Piggybacking on yesterday's blog, some have disagreed with the assessment that Dean Andal "won" the debate against Rep. Jerry McNerney, arguing that Andal did more attacking than arguing. I'll agree. To a point.
The contrast between the two was especially obvious in the closing statements.
McNerney talked more positively about energy issues that he was working toward, the pleasure of serving the district and what he called his continuing committment to those in uniform (veterans issues has been a central theme of his two years in office).
Andal shared a heartwarming story to close, but first warned that McNerney was a tax-raiser who made an "immoral" decision by voting no on an Iraq funding bill that did not contain a timetable for withdrawal.
As I said yesterday, the "low blow" of the evening.
However, Andal was more comfortable in the environment and, therefore, appeared to come out the better. The public forum is clearly his forte.
Still, that doesn't mean Andal would make the better Congressional representative.
In fact, there's plenty of reason to belive Andal's performance makes him less likely to be successful in Congress. Compromise and cajoling is a big part of the job. It's hard to do that when you're taking pot shots at the character of the folks across the aisle.