came twice when Connolly drew attention to Walsh's amendments to bills that would make public-sector union contract arbitration binding on municipalities. He was able to claim that this might could Boston $200 million by taking the right of the City Council to vote down bad arbitration awards. Lackaday, Walsh let those pass, saying weakly and without comment that this wasn't really what his amendments meant. Instead, he had a spongy promise that the contract would never get to arbitration under his mayoralty. Harrumph.

Moreover, Connolly was not shy about race and culture. Even though Walsh recently got endorsements of three preliminary opponents — two African-American and one Latino — Connolly was savvy enough to cite several instances where he co-sponsored what Councilors call legislation with a leading black figure, Councilor Ayanna Pressley. If you came in ignorant, you'd have left figuring Connolly was in with the black voters.

A fair criticism of Connolly's platform has been that it was shorter on details than Walsh's. Tonight, Walsh should have taken that directly to Connolly, being very specific and identifying vagueness in the latter's planks.

The good news for Bostonians is that these are two progressive sorts. They have a great deal of goals in common. Either would be a worthy successor to Tom Menino.

For the voters who watched the debate instead of hanging in to make sure the Sox went up 2-1 over the Tigers, they saw an insipid and unsure Walsh against an occasionally smug Connolly.

So 25% of debates done and done. This was Connolly's night. We have to ask first how important these clashes will be and second whether Walsh's team will point him in the right direction.

Marty Walsh Talks Boston Final

Maybe in the larger world Boston stuff is small beer. Around here though, folk can't stop talking Red Sox and even more, the race for the first new Mayor in 20 years. Left Ahead's net-radio/podcast show is doing its part.

Yesterday, one of the two finalists in next month's final election was on the show. Martin J. (Marty) Walsh spoke about the race for half an hour. Click the arrow below to hear his show. Go to the Left Ahead site for a recap and useful links.

---

---

Next week, John Connolly comes on Left Ahead, Tuesday, October 15, at 2:30 PM Eastern.

Savvy Survey of Boston Elections

Predicting "a fierce, epic battle," Mary Anne Marsh joined in delighted anticipation of our mayoral final. The principal at the Dewey Square Group was one of four pundits at last night's Ford Hall Forum. She said the race now will be between big business against big labor – John Connolly v. Marty Walsh.

The whole 90-minute event will appear, supposedly soon, on the Forum's YouTube channel as well as Comcast on demand. The others commenting were Larry DiCara, partner at Nixon Peabody, ex-City Councilor, one-time mayoral candidate and keen political observer; John Nucci, a Suffolk VP and holder of numerous elected offices; and Globe columnist Joan Vennochi.

We were rocked into a political stupor by the gentility of the dozen candidates leading up to the preliminary this week. Nucci agreed that was suddenly over, just beginning with the sniping with Connolly asking to ban outside money and Walsh replying that "This is a great second act in John’s ongoing piece of political theater. This is what corporate lawyers do."

I had to chuckle, first at the abruptness and low tone of the comment. Second, it may not be the brightest tack to come down on a lawyer with a Harvard bachelor's. Those may be tainted in Walsh-land, but they are credible credentials to many local voters. They are also two things Walsh is not and he drew keen attention to them.

Despite what we've gotten used to recently, "These are two candidates who love to slug it out," said Nucci (pic right with Marsh). Also, despite my hope this would not be nasty, class-based fighting, several on stage said it was likely to be. Marsh predicted that Connolly would try to defuse allegations that he was a bag man for corporations, using his education message. Likewise, Walsh will try to mute suggestions that he is a unions pawn by touting his middle-class roots and emphasis.

They mused on who didn't get into the final and why. As always, DiCara had the background and numbers — he loves to analyze and calculate. Despite expectations that Boston's shift to a majority-minority city, that isn't fully in electoral effect. He noted that like previous generations when the young and non-citizen Italians and Irish couldn't vote and didn't impact elections, the many Latinos are similar today. The Census may show many more immigrants of color, but they can't vote...yet.

So, Charlotte Golar Richie either did superbly coming in third or totally blew it with a vague, late-starting, uninspiring, message-less campaign, depending on your view. Vennochi's only swell saying of the night was that the candidate was unable to craft a message beyond her "only slogan (being) I am woman. Hear me roar." DiCara (pic left) said she didn't give her supporters "a great reason to vote for her." Nucci suggested that if Richie had organized efficiently with GOTV efforts, "she'd be running for mayor today."

DiCara broke down the preliminary voting patterns. He noted that about one third of registered voters are residents of color, but they did not and will not vote monolithically. Moreover, in a low turnout day, it was the traditional voters who showed, the older, white ones. The young, the black and the Latino did not. He figured that more voters will go to polls in November but not an appreciably greater percentage of the young and those of color. When the choice comes down to two white progressives, there isn't even an identity incentive.

For why two Irish-American men are in the final, Marsh had the incisive view. "They've been preparing for years." It's not enough to use identity politics or even to want to be mayor deeply. "You can't jump into a race at the last minute...You earn your opportunity."

Voter-Harvest Time in Boston

We political wonks are delighted that the scrum of a dozen Boston mayoral candidates has become a duel, or let's call it redundantly le duel de deux. Marty Walsh and John Connolly are the same but different. The next seven weeks will necessarily be nastier than the mannered preliminary campaign. Yet neither guy is likely to deceive or outright slander the other.

We have the same

When my kids were in preschool, each experienced that prolonged group-think moment of realizing what is like and different...again and again. With joy, they'd squeal as their classmates did, "We have the same. We have the same!" That might a shirt, a name, a lunch fruit or whatever.

Among Walsh and Connolly's correspondences are:

• Irish-American ethnicity
• Native Bostonian
• Similar ages (46 and 40, Walsh and Connolly)
• Roman Catholicism
• Progressive politics, including LGBT rights
• Stress on schools reform

A prime task for each now is to differentiate himself, we would hope by building himself up and not tearing the other guy down. That may include:

• Walsh's recent immigrant family
• Walsh's laborer and union background
• Walsh's career as state Rep
• Connolly's Harvard degree
• Connolly's do-gooder education years
• Connolly's lawyer career
• Connolly's family of a secretary of the commonwealth and a judge

We would be well served if they avoided the obvious calumnies. At its worst, the run-up to the final could instead include:

• Old v. New Boston, with Connolly as the privileged one
• Traditionally stable v. traditionally checkered past, with Walsh as the redeemed
• Union pawn v. City Hall hack
• Connolly wasn't a school teacher long enough

Harvest time

With that dozen wanna-bes, no one dominated. Walsh edged Connolly by 1%, yet no one got even 20% of the vote and many were in the 7% or above.

I seem to be the only one I know who thought that Charlotte Golar Richie's third place was unremarkable. The top ran Walsh (18.47%), Connolly (17.22%) and she (13.77%). She was the sole black woman in the race, with a strong résumé. Yet, I pored over her campaign site and other materials, heard stump speeches and was in the BLS chats. I found her dry, vague and uninspiring. Many of us would welcome an African-American or woman or both mayor here. Yet to me, she didn't show any stuff, any reason to voter for her beyond race and gender.

Yesterday, in our Left Ahead podcast, Ryan disagreed as does my wife. I think my expectations for platform and presentation were too high. By the bye, the followup on the black community not supporting a single candidate of color by the Rev. Eugene Rivers is in today's Herald.

Instead, what's fascinating and even exciting, is that the very discrete dispersion of votes means both finalists have obvious work to get blocs aligned. Connolly is a bit ahead here; he was a big help to Councilor Ayanna Pressley and has worked hard for many years among Latino and black groups and neighborhood areas. Walsh has been largely a white guy, with very strong support in white areas of South Boston and Dorchester.

Looking at maps of donations and votes for each of the 12 candidates shows fascinating blanks for the two winners.  Already, Connolly said that starting election night, he was talking to the other 10 (maybe not Wyatt) to ask for support, including endorsements. Even if he and Walsh sew up their neighborhoods and split the white vote, the vast majority of Boston's population and geography is up for grabs.

This struggle will be the challenge for them and the delight for us.

Issues, oh yeah

We won't suffer through those dreadful forum events — tight timed towers of Babel. Instead, there should be several intense and meaningful debates of just the two. We deserve that.

Schools and unions, particularly the teachers' one, will loom large. Surely though, the media won't wallow to deeply and long there. Yeah, yeah, they both want reform and more charter schools. Walsh can make the argument that as a union macher, he can cut to the chase in negotiations. Connolly can pitch his path to top-quality schools in every single neighborhood.

Instead of only the most obvious, we need to make sure they get real on other key issues. Development, including housing, should top both of their agenda. I'd also hope that one or both will incorporate good concepts from the other candidates. I think of Michael Ross' plan for tens of thousands of housing units, many affordable, along the Fairmount line. That would enable more established and even younger folk to stay in town, while simultaneously preventing "investors" from snatching existing triple deckers and single-family houses, only to price them out of the reach of most existing residents. Commercial development too must not be more non-profit (like college), low or free of tax, often with incentives. These are huge long-term concerns.

It will be easy to lose our way in the stereotypes and clichés in the final. Yet, because both guys are smart, accomplished and, well, nice, I expect them to elevate the discourse. Also, because neither is the incumbent mayor, we shouldn't see the sniping that so often happens in municipals.

Boston Prelim Nods

I finally got off the fence yesterday, picking and endorsing for the preliminary municipal election. I'n not ashamed to say that I have found the vast choices for mayor and council complex and I've been indecisive.

Yesterday in a me session on Left Ahead — click the player below to hear if you just can bear to click away from this post — I talked through the mayoral picks. I settled on one for the preliminary. I had winnowed my district councilor and the at-large ones too.

These may well not be the ones in the November final. The preliminary narrows the field to twice the number who will eventually hold office for that vote. That means mayoral would-be's go from 12 to 2, at-large councilor one from 19 to 8, and in my D5 race, from 8 to 2. For the first round, I went with:

• Mayor. Rob Consalvo
• District 5. Mimi E. Turchinetz
• At-Large. Stephen J. Murphy, Ayanna S. Pressley, Jeffrey Michael Ross, Michelle Wu

The angst came in mayor. Even though I am pretty introverted, I figured correctly that talking through the process publicly would settle my mind. You can hear my evaluations and the process for settling.

About half the candidates were flat out for me for one reason or more. I considered various criteria for choosing as well, ended up with who'd be a mayor who could maintain the city's advances and elevate them. I ignored who is leading in polls and who would be most likely to make it to the final.

Several are likely for that criterion. Mike Ross is clearly the brightest and most visionary, plus he did a superb job in his terms as council president. John Connolly has clear goals and implementation plans for education overhaul, and I am sure he can pick up anything else he'd need to know. Felix Arroyo has a platform that covers every concern of Boston with specifics.

If you have not settled this for yourself, hearing my process may be helpful. It worked for me.

---

---

Wowzers, a Republican Sort of Runs for Boston Mayor

Not Mr. Sociability, rather Boston mayoral candidate David James Wyatt showed at Boston Latin School today.

The two-hour event, sponsored by Boston League of Women Voters and enabled by the work of the BLS Ward Fellows, was to be a speed-dating afternoon. All 12 candidates showed and they were to career from one classroom to another, where they'd pitch and respond to students and adults. It was to be 10 minutes per classroom, so all dozen could make the rounds in those two hours. Of course, the best-laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft a-gley...and mildly astray they did go.

Numerous candidates, notably the running man, Mike Ross, were late. After the assemblage onstage for quick intros, and breaking into classroom lumps, we got to hear from half the gang.

Disclaimers: That was OK by me. I know several of them well. Many have been guests on Left Ahead this year and previously. Rob Consalvo has been my district Councilor for over for years and has performed constituent services for me. A post follows tomorrow or Thursday on the candidates I did hear.

Today though, I got a better sense of the arcane Wyatt.

His standard rap when pressed, as at the NECN/Herald TV thingummy is:

• I am a Republican
• I am 100% pro-life
• If I am not elected Mayor, no one will represent people like me

That is certainly not the most complete, sophisticated, reasoned or compelling platform in the race. Also, he has virtually no campaign funds, his website is a one-page ho-hum, where the only option, the Donate button, doesn't even work. He makes next to no campaign appearances and apparently doesn't even bother to fill out the various questionnaires sent to all the dozen.

We over-informed wonks have wondered how serious he could be. He's run a few quixotic races before — a 2001 write-in mayoral and a 2007 at-large Councilor try when he got enough sigs for the ballot. He had negligible showings. That hasn't stopped him from repeating, quasi accurately that he is the only one of the dozen who has run for mayor before. Well, ta da.

I confess that I had not contacted him for a show on Left Ahead. He seemed to have a one-minutes, thirty-seven second stump speech.

He did a bit better this afternoon.

He spoke to about ten eighth and ninth graders and four adults. He appeared to feel we had cooties. It mirrored his arrival on the stage at the beginning of the event. A dozen Harvard-style armchairs spanned from the American flag pole to the lectern. Wyatt arrived after most candidates and went to far stage left, leaving three seats open from where another eight of them had sat and were chatting and laughing.

He was our last candidate of the afternoon in the classroom, 217, if I recall correctly. Each of the others had acted the pol, entering, quickly turning to face the desks, looking at each of us to connect, and standing in the center to speak intimately with us.

Wyatt dd not. He is large and lumbers. He looked unhappy to be there and scanned the room like he was looking for hidden exits if necessary. He continued to the rear, where a teacher might sit and found the chair most removed from the audience. He did not stand, did not have personal eye contact, and kept his distance.

As he spoke, he fairy chanted. "I am a conservative. I'm going to try to spend as little of the taxpayers' money as possible." Of course, he did not seem to revel in the humor of speaking to nominal at best taxpayers and an age group that was not attune to such clichés.

He went on that if he became mayor, his conservatism would mean that jobs in Boston would only go to the most qualified. Nepotism was flat out.

He fairly gleamed when he said that as a Republican he was "stingy with money." He did explain that the underlying philosophy was to help taxpayers keep as much of their money as possible, to use for their own purposes.

Fortunately for him, the students did not seem all that politically savvy. Wyatt did however admit that the other candidates had much fuller platforms and résumés that lent themselves to clear answers to big questions. "I can only speculate," he said, "how I could handle those issues."

His forte or at least passion was education. He seems to have had a short BPS teaching career although he said his mother taught for over 40 years.

In this context, he was the most eloquent I've heard him. His posture is that if you get a good education, leading to a good career, you have "no need for anyone to be doing anything that is illegal or violent...education takes care of public safety."

He added that if we get our schools perking right, companies from outside the city and state will move here, bring jobs with them.

He then returned unbidden to speak of his pro-life position. He was selectively open in speaking of his apparently wrenching decisions at the end of his mother's life. In his version, there were other siblings, but he alone had to decide whether to prolong her life regardless, balanced against her comfort.

Obviously, there's much more to that story. He did not tell us whether he had to make a pull-the-plug type of decision or whether in her case he became maybe 72% pro-life. Regardless, this is personal with him and why he forever brings it up.

In a corollary, he said that he was against capital punishment. One would think that being pro-life would build that right in. Instead, he said that as the poor cannot afford the best legal representation that the rich can, capital punishment is unfair and it is usually the poor who are executed.

I couldn't tell whether the students were tired at this point, after a day at school and two hours of snappy patter. Regardless, they had no questions. There were still several minutes before the end bell, so I asked how his pro-life position would affect and inform his role as mayor.

He didn't go all winger dumb. He said that he did not think there were regulatory or legislative ways for him to affect the city here. Instead, he referred to the bully pulpit. He figures that his speech as mayor would be more powerful and influential than that of other folk.

He concluded that, "Life begins as conception and it should not be interrupted for any light cause."

Confusion in Boston Campaign 2013

Come election day, Sept. 24, I may not talk politics from 6 AM until 8 PM. As a warden at a Boston poll, I know the rules, including no political talk in the building from setup time.

Meanwhile though, I am just one of many, many that voters try to squeeze mind-settling sureness from. Last night, for example, as many adults as there are mayoral candidates were at a church dinner. Sure, Syria was a topic, but the mayor's race was always in the air. Because of my political blog and podcast, people asked. As well they should have.

I wish I had an easy, confident answer. Pericles knows, I'm as big a believer in democracy as I am in public education. I have researched the devil out of this, as in reading all the news, attending stump speeches and kickoffs, going to or watching fora, interviewing numerous candidates at Left Ahead, analyzing the candidates' campaign sights, grilling those who show up on the stoop, and reading all the lit in the mail or attached to the banister by rubber band.

I am a high-information voter, for mayoral, at-large Council, and district Council races. I still feel like the old man in Moonstruck — I'm confused.

---

---

12 for Mayor, 19 for At-Large, 8 for D5

We have lived in Boston for 34 years, yet only had three mayors. The last serious election, and the last one with this kind of scrum, was 30 years ago. Larry DiCara, who ran in that race, just talked about it with Left Ahead this week.

The clear consensus of people I have spoken with who do not live in Boston is how wonderful it is to have 1) such a wide choice and 2) so many strong candidates. Also certainly in view of the impotent GOP here in MA, where their real base of fiscally and socially conservative pols are hidden in the Democratic party where they can get elected and reelected, having a choice of people you could live with in this or that office is a little d democratic boon.

Yet again, like many voters, even we high-information ones, I am confused. It reminds me of the elders who sometimes hail me in a Stop & Shop or Roche Bros. store. It's usually in the cereal aisle, 100 or more feet of boxed choices from ankle height to above our heads. Typically, the submissive plaint is, "Can you help me find the Kellogg's Corn Flakes? All I want is corn flakes." Choice can overwhelm.

Hard to Pare

Strangely enough, only three mayoral candidates are easy to dismiss out of hand.

• David Wyatt is a bumbling failed school teacher (unsuccessfully sought reinstatement). He really isn't campaigning, rarely show to events, and when pressed at the only televised forum, was forced to speak only to say he was a Republican and pro-life, and that people like him needed representation.
• "Brother" Charles Clemons is known in the African-American communities for his TOUCH radio. He has been running a vanity campaign, apparently for the publicity and maybe to say later that he tried, he ran. 
• Charles Yancey is by some measures the dean of the City Council, at least he has been there for 30 years as a district Councilor. You'd hardly know he was in the hunt for Mayor, his district seat is secure. He'll be skunked in the prelim for Mayor and sail to reelection in D4 over three relatively unknown and unproven opponents.

That still leaves nine players. In the few polls, no one has a runaway lead and most are within the margin of poll error.

My Groupings

Among the remaining high-competence/strong-résumé candidates, they break into several, sometimes overlapping groupings.

• Existing, respected Councilors — Rob Consalvo, Michael Ross, John Connolly, and Felix Arroyo. None of these is running also for his Council seat reelection. On one hand, that's a shame; they're all very good at the job, and their replacements will take time to get with the program, if they are ever as good. On the other hand, having two new district and two new at-large Councilors out of 13 could be a great infusion of enthusiasm and ideas.
• Really smart visionaries. Ross and Bill Walczak are unquestionably the brightest in the race. Each promises a dramatically different Boston. Ross aims for a much more responsive and open, and technologically based government. Walczak claims to be the magician, a CEO who sees the big problems and fixes them. They have the huge, maybe insurmountable problem of articulating a broad vision instead of staying at plain-folk level.
• Nominal outsiders. Charlotte Golar Richie, Walczak, and John Barros can lay claim to being non-pols. That's misleading though. She has been a long-time mid-level functionary in both Mayor Menino and Gov. Patrick's administrations. Walczak, as head of a huge health center and then a hospital, and Barros, as long-time school-board member, are politicians in reality.
• Focused candidates. Connolly and Dan Conley have specialties. While both have platform planks beyond their big issue, Connolly is identified with education and Conley with public safety. They risk being marginalized as not being generalists as the current beloved Mayor is.
• Minority candidates. There could be many variations on first here. Yancey, Golar Richie, Barros, and Clemons (and Wyatt) could be the first black Mayor. Golar Richie could be the first woman, Arroyo could be the first Latino. You might also consider that Ross could be the first Jewish Mayor here.
• Union guys. Marty Walsh hit several sweet spots. He's strongly identified as a union official, he's Irish-American, and he's a Dotrat (native of the Dorchester neighborhood). Arroyo was a long-time organizer for the service workers, but unions have almost entirely rallied to Walsh (the powerful teachers' union has not endorsed). 

Other than many unions backing Walsh, the "natural" constituencies have not done the birds-of-a-feather thing. Black Bostonians have not flocked to a single African-American candidate. While various Councilors have pretty good support on their home turf, other than Consalvo owning Hyde Park, neighborhoods are muddled. Walczak, Barros, Walsh, Golar Richie, Clemons and Yancey, for example are Dorchester residents and each known for active work there. Dot is huge in population and geography. A more pitched and perhaps more decisive split is among Connolly and Conley from West Roxbury. That heavy-voting neighborhood has to choose between two accomplished white, Irish lawyer guys.

For the wild card, Arroyo is a recent Jamaica Plain resident but spent almost all his life in Hyde Park after early years in the South End. He is also remarkable for a few reasons beyond being the Latino in the race. He is very personable and has high favorables. He's good looking, as is his wife; that never hurts. The thousands of blue-collar service workers adore him as well. Yet, he hasn't pulled in the money and endorsements many of us figured would come easily to him.

Criteria

In a campaign as complex as this preliminary, voters don't know where the corn flakes are, that is, how to find the candidate and even what basis to perform triage.

Disclaimers: Consalvo has been my Councilor for nearly five years, has performed constituent services for me, and I know him pretty well. In fact, I know many of the candidates, via this blog, as well as guests on Left Ahead (look down the archives to hear them in their own words). Connolly and I have talked education on and off for years. Ross has likewise discussed various aspects of government, and of our shared interest in cycling. Likewise, Arroyo and I overlap in JP and are very comfortable chatting face to face. Perhaps this choice is so difficult for me because I know, respect and like so many of the candidates.

Many voters have told me they are wondering who has the greatest chance of winning the preliminary and consider that a major criterion. Others go civically abstract, as in imaging each as Mayor; who'd be the best long-term?

At the voting stand, those criteria may be no more solid than picking Ross or Arroyo because they are pretty or any of the existing Councilors because they performed good constituent services or anyone who remembered your name after meeting you once.

Numerous of the candidates have told me directly that shoe leather wins this preliminary. That is, as Tom Menino did 20 years ago, meeting and greeting the most voters, and being on the porch as well as in the moment with each, will make the difference. Both local major dailies have run articles suggesting as much this time. Maybe or that would be media laziness for hedging bets.

If you use the national-election standards, it would be fund raising and the resulting ability to buy staff and pay for ads. Endorsements don't seem to do it at any political level. Nationwide though, money talks, and loudly, in campaigns. Yet, nearly everyone here seems to have enough (again, except for Wyatt who may have under $100 and no drive to get a single vote). I know I have gotten visits and calls from the candidates, as well as mailers and literature left while we're away.

The advertising in this campaign doesn't seem all that pervasive or impressive. I look at and listen to all I can find. Ross' are OK and fun, but only Consalvo has simultaneously sincere and fun ones. Plus, of the 12 only Consalvo has a memorable slogan (All in for Boston); you'd think they would have spent two hours each coming up with a killer catchphrase.

Regardless, I'll endorse Monday or Tuesday for the preliminary. I totally understand why a third of the voters polled say they can't make up their minds.

Mare's Nest or Mayor Test

My fantasy last evening was that one or two of the dozen Boston mayoral would figuratively push the others off the forum stage. The Herald, NECN and Suffolk U. crammed them all on stools like so many sparrows waiting at the feeder.

The whole thing is on-demand at Comcast and will appear in pieces at NECN. Look for Boston Mayoral Forum: Part 1 and Part 2.

I didn't get what I wanted and am much less wowed by the alleged fireworks than the Herald, NECN and Globe reported they were. I dislike the forum format, with too many pols,  too many simplistic questions, too short a period to answer and virtually no give-and-take debate among candidates or with the moderators.

Yesterday it was what we have come to expect. NECN's Latoyia Edwards somehow confused this event with college football, setting the raucous tone very high in the into. Moderators NECN's Alison King and Herald's Joe Battenfeld were respectively OK and pinheaded throughout the 90 minutes. The latter is an unrepentant winger who does not think on his feet. He repeatedly went for the gotcha-questions and failed. That did not keep him from returning even when the candidates did not want to play his games. (To Dan Conley for example, how dare you send your kids to parochial schools?)

While the squabbling and talking over each other continued, I had hoped for a decisive winner or two. I didn't get it. The theory floating about is that this forum would let candidates below the slightly higher polling John Connolly and Marty Walsh each promote one or maybe two clear distinctions for themselves. Then in the next two weeks before the preliminary, they could pound their chests and stress those planks.

Yeah, yeah, there were some differences, like Connolly wants an East Boston vote on a casino, Conley a citywide one, and Bill Walczak somehow holds that he'd stop any casino in town, regardless laws or public opinion. Those and others don't make the election. We knew going in what various candidates thought and felt about crime, schools and so forth.

The verbal and physical tics were more fun than trying to listen as 11 candidates (David Wyatt was stony silent) and two moderators talked over each other. It was often a circle shout.

Instead of picking an easy-to-explain/easy-to-relate-to/easy-to-remember plank, most of the candidates threw résumé morsels whenever they could. Instead of a concise policy answer, they'd refer to my so-and-so plan (economic development, crime, schools...). Conley had even snuck in a prop, one of his programs in a bound printout, which he waved about several times. Others referred to something they had done as a City Councilor or CEO or City Hall hired gun. Each had multiple chances to wow with a new angle or boffo proposal. None took them.

A few also did distracting motions, none so often as my district Councilor Rob Consalvo. He kept pulling his suit jacket closed. Was he trying not to look too round, hiding a dinner spill on his shirt, or what? He's much better at public speaking than I. Still he should lose this tic.

Also, for every one of them, except Walczak, they need to practice a relaxed smile. Watch part 1 of the forum to wince through the candidate introductions. Clearly none had been a beauty queen or equivalent. Their forced, fixed grins were painful to behold. Meanwhile wildly smiling Edwards was a great example as she introduced them.

In the end though, I didn't get what I wanted, that clear winner. Maybe I watched too many Westerns as a kid — white hat v. black hat with the good guy on top at the end. This is not yet at the end, but we voters have hard decisions.

Ryan and I talk about the race this afternoon on Left Ahead. My next post here will be on my process in narrowing preliminary choice.

Mayor Planks to Stand On

Yesterday, I put out a mega-table comparing websites of the 12 candidates for Boston Mayor. It probably comprises too many data points and subjective assessments. I went wild as well as there being a full dozen.

Today, I get down to a subset with expanded commentary of what many of us wonks consider the real stuff — platform and planks. If you go to a candidate's site, do you get a real sense of that person as mayor would try to accomplish?

If you looked at the table here or on BlueMassGroup, you already know that only two of the candidates in my assessment really put out a platform. One of those has a web design that stymies finding the good stuff.

Here again are the candidates, but with platform info and my opinion only. Click on a candidate's last name to check the site yourself.

• Felix Arroyo — Fairly easy to find under the VISION OF BOSTON tab. Then choose 1 of 15 categories. Each has detailed list of goals, but no specifics on achieving them. 
• John Barros — Easy to find under John's Policy Vision. Then click 1 of 5 categories. These are broad and vague, as in "Providing the resources that Boston schools need according to their students' the level of need."
• Charles Clemons — Easy to find under the Issues tab. A plus includes several concrete proposals to help the elderly poor. All else is very vague, as in "School committee reform" and "Firm believer in community policing — the public and police working together."
• Dan Conley — Easy to find under Issues tab. Then choose 1 of 7 categories. His are by are the most complete, detailed, specific, well-thought-through proposals, goals and methods.
• John Connolly — Easy to find under IDEAS. They go far beyond the stereotype of him as an education-only candidate. All 12 categories are on one page. They are mixed, some overly general "recruiting anchor companies across all industries," but others more specific, "Extending learning time at every school to provide a full academic program that includes science, social studies, physical education, music, and art;"
• Rob Consalvo — Oddly hidden platform. Under the About tab, which has no indication that is more than meet-the-candidate, you just might page down past two big pix and several paragraphs to find two lists, One is of major accomplishments as Councilor and the second has 7 planks or proposals. Most are general, as in providing first responders with sufficient resources, but others are more specific, such as "Create a cabinet level Office of Innovation, Ideas, and Technology to tap into the next wave of ideas from Bostonians and seek out and implement the best practices from all over the country, even all over the world." 
• Charlotte Golar Richie — Her Vision For Boston tab is what passes, weakly, for a platform. For someone who boasts of city, state and federal experience, she seems unready for this race. Her vision is all fluff. There are a few touchstones from her résumé but little else. The gist is in the last paragraph, including "I know what it will take to run this city. But more than this, I know what it will take to unite the city." In other words, "Trust me." Uh huh.
• Michael Ross — His is the most maddening platform and site. He is likely the brainiest person in the race. At first and second look, you wouldn't know that or even if he had a platform. His site makes the number one mistake found in software manuals and help systems, requiring the user to know the exact term the developers use to locate something. Hidden under a big splash screen top, page down and find two buttons. If you can figure out what Boston Smarter is and feel inclined to click it, bang!, a pretty impressive platform pops us. (Actually, you can pull it up in an easy-to-read form from its hidden URL.) The content is detailed, specific and singularly technology-driven, a vision for major changes in how Boston government would work. Who knew?
• Bill Walczak — No platform-specific area for him. He may be the thinking-person's candidate, always a dangerous category to choose. However, if you click the Media and Blog tab, the two choices (In the News and Bill's Blog) are full of positions. 
• Marty Walsh — Nothing to add from yesterday's table. The About Marty area has bio with implied general goals. Press/Latest News lets motivated voter tunnel down to statements.
• David James Wyatt — He can't really be running. His one pager has no tabs or platform. The closest he makes to promise is, "He marched with Chuck Turner and expects to march in Boston for more job opportunity; better schools; safer streets, and an end to the machine politics of politically connected families."
• Charles Yancey — This befuddled double campaign (Mayor and Councilor) has no platform. The only three tabs are Home, Meet Charles and Get Involved. The bio under the middle one has a hard-to read block of text with his personal, Council and education résumé, but no promises, no planks, no platform and no stump speech. 

Overall, this is a lackluster set of websites, particularly from the content view. Conley stands high and Ross will impress those who get through the hazing of the site design. The others lean toward generalities and seem afraid of putting out positions for others to snipe at in public events.

A few like Wyatt are amateurish, because the candidate is an amateur. Others such as Golar Richie and Yancey should have a lot more content, exhibit a lot greater thought, and give the voter something to appreciate. They've been around so long and involved in so much, they need to show they learned something.

Just maybe the candidates will take an evening or two to look at the competition online. It's not too late to update sites.

For the preliminary, it's unlikely that even a brilliant website will win it for the two. With a dozen, it's unlikely that many voters will be as politically needy as I, and go clicking around a dozen sites. Yet, in the weeks remaining, having yet another reason for undecideds to smear your oval can't hurt.

Would-Be Mayor Sites Scorecard

However much the current dozen candidates for Boston Mayor paid for their website designs, they spent too much. 

Was it only 7 and 5 years ago that Deval Patrick and Barack Obama (buddies and soul mates on many levels) leveraged the net and social media to win their governorship and presidency? Reviewing the dozing dozen's sites, I have to assume:

1. Candidates don't put too much importance on web campaigning
2. Campaigns are unsophisticated about content and visual elements

I went to the 12 to see who did what well and poorly. My first conclusion is that poorly is the operative word. My second is that the typical voter will be disappointed trying to get a fix on any of the dozen by the websites. My third is that the 12 better hope they are right that it will primarily shoe leather and GOTV with a bit of advertising that win the preliminary and then final elections this time. These net sites won't.

Disclaimer and background: I'm a long-term HTML guy. I've worked on personal and corporate websites. I've been a technical communicator for decades, including usability testing for sites and documents. I also host Left Ahead and have interviewed and know many of these candidates. They've had plenty of time to publish platforms, polish slogans, and decide what might sway voters.

I offer a Geek Score per candidate. That's my subjective overview of the use of technology and presentation. There's also a Wonk Score. That's the political POW factor from the site. There there is a grade and comment on the visual aspects, on the effectiveness of tabs, on the power of the candidate's platform, the slogan, the media available, how events appear, and then how usable the site is to a voter.

Campaign slogans are iffy; come candidates seem to have none and others several. This is one thing they should put some effort into and make sure at least the yard signs are memorable and meaningful.

I went a bit crazy in number of columns. I apologize if you have to scroll.

In the table below, lick on a candidate's last name to visit the site and judge for yourself. 

Candidate	Geek Score	Wonk Score	Visual	Tabs	Platform	Slogan	Media	Events	Usability
Felix Arroyo	A — Clean layout with easy-to-find content	B — Videos are solid but planks are vague	B+ —Attractive and graphics do not get in the way	A — Up top and very clear	B —Easy to find, but crowded with 15 topics	Building a Better Boston and Forward With Felix	A — Video-centric with solid interviews	B+ — Tab opens clickable calendar	A — Fonts a little small but tabs are plain and easy to use
John Barros	B+ — Tight and clean design, pulldowns off top buttons work well	C — Spongy, non-specific planks	A — Open and well designed	A — Buttons on top work as tabs with pulldowns. Highlight then a single click.	C — Appears to cover everything but planks are vague and use pol-speak	Stand Up Now	B- — Almost entirely print media links. Takes motivated voter to read	A — state of the art calendar	A — Features work well and navigation is clear
Charles Clemons	C — Well designed minimalist site	C- — Not much content but what's there is clear	B — Attractive and clean	C+ — Clear and function well	C- — Sparse but fairly deailed for what appears	Unity Builds Strong and First Name on the Ballot	D — Next to nothing, no meaningful pix or news	C- — easy to access but not interactive	B — Everything obvious and works quickly
Dan Conley	C+ — Site well planned, executed. Events fail and vids are boring	A — The A+ platform earns political content high mark	B+ — Nice use of pix, giving a very personal, personable view	B — Easy to use. The empty Events is awful	A+ — Best in the race, with clear goals and methods	Boston's Best Days Are Ahead of Us	D — Largely his big talking head with ho-hum messages	D — No events listed. Tab should go until they beef it up.	A — Crisp, fast site
John Connolly	B- — What's there is solid, but where's the vid and intereaction?	A — He is plain on what he's done, wants to do and how	B- — Clean site, everything is obvious	B — Minimalist but clear and work well	A — Ideas are very clear and specific, covers all big areas	Our Future Starts With Our Schools and Good Schools=Good Neighbors	D — Old school print and pix. Needs video	C- — Scrolling, takes multiple clicks to access, no interaction	C — What's there is easy to access. Needs more content.
Rob Consalvo	C — Well functioning	C- — Content hidden and vague	B+ — Good looking site, with use of pix to make it about him	C- — Voters don't know what's hidden behind tabs.	C- — Hidden at bottom of About tab, and non-specific	Making Boston Better	C- — Little and in Blog. He should have tons of video and print.	D — Gimmicky map instead of calendar. Canvass events OK if you know to go to Volunteer	C — Donating or volunteering OK. He should not make you search for h is platform or events.
Charlotte Golar Richie	C- — Site works but the lack of content detracts	D — Her vision tab is grey and mush mouthed	D — General goals do not inspire at all	C — Mouseover and pulldown tabs are clear and work well, but need larger type	D — There is little here and what appears is vague	Charlotte for Mayor	B- — Some good news clips, but nothing of her own and some clips don't work	C- — Old-style scrolling, not interactive, hidden under News tab.	B — Fast and functional site. Only events are so-so.
Michael Ross	C- — He is net savvy but form trumps function here	C- — great, but hidden political content	B —Clean and attractive, but you need to scroll for anything	None, Does not apply.	C- —Very detailed, but buried behnid Boston Smarter button	Boston Smarter	B — good linked videos	D — Need to visit his FB page for current activities	D — no tabs, buried content, voter must guess what's behind smallish buttons
Bill Walczak	B+ — Well designed and fast site. Everything works well.	B- — Content is there and better than most candidates but you have to figure out to go to news and blog.	B — Very personable, particularly for an activist. Contend and personal touches	B —Tabs are clear and well functioning. Someone put some real thought into these.	B- — Platform hidden in news and blog choices. Much there though.	Maybe Bill Walczak for Mayor of Boston	C — News is print only but it's good, useful stuff. Vids are at the bottom of the front page, kind of hidden.	D — Events do not seem to appear on site.	B- — Major functions are obvious and work well. A few are obscure, like having to figure to go to news and blog for talking points.
Marty Walsh	C — Some pages load slowly but overall, the design and functions work well.	C- — The About Marty area has bio with implied general goals. Press/Latest News lets motivated voter tunnel down to statements.	B — Intense red and blue on white space. Crisp.	C-- — Few choices and no platform per se.	C- —Minimal, no planks	Maybe Marty for Mayor	B — Lots of press and a little video. With time and interest, voters could find out a lot about his positions.	C- — Obscure in right column of each page under many buttons. Click for minimal details	B — What's there works well and except for the obscure events is easy to find.
David James Wyatt	D- — Virtually empty with only donation working	D- — No real content	D- — One page with almost no content	None, Does not apply.	D- — Vague goals on single page	Maybe Candidate for Mayor of Boston	F. None. Does not apply.	F. None. Does not apply.	F. No functions ad even Donate does not work.
Charles Yancey	C- — What's there functions but there's little	D- — He runs for both Mayor and Councillor. Mayor site has only bio.	D — Facebook images and content with bio, volunteer and donate buttons	C- — Bio, volunteer and donate buttons	D- — Only bio has info, with no planks or promises	Maybe Charles Yancey for Mayor	F. None. Does not apply.	D- — Just a little in FB feed.	D- — Easy to confuse this with Councillor site. Very little functionality.

The short of it is that no one is brilliant here. As much as we'd expect web technologies and design to continually advance, forget that. These folk either don't care or don't know their stuff.

It may very well be that those puerile forum thingummies rule in the preliminary. Every candidate gets two minutes to brag and then a minute or less to reduce complex topics to a bowl of grits. I disdain these and there's hardly more than one or two memorable quotes from an evening.

We'll see how savvy it is for the dozen to have half-baked campaign sites. Conventional and media wisdom is that you have to have a website, but that it makes little difference. Most voters don't visit.

In this once-a-generation election, no candidate is outstanding. That is odd for a few. First, Mike Ross is a long-time internet geek. He should have the best site but doesn't. He and Bill Walczak have the big, wide, deep visions for a new Boston; you'd expect great web tech to highlight that. Nah.

A few are predictably dull and even ho hum. Pirate radio king Charles Clemons, teacher David Wyatt and to a slightly lesser extent long-term City Councilor Charles Yancey are running vanity campaigns. None has much money nor has roused much interest. Yancey even is simultaneously re-running for Council. Their sites are bare, sparse and frankly ineffectual — no platform, no reason to vote for them, in Yancey's case little evidence he wants the mayoralty, and for all, not even a real campaign slogan.

There'll be more before the preliminary. I have calls out to other candidates. Meanwhile, I've done four interviews at Left Ahead. to hear their half-hour shows, click the candidates below:

• Michael Ross
• Rob Consalvo
• Bill Walczak
• Marty Walsh
• John Connolly

You Bet Tom Menino Still Draws a Crowd

Lame-duck jokes aren't apt for Tom Menino. Boston's longest-serving, well loved Mayor is not running this fall, but no one seems to forget he's still The Man around here.

I walked down to the bottom of my hill this morning for what was ostensibly just the ribbon cutting for The Fairmount Grill restaurant and bar. Da Mare showed for the cutting and filled the joint at 11 AM.

Fox25 was all over him before he could even get out of his big honking black SUV. Local papers and stations surrounded him outside then inside.

They had to squat or kneel by his table, because pols took the chairs around him. Current and would-be office holders include Sen. Linda Dorcena Forry, Councilor Rob Consalvo (running for Mayor), Council President and at-large member Steve Murphy (running for re-election), several running for Consalvo's district 5 seat (including Patrice Gattozzi and Mimi E. Turchinetz of Hyde Park), and on and on.

It was no nice-to-see-you-bye-bye counting coup with the Mayor. Many of the pols were loath to vacate their proximate seats. They had much to say and hear from someone still perceived as powerful. Murphy though did hang back at the bar (club soda only even though they were handing out bloodies) and let the others fawn.

Most of the chats I had were off the record comments, although Murphy noted that two running this fall had decent shots — Consalvo has a path to victory, he said, if executed properly, and Michael Flaherty, one of running for at-large Council seats along with Murphy, in no small part because many of the 19 in the race are unknown and Flaherty was a Councilor, is a familiar name and ran an unsuccessful race for the mayoralty.

With that in mind, as usual Menino had the best quip of the day. As he was walking from his SUV into the Grille with a cane, he overheard me joking with Murphy about Flaherty canvassing Fairmount Hill, where Murphy and I live, yesterday evening. Without even looking up, Da Mare said, "Yeah, he knocked on two doors."

I think we know who's not likely to forget who wanted to usurp him.

Pic left includes Menino, Murphy, Consalvo, and Grille owner Christopher Rassias.

As he walked, Menino honestly did look fitter and trimmer than I'd seen him in quite awhile. I said that to him and he agreed, saying his leg was better and he felt good.

So, he's personally not lame, just limping a bit, and politically he is still powerful. He's sure not a lame duck even though he's in his last half year of his last term.

If today's gathering is any indication, particularly if Hyde-Park based Consalvo wins the mayoralty, the Grille is likely to take over as a must-attend political meeting place as its 81 Fairmount predecessor Townsend's was.

Pix note: Images as usual here are Creative Commons. You're welcome to them so long as you credit Mike Ball once.