Before Greg Valtierra and Eric Fine counted the ballots at last night’s meeting of the Culver City Democratic Club, several persons asked for an opinion on which School Board candidates had fared best in the oratorical jousting.
Before evaluating each of the five contenders, you should understand one crucial point:
The gathering at the Vets Auditorium was not a casual roundup of the Well-Wishers Club.
No blood was evident, but this was serious. Not playtime.
We are talking zealots, not mere yawning rooters. Nothing less than clear-cut victory seems acceptable to them.
This is not a typical Culver City election. Pack the band-aids and keep a doc on call.
Heed last evening as a warning shot. Strap on your helmet. Grip the bars. This is an adults-only campaign, unfit for children’s ears or eyes.
If only a hiccup portion of this quite partisan crowd thought the superbly prepared Laura Chardiet and Scott Zeidman deserved endorsement, I would start running a 24-hour campaign if I were the candidates.
As the vote turned out, they could have polled the crowd before the first candidate spoke and produced the identical outcome.
What makes last night so fascinating is that in the dueling debate, Nancy Goldberg, did fine. Not runaway fine. But well enough. She didn’t make any overt mistakes. She placed third behind Mr. Zeidman and Ms. Chardiet, who were close to a deadheat with the excellence, the fullness, the creativity and practicality of their responses.
You know something else is going on — partisanship is roaring in like a hurricane — when Ms. Goldberg captures 49 of the 64 ballots.
All three personalities have long histories in Culver City, which enhances or complicates objective measurements of them.
Assessments of their performances last night are unavoidably colored by an observer’s previous exchanges with and personal opinions of them.
Here is how I saw it, based mostly on what they did at the debate table:
Scott Zeidman — It seems unfair when a competent incumbent runs against relative amateurs, and he has shrewdly capitalized on his built-in advantages. A theoretical mismatch. Having been on the inside for four years, the incumbent understands precisely how the machinery works, its weaknesses, the nuances, the personalities, which should give him a long advantage over an outsider who is limited to guessing. Despite a protestation by an angry club member, Dorothy Lindner, that he did not answer her question, he did — all of them, comprehensively, imaginatively, knowledgeably — just as you would expect from a strong incumbent. A-plus.
Laura Chardiet — If Mr. Zeidman is the quintessential incumbent, she is the model challenger, without a detectable weakness. Preparation is the premium test for every candidate, especially a first-timer, and she is textbook. Energetic, unassailably articulate, comprehensively informed and a charismatic communicator, she seemed to dare the audience to serve a question she could not answer. A number of questions were mediocre, but the responses finely tuned. A-plus.
Nancy Goldberg — The most interesting candidate because two opposing forces are fighting for primacy. Her iconic status in the community, fairly or not, tilts the scales when she is being measured. On one side, her campaign is powerfully undergirded by fierce loyalists who take umbrage at the first sign of criticism, not a healthy sign in a five-way contest that isn’t for sissies. On the other side, she still is developing her candidate’s voice. The bell has sounded, the fight has begun and this loveliest of community members probably should grow a tougher mien to be more fully competitive. B-plus.
Gary Abrams — The quietest member of the quintet, owner of the deepest voice and most casual manner (beneath his ever-present baseball cap), may be the Jon Stewart of the campaign. He is the wise voice from the wings whose pragmatic insights will help the more spotlighted candidates if they will listen. C.
Robert Zirgulis — Like Mr. Abrams, he is a longshot, and like Mr. Abrams his cause would be improved by dropping the self-deprecation and replacing it with straight talk about his beliefs. He undermines his cause when he talks, often, about others victimizing him. He could brace his candidacy by firmly focusing on what he believes and why, and stopping there. C.
