General Website:
I think they're all good. I think this is worth looking at because it speaks to the seriousness of the candidate; both as a candidate and how they view the race. It shows they are all interested in communicating with the public and that none of them are in this race for reasons other than winning.
Endorsements:
Brodsky, Rice, and Schneiderman all have impressive lists of endorsements. I think this speaks to the fact that people who are active in Democratic causes and campaigns think highly of all of them.
Coffey has a less extensive list of endorsements-- I think this shows that he is running as an outsider who hasn't been an active part of the political process.
Dinallo's list was hard for me to access-- I finally found it tucked away under a "Join Eric" section on his home page. It sort of worked; but then the Cold Fusion web application started throwing exceptions.
I'd call this one "disadvantage: Dinallo"; maybe "advantage: Coffey", if you're looking for an outsider; or "advantage: Brodsky, Rice, and Schneiderman" if you're looking for proof of Democratic and liberal organization credentials.
Issues:
I think that the candidate's personalities and plans for the office come forth most clearly on their issues page-- which is probably as it ought to be.
I'd say that Brodsky's was the least imnpressive. He touches on at least some of the most important topics. But he uses it more as a recap of legislation he has been involved in and I felt I had less of a detailed sense of where he wants to take the office.
My sense of Coffey is that he is viewing the job with lenses of "how will I direct the prosecutorial efforts of the office". That's probably pretty sensible, both for an AG and for someone with his background.
Dinallo's "agenda" page struck me as the most detailed (it helps that I like to think in bullet items-- so his format works for me). Like Coffey, maybe even more so, he is showing that he is thinking through how he will use the levers the AG has to complete these tasks.
Rice has a fair amount of detail; but in many ways, feels like she's narrowing in to too specific a set of actions. Coffey's and Dinallo's pages show them thinking like AGs; Rice's page (maybe unsurprisingly because she is one) reads to me like the thinking of a prosecutor. She is completely focused on ethics and reform; the others discuss environmental, women's issues, and LGBT issues.
Schneiderman's page has many issues mentioned; with some more details in linked-to pages. But, like with Brodsky, it feels more like a high-level discussion of policies and what legislation he has been involved in and less of a "I'm thinking of how to use the AG office and the way it functions to get these things done".
Advantage? I'd have to say Dinallo, Coffey, and Rice-- and ranked in that order. Having said that, if you were looking for the most "progressive" agenda, it would probably be Schneiderman.
Background:
Brodsky has been a member of the Assembly since 1982; prior to that, he was a county Legislator.
Coffey graduated from Annapolis; served in the military; worked as an attorney in private practice, and worked as an assistant US Attorney.
Dinallo has been an ADA, an assistant AG, and headed the state's Insurance Department.
Rice has been an ADA, an assistant US Attorney, and is currently the DA of Nassau County.
Schneiderman has been a deputy sheriff, a private attorney, and has served in the state Senate since 1988.
Advantage? For me-- Dinallo. I like that he has been in the AG's office and knows how he plans to use it, as he showed in his agenda page. I also like that he has run the Insurance department and demonstrated executive capabilities. He knows Albany-- if I thought he was immersed in the culture, that would be a bad thing; but instead, I read him as someone who knows enough about getting things done to be effective
I think Coffey is a second here; I would prefer to have seen him have more roles that show executive functioning.
Rice's background is good; although it seems to me to be too soon for her to be looking to move from DA to AG. I'm also not sure what to make of the (oft-repeated) fact that she was registered as a Republican but chose not to vote for 18 years (you can read about that at the New York Law Journal). I think it shows a disinterest in politics; I don't know what it says about her underlying political beliefs.
Schneiderman and Brodsky are both members of the Legislature. As such, it is hard for me to see them as anything other than part of the swamp that is Albany. Also, it means they lack both prosecutorial experience and the kind of executive experience running (or being involved in running) prosecutorial offices that the other three have.
So where does that leave me? I'm not really sure yet. I don't know that I'll make a decision before Tuesday. I'm hoping that there will be more comments, both on Dan's post and on this one, that will help clarify the picture for me.
I think if I were looking mostly for the strongest liberal positions, it would be Schneiderman.
I think if I were looking for the most "outsider"-- that strikes me as Coffey. He's also the biggest wild card, which I think is part of what makes him appeal to many. It makes me at least a little bit hesitant.
But if I were to make a decision right now-- it would probably be for Dinallo. |
