Tuesday, October 26, 2010

“I’m Going To Vote For Her”

Hey everyone!


I'm getting ready to meet Rebecca McClanahan and her campaign manager here in a few minutes, so the post tonight is going to be brief. I should have more to post after the meeting though, so look for an additional post or two this week!
Don't forget – only a week left until the election!

After the debates, there were many differing opinions that were being voiced by many different parties. While everyone left rather quickly, I was able to talk to a few people. I asked a man, a woman in the crowd what they thought of the McClanahan/Wyatt debate:

"I thought it was very good. It showed us where they stand and helps us make a decision." – Robert Fredricks

"I thought it was wonderful. I'm going to vote for her." – Woman (asked to be anonymous)

I then spoke with Charles Smith (campaign manager) about what his thoughts were on the debate:

"I think after the debate tonight, it's clear who the most qualified and experienced candidate for the position is"

Also in the crowd was political science professor Dr. Randy Hagerty. When I asked him what he thought of the debates, he spoke for a while. Here is a summary of what he said:

Its tough to get a clear stance on the candidate's issues in this debate format. The best you can do is get a general idea of what they stand for because the time allotted is not enough for in depth issue analysis. Also, you are not just talking to the people in the room itself. Its going out to the more general public. In general, students may show a low level of interest, but those who are interested can get a broad idea of where they stand from the debates, and if they are interested, have a place to start to find more information.

Last, and certainly not least, after the debate I was able to talk to Representative McClanahan and see what she thought of the debate. I really liked her response to my question.

"It is so important to me to understand issues deeply, and it is frustrating to hear highly complex issues discussed in talking points and sound bites that create misunderstanding and distortion.  Surely we should be able to discuss the merits of the issues and identify things that need to be changed or adjusted without painting it in its extremes.  I would like to have had the opportunity for a full discussion of the issues."

This concept of going more in depth of the issues truly encompasses how Rebecca handles the responsibility of being a state representative. I encourage you to talk to her for a while – she really does know the issues, and enjoys talking about them in depth.




  1. I like your post about the debate; I couldn't find too much else about it. :( We reference the debate in our blog, we are covering her all this week!

  2. Thanks Adam! I'm glad you liked it. I wish I would have seen more people there!

    Feel free to link to the blog if you need to!

  3. Honestly, the Chamber Candidate's Forum is getting to be a waste of time. With two minutes for each to talk, a one-minute rebuttal, and only three questions, they're trying their best to quickly cram everything they can possibly say into such a short time that they're really not saying much of anything.

    For example, I really wanted to learn more about Wyatt and where he stands, but I kept hearing "Obamacare" over and over again - which, last time I checked, is a Federal (not State) - issue. I assume he said it because he needed quick soundbites that would push buttons because THERE WAS NO TIME to say anything of substance.

    Really, if I want soundbites, I'll turn on the TV. Maybe next year the Candidate's Forum can be revamped into something more useful.

  4. I would love to see the forum revamped and couldn't agree with you more, Todd. However, it is still better than nothing. As Rebecca illustrates, issues are so complex that it makes it hard to really understand perspectives.