BALANCED....FAIR?

There was a candidate forum last night, and in all modesty I must admit that I was great. I nailed it. We took an unbiased poll over drinks after the event, and two of my best friends, my campaign chair and my husband all agreed that I was terrific.

So I jump out of bed this a.m. and without even going downstairs to read the paper, I look at the website. NOTHING. OK, so the article will be in tomorrow. Full of vim and vigor, we decide to take the dogs to the track. My husband opens the paper. The article is there. And it is balanced. All the candidates got almost the same amount of ink, whether credible or not. All the candidates had a quote about the same length whether it was insightful or not. But the flavor of the evening was completely lost.

Now, all of us who are running have lots of observations about the coverage. "Was your announcement above the fold or below the fold?" "Did your press release make the first page of the Berkshire section or was it inside?" We look for nuance and hidden support/opposition/meaning in every word and placement. So one way you can look at the "fair and balanced" approach is that they're being nice to everyone.

But for those of us who did well, nothing in the article indicated that some candidates were more credible than others, some were more polished than others, some more animated (or too animated) than others. You had to be there. Or, maybe you virtually had to be there. I haven't talked to anyone who watched it on live PCTV. Will the broadcast give the flavor and the nuance or will it be some third version? I remember feeling as a Selectman that people who ONLY saw us on TV had a different opinion than people who were in the room.

The best barometers for me are the people who approach you after the forum and say "You have MY vote!" or "Where do I go to volunteer?" Bless you all. It really is one vote at a time.....