Amanda Fritz, Charles Lewis, Jeff Bissonnette, Chris Smith, John Branam, and Mike Fahey are all running to replace Sam Adams as Commissioner of Public Utilities. The Willamette Week's airing the video of their endorsement interviews. I watched the one for this race, and found it to be enlightening (although I'm still just as undecided). The video is posted below:

Going in to watching the video, I knew a decent amount about Amanda Fritz and Chris Smith from their past work and campaigning. I'd also learned a little about Charles Lewis and John Branam from their campaigning. Jeff Bissonnette was more of a mystery, although I have heard tons of good things about him. And Mike Fahey was the most mysterious of the bunch, considering his lack of visibility. And, of course, I'd learned a little about each from their responses to the Portland Mercury's various questions.

Here are my general impressions about each candidate's performance. I'll go into a few more specifics later:

Amanda Fritz- Solid. Is almost certainly the front-runner due in part to her name ID from the previous run against Dan Saltzman (2006). But she showed why she deserves the status in the interview. She's really smart and surprisingly wonkish. She knows the knitty-gritty of Council from being around it for several years, both during and after her run. Her overall performance impressed me. Indeed, I'm always impressed by someone who runs on a pro-neighborhood platform with a focus on basic services.

Charles Lewis- Now this was a mixed bag. I've been paying attention to Lewis, as I am really impressed with his background (founded Ethos Music Center and was in the Peace Corps). And, at times, he was downright enchanting. But, I have to say, his style was surprisingly aggressive and a little off-putting. He wasn't afraid to pull punches: John Branam, Amanda Fritz, and Chris Smith all were on the receiving end of his barbs. Some of them were fine, but others seemed out of rhythm and intentionally provocative. I guess that's not a bad thing, per se, as this isn't a beauty contest. He also is very opposed to the recent day-laborer center, which I support.

Chris Smith- A wonk's wonk. He knows transportation in-and-out. I also have tremendous respect for his work and advocacy. Sadly, the leave-behind was a single point that might not be helpful for him: if Sam Adams is elected Mayor and keeps the Transportation Bureau, what will Chris Smith do on the Council? To his credit, he quickly offered that planning would be a fine avenue for his talents. Overall, I was impressed with his presentation and affability.

John Branam- He presents a good game. He's very well-spoken and his passion for education shines through. He was a repeated target for Lewis' barbs, but seemed to navigate them well enough. I liked his answers about bringing congeniality back to the Council. Also, I didn't realize his father was elected to the Corvallis City Council.

Jeff Bissonnette- He impressed me. He's quiet, but seems really smart. I feel that he knows his stuff, and would really do well with a less-glamorous bureau (like the Water Bureau). I worry that the big personalities down the table, however, will drown him out unless he gets real grassroots traction. He did manage to win the unscientific Blogtown, PDX survey, however, so that could portend a strong May showing.

Mike Fahey- I've met Mike at a variety of events, and he's a nice guy. I also have tremendous respect for his labor background. But his constant bashing of voter-owned-elections was really off-putting. I get it: you don't like VOE and think it's a waste of money. But the counter-argument was sitting around the table with you: a batch of eclectic-but-qualified candidates who are not politicians, but dedicated citizens who are running to do good for Portland and Portlanders.

Now, on to specifics and exchanges that caught my attention. One of the more interesting questions from the panel was on which city bureau is worst-run. Charles Lewis jumped on that right away, arguing the Portland Development Commission (PDC) was the worst. Amanda immediately ripped back, noting how to name a "worst bureau" would be insulting to staff. John agreed but went a step further, saying there is no "worst bureau." In this, it seems that Charles is a man on a mission. But I'd also have to agree with Amanda's idea that each bureau has its successes and challenges.

In that same exchange, I found that Jeff's desire to roll up his sleeves and work with the Water Bureau's billing rates endearing. I like a candidate who can come out and say they're interested in working the extremely wonkish aspects for public benefit.

At another point in the debate, there was an excellent discussion of urban renewal funds. Chris Smith and Charles Lewis went back-and-forth on this, streetcars, and district funding. It was a testy, protracted debate, but both agree that the current urban renewal system needs work (differing, of course, on the levels of work needed).

Also, an interesting question was posed of each candidate: if you weren't in the race, whom would you vote for. John chose Amanda; Mike and Amanda like John; Chris and Charles like Jeff; and Jeff likes Chris. Very interesting. Read into that what you will.

In the end, I leave just as confused as when I entered. Each candidate has a case as to why they should be the next on in Sam Adams' seat.

So, what are your thoughts on the interview video, if you've had a chance to watch? Did I miss covering any huge parts that you found remarkable? Which candidate are you supporting? Help me make up my mind!