Handicapping a Softball Tournment

Wondering about the title?  

Well if you are, you weren't at the candidates forum last night.  

Not sure where this piece is going to end up, but before I go over the cliff, let me start out by giving you the one opinion that each of you should follow:

Watch the airing of the forum on cable access (Channel 18).

After you do, let me know if you think the assessment, statements or opinions you read below are accurate, or not.  Let me know what you think about the actual format.  Let me know your thoughts on what you feel could be done to improve such an event.  Maybe somebody in charge will pay attention, and look to improve the forum for next year, because unless I am totally off base, there is plenty of room for that.

I will start with the plus for the evening. The candidates, for the contested offices and the uncontested offices, each did a good job of presenting themselves.  

While there may be those who will disagree, I will state that there were no home runs hit by anyone, yet there were no strikeouts either. From my personal observations, if you watch the tape, you will see some singles, doubles and a triple or two.  

We will probably disagree on who hit what, but my intent isn't for you to read just my box score, but rather hopefully get you interested enough to watch the replay of the game.

As a heads up, some of you may find it a bit tedious.  

Candidates where allowed unlimited time to present their opening statements.  The process followed essentially the ballot you will be voting on.  There was a question and answer period afterward.  There was a panel who asked questions on a rotating basis of the candidates.  

The questions were asked starting in reverse order of the ballot of candidates, be they in contested races or not, again with no apparent time limit.  If some candidate's batting average suffered, this is where you will find it. 

No candidate in any forum should be given unlimited time.  Period.  Saying that, in watching you should not penalize any candidate for taking advantage of the option.   Only a fool would bypass the opportunity to utilize such a public forum to his or her advantage.

If past policy holds true, the candidates will need to revise their presentations and responses to more time constrained standards in the two remaining forums.

If you want to determine who hit what, this is why you will have to watch the forum.  Despite the fact that the candidates presented themselves well, one can glean from not only the presentations, but also the answers, the beginnings of information necessary to make an informed decision on who to vote for.  

Presentation is a matter of form, not substance.  Because it sounds good, does not make it so.  Yes perception is 95% of the battle, and presentation goes a long way in framing the perception.  But that last 5%, if it cannot withstand scrutiny, will end the game.

It is very tempting at this point to offer to you a personal opinion.  To point out perceived flaws, inaccuracies, and other critical comments.  There is more than enough time remaining for me to do so should I become so inclined.

What I hope to accomplish at this point is to simply get you to take the time to watch the forum and judge for yourself.  If for no other reason, you should then be able to figure out the title to this post.  More importantly, I think you will be able to decide for yourself the issue of form vs. substance.