MN-03 Candidate Comparison
[Update I: chart updated with more issues]
[Update II: chart completed]
With the retirement of Jim Ramstad, a seat long held by the Republicans, it looks like Democrats have a great opportunity for a pickup. The district has been trending Democratic with many DFLers winning seats at all levels. Furthermore, the Republican field looks to be cleared for Erik Paulsen whose far right voting record will help whomever ends up being the DFL candidate.
The three declared DFL candidates are Terri Bonoff, Ashwin Madia and Jim Hovland.
Terri Bonoff is considered by many to be the frontrunner. She was the first to join the race in late September and has wrapped up a good number of endorsements. She is a sitting State Senator representing SD43 which is Plymouth and Minnetonka. She is a former business executive and education advocate. Read my interview with Bonoff here.
Ashwin Madia is a Marine and Iraq vet. He joined the race in mid-October. He talks about ending the Iraq War, protecting our civil liberties, congressional oversight and real patriotism. Read my interview with Madia here.
Jim Hovland is the Mayor of Edina and recently switched to the DFL. He was a socially liberal, fiscally conservative Republican who could no longer tolerate the hatred and bigotry that he saw in the
Republican Party. He would bring many independent and moderate Republican voters to him if he becomes the candidate. Read my interview with Hovland here.
On paper and considered separately, they all look pretty equal and pretty good. They each have their strenghths and weaknesses. So I really wanted to see them in a debate. I got my chance on Tuesday night at the Hennepin County Library just south of Ridgedale Mall. You can read Joe Bodell's coverage and analysis, he was on the other side of the room from me.
Style and presence
Ashwin Madia won the debate hands down. Bonoff and Hovland stumbled throughout though Hovland did get stronger as the debate went on. Madia articulated clear points that showed his comprehensive understanding of every issue he talked about. He gave precise answers on all the topics. It's not that Bonoff and Hovland gave poor answers except for a couple of occasions, but they sounded vague in comparison.
For many progressives, the choice will be tough and deciding who to pick may come down to style. All three of these candidates have strong progressive credentials. I wondered the most about Jim Hovland as he just switched from the Republican Party, but there was no moment during my interview where I said to myself "Oh well, he used to be a Republican and I s'pose I'll have to forgive him." Bonoff is, of course, a progressive who has shown DFLers how to win in the western suburbs.
But Madia is driven. He is disgusted by what he calls Patriotism Lite and this colors his politics. Despite two wars, the "biggest deficit in the history of the universe", the healthcare crisis and the threat to our existence from global warming, the vast majority of Americans have not been asked to sacrifice for their country. If you want someone who will stand up for our civil rights, Madia will stand up the strongest among the three in my opinion. While emphasizing Patriotism Lite during our conversation, he emphasized oversight during the debate. He continually pointed out how so many of the problems caused by the Bush Administration are a result of no oversight. The crowd cheered their approval except when he put a hand out to indicate that he wasn't quite done making his point. Once done they'd roar.
Bonoff has shown that she will work hard. She has pushed education and transportation bills through the Senate and is considered an up-and-coming leader. She brings a mindset of working hard toward a common goal from her business experience. She comes across as a really nice person and insists on playing fair despite the Republican's dirty tactics. However, she needs to work on her public speaking and reading the crowd. There were several occasions where she didn't seem like she knew how she wanted to get her point across.
Hovland will pull many independents and moderate Republicans to him. He still has all his contacts among the Republicans and he'll take advantage of this. On the issues that are important to we progressives, he's acceptable if not good. As I alluded to earlier, he began to tighten his talking points as the debate went on
Quintessential moment: the Iran discussion
The quintessential and defining moment in the debate was Iran. Hovland was the first to speak. He used a toolbox metaphor. He said since the Bush Administration has a toolbox with only hammers in it, everything looks like a nail and that this was a wrong approach. It was a folksy, not all that precise, but clearly indicated that he sees the essence of what's going on.
Madia was next. "We need to stop exaggerating," he stated then paused to allow it sink in. "We shouldn't be scared of Iran." He had specific points of what should happen First, he wants to make it clear that we want Iran to change its actions, not its government. Second, he wants full diplomacy. Third, he wants to end economic sanctions if they're willing to come to the table, begin talking and work to ensure that Hamas and Hezbollah become purely social service organizations. The crowd responded to each point with a cheer. He clearly had them with him.
Bonoff was last. She first said that we should be scared of Iran: "Iran is a threat." The room was dead silent except for one woman who laughed at her. Why was she using Republican talking points? Had she not noticed how the crowd fed into everything Madia was saying? She tried her best to recover and made some good points about how we should use diplomacy, but I think she'd lost a good number of people by how she answered this question.
Negatives to balance against the positives
While there are plenty of reasons to support each candidate, why shouldn't progressives support each of these candidates. What are the knocks on each candidate? What is not attractive about each candidate? How do the negatives balance against the positives?
Terri Bonoff was not a very good speaker. She mostly hits all the right points at the debate, but just didn't sell her case very well. Might she be another Democrat in the US House who will go along to get along? Would she agree to go along with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi when Pelosi caves on important issues after important issue? In the debate she repeatedly stressed the point that she wouldn't do this. She said she would never vote for more blank checks among other things. Because Bonoff insists on being so nice, would she be a punching bag for the Republicans? Arguably defending her from the Republican smear attacks should really be up to the DFL Party and we bloggers, but ...? Despite this initial impression I was told by my Senator, Scott Dibble, not to be fooled by her kind exterior and that she is way tougher than she initially appears.
It's fairly easy to claim that Ashwin Madia is unqualified for the job. Progressives will need to decide if his intelligence, vision and idealism are enough to make up for his lack of political experience. He certainly showed his comprehension of all the issues put before him tonight. He certainly was extremely well-prepared for the debate. I commend him for this.
Would Jim Hovland be progressive enough? Or would he revert to Republican ways and Republican talking points? Progressives will need to answer this question by examining why he stands where he stands on the issues. How much of a ramp-up time would he need to thoroughly understand the issues as Madia demonstrated he does?
All of these candidates have very strong credentials, but consider their negatives when you consider their positives.
Endorsements
Terri Bonoff has been racking up the endorsements. Madia has been endorsed by Vote Vets and Hovland has yet to announce any. Here are Bonoff's:
- AFSCME Council 5
- EMILY's List
- National Womens Political Caucus
- Speaker of the House Margaret Anderson Kelliher, District 60A
- Senate Majority Leader Lawrence Pogemiller, District 59
- Senator John Doll, District 40
- Senator Ron Latz, District 44
- Senator Ann Rest, District 45
- Senator Linda Scheid, District 46
- Senator Leo Foley, District 47
- Senator Dan Larson, District 63
- Representative Maria Rudd, District 42A
- Representative John Benson, District 43B
- Representative Steve Simon, District 44A
- Representative Sandra Peterson, District 45A
- Representative Michael Nelson, District 46A
- Representative Denise Dittrich, District 47A
- Representative Linda Slocum, District 63B
Iraq war
All three want us out of Iraq. As a Marine vet who served in Iraq, Ashwin Madia has the most credibility talking about what we ought to do. Terri Bonoff has always been against the war. Jim Hovland was a Republican when this war started, but was "mystified" by our invasion and didn't believe the WMD story. It's one of the reasons he switched parties.
Healthcare
All want universal healthcare. How they propose to do that varies. Bonoff believes healthcare is a right not a privilege and wants universal coverage. Hovland thinks its hurting the economy -- affecting large corporations as much as entrepreneurs -- and will work with corporations as well as healthcare reform groups to achieve universal healthcare of some sort. Madia likes a plan put forward by the Mayo Clinic that billing efficiencies and focusing on preventative care can reduce costs enough to insure everyone.
They hedge when it comes to a single payer system, but might be willing to consider it if one is put forward.
Global warming
All three want to address global warming. All three look at this as an opportunity to build a green manufacturing base in Minnesota so the we build the wind turbines, solar panels and whatever green tech comes down the pipe. All three get it.
[Update I: table updated with more issues]
| Issue | Terri Bonoff | Ashwin Madia | Jim Hovland |
| Iraq War | Always opposed, wants timelines set |
Marine Iraq vet, wants orderly redeployment |
Iraq is one of the reasons he switched parties |
| Healthcare | Wants universal care | Wants universal care | Wants universal care |
| Global warming | Gets it, wants to build green economy |
Gets it, wants to build green economy |
Gets it, wants to build green economy |
| Fiscal responsibility | Put away the credit card |
Yes. Why should richest 2% not sacrifice for America? |
He is a fiscal conservative |
| Choice | Pro-choice | Pro-choice | Pro-choice |
| Gay Marriage | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Don't Ask, Don't Tell | Scrap it | Scrap it | Scrap it |
| FISA | no secret wiretapping, no telecom immunity |
No secret wiretapping, no telecom immunity |
FISA seemed to be working fine |
| Transportation | Wants investments in infrastructure |
Ties transit in with global warming |
Transit advocate |
| Education | Advocate | Renew the federal commitment to it |
He'll be good |
| Torture | Opposes torture Should follow Geneva conventions |
He thinks its a disgrace that we're not living up to our ideals |
It is immoral, diminishes our nation's authority and is ineffective |
| Habeas Corpus | must be restored | Must be restored | suspension leads to abuse of power |
| Stem cell research | supports it | fully fund it | necessary & appropriate |
Other possible candidates
Eric Black, who moderated the debate, also allowed Kevin Smith who ran against Ramstad in 2004 speak. Smith would run on global warming and standing up for the constitution. He has yet to decide if he's going to run.
Mary O'Connor might be running as a Libertarian candidate. She claimed that we're imprerialists and wants the US to apologize to Iraq for the damage we've done. We should stay out of their business, it's their oil.
Amy Alexander may or may not be running as a Green Party candidate.
»
- The Big E's blog
- Login to post comments
Stumble It!
Excellent post Big E! Seems
Excellent post Big E! Seems like the 6th has something in common with the 3rd, "someone" is trying to anoint a candidate.
What a wonderful post!
That was one fine blog, Big E. I almost felt like I was there, and I had no particular problem picking out my candidate (were it my district and had I been there). It very clearly seemed to me that Ashwan Madia was the sort of person I prefer: eloquent, antiwar, principled.
The problem I am having personally is that I am starting to get a bit cynical after voting for and supporting various DFL candidates. I knew Amy Klobuchar was Republican lite before she got elected, so she hasn't surprised me with her votes at all (lousy on the war, lousy on civil liberties, basically good on economic and other issues). I guess I am still a bit in shock that Keith Ellison voted for war funding so soon after taking the oath of office.
However the biggest disappointment in Minnesota, in my opinion, has been Tim Walz. Every person I know that gave him time or money during the campaign was totally convinced that he would be a strong and authentic voice against the war. During this year, however, he has voted for every single billion for the colonization of Iraq that Bush has asked for. And even worse, he wrote a detailed apologia in the Rochester paper explaining that he really had to vote for that funding, because if he didn't, George W Bush was completely capable of leaving the troops in Iraq to starve to death without even bullets to protect themselves. His logic escapes me completely. If he really believes that Bush is a sociopath, why would Walz give him hundreds of billions of dollars.
I'm a Democrat. But I am tired of those Democrats who are brave only when it comes to telling Bush what to do. We need a bit of courage now. We need some personal responsibility from our Senators and Representatives. We need someone who will vote to cut off funding for this illegal and tragic war. We need candidates who are willing to take the political risk of pledging to do exactly that, and then do it when they assume office. The rest is mere talk and it means nothing.
What do you think, Big E? Would a Congressman Madia be willing to actually vote to cut off funding?
Charley, I wish I had some
Charley,
I wish I had some answers, I don't want to have to contemplate which of my congresscritters are Bush Dogs.
I want to support Sen. Klobuchar, I want her to make me proud. I try to point out the good things she's doing on environmental issues, the farm bill, toy safety, cell phone policy, etc. It's incredibly frustrating that she's been bad on Iraq, FISA and the symbolically important MoveOn.org controversy. I usually just sigh and be thankful we don't have Mark Kennedy.
I too am confused by Tim Walz. He's a great guy. There's two things going on as far as I can tell. One is that MN-01 is quite conservative and I'm willing to forgive him more than Sen. 20%-win-margin. Secondly, he's bought into a few of the right wing talking points. I wish it were otherwise. I really, really want Tim to be my knight in shining armor on Iraq.
I don't think any first-termer wants to draw attention to themselves on Iraq and risk losing their first reelection bid ... regardless of the anti-Iraq sentiment across this country.
Sadly, the Democratic leadership in Washington have a bad case of abused-spouse syndrome and flinch anytime Bush bluffs. That all Bush has is bluffing that he's got a strong hand is becoming clearer and clearer. Tim has led on some issues, but we're still looking for a leader when it comes to Iraq.
While I don't like the answers I see, I just try and get on with it. This war is ravaging our country in so many ways and will have lasting negative affects on our politics and psyche just like the Vietnam War. Actually, Keith Ellison's plea when he held that forum at Powderhorn Park come to mind: "We can fall out with each other over this."
If I think about it too hard, I just get outrage fatigue.
3 great candidates
Clearly, Ashwin Madia won this debate; clearly, he should be expected to - the subject was Iraq.
It will be interesting to see if he is as poised and polished on a subject where Terri or Jim are the experts, and will be expected to shine.
I am extremely excited that so many people showed up and packed the room. It's going to be a lot of fun to take this seat away from the GOP.
I'm from Eden Prairie, and am very familiar with Erik Paulsen. What I know about Erik Paulsen leads me to believe:
"If you liked G.W. Bush, you'll LOVE Erik Paulsen."
He's not a likeable guy, his politics are terrible, and he has no intention of representing the district - he's a GOPer through and through.
An answer for your question, Charley
Madia has said on both occasions I've seen him in person that he would not vote to cut off funding for the troops, but that he would under all circumstances ensure that funding bills included timetables for withdrawal. He's put emphasis on the 18-24 month withdrawal timeline, and has also emphasized engaging in the right amount of planning to make sure it's an orderly withdrawal. Madia said last night that if a funding bill containing hard timetables were vetoed, he would vote to send the same bill right back to the President's desk again instead of allowing the Republican majority to remove those timetables and give President Bush the funding he wants with no restrictions.
Getting mad...
I don't want to be too negative here, but we have to reconsider this "front-runner" label we've slapped on Terri Bonoff. She's underwhelming in every sense (except for of those who are swayed by labor endorsements). Her performance last night was dreadful, and this string of bad performances has to catch up with her eventually... right?
And she's not just inarticulate, now she's taking the Bush administration line on Iran?!? Maybe she hasn't heard that Iran isn't actually pursuing a nuclear weapon's program.
In any case, I think we all agree that Erik Paulsen is NOT who we want in the job, and I'm starting to doubt that Bonoff can do the job taking the seat away from the GOP.
Why were the Madia
Why were the Madia supporters in the room last night so quick to chastise Bonoff for being the only candidate to take seriously Ahmadinijead's call for Israel to be wiped off the map? Clearly, that's a threat. Maybe not to imminently to the US, but certainly to the only mid-east democracy and our ally. Bonoff will resonate with the majority of DFLers in the 3rd and is electable. Madia is single issue and inexperienced. Bonoff has accomplished an amazing amount in the legislature for transit and education. Plus, she pulled off two unlikely victories in a republican district.
And what did Bonoff
And what did Bonoff accomplish in the legislature may i ask ? Madia is far more than a single issue candidate. He has given cogent answers on education, taxation, health care etc. Lets face it, party leaders want to anoint Bonoff and Ash is running circles around her with his competence.
Mis-translation often repeated
Not that Ahmadinejad never provokes, however that remark has been often noted as mis-translated and totally wrong in context. In context, it becomes more like this corrupt inept administration will fail and be replaced, so that when history is told, they will not be remembered. That is why you picked up on the chastisement, a candidate who is really up on this issue would at least acknowledge the dispute in translation.
-
Juxtaposing the above remarks are those from a poorly translated speech by Ahmadinejad. He is quoted as saying: "The regime occupying Jerusalem should be eliminated from the page of history". This is at least an improvement on the original translation, much repeated in the program by Netanyahu and others, that "Israel must be wiped off the map". According to Cook, "the program makers infer from their more accurate translation the same diabolical intent on Ahmadinejad's part as suggested by Netanyahu's fabricated version."
(Dailykos)
GOP spin?
Am I the only one BAFFLED that we're arguing with a DFLer about this? We are clearly in Bush administration waters right now. I'm not an activist and I think of myself as pretty moderate, but I have to say that Iran is not a threat. That is clear from the report issued last week. The approach we need to take with them is to pull them into the world community, not to ostracize them.
The fact that we're arguing on MNBlue about this is a clear indication that Terri Bonoff is not on the same page. Add to this her inarticulate public speaking and what do we have? Another term of a GOP congressman from our district. We can't let this happen! I've lost faith that she represents me or that she can win this seat.
Inexperienced
Please, please, please cut the inexperience stuff. Two of the most experienced politicians in DC are Cheney and Rumsfeld. Although these gentleman possess an inordinate amount of experience, they revealed an outrageous amount of poor judgment, excessive power grabbing and an unparalleled secretive nature...hardly defining reasons to vote for anyone.
In my humble opinion, although Ms Bonoff has some limited experience in the legislature, at the debate she was unable to translate that experience into a cogent reason to vote for her. In essence her experience was of no value. On the other hand, Mr. Madia forcefully and fittingly linked his experience with his ability to perform using clear, specific examples. The audience got it and so will the voters.
Madia vs Bonoff
Madia may not be seasoned, but he certainly is reasoned. At the debate, a Bonoff supporter told me Madia is not experienced. Did she mean experienced like Cheney and Rumsfeld? Who is going to perform the best against Paulson? Would that be a candidate that uses a phony word like "patrionism" or a candidate that speaks in clear, precise, understandable and declarative sentences like Madia. Although Bonoff has a pretty face, her pretty face was unclouded by thought at the debate. On the other hand, Ashwin Madia's stories about the
deaths of friends and comrades during the war, the details of working with Iraqis to determine the viability of prosecution of Iraqi prisoners and his ability to capably defend a gay marine provided evidence of his experience and a transcendent bridge to the audience.
I was as impressed as most of the audience.
Who will persuade the voters?
The issue comes down to who will persuade the voters, come election day. As we found with candidates like Moe and Kelley, it is not just experience and length of service that counts. A candidate has to persuade, has to rally people to work for the campaign. On the basis of what we have seen so far, it looks like Madia has the best chances of winning on election day.
Three strikes, she's out
We've been patiently watching this race unfold in the 3rd for six weeks now, and initially I didn't have any problem with Bonoff being the front-runner for the obvious reasons. But from day one she's slid in my estimation.
Her first press conference was a disaster (called herself a "state senate"), she supposedly had a "meltdown" at an early debate with Madia and Hovland, and now this: a disappointing, uninspiring performance about the most important foreign policy issues that will face our future congressperson. One of these wouldn't really matter, but three?!?!
That's three strikes, or - to mix sports metaphors - three fumbles in three big stage opportunities. If we want to take this seat we have to consider one of the other two.
***Supposedly***??!?
I'm a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, because I served in a war zone. I'm a member of the Disabled American Veterans, because I have a service-connected disability.
And if there's ANYBODY that wants more veterans in Congress, it's ME. I've met Captain Madia; he's a fine man and a credit to our Country and I'd be honored to have him represent me and this district.
If there's anyone pre-disposed to be on the Madia bandwagon, it's me. Make no mistake, I am HIGHLY impressed with Captain Madia.
But we have to keep in mind the prize, and that's a GOPer seat that's up for grabs. Therefore, I want our best candidate running against the GOPer for that seat - PERIOD.
And I'm NOT about to sit here and listen to a brodkorb-type post with out responding - LOUDLY.
I've met Terri Bonoff, and from what I've seen and heard she's a fine person and has done a good job.
If State Senator Terri Bonoff "supposedly" had a "meltdown", put it up or take that post down.
"supposedly" don't cut it. That's what the GOP (GreedOverPrinciples) party does.
We're democrats, and we're better than that.
Tommy Johnson
"I never thought I'd see the day I'd miss Richard Nixon."
Tommy I really appreciate
Tommy
I really appreciate your feelings on this, and I think we absolutely agree that the reason CD3 needs to go DFL is for the reasons you've said: the GOP is fiscally irresponsible, has driven us into a foreign policy mess it'll take a generation to fix, and could not care less about the shape of the world we leave to our children.
So I want a Democrat to win. And I don't care if it's Bonoff, Hovland, or Madia. But if my rather mild post eluding to the preliminary GOP fun at Bonoff's expense has elicited this kind of indignation from you, I don't think you're quite prepared for what a general election will look like. It's going to be much, much uglier than that.
Let's shake off the delusion that this is a slam-dunk win for the DFL in the 3rd and really get down to finding the best candidate who can both represent us as an excellent public official and win a general election.
No offense meant to you, of course, or to any of the party regulars out there trying to figure out who to support. Let's just be open-eyed about who can win this race.
I stand by what I wrote - I
I stand by what I wrote - I don't want to hear about "supposedly" one o' our candidates "melted down", especially from a DFLer.
Believe me, when one of our candidates emerges as the clear leader I'm on board. But I'm not sittin' back and watchin' ANY DFL candidate take "supposed" shots.
Ya rip 'em for what they DID; not what they "supposedly" did.
Back that "melt down" comment up, or take it down.
Tommy Johnson
"I never thought I'd see the day I'd miss Richard Nixon."
I agree
I think as DFLers we are way too good at the circular firing squad. We have an exciting opportunity in the 3rd to put a really solid DFL voice in Congress so let's not write the GOP talking points for them. I am not sure about Hovland, but I know Madia and Bonoff have both agreed to abide by the endorsement and I think we would benefit from as many debates and candidate forums as possible to fully vet the strengths and weaknesses of all three candidates in order to endorse the best candidate for the District.
You're right, Tom
The blogs get a bit snarky, and the last thing we need is infighting when the ultimate objective is still a ways off. I apologize for mentioning what I did. You're absolutely right that descending into the hell that is MDE is no way for us to debate this. That's my bad. I don't know how to take down my original post, but I rescind it, in any case.
The larger point is that we agree on the end goal here: DFL control of the 3rd district seat. The debate Tuesday was simply a revelation. The reality to me is that Bonoff is not cut out for this intense level of campaign. Let me be clear: she'd be a great Congresswoman. She's hard-working, she has great credentials and policy positions, and, to top it all off, she's really nice.
But we've seen her stumble, right? This isn't me or some GOP blog saying this, it's an honest-to-god fact that she's struggled. And at some point we have to realize that it's not going to get better for her. The general campaign will be MORE intense, and the scrutiny will be even MORE personal, and the GOP does not want to lose this seat.
So I, for one, am considering one of the other two. You seem to be leaning Madia, but Hovland has a lot to offer, too. In any case, assuming all three will be good representatives, let's choose the best candidate.
"It's the ECONOMY..."
Well, as a veteran, of course I'm leaning for Captain Madia - even though he is a JAR HEAD....
;-)
This is a race, not a sprint - the best candidate will become obvious over time, and this seat is too important to rashly proclaim a winner now.
I was on Coleen Rowley's campaign last year as her veterans coordinator; I made a committment to a lot of people in the 2nd CD that I'd help knock off John "Lapdog" Kline this cycle. So right now, I'm spending time in the 2nd.
Veterans NEVER had a better friend than Paul Wellstone; veterans have NEVER been more let down than John Kline.
Getting back to the third, I have to say that from a veterans' perspective, Jim Ramstad - who also is a veteran - is a pretty good guy, from a VETERANS perspective.
I've met Jim Ramstad, I've worked with Jim Ramstad, and believe me, Erik Paulsen is no Jim Ramstad.
Based on my experiences with Erik Paulsen, I have concluded:
"If you liked G.W. Bush, you'll LOVE Erik Paulsen."
We have a lot of work to do in the third. Stay involved, and let the best candidate win. We need to keep Erik Paulsen out of that seat.
The ol' TwoPutter
"I never thought I'd see the day I'd miss Richard Nixon."
Maybe Another Debate
Perhaps another debate would show if we have a stumble or a trend? Is there anything coming up?
Ashwin Madia
I had the privilege of helping put together the questions that were asked of the three candidates at Tuesday's forum. But I went to the forum with more than a bit of skepticism, expecting more "yada, yada, yada" from politicians saying what they think those in the peace community might want to hear. I had that same skepticism about all three candidates, including fellow Iraq War vet Ashwin Madia.
I left that forum with my skepticism about Hovland and Bonoff intact. They both are undoubtedly nice people, but I had the feeling that they were simply politicians seeking a higher office.
Ashwin was different - he has the intelligence, passion, and compassion that is needed in Congress. There was no phoniness to him, just a deep conviction of purpose and a real and clear desire to make America better. And all of that clearly shown through during the debate.
Great blog coverage
Thanks, Big E. Great coverage, followed by great comments. The Blogosphere at its best. Based on what I've read so far, I'd side with Madia. But then again, I live in the 5th CD, so I'm just a bystander.