The Boston Globe has the article Tolman apologizes for calling Healey’s questions ‘unbecoming’.
To give you the context of this story, they provided the following video:
For me the issue is not the words he used. It is his refusal to answer the question.
In Joan Vennochi’s OpEd column Unbecoming issue in the AG race, she says:
Tolman says Healey is wrong to characterize him as a lobbyist, even though he was listed as one for SEIU Local 1199, and Holland & Knight, the law firm for which he worked, also listed him as a federal lobbyist. Whatever the paperwork said, Tolman never lobbied at the state or federal level, a campaign spokesman said.
If Tolman is afraid to hit back, the time for reticence is over. He needs to explain his record with as much intensity as his opponent is questioning it, no matter how unbecoming he appears.
If he were a lobbyist for SEIU, that is not bad in my opinion. Why couldn’t he just say so? As for his working with a hedge fund and a gambling organization, I want him to answer to those questions. If he has a good answer, why doesn’t he just say what it is? If he doesn’t have a good answer or he refuses to answer, then I am definitely not voting for him.
It is funny the way The Boston Globe is playing this. If you see my previous post, Globe Debate Between Maura Healy and Warren Tolman, you see that they called it a feisty debate, but they didn’t tell you why they called it that. Even in today’s news article they have not addressed the point in print. The real issue in the debate isn’t mentioned in the news, only on the OpEd page. Although, for those who see the article on the web, they do get to see the video clip that lets you decide for yourself whether or not this is the issue.
Also notice how The Boston Globe does not even mention how dismissive Tolman was on the importance of Maura Healey’s role in the current Attorney general’s office. That is probably a worse offense than the comment about unbecoming.