I finally saw the televised debate (so to say, on Youdem, apparently because the candidates have failed to agree on a common ground TV) from the three aspiring secretaries of PD. Understanding that none of the three made a figure with nails, rather than have come out with dignity (but who knows who would be able to maintain composure in front of snarling and Belpietro Ghedini, whose specialty is to interrupt the opponent to blunder with the only order to get him to nerves), here's my assessment.
1-Marino. By far the most convincing on all matters of civil order. But above all, the more pronounced, he says bread bread and wine to wine, without beating around the bush nor giving evasive answers. He has no political career behind him, and it shows: in the positive sense, however, because in addition to afford an ease that the other two do not have, also has the undoubted merit of not being a professional politician who does, just as Bersani, Franceschini, or - a name at random ... - D'Alema. Maybe not quite telegenic - hair resemble those of Big Jim, or Mr. Zed - but it was a healthy breath of fresh air.
2-Franceschini. Not a disaster, but the least convincing of the bunch. He looked like a first class who was trying to be nice. In addition, the transport by which the cause is embracing antiberlusconiana is suspect: it seems a pose taken to differentiate as much as possible, che un atteggiamento da sostenersi sulla lunga distanza. Sicuramente ai miei occhi sconta il fatto di provenire dalla disastrosa gestione "buonista" di Veltroni. Le colpe di Walter non sono le sue, certo, ma non è un buon motivo per cui debba avere le mie simpatie: era pur sempre molto vicino al pacato e sereno presidente del PD.
3-Bersani. Mah. Non è nemmeno lontanamente disinvolto come ha detto qualcuno (anzi, ha tenuto proprio un atteggiamento televisivamente sbagliato, masticando nervosamente o incurvandosi, come d'altronde ad Anno Zero: sembra perennemente a disagio e forse lo è davvero). Come Franceschini ha dato risposte in politichese, evasive ed indirette. In termini di chiarezza perde nettamente il confronto con Marino. Ma has an advantage: it seems natural, genuine. A sort of warden of the past, solid and enjoyable. From this point of view of its lack of ease may turn into an advantage. But it has another serious handicap is too tied to D'Alema.
not want to deal with the subject: suffice it to say that I consider D'Alema guilty of grave errors - if not actual crimes - that have severely damaged all the "incarnations" of the PD (Olive, etc.) not to mention center-left governments. is the embodiment of everything wrong with Italian politics, including the fact that although it continues to fully and finally burned. I am aware
that whoever becomes secretary Alema Slogger not, as I am aware that Bersani is likely to be the winner of the fight. For once, however, I will vote according to conscience, choosing the candidate that the more I reflect, and not taking into account the logic of realpolitik or simply profit.
Mark Marino.
1-Marino. By far the most convincing on all matters of civil order. But above all, the more pronounced, he says bread bread and wine to wine, without beating around the bush nor giving evasive answers. He has no political career behind him, and it shows: in the positive sense, however, because in addition to afford an ease that the other two do not have, also has the undoubted merit of not being a professional politician who does, just as Bersani, Franceschini, or - a name at random ... - D'Alema. Maybe not quite telegenic - hair resemble those of Big Jim, or Mr. Zed - but it was a healthy breath of fresh air.
2-Franceschini. Not a disaster, but the least convincing of the bunch. He looked like a first class who was trying to be nice. In addition, the transport by which the cause is embracing antiberlusconiana is suspect: it seems a pose taken to differentiate as much as possible, che un atteggiamento da sostenersi sulla lunga distanza. Sicuramente ai miei occhi sconta il fatto di provenire dalla disastrosa gestione "buonista" di Veltroni. Le colpe di Walter non sono le sue, certo, ma non è un buon motivo per cui debba avere le mie simpatie: era pur sempre molto vicino al pacato e sereno presidente del PD.
3-Bersani. Mah. Non è nemmeno lontanamente disinvolto come ha detto qualcuno (anzi, ha tenuto proprio un atteggiamento televisivamente sbagliato, masticando nervosamente o incurvandosi, come d'altronde ad Anno Zero: sembra perennemente a disagio e forse lo è davvero). Come Franceschini ha dato risposte in politichese, evasive ed indirette. In termini di chiarezza perde nettamente il confronto con Marino. Ma has an advantage: it seems natural, genuine. A sort of warden of the past, solid and enjoyable. From this point of view of its lack of ease may turn into an advantage. But it has another serious handicap is too tied to D'Alema.
not want to deal with the subject: suffice it to say that I consider D'Alema guilty of grave errors - if not actual crimes - that have severely damaged all the "incarnations" of the PD (Olive, etc.) not to mention center-left governments. is the embodiment of everything wrong with Italian politics, including the fact that although it continues to fully and finally burned. I am aware
that whoever becomes secretary Alema Slogger not, as I am aware that Bersani is likely to be the winner of the fight. For once, however, I will vote according to conscience, choosing the candidate that the more I reflect, and not taking into account the logic of realpolitik or simply profit.
Mark Marino.
0 comments:
Post a Comment