This evening, I was unable to view the local debates in person, so I watched them live on television.

I was very interested in this race and curiously awaited to see how each candidate would react and attack each other.  My most immediate observation, being a candidate who sat in the same seat the evening before, was that there was an empty chair separating the two candidates.

Readers of this blog are keenly aware of the fact that Penman and I aren't exactly on the best of terms, but I have to call it like I see it and I think Penman really put a hurting on Milligan this evening.

Milligan looked generally uncomfortable, unsure and unprepared.  Penman addressed the camera and looked much more at ease, which shouldn't be that surprising since he has been in those chambers for 20 years.

After the opening comments, which were fairly mundane, Penman brought out and adroitly dropped a hammer on Milligan.  Penman presented a visual aid in the form of a legal rendering by Judge McCarville in the recent dust up in the lawsuit over her candidate statement.  The oversized prop captured the attention of the viewing audience as he repeated the judge's ruling that milligan had mislead and broken the election law.

In the same answer, Penman savagely beat Milligan with an expose surrounding her controversial stint in Costa Mesa.  Milligan portrays herself as a whistleblower of sorts and Penman suggests her antics led to Costa Mesa shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars and farming out the City Attorney's office.

At his side, another visual prop depicting an article from the Daily Pilot (local paper covering Costa Mesa).

Milligan, obviously expecting these attacks, made the conscious decision to avoid engaging in a tit for tat throughout the evening and I believe she will suffer for it.  Later, Penman took another swipe at Milligan by citing the cities archaic background check capabilities and spent significant time "exposing" Milligan's Costa Mesa controversy and suggested that had the city been capable of doing a thorough background check, she would have never been hired in San Bernardino.

Masterfully, Penman took what should have been a weakness and turned it into another instrument of destruction.  It would seem to me that anyone with a basic lexis-nexis subscription would have been able to ascertain that she had a married name and discovered some of these items before her hiring.

Instead, Penman skillfully schleps the blame off.

In another question about appointed versus elected city attorney's Penman pounced like a professional baseball player sitting on a 3-0 fastball down the middle.  While I think there are excellent arguments for both positions, Penman clearly articulated and made the much more compelling case for the elected city attorney.

Finally, I found Milligan's arguments that she would take politics and personal agendas out of the equation to be at odds were attempt to portray herself as being tough on crime.  I simply do not understand how she could have any real impact on the crime issue in this town if she is simply going to be a faceless, nameless wonk offering up impartial legal advice.

There are some arguments she has made that I find compelling, like receivership for absentee landlords and woblets (a legal tool to create a hybrid class of offenses between infractions and misdemeanors).  However, there seems to be a tendency to label some of these things in a positive light, while simultaneously portraying Penman's maneuvers in a negative light.

Either she is going to help guide policy or she isn't and it seems that Milligan at times, finds herself in both camps. 

Finally, I found one of Marianne Milligan's comments to be at the very least a little disingenuous.  She suggested that she would not get involved in campaigns or make political contributions, or something to that effect. I would need to re-watch it to get a verbatim quote.

However, she has donated money to my opponent.  I am not sure if this is a technically hypocritical position or if she contradicted herself, but it sure struck me as being a kind of odd statement.

San Bernardino is a rough and tumble town and I think the voters watching the debate will tend to side with Penman's tough talk.

In the end, I don't know how important these forums are or how many people watch, but it was clear to me that Jim Penman was the victor tonight.