the Informer

I did it in the 2008 presidential election, I did it in Super Bowl XLIV, and the Democratic U.S. Senate Candidate Debate makes me want to do it again: I’m rooting for the underdog.

I listened to roughly 60 minutes of debate from Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and the self-proclaimed “underdog” Merrick Alpert. After listening to what they had to say, I can firmly state that I believe Alpert won the debate.

Here’s some background on the candidates running for the 2010 Democrat ticket. Blumenthal has been the attorney general since 1990. He announced on Jan. 6 that he would be running to fill Sen. Chris Dodd’s seat in the U.S. Senate. Dodd announced later that day that he would not be seeking re-election in 2010. In November 2009, Blumenthal had a whopping 78 percent approval rating as attorney general. For a lot of people, it seemed like he was a clear-cut leader in this race.

Alpert is a newcomer to Connecticut politics. He was raised in Connecticut by his single mother, who he thanked in his opening remarks of the debate. Alpert served in the Air National Guard and was stationed in Bosnia in 1998 and 1999. After he returned from Bosnia, he started a medical software company called E-Ceptionist with a friend. He sold his share of the company in 2005 and was hired as president of Turbine Generator Maintenance. He announced his candidacy for US Senate on May 21, 2009, and he has declared himself the underdog in this race.

Going into the debate, I didn’t know a lot about either candidate. I figured I would learn what they stood for through their answers and how they presented themselves. Blumenthal, overall, seemed like a candidate who wasn’t ready for change. He has been in Connecticut politics for so long, and it felt as though he wasn’t ready to risk putting himself out there.

Alpert is looking for change. He is willing to take risks in order to create something different, and subsequently beneficial, for Connecticut. As a young adult who is about to enter the real world, I’m looking for change. I like risk. I like taking chances. And I like the way Alpert thinks.

It seemed as though these characteristics came out when the topic of foreign policy came up. Blumenthal stated very directly that he supports President Barack Obama’s plan to gradually remove troops from Afghanistan.

Alpert, on the other hand, supports an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. According to Alpert: “We need to get out of Afghanistan now. If this was about a war on terror, it would be different. But it’s not.” He said he believes that the United States wrongly spent $4 billion on the war.

Beyond their actual stances on the issues, their mannerisms certainly spoke volumes to me. Alpert was very direct with his questions; he consistently posed questions to Blumenthal about what he had done as attorney general and how that had effected Connecticut residents. Blumenthal, on the other hand, carefully avoided a lot of the questions posed by Alpert. It’s a politician’s talent, for sure. It makes me not trust him.

Perhaps it’s because I’m a young voter and I’m riding off of the “Change” and “Yes, we can” bandwagon from the Obama campaign, but I feel like the changes proposed by Alpert could help out the United States Senate. Yes, he is unexperienced. But I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing

There were still questions left unanswered after the debate. I want to know what the candidates propose for providing health care for college students and recent college graduates. I want to know how they plan on changing the job market to create more opportunities for recent college graduates. I want to know these things because they directly effect me and the other students at the university. It’s something they should think about, especially since the debate was held on a college campus.

“I came here tonight to show you what a real-life underdog looks like,” said Alpert at the beginning of the debate. I don’t think he’s the underdog anymore.