Deconstructing the Debate...

These are some still pictures I took before the debate started.  There weren't as many people out in front of the Playhouse last night as in previous years.  Almost all that were happened to be Lisa Maxwell supporters, some for Tom Ramiccio and a few for Rachel Waterman. 

Once inside and after dispensing with the preliminaries, John Bachman of WPEC TV-12 news was introduced with great fanfare and we were told that he was going to make sure things ran according to plan and that fairness would prevail.

That introduction probably tempted the fates...Mr. Bachman got things off on the wrong foot by skipping candidate introductions and went right to the questions.  The first question concerned reaction to the City Commission aborted attempt at the takeover of the CRA's responsibilities.  Ramiccio drew the first straw so he was up first, briefly introduced himself and then answered the question.  Then Bachman, realizing his error, then went to Waterman and had her give her introductory statement and then the other candidates took their turn.  When it came back to Ramiccio, Bachman said that he could repeat the answer he gave to the previous question - but he hadn't been given the opportunity to give his introduction.  This got the whole affair out of balance to begin with, but the process seemed to recover after a while.  Del Sol kept making an issue about his mic being slow to come on and pointing his finger at the people in the sound booth.

You can see that I was able to get video of some of the debate.  Unfortunately, I only brought my 1 gig card with me, so the clips are mostly of the early parts of the action.  The whole thing went until almost 9 p.m.  The place was full as I remember for such events.  The crowd noise seemed to favor Maxwell, with Waterman's crowd a close second.  Cheers for Del Sol seemed to come from the same people that supported Waterman.

This is not an exhaustive list, but these are things that I think stood out about each candidate last night.

• Ramiccio - You couldn't have left the theater last night not knowing that Tom had been Mayor in Lake Worth through the "good times."  I picked this up on the one of the video clips, but it was funny when he was referring to the divisiveness in the community that he declared he would be a good go-between for the town's two factions as he wasn't supported by either of them.  Who does that leave Tom?  Much laughter about that one.  He and Waterman had the most sparks between each other.  It was also funny when Tom said something to the effect that "these are good candidates - well, most of them..."  During his closing remarks, he threw down an unidentified, rather thick document and said that he "stands on his accomplishments" - at which point he stood on the document.  Then, acting out how the city could go either way in this election, he preceded to walk across the front of the stage like it was a tight-rope.  While at Publix today, I bumped into someone who had been to the debate and she reminded me that Rodney Romano had done the same act back in 1992.  Oh my.  Anyway, I thought he came across as authoritative and someone who had been there before, and it showed.  That doesn't mean people are going to be voting for him, however.
• Waterman - She came across confident and sure of herself - almost too much so at times.  Her "Thank you" at the end of each response came across in a "So there" tone.  If there is a next time, someone should challenge her about being fluent in three languages - it is one thing to say you are and another to actually be.  Fluency applies to reading, comprehension and speaking - if she is, she should demonstrate each.  Tom got on her about relying on notes and she snapped back "Don't hate me for being prepared."  But, it did beg the question whose notes those were and who helped prepare her.  She didn't mention "anarchist" when asked about an association with anarchist and/or anti-government groups and no one called her on that.  She got it wrong when she said that the city was polarized on the sheriff issue - IT WASN'T THE CITY THAT WAS POLARIZED - IT WAS THAT THE COMMISSION - your supporters, by and large - WAS AT ODDS WITH OVERWHELMING PUBLIC OPINION IN FAVOR OF PBSO.  She also tried to split the baby regarding having chickens in the city, suggesting that they could be allowed in the Park of Commerce - which Maxwell capitalized upon.  While she talked a lot about commitment, it was odd that she said she hasn't decided on whether or not she will run in November - which makes the imagination run wild about who could run in her place.  I have left two messages with her requesting a meeting and haven't heard back yet, I will keep you posted.
• Del Sol - If I hear "I've been here for 34 years" one more time, it will be too soon.  According to Javier, white males shouldn't be allowed to enjoy the golf course to the exclusion of children and those of color.  He readily admitted not knowing everything there is to know about running a city and that he would rely on staff and consultants to explain it to him.  Hmmm.  He also proved his humility by comparing himself to Ghandi - please.  
• Maxwell - Exuded a calm competence.  I think it would have served her well to use all of her two minutes of introduction - it ended up being just one minute.  She got some good digs on the chicken issue and made the point that the City Commission should focus on real problems and not superfluous, feel-good issues.  She also had the last word on the Casino Building - she basically said that we need someone there with experience in securing financing and that much has been overlooked in the planning for the project.  No one followed up or had anything else to say about the project.  She made a point, directed at Rachel, that to be Mayor doesn't require many degrees.  It's your experience that is important in dealing with private and public organizations.

Those that went can continue to add comments below.