As previously noted by this writer, my direct contact with school board politix is, at best, marginal. Don’t go to meetings, semi - knowledgeable about current issues [got a kid at Stivers, I don’t want to see Jullienne School on Old Orchard torn down etc]. Like a lot of other people. When I think about the schools I believe in a public education system that meets the needs of its community as visualized and implemented by a community based and controlled school board.
The people on that Board need to be the best we as a community can elect to serve us. I had a great conversation with Nancy Nerny the other day, and I came away even more convinced that this was someone who would fulfill that role. Ms Nerny is a woman who is deeply involved with the learning/teaching community of Dayton. As a teacher, she has legions of students who can recall being in her classroom as one of the high points of s school day. My youngest son, now nearly 20, was in here when Nancy was. He had her as a student years ago, but the embrace both for and by the former student was still warm and spontaneous. And it’s not the 1st time I’ve seen her greeted by former students in a similar fashion.
Nancy Nerny will translate that connection into action on the board. Her goal is to be a uniter, focused on resolving contentious financial issues surrounding the current Boards spending on multi million dollar administration buildings instead of focusing on the needs of the students. Nancy doesn’t fancy herself a “politician”, but, if by politics you mean the art and science of getting people to get along in a manner that is mutually beneficial for as many as possible while respecting the rights of those who disagree, then I think she will do fine. Thats the kind of “non-politician” we need running our schools. Nancy Nerny is already doing some of this. She serves on several School Board advisory committees and is communication with current and past Board members for their views.
In my estimation though, it is the community connection and her focus on building the communication with the parents and on connecting the schools and parents with the larger community. She sees the necessity of looking into the future to continuously refine and develop curriculum that is ahead of the community needs curve That’s a one two punch that pretty much says it all for me.
Nancy is part of a slate that is associated with current Board member Joe Lacey. In part of an interview with Mike Robinnette, on the DaytonOs website, Lacey elaborates in more detail about why he supports the slate Ms Nerny is part of. It’s an interesting slice of both Board and Democratic Party internal goings on… http://daytonos.com/
The Fix grew up a HUGE fan of professional wrestling. So, it was with a mixture of fascination and glee that we watched last night’s Democratic presidential debate, which resembled nothing so much as an out and out brawl. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) spent the first hour of the debate fending off shots from her opponents and parrying pointed questions from the moderators. Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) made good on his pledge to be more aggressive against Clinton, albeit it in the low-key manner that has come to be his trademark in this campaign. Former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), on the other hand, took it directly to Clinton — challenging her at every turn and effectively ensuring that the stories coming out of the debate didn’t focus solely on Clinton versus Obama.
Even Sens. Chris Dodd (Conn.), Joe Biden (Del.) and Gov. Bill Richardson (N.M.) got in their shots — although this debate was designed (rightfully so, to our mind) to give Obama, Edwards and Clinton a chance to mix it up.
Below you’ll find our winners and losers from last night’s debate. We added a “tweener” category for this debate because several of the candidates had performances that didn’t seem to fit into either the winner or loser side. As always, these ratings are subjective. Agree? Disagree? The comments section is open for business.
John Edwards: We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: Edwards continues to make the strongest case against Clinton of any candidate in the field. Time and again last night, Edwards one-upped Obama’s hits on Clinton by using his courtroom skills to deliver devastating one-liners about the New York Senator and her record. On Iran: “Are we going to hear ‘If only I knew then what I know now,’” Edwards asked. On electability: “[Republicans] may actually want to run against you.” On change: “If people want the status quo, Senator Clinton is your candidate.” Was Edwards too angry? Too confrontational? Maybe. But, the anti-Clinton crowd wants someone to stand up strongly against her. Edwards showed he was willing to do that last night.
“Sabre Rattling”: Wow. The Fix lost count of how many times the candidates uttered this phrase last night in reference to the Bush Administration’s policy toward Iran. Edwards and Obama used it to hit Clinton; Clinton used it to hit the Bush Administration. Sabres were being rattled EVERYWHERE.
Barack Obama: Obama promised more aggression and he delivered — sort of. The Illinois Senator was clearly committed to drawing contrasts with Clinton last night, even though it still feels as though he is forcing it at times. (Our read on Obama: he is not someone who enjoys direct confrontation and is still learning the political necessity of the tactic.) Obama’s best line of the night (and one of the debate’s highlights) came after Clinton refused to offer a clear answer on releasing the correspondence between herself and her busband during their time in the White House. “I’m glad that Hillary [used] the phrase “turn the page” but this is an example of not turning the page,” Obama said. “Part of what we have to do is to invite the American people to take part in their government again.” That message — Obama as change agent — is a powerful one; as the campaign has worn on, Obama has honed it nicely. So why not make him a winner? At times Obama seemed to wander into wonky policy talk on issues, letting his professorial side come out a bit too much. The more Obama sounds like every one else on the stage, the less chance he has of convincing voters he can and will change the status quo.
Hillary Rodham Clinton: After the first hour of the debate, Clinton seemed nearly-certain to wind up in the winner’s circle again. She had largely faced down a withering barrage of attacks from Obama and Edwards (notable exception: her non-answer on opening up the National Archives) and come out none the worse for wear. And then she slipped. In the debate’s final minutes, Clinton got caught trying to be too cute by half on whether she supported Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s (D-N.Y.) plan to offer drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. Sensing a rare opportunity, Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.) jumped in to question Clinton and was followed in the piling on by Edwards and Obama who sought to cast Clinton’s answer as typical of her tendency to offer the political rather than the honest answer. That the moment came at the close of the debate was a double edged sword for Clinton: on one hand, it left viewers with a sour taste in their mouth and may have colored her performance overall; on the other, it was nearly 11 p.m. by then and the viewership had probably declined somewhat significantly so less people saw the slip. Why not make Clinton a loser then? Because for the majority of the debate she acquitted herself well despite having the deck stacked heavily against her. In the first hour, nearly every question and response started and ended with Clinton. Might she have won points among women who saw a bunch of men going out of their way to gang up on her?
Bill Richardson: On a night when both Dodd and Biden had their moments, Richardson struggled. In every debate and every answer, it feels as though Richardson is trying to stuff 10 pounds of rhetoric into a five pound bag. Part of that is because he doesn’t get as much time to address issues as the frontrunners. But, knowing he isn’t likely to get as many opportunities, Richardson needs to have adjusted by now to take advantage of the chances he does get. Thinking back on the debate, it’s hard to find a moment where Richardson distinguished himself — with the possible exception of his defense of Clinton. Then, after the debate, Richardson seemed to side with the pro-UFO crowd in response to a joking question by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. Um, not good.
Lightning Rounds: For those who followed The Fix’s live-blogging of the debate last night, you’ve already heard our rant against lightning rounds. While a great idea in theory (allow all of the candidates to sound off on an issue in a short period of time) these lightning rounds just don’t work because there is no real penalty for a candidate going far over the allotted time in their answer. Our suggestion? If we are set on keeping lightining rounds, create a real penalty for candidates who don’t follow the rules. Maybe the next round of questions skips them? Ok, that’s never going to happen, but a boy can dream.
Late Night Debates: The Fix’s campaign against debates that start at 9 pm or later continues. That is all.
The debates are only late, Chris, if you reside in the Beltway and its time zone. How come Chris only heard “Sabre Rattling”? Where was he for the “carrots and sticks”?
During yesterday’s Democratic Debate, Joe Biden delivered the YouTube moment with the following quip about Rudy Giuliani:
“Rudy Giuliani - there’s only three things he mentions in a sentence; a noun, a verb and 9/11″
The remark was punchy enough to warrant a response from the Giuliani campaign while the debate was still going on In a press release, Giuliani’s communications director stated:
“Senator Biden’s comments were of particular interest. The good Senator is quite correct that there are many differences between Rudy and him. For starters, Rudy rarely reads prepared speeches and when he does he isn’t prone to ripping off the text from others. And, Senator Biden certainly falls in to the bucket of those on the stage tonight who have never had executive experience and have never run anything. Wait, I take that back, Senator Biden has never run anything but his mouth.
Such a desperate attack from Senator Biden is to be expected considering I – Katie Levinson – have a better chance of becoming President than he does.”
Given the speed and harshness of the response, it’s clear that Biden’s remark struck an uncomfortable nerve with the Giuliani campaign. As previously discussed on this site and often mocked on social satire news sites and programs, Giuliani does excessively make reference to 9/11. Clearly, his consistent references to this event is a strategic political decision. Accordingly, the campaign must be aware of the fact that overusing the reference may at some point backfire. If voters are already susceptible to 9/11 reference fatigue before the general election, then Giuliani’s campaign will need to do some recalibration of their message. Indeed, it already seems that they are doing this. Within the last few weeks, Giuliani has been ramping up criticisms of his opponents’ lack of executive experience. Expect this theme to expand as Giuliani, wisely, begins to temper his direct references to 9/11 (that doesn’t mean he’ll stop, it just means that the references will likely become more subtle).
Within minutes, Biden’s communications director responded:
“We are well aware that former Mayor Giuliani will attempt to drag this race into the mud where the Republicans like to wage their campaigns. It’s pretty obvious that they can’t defend themselves on the real charge that Mr. Giuliani walked away from the cops and firefighters who were waiting for the 9/11 Commission to be enacted and the Biden crime bill to be
Politically, this kind of exchange is good for Joe Biden. First, the fact that he is drawing criticism from and engaged in an argument with Giuliani allows him to gain much needed media attention. Secondly, if this argument continues to play out, Biden could be able to add to his own electability impression by 1) getting attention from the GOP frontrunner and thus seeming like a more serious candidate and 2) being able to put his general toughness (albeit unpolished), experience and quips on display. With the shakiness among the top candidates after last night’s debate, this could be an opportunity for Biden to seize some political ground.
10/31/2007 
