Here’s the Tab endorsement for Ward 5 aldermen. The other endorsements aren’t online yet but I’ll provide a link when they’re available. In the meantime, if you have your TAB, check them out. The only one that surprised me was Eve Tapper in Ward 2. I’ve never met her and she might be incredibly impressive. In fact, she must be to win the endorsement over Emily Norton’s knowledge, passion and energy.
I was also surprised that the TAB endorsed Eve Tapper over Emily. Emily did better than Eve Tapper in the LWVN debate and I share Emily’s concerns about how Eve Tapper wants to urbanize Newton in general and Newtonville in particular. Furthermore, I can see why Allan Ciccone Senior, Jay Ciccone, Tom Concannon, Peter Harrington, Bob Antonellis, Reverend Howard Heywood, Ken Parker, Holly Ryan, Bob Whitten, Brian Yates and over 300+ Ward 2 residents endorsed her.
Emily is intelligent, hard-working, caring, thoughtful and has deep roots in Ward 2. She’s a solid, reform-oriented progressive who is capable, experienced and has a track record of getting results and solving problems. Emily also understands the need to providing important city services in a fiscally responsible manner in order to keep Newton affordable.
As for the TAB’s endorsement of Alison Leary over Allan Ciccone Senior, the TAB’s rationale for endorsing her only reinforces why Ward 1 voters should elect Allan Ciccone Senior. Although Allan may been seen as part of Nonantum’s past, he has a pretty progressive platform centering on alleviating Newton Corner’s traffic issues and working with the Sisters of Saint Joseph regarding Aquinas. Allan Ciccone’s day hasn’t passed.
Based on some of the things that Alderman Hess-Mahan said during last night’s debate and in today’s story in the TAB, I’m beginning to think that former Mayor David Cohen is one of his campaign advisers. Interesting strategy.
Agreeing with Joshua, I’m surprised and very disappointed in the Tapper endorsement. Emily is the better candidate and with her long history of passionate advocacy and involvement in Newton, particularly with the schools, plus her intelligence and drive, she deserves to be an alderman. I guess I will have to get my annoyance out by campaigning for her.
Very glad they endorsed Albright – I hope that helps her.
The endorsement for mayor surprised me, not because The TAB endorsed Mayor Warren but because the endorsement didn’t say much positive about the mayor. In fact, it didn’t say much about Mayor Warren at all.
I have met Eve and she is “incredibly impressive” as Gail said in her initial post. The TAB endorsed her in part because “…she would serve as a valuable liaison between the residents of Newtonville and the city as the Austin Street development progresses.” If you haven’t yet met her, she will be at the Austin Street meeting tonight at Newton North. See you then.
@Greg, I had the same reaction to the TAB’s “endorsement”. Seems like they focused more of their energy talking about Ted Hess-Mahan than Warren.
I’m delighted to see that the TAB endorsed Margaret Albright. She is without a doubt the best choice to represent Ward 2 on the School Committee.
I have not met Eve Tapper and while her experience as a planner is certainly germaine to the work of the BOA, it is by far not the be-all and end-all of that board’s function. Plus, I find it a tad disquieting that she could be in the position of voting on matters on which she had been involved as an employee of the city.
I was also surprised by the statement that the Ward 2 race was “Steenstrup’s to win but she has failed to step up.” That doesn’t make sense to me. Why was it hers to win? If it’s because of the support she has from the inside players, then the TAB isn’t in a position to say she has failed to step up. Nobody can make that assessment until after 8 p.m. on Nov. 5. If her supporters bring out enough voters to win, then she stepped up just fine.
If there’s another reason that it was Steenstrup’s to win, I’d love to hear it. Albright is the one with the name recognition. This is her third time running for the seat. A lot of voters have figured out that Albright really wants to be on the School Committee. If there’s an edge toward anyone here, I’d give it to Albright.
* Please note that I am not indicating a personal preference toward either candidate. I am simply challenging the TAB’s views about Steenstrup’s odds going into this race.
Perhaps “failed to step up” means failed to articulate her own vision for our schools?
I’ve seen Streenstrup speak three times and all I’ve walked away with is that she has a comfort level with the status quo but not a very deep knowledge and no unique vision or priorities.
On the other hand, all I get from Albright is a sense that she’s sure she’s the smartest person in the room (and possibly that’s true) but that nothing our schools do now is satisfactory.
I’m guessing that’s an unfair characterization of both women, but it remains my perception.
I suspect that is what was meant by failed to step up, but I still say it doesn’t make sense. If the race is hers to win, she’s either going to win or not. I guess what I’m saying is that the endorsement should have said what you just wrote, Greg, if that’s what was meant.
Lisap and Steven, I’m glad we can all agree that Emily Norton is a better candidate for Ward 2 Ward Alderman.
Greg, I would have to disagree with your assessment of Margaret Albright. I found her to be a quiet, low-key, pragmatic, thoughtful and sensitive individual who recognizes that we can improve the educational experience on behalf of Newton’s students. As a lifelong resident of Newton and an alumnus of Newton North, I only wish that Margaret and Emily had been involved in educational reform activism when I attended Newton Public Schools in the 1990s.
Andrea Steenstrup failed to step up because of her poor answers and lack of knowledge of Education in General and Education in Newton. She never told us her Vision for the NPS. Her Tab Article pointed out – She cares more about the Kids than the Data. Well I would ask any teacher out there if they use Data to evaluate children in their class? Most likely on a daily basis. Her Debate performance was extremely poor – What I took away from it was that she doesn’t want parents to tutor their children because it will make it more difficult for the teachers. Obviously Andrea has never heard about Differentiated Instruction. During her debate performance she failed to step up to show the community that she has the knowledge to be on the SC. I dont want another Clone on the SC – I want someone that can think Independently and work for ALL of the Children in the NPS .
And if we elect someone without a vision and without even the basic knowledge of Education that is exactly what we will get.
Those are in my opinion why the Tab endorsed the Best Candidate for Ward 2 SC – Margaret Albright and if we care about our Children’s Education then we should ALL vote for Margaret on November 5th.
By what was it Steenstrup’s race to win?
Steenstrup came into the race with the full weight of the Sokoloff/Gifford machine behind her. She had all the endorsements that one could dream of/die for handed to her by connection/association.. However, AS didn’t make the public appearances and had stand-ins like Claire Sokoloff, Susie Heyman, Diana Fisher Gomberg or Margie Ross Decter. Andrea was nowhere to be seen at potentially important public campaigning events such as Newton South Curriculum Night. To my mind, Steenstrup entered the race with a silver spoon in her mouth but took no advantage of it. Andrea Steenstrup = Martha Coakley for Senator. They both wanted your vote. However, as Martha wasn’t willing to stand outside of Fenway in the cold shaking hands and asking blue collar guys for their vote, Andrea was not willing to do the hard work of campaigning. That says something to me about her willingness to do the hard work of being on the School Committee. Margaret has been there every step of the way. Must I say that unlike Steenstrup, Margaret actually has a day job?
@KarenN. That’s unfair to Coakley, a person with excellent credentials who ran a bad campaign. Not sure what Steenstrup’s credentials are but be happy to hear from her supporters here.
Hi Gail,
I think it’s because of all of the endorsements which were collected as Andrea pursued a political network activation approach to the campaign. It is a long list and if all of those folks engaged, it would be hard to beat Andrea.
After the LWV debate, I sent a link to the debate to one of the alderman I respect a great deal and wrote in the email: “How can you support Andrea after that performance?”
I got a phone call the next day and the alderman had some pretty insightful comments. After endorsing early with not a great deal of knowledge about Andrea (as did most endorsers), the alderman expected Andrea to engage in a strong campaign and develop as a candidate.
The alderman’s take was that there had been very little development on the campaign trail and that the endorsement had become a real headache. Politically impossible to take back, but that alderman will be voting for Margaret on November 5th.
Another alderman I greatly respect stayed neutral in the race, remains neutral, but has a Margaret Albright yard sign on his front lawn. He feared political payback if he came out and endorsed Margaret.
It seems that for the endorsers expectations were high but not realized.
I think the TAB endorsement commentary was pretty accurate.
Steenstrup’s campaign strategy could still be effective. We don’t know until the votes are in.
I just realized something. I formally embraced Margaret’s campaign in August when enthusiasm for Andrea was at its highest fever pitch.
I also realized something about Margaret and Andrea. Margaret’s and Andrea’s debate performances are microcosms of each candidates campaigns.
Andrea has always done better with the opening statement than Margaret.
However, as the debate wears on, Andrea’s debate performance begins to falter. Meanwhile, Margaret has a stronger base of knowledge and that gives her greater endurance in the debates than Andrea. Furthermore, Margaret has a warmer and more empathetic personality than Andrea.
I think Andrea was trying to play to the fiscal conservative crowd by trying to paint Margaret as someone who is so focused on programs and services and is unaware of budget realities. Margaret solidly outperformed Andrea on fiscal issues. Maybe Andrea would have picked up some fiscal conservative voters by raising the issue of out-of-district students but she didn’t. Nor did she raise the issue of the SPED Review recommendations. Despite her stint as a Finance Director for CIGNA Healthcare, she didn’t raise the issue of 50/50 health insurance. The only somewhat fiscal conservative issue she raised was the naming rights proposal.
If Andrea wins, it will be a simple case of politics and political networks trumping education and real issues.
The political machine could have picked another candidate other than Andrea and their candidate strategy would have been identical.
Margaret remains the only one in the Ward 2 SC campaign interested in actually improving education and not needing an override for more money to do that.
As long as I can remember we have not had an educational professional serving on the SC.
Imaging a technology company with a board which no technology professionals.
Everyone would say that was crazy.
Yet we have a board overseeing education in Newton and in control of a $180 budget with not one education professional.
Just as crazy.
You want education to dominate this race, or you want politics to dominate this race.
That’s the clear choice on November 5th.
@ Greg: I was trying to be kind with the Coakley comparison. You’re right. Coakley was extremely competent. Margaret is more like Coakley, but unlike Martha, Margaret is pushing herself outside of her personal comfort zone to campaign and connect with Newton voters. Margaret is a lot like me. Given the choice, I would rather write a position piece than go shake hands with people that I don’t know. I don’t think that either Albright or Steenstrup are extroverts, but Margaret has really worked to overcome her weaknesses for the opportunity to serve the people of Newton. Given that one would think that all of AS’s PTO experience would make her the charismatic Scott Brown campaigner vs. Margaret’s wonky, competent Coakley competence — I haven’t seen any of Steenstrup’s assumed strengths in action. My first thought was not to compare Coakely to AS . My first thought was to compare Steenstrup to Sarah Palin, but I didn’t think that anyone would focus on the vetting process and blind endorsements associated with Palin vs. her abhorrent political agenda. I worried that comparing a pr0gressive Democrat(assumably) like AS to someone completely outside her political comfort zone would be so politically offensive that people wouldn’t see the error in endorsing candidates blindly without properly vetting them.
I keep trying to come up with a comparable and gender-neutral comparison to Steenstrup’s
out of the gate/silver spoon in one’s mouth advantage. . Would it be being a Kennedy in Massachusetts? Being a millionaire like someone like Chris Gabrielli? Or being a celebrity like Matt Damon or Ben Affleck? That’s how much political currency I put into being endorsed by the Sokoloff/Gifford machine or being publicly annointed by Susie Heyman, having the political expertise of Gerry Chevrinsky and being endorsed by the majority of the current SC and even Cindy Creem, for goodness sakes..The truth is, when the rubber hit the road, in public debate Steenstrup was not able to appear to be much more than a political flunky or bean-counter sans vision. She was dispassionate and out of touch at best. At worst, she was an exaggeratedly wide-eyed deer in the headlights, incapable of grasping the relevance and implications of the big educational issues that the next SC will have to grapple with. I must also say that the warmth and political charisma that I assume was integral to her popularity in PTO and among the Newton political elite was noticeably absent.
My last word: you’re a ninkumpoop if you vote for anyone based on a blind recommendation vs. looking at the candidates and their stands on issues for yourself. We have only one contested race for SC in Newton, one opportunity to really weigh in and continue on a path of progress and improvements or rest on our historical laurels.
The alternative is to resume contemplating our collective navels about what an outstanding school system we are. One thing I know (and I know that Margaret knows)n is that we cannot continue to do this oblivious to the improvements being proposed in Wellesley and Needham or the advancements already put forth in Brookline around early ed and world languages in elementary schools.
Wellesley’s superintendent is championing real full day kindergarten and world language instruction at the elementary school level. Why is’t our superintendent or SC championing such educational advancement?
Karen, I have a better comparative example for Margaret versus Andrea. Andrea reminds me of Leslie Burg whereas Margaret reminds me of Greer Tan Swiston. Greer lost in her first two campaigns (albeit for different races) before pulling off an impressive upset in 2007.
I noticed that although Margaret and Emily are really close friends and allies, Emily is way more energetic and extroverted than Margaret. Though as a research analyst, I have a strong admiration for Margaret’s results and research over rhetoric approach. I was surprised that although Andrea had a great opening statement about her finance experience at CIGNA, Margaret solidly outperformed Andrea on the fiscal issues (and strongly defeated Andrea on everything else).
I’m not sure I would consider Andrea a progressive Democrat. When I think of progressive Democrats, two obvious examples would be Emily and Margaret. Margaret and Emily are interested in moving educational excellence forward by prioritizing budgets whereas I believe that Andrea would be an enthusiastic promoter of a 2018 override for Lincoln-Eliot, Williams and Pierce.