About Last Night

First things first: I wasn't particularly enthralled with last night's debate performances. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that this was the third meeting of these two in less than three weeks. Throw in other interviews and meetings with these guys, and I felt like I heard it almost all before. Probably because I had.

That said, there were some interesting parts, particularly the maneuvering by Tom Donnelly.

I thought Donnelly gave his best performance of the three debates. I'm not sure he fought to a draw last night, but he narrowed the huge gap between him and Lisa Wong in the Sept. 20 debate, at least a little bit.

His opening statement was pretty interesting. The quadruple bypass analogy, while a bit strained and perhaps too long, certainly made his point. It's a move from 45-35-25-1 to experience, a point he probably should have been making a few months ago. His biggest problem with the experience card is that he is arguing on one hand he has the experience and finances are the city's biggest problem, but on the other hand says the council doesn't have real financial input. If he can finesse that, he can stick with this message the rest of the way.

Perhaps the most interesting part of last night was Donnelly's gloomier outlook of the city. He started the night by saying the city was on the path to receivership. Maybe right, maybe not, but not something he was saying regularly before. He also put every city employee on notice last night, saying layoffs were a given in January. Again, he might be right. But he's clearly trying to cast the situation as poor, and in need of an experience hand -- which he just so happens to provide.

Wong continued with her looking forward plans for the city, and rolled out "goals" and "goal oriented" last night, which was fun. It's a quite a contrast between her "better days are ahead" stand and Donnelly's "we're in big trouble right now" general message. Voters can't say they don't have a choice.

A couple of questions last night, in particular, stand out. On fast-track permitting, both threw up some caution signs, but both talked about fast-track permitting in general. They didn't talk specifics of Mylott's expected plan, which should be given to the council later this fall. It's a fringe issue, but they both seemed to be lacking on the details. Donnelly, in particular, when he said Devens "probably has" a fast-track process (it's what that area's redevelopment is based on), threw up some question marks.

The other one was on Unitil. Donnelly gave a fantastically honest answer when he said there's not much the mayor, state representative or state senator can really do with Unitil. He's right. But Wong's answer about finding new energy sources and weaning the city off Unitil was the better answer. It was forward-looking and least offered an option or two. It might not have been as realistic than Donnelly's, though.

Finally, the best answer of the night might have been Donnelly's, comparing Fitchburg to Leominster. He noted that while Leominster has $5 million in free cash, it was lacking some things Fitchburg has, like a new high school and fire station, a police station that isn't falling apart, the college, a civic center, and a few other things. He sort of lost a little steam when he said, "$5 million isn't all it's cracked up to be," but it was nice to hear the chronic complaining about Leominster turned on its ear.

So, no real fireworks last night, but a couple of interesting moments. Five weeks from today, it's all over.