Of course, everybody's talking about Dr. Oz. He's the "glamour" candidate in Pennsylvania this year. And, goodness knows, Pennsylvania could really use a bit of sparkle, don't ya think? Anyway, I thought Oz did well but nobody knocked it out of the park last night.
Kathy Barnette has no depth and she can be very annoying, though her story is compelling.
The former ambassador (Carla Sands) was likewise without a lot of substance. And her answers seemed vapid at times. You had to wonder what she was doing there.
McCormick comes across as the establishment candidate and looks boyish and bookish -- like someone Karl Rove would pick. I don't think same old/same old will cut it in a post-Trump world.
I get the sense that Bartos is really smart but he keeps going back to his program that he established during the pandemic to help small businesses. Hey, it was admirable. Still, I'm sure he has more than that but it wasn't coming across last night. Nonetheless, he seems likable -- or is he just "likable enough"?
And Oz should smile more. He's obviously smart and hugely accomplished but I need to feel more warmth from him. Plus, those eyebrows! I dunno. He needs to break away from the pack real soon if he's gonna win this thing and sometimes he seems vaguely detached.
Of course, I don't vote in Pennsylvania, but if I did and if I had to vote now?
I guess I'd vote for Oz because he could give PA some status, some heft, come clout -- which it BADLY needs. And presumably, he can win because he has the name and the $$$. But why did he vote in the Turkish election in 2018? Dual citizenship, I get it. But, still . . . .
After Oz, for me it would probably be Bartos. He came across as authentic last night.
Bottom line: I'm not sure any of these five has really captured the public's imagination at this point. That tells you a lot right there. Oh well, the clock is ticking . . . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment