However, Pike is good “on paper”, but he’s failed to “connect” with me, so far. On the other hand, Trivedi resonated with me from the first time I met him a few weeks ago. He didn’t come off as a politician, but rather as a concerned citizen stepping up to do something.

Trivedi is picking up steam. I think Pike made the mistake of trying to clear-the-field with a massive fundraising buy-in, becoming anointed, and not being prepared for a real challenger.

Pike’s a smart guy, and I expect him to regain his footing. If he had been a bit smarter, and left Trivedi out of his “op-ed”, he would have been fine. He could have even been magnanimous and said something like: “I’m confident Trivedi’s position is similar to mine, and I look forward to his take on this important issue.”

He could have avoided this whole sh1t-storm, and come off as confident in himself to be generous to his fellow Dem, and show some party unity against the GOP slate.

I haven’t seen the “bad-side” of Trivedi that you have, but I’ll keep an eye out for it. I don’t consider that the recent “spat” qualifies as “bad-side” for Trivedi.

However, I think your statement about “instant appeal” is a little ridiculous. I believe the importance of labor in a Democratic primary has been understated in most of the coverage about this race. I think it’s telling about the strength of the Pike campaign with the number labor endorsements they have, most of which seem to have come after Trivedi got into the race. The recent UFCW endorsement in huge.

I will add a disclaimer that I am now a Pike supporter. When I first came across Trivedi, I’ll admit he had has interesting personal narrative that could have translated into a good discussion on the issue of healthcare. But what turned me off from him was the negative tone he’s willing to take at a personal level which started long before yesterday’s spat. It’s one thing to have a discussion on the issues or even call attention to someone’s positions, it’s another to take personal shots.

Trivedi came back quick and hard to show he was no pushover, and threw in a little sarcasm to boot. Pike will think twice about trying to paint Trivedi with a position, just because it isn’t on his website yet.

Pike had kicked around $620,000 of his own money, as of the end of September. Now, Trivedi’s come along and threatening that investment. I get it. Doug’s not happy with Trivedi upsetting the apple cart.

Instead of trying to tarnish Trivedi, Pike needs to focus on why he’s a good candidate (and figure out why Trivedi has such instant appeal).

He needs to learn to grow up. Stop with the mud slinging and start talking about issues.

It seems fair to ask an opponent to address an issue. It happens in almost every race I’ve followed including the presidential and senate races. To pretend it’s something else and turn it into a negative talking point seems like poor judgment.

I also think that is apparent that the more versatile and agile media and political team right now belongs to Trivedi. He is obviously a good candidate and seems to win the media battle with every article. Pike better turn it around soon or have some major issues locking down his base even with his family money in the back pocket.

I’m not sure if this has been applied to campaign staff for politicians, but it should. And, Dan can certainly set up a disclosure policy here for campaign staffers to adhere to.

For myself, I currently have no financial relationship with any of the candidates. However, I am trying to develop a few to use my voter software. For any race where I have the candidate as a customer, I would clearly identify the relationship early on (though I wouldn’t repeatedly mention it on every single post). I would also make Dan Hirschhorn aware of it in more detail than I might reveal on the blog, to maintain some level of confidentiality (though eventually I’ll wind up on some campaign finance reports).

Also, just because a candidate may be a customer for my software does not provide them an automatic shield from my criticism if they take a position I don’t like.
Shield costs extra!

(Just kidding. All of the candidates combined don’t have enough money to buy me off if they do something egregious.)

Anyway, I think the campaign staffers should come clean, or they risk their candidates being associated with violating the spirit (if not the letter) of the new FCC rule.
If you are a paid shill, just admit it.

Lee L., Mario C., Brian K. and a few others besides me post under their real names. As incredible as some of the stuff I say may seem, it’s got more credibility with my name behind it than my anonymous critics. I know I have a lot more respect for my critics that use their own names.

BTW, people ARE paying attention to PA2010. When I go to Dem events and people see my name tag, I’m getting recognized more and more for my blogging, and not just my voter software.

Great question, Yikes. I believe that, if you read the comments on the site on a regular basis, you can pretty much tell. There’s a clear difference between a reasoned argument and campaign spin.

Nice Dinniman endorsement, btw, that Trivedi sported the other day. Andy was the one who, after no doubt being encouraged, helped clear the way for Pike. Seems Sen. Dinniman didn’t lose any time expressing how he felt about the subject.

(FTR, not a staff member or supporter of either candidate!)