There is a very good article about what the DCCC is doing in Illinois.

It has been blogged numerous times, and it has been griped about a lot. I don't know anything about the reporter, but I know he hit the nail on the head with this column or article. There is a time for the groups to back off, stop pushing others in a race when there is no need. It has an artificial feel to it all.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-simp29.html

Time for Emanuel to support Cegelis in 6th

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) should quit playing games and support Christine Cegelis for Congress. Cegelis is running for the second time for Henry Hyde's seat in the suburban 6th District that includes northeast DuPage County and northwest Cook County.



And supposedly here is what it is based on, though some have other opinions on it.



It is a year ahead of the election, and she has her base organized. This is truly a shame.

It is artificially choosing a candidate when it is not needed. It has happened with the DSCC as well.

There are times for it to happen, and there are times for both groups to back off and let things work out. This is one of those times.

Pics of Christine:

Duckworth should move to the 10th and take on Kirk. The 10th is a fairly evenly split district and takes in some military personnel to boot.

Cegelis has done a lot of spadework in the 6th and deserves a second shot.

:hi:

you need to raise money to win. I know that's not popular here, but its true.

If they persist in undermining people who have already set up volunteers and will have further financial support....they are wrong. You are wrong.

Tammy Duckworth doesn't even know whether the war was right or not. Hell, she lost both legs...and she doesn't even have an opinion??

Spare me.

There is a time we need to stop letting them do this. Duckworth doesn't HAVE ANY money....the DCCC will provide it all for an unproven candidate with no background and no opinions.

doesn't provide all the money. Cegelis raised very little money the last time. Money is vital. If she can't raise it, the dccc is correct to look for another candidate. Money gets you to 48 percent, volunteers get you the last 2 percent.

You don't read what I am saying. That is the way the DCCC does as well. They are pushing the veterans so hard that people are starting to laugh about it....that obvious.

Christine will have her support.

she doesn't have enough. I run campaigns for a living and have won over 75 percent of these races. I know you need money to win campaigns and candidates that can't raise money can't win.

Sounds like you are a DCCC campaign organizer.

I'm a young political consultant. I've worked on campaigns of all sizes. I don't work for the DCCC.

I agree that money is vital, but the GOP have most always outspent Dems in campaigns, yet Dems have won. So why can't Dems with popular grassroots and limited financial support, win over those who do have it with Party support? The country wants real leadership, and less Brownieship, the Democratic Party ought to recognize that.

Many of us believe it is an attempt to show who has the power. I hope I am wrong.

doesn't fund directly. They give cues to the Dem-leaning pacs on who to give. The candidate will need to raise money on her own to be viable.

They will see that Cegelis doesn't. This is wrong.

a candidate doesn't get this targeted money until they raise about 250-350 on their own.

And it needs to change when that candidate got almost as large a vote percentage as the presidential nominee did.

She got 44%, Kerry got 47%.

than the Presidential candidate, who also didn't win that district. She underperformed said candidate because she didn't put together the campaign she needed to. Running a losing campaign doens't give you the right to get a clear shot again.

Could you please explain the logic to me. That is just plain silly. Duckworth is still having surgery as a double amputee, has no money, has no experience. Makes no sense. It is a military play and that is all it is.

I'm commenting on the need to recruit a different challenger. You could be correct about the particular recruit. I don't know enough to say. Have a great night. I enjoyed our discussion.

When you are defending that which is not defendable, it is hard to keep on.

I am completely honest in my posts. Its really offensive for you to suggest otherwise just because you aren't comfortable about how the real world works. I'm done arguing with you because you are incapable of having a discussion without being insulting.

It really does not matter the subject, either. If I say it, it's wrong.

if you showed some respect for differing opionions things would be different.

I presented my case. You did not present anything except "money".

my experience that campaigns cannot be won without money. All you've presented is your weekly tirade against the party for understanding that money is necessary to win elections.

based on qualifications rather than dumb down the contest to "war hero" and "complicated candidate to sell who has a lot to offer, but who didn't do it last time"?

Doesn't it bother you that high level policy in the DEM camp is starting to sound like the rethug campaigns? Played on "one note" where are my talking points? Cue me up because I haven't got a clue?

Where is the DCCC's logic or political loyalty to the party? If you bring up a candidate to oppose a same party candidate who is definately running.... it's stupid.

Why divide the DEM vote? It's the last thing anyone should be doing, unless the candidate is a DINO or really bad. We need every DEM seat we can get in House, Senate and locally. Lack of money only equals bad if we let it.

but you need to raise enough. I'm not commenting on this particular candidate, but the dccc's need to recruit a different candidate.

She is still having surgeries, still doesn't know how she feels about the war. They will have to provide more for her than for Christine.

Many of us will donate to Christine sooner than later if need be.

It is a year ahead. Your mind is fixed. If I am for it you are agin it, or vice versa.

I just have a different perspective on candidate recruiting and targeting.

in what you believe to be "the way it is" however... Do you understand that we CAN'T survive the status quo anymore?

WE NEED Candidates that have more to offer than a war chest and some likeable commodidty. WE NEED people who can DO THE JOB once elected.

I mean, it's like start with electability and figure out their positions and qualifications later, because electability is what is important. Not really. We are living with the results of that thinking and it's killing US.

And by letting the DCCC or whoever off the hook for providing people who CAN DO the job with whatever "glam" it takes to get elected WE are cooperating with our own demise. DCCC needs to find the money for the candidate who can actually MAKE A DIFFERENCE once elected. THAT is the focus that needs to change.

I hear you saying what is, is and I know as a young person in this political world you can't change this all by yourself and I don't expect you to, but if the DEM party doesn't quit drinking the koolaid we are screwed. You can at least be free in your own mind and not take the status quo as the holy grail.

. . .the Swift Boaters could use you. Back Christine all you want, but is it necessary to bash Tammy? Where is your great lord and savior Dean on this, has said anything. I mean she was one of Dean's Dozen, does he have an opinion?

I hope you feel better now, got it all out of your system.

That they are bringing up a vet w/o experience and pushing her so quickly while she is still having surgeries is a valid concern about their lack of concern for their own candidate or the good of the party. It's like it's ONLY about WINNING and Nothing else.

It's like in Ohio they (DEM leadership in general, not sure if it was DCCC) missed the boat on running Paul Hackett who was a vet who wanted to run and they let a man who had said to Paul he would not run go ahead and put his hat back in the race against Paul.

Then we have a qualified candidate whose only lack seems to be money and instead of cooperating to get more money they divide the race early on and make DEMs look like we can't even work together at all. NO WONDER no one wants to give US money. We look like Keystone Kops.

My final concern is that if the money is coming from Washington for this "NEW AND IMPROVED ELECTABLE CANDIDATE" that we have a DINO with connections to funding that is probably traceable back to RNC or some other rethug PAC.

With Ralph Nader's taking of RNC money at the national level and locally in MN - FORMER Mayor of St Paul, Randy Kelly - DINO, who not only supported *ush over Kerry but took money from rethug sources for 2 years prior... I am concerned about the OUTRIGHT BUYING of DEM Candidates.

The rethugs are understanding they can't win legitimately, and that maybe DEMS can even square up voting irregularities. The mood in the country right now is such that voting R will be a tough call for anyone NOT drinking the koolaid. So will the rethugs stoop EVEN lower and start buying our OWN candidates in order to keep pushing their agenda?

So when any DEM organization pushes a candidate at me when there is a viable candidate already running, I am leery. I don't believe ALL high level DEM organizations are corrupt, but when they come right out and say that qualifications don't count, only money, I really think at the very least it is the WRONG MESSAGE at this time and puts them in a suspect light in my book.

Why aren't they sharing?

One possible explanation for why she doesn't have MONEY is that she has lots of PEOPLE, but they are mostly not rich.

In the end, what you need is enthusiastic volunteers who will win over voters. If you do thta on a million dollars or a million bottle caps, it's all the same in the end.

Dave, the problem is this:

You and I both know that in real life, hopes and dreams and good vibes don't win elections. Neither do position papers, endorsements, or really good positions on issues.

None of that matters IF YOU'RE NOT ON TV!!

Good luck explaining that winning Congress takes a lot of money. As Howard Taft responded when asked where he'd get the money to run, he replied "from those who have it, of course."

Welcome to the dirty side of getting Dems elected, yall. It's all about getting the money together. Without a war chest, they will bury your candidate with early negative TV and you'll never break 45%, if that.

There is a formula to winning, and Emanuel is following it. Good centrist candidates who can raise money are better than great liberal candidates who can't.

If you guys are defending this action, then you are not thinking of the best interests of the party.

You are thinking of the best interests of the party establishment. It is very obvious in this case.

He is picking a double amputee who is ill, still having surgeries, no money, no experience.

I think you and Dave are defending the indefensible, and when one is doing that it shows.

You see it one way, and for you, that's the only way it can be seen.

Accept that we all have minds and use them. If someone agrees with your opinion, great. If not, well that's great, too.

in your cartoons at your website? Perhaps we are all prone to "melodrama." You think?

How have you been by the way? I've been away from DU for a bit.

I often say the line for being mad at me forms on the left and on the right...:evilgrin:

Good to see you back.

It is bizzare to speak with DEMS and hear them defend a broken system and criticize people who want to see it changed.

I do it too, but more in the way of acknowledging that things that have been done and can't be undone are often the results of dealing with what was in place at the time. IE the DEMS voting for the WAR with Iraq because there was a concentrated effort to keep any real evidence away from them and abuse of power that made it impossible in the beginning to see through the lies.

I get people coming back with the frustration, but it was their JOB to know and people on the DU knew, so why didn't they? I can't really know so I don't automatically toss the DEMS out with the mistakes made then and I don't want to gut the party, so I get into a fair share of arguments too. I'd like to make the best of what we have and make a real committment to have this party be more and more progressive and inclusive.

My main filter is that the DEMS are the only party within reach of making the needed changes and WE ARE up to the task even if it doesn't look like it. Talk about blind faith!

Just asking.
44% seems pretty darn good to me for a first-timer.

If they backed the known candidate instead of making it look like she doesn't even have party support, then it would be easier for her to raise money.

I long for campaign finance reform big time though. I would like to see X number of TV slots for each candidate, no mud slinging allowed and an open ended number of town halls and 1 on 1 debates for the candidates at the local level.

This would put the focus on the candidate really having what it takes to talk to the people about the issues and not swing the votes around by paying a spin master.

Which won't ever get the dems back in the majority.

and he's also a DC embed, as you say. I don't know if Christine can actually beat Hyde, but I'd sure like to see how close she could get with DCCC backing.

she is running against a knuckle dragging neocon alan-keyes-junior by the name of roskam.

in the illinois forum. maybe 50-50. i watched the dccc screw over zamora who ran against fat denny hastret last election. he got 30 percent on nothing but grass roots democrats and very little money. the big guys didn`t back him because they needed fat denny to get the chicago area a ton of money. oh well it`s politics as usual...

I hate to say this but I kinda think that's exactly the same scenario that will be played out in the IL 6th.

The Pukes aren't going to hand over ole Hypocrite Henry Hyde's seat very easily and I think Mr. Emanuel and various other Illinois pols know this as well.

Hastert is the rethug speaker of the house, right? Last bozo in line that needs to be impeached for us to get a DEM in the White House is how I think of him.... but I digress.

Which big guys didn't back Zamora? The DCCC or the Corporate Moguls?

That is Rahm's job as head of the DCCC. Dick Durbin recommended this person to Rahm. There are two candidates in the Primary now. If Tammy can get the support necessary to win the Primary, then it is her race. If Christine wins, it's hers. The author of this op-ed is a Poli-Sci prof at UIC. He is a former Chicago alderman who has always run against the machine. He has beaten it in the past but lost a challenge to Rosty(who later went to jail). Anyone who wants to support Christine will have to get behind her in the Primary. If she is properly organized, she will win. Tammy has a long way to go to get on the ballot, but if she does it will be because of Rahm and his troops. Since I don't live in that District, I can only say, May the best candidate win. That will be the person who has a right to run. The likely GOP candidate is a disciple of DeLay. We need this seat.

And tell her they will provide her campaign help and money. It is wrong in every way for them to continue to undermine a candidate who did that well before.....Duckworth's only claim to fame is being injured in Iraq. She can not even come out and say the war is wrong.

She is still receiving medical treatment for her wounds. She had both legs blown off when her helicopter was hit. Christine's campaign skills have been criticized by some local pols I know. I am not really familiar with either of them or the other candidate in the Primary. It may be too late for Tammy to get in the race. I don't think Rahm wanted to put Tammy out there until he was sure she could run. I don't know who released the information prematurely. I can only assume that she made a good impression on Durbin in order for him to suggest her. As I said, I hope the best candidate wins the Primary and defeats the DeLay protege.

What makes her better to Durbin and Rahm? She's MILITARY.

People are noticing.

Shame on him, too. This has got to stop. People are starting to laugh at this obvious "fighting Dems" crap. Hackett was good, one or two others was fine....now it is bordering on ridiculous.

This is very upsetting. I am keeping this thread for further research on this.

It is so deliberate and cold.

. . .not Rahm, so if you want to bash someone on this. Bash Rahm, Durbin, Obama and even Pat Quinn.

-snip-
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) first broached the idea of a congressional run with Duckworth, who, as his guest, sat in the House gallery at the State of the Union address last February. Duckworth lost her legs and suffered a badly wounded arm when a mortar shell hit the helicopter she was piloting Nov. 12, 2004. She has spent much of the last year recovering at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington.
-snip-

While Duckworth is a political rookie with no campaign experience or political organization behind her, if she runs, she will be able to tap into a turnkey political operation engineered in large part by Emanuel. That operation consists of some of the state's highest-profile Democratic political professionals, including media consultant David Axelrod, direct mail marketeer Peter Giangreco and Jasculca, who said he met with her in Washington a few weeks ago to discuss the possibility of a campaign.

Jasculca said he was asked by Durbin's team to advise Duckworth -- whom he called "a war hero with a good story to tell.'' Lori Goldberg, a Jasculca/Terman vice president, has been advising Duckworth on scheduling and outreach "in terms of getting around the district.'' Jasculca said her informal advisers also include Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and "a few of people.''
-snip-
http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-sweet28.html

That is the way our party has done business for years now. Oh, take a look. Who won? Who has the white house, the senate, the House, and now are about to get the courts with the help of our Democrats?

Can't imagine.

. . .trash Rahm all you want, but Durbin was the first one to float the idea.

When did pointing out the obvious become trashing?

I am sorry, but it isn't. No one seems to have the courage to say that it is bordering on the ridiculous now. One after the other.

Our local group here is noticing. We keep email lists, and they are noticing the "war war" emphasis.

It is just like the GOP has done....keep the war in the forefront, though in a different way. One was ok, this many is just too much.

If anything drives my hubby and I again from the party it will be the rah rah false stuff.

They work in conjunction with Kos and have around one dozen candidates so far. I heard an interview with a man from Texas 6th District this evening. He seemed well qualified. That should be the measure.

No, the measure is not necessarily qualified. The measure is military, war, terror. Keep the people afraid.

congress. Why do we need that? Is that a balanced thing? I am confused how they really think the public is so naive as not to notice.

But then again, no one else is speaking up against it.

By by Cegelis, hello Duckworth.

Why must anyone who served say that they're against the war in order to qualify themselves, as a Democratic candidate?

You can no more conclude that Duckworth, who volunteered to serve, defend and fight for our country, who witnessed her friends die and who even lost both legs in combat be vocal against the "war", than can she say that you are against the military. I believe that you both operate from different frames on the Iraq war. You operate on the anti- "war, war, war" frame; whereas Duckworth operates from "national security and defense" frame. Imo, the latter frame deals more with the realities that we face now, because the world has become more dangerous because of Iraq and the misleadership and incompetencies of Bush,.... ironically.

Regardless of how everyone, here, was against Bush's case for war with Iraq, the realities, counter to his expectations, is that this "war" is now about stabilizing,...and NOT democratizing, the Middle East ---- region for our national security interests. Terrorism has, in fact, increased because of the failures in leadership, but not just because of President Bush and the neocons, but because of those in Congress who conspired with him to push the case for war.

It would be naive for us to argue that "America" stands down our military completely ....while the region gravitates towards Islamic revolution; ....while Iraq harbor threats against Israel; ...while Iran threatens nuclear proliferation (under a fundamentalist president); ...while Kurds seek ancient territories in Turkey with terrorism; and while Al'Qaida breeds more terrorists within the chaos of Iraqs civil war and while they continue to terrorize Jordan, as well as our Arab allies.

Whether we deploy or withdraw,.. the prospect of civil war in Iraq will seriously commit our military in that region for the next decade. Consequently, every election cycle within the US in the years ahead will construct policy by those who are elected, Democrat or Republican. The majority of Americans want success, it's not only about the military, but unless the Democrats have a voice, including those who actually served in the military, the current leadership in Congress and the Presidency will just continue their tragic course to military force over diplomacy.

The election cycle in '06 will be about Iraq and very broadly, the national security interests of the United States. Imo, it's the primary wedge issue, but not between Dems vs. Repubs. It's the wedge between Repugs vs Repubs, who'll prefer to divert our attention to the bird flu and immigration.

It sounds like you may be trying to excuse this war, which is what they want us to do. I did not call into question Ms Duckworth's patriotism. You excuse the war, I will defend my stance by posting again. We already have about a dozen, I think I heard? How the hell many soldiers do we need to run to make a point?

Here is what I posted...it had very little to do with Iraq. It is about the insistence on running military, and squeezing out good candidates to do it.
QUOTE
"I am sorry, but it isn't. No one seems to have the courage to say that it is bordering on the ridiculous now. One after the other.

Our local group here is noticing. We keep email lists, and they are noticing the "war war" emphasis.

It is just like the GOP has done....keep the war in the forefront, though in a different way. One was ok, this many is just too much.

If anything drives my hubby and I again from the party it will be the rah rah false stuff."

That is what I said.

And you are right on one thing....we are never leaving Iraq. Never. Anyone who thinks we are is dreaming. Our Democrats are just as committed to "spreading Democracy" as Bush is.

You miss my point... as long as we will be at dealing with the aftermath of the Iraq war,... military veterans who support Democrats will needed as a voice in Congress. You still frame of argument around "war war", Bush and GOP supporters frame it around "(military) victory", but it's about "national security" and "success," in my frame and to keep that in the "forefront."

You're doing more of the "rah-rah" on the frame of war, imo.

It is wrong. If one decided to run, was passionate about running, that is one thing. But if they are being courted by the party when others are in place....that is another.

I'm sure if you speak to anyone of them,.. you'll realize that they "pander" to the defense and security of the US,...particularly.

Please read Eric Massa's post at Daily Kos;



and Paul Hacketts post;


--------------------------------------------------------

Remember there's no "guarantee that they'll win,.. but the more veterans who run, the greater our hopes to transform Congress,... away from the exploitation of our military. We must hold Congress accountable to their actions in this regard, especially, who enact policies that assure our national interests, not their partisan interests.

I am not upset with any veterans. I appreciate them. I am upset with the DCCC and DSCC for overdoing this like they are. There is a huge difference.

I think this thread holds the record for most misinterpretations of what I said.

injecting THEIR candidate into OUR local elections.
The same thing happened in Minnesota, and I"M STILL PISSED.
An excellent grassroots Progressive was swatted aside by the BIG MONEY interests of the Beltway Dems.

If THEY have money and connections, give it to US to help support OUR candidate!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=160&topic_id=14207


From the DLC's OWN Website:
"The New Democrats apparently have begun this long march. The DLC has made training of a new generation of New Democrat leaders one of its primary objectives, continuing its efforts to work with and influence up-and-coming state and local officials. The New Democrat Network has grown quickly, increasing its ability to fund New Democrat candidates for federal office, including those running in primary contests."
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=955&kaid=127&s...

I had heard that, and I was not sure what to think. And I agree with you 100%, and I hope others will see what is going on. We ran a good candidate locally here last year. The leadership did not like that he was openly gay, and they put in a anti-choice, anti-gay candidate who was supported by the Southern Baptists and Catholics. They got the vote out.

The candidate was terrible, he was lousy in debates, even said once he did not know what he was doing. To the credit of many of our DEC here, many refused to support him as an anti-choice candidate.

He wouldn't have won anyway against the money machine we have here, Adam "Opie" Putnam.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) serves as the official national Democratic campaign committee charged with recruiting, assisting, funding, and electing Democrats to the U. S. House of Representatives. We provide services ranging from designing and helping execute field operations, to polling, creating radio and television commercials, fund raising, communications, and management consulting."
http://www2.dccc.org/about/overview /

The use of the phrase "serves as the official" bothers me.
It seems to me that this is a way for this organization to avoid accountability to the Democratic Party or Democratic Party members.
It is clear from the above statement that they are a powerful, active influence in Democratic Party Primaries.



The Chairman of the DCCC IS a direct link to the DLC!!!

"The DCCC is now chaired by Congressman Rahm Emanuel from the 5th district of Illinois in Chicago. In the 1980s, Mr. Emanuel held senior staff positions at the DCCC, and helped the Democrats win and maintain their House majorities."

http://www2.dccc.org/about/leadership/emanuel /

Rahm Emanuel IS a proud member of the DLC!
http://www.dlc.org/new_dem_dir_action.cfm

Mr. Emanuel is featured prominently on the NDOL (DLC)Website. He is a regular Featured Speaker on Economic Policy at DLC conventions and conferences. It is clear that he supports the Economic Policies pushed by the DLC and the Corporate Leadership in America.


Combine this with the quote in my first post:
"The New Democrat Network has grown quickly, increasing its ability to fund New Democrat candidates for federal office, including those running in primary contests."
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=955&kaid=127&s ...


And the whole mess begins to stink of Corporate meddling in local elections.
Is our Democracy Dead?



NOBODY from DC should inject themselves in OUR local elections PERIOD!

Rahm is from the neighboring District, the 5th. It is his job as head of the DCCC to win Congressional seats. Look at the 2004 numbers. The better candidate will win the Primary. I think Primary battles can be good if the candidates do not go negative. It shows the Party has life and generates local interest and publicity. People love a good race. As long as they unite behind the winner and take their enthusiasm into the General election.

but injecting an outside "DCCC Approved Candidate" into local races where others already have the grassroots support is a MORTAL SIN in Democracy.

If they want only to elect Democrats, then just provide the money and connections to the Local Democratic Party!

Why is he picking someone with no experience, no money, no views to speak about, and pitting them against a candidate with over 100 volunteers and money coming. Oh, not as much as the corporate DCCC donors, but enough to run a campaign.

It is obvious they are picking a veteran, to go with the other dozen they have. It is too much.

who will do their bidding.
What other possible agenda could they have?

Would they buy a seat for someone who was hostile to their agenda?

will do whatever the "big boys" tell them. Someone with no money will be beholden to the corporations that fund them.

Though it looks like this is over the heads of most here tonight.

I won't quote from it, but it speaks for itself.

http://www.corante.com/mooreslore/archives/2005/11/14/war_among_the_democrats.php

It is a good write-up. It is almost as good as his previous one, Master Politician. I won't post quotes, but it is well worth an analytical read. He does not get it ALL right, but enough.

http://www.corante.com/mooreslore/archives/2005/06/10/a_master_politician_at_work.php

Because I really know nothing about any of these players yet other than what I am now reading tonight, and there is only so much I am likely to learn sitting here in upstate New York.

I'm leaning with you on this MF, but I can only call it a leaning because there is so much I don't know. I will say that my initial instinct is almost always to go with someone who is known inside the local community, who has grass roots support, who has viewpoints that are public knowledge, when what is known about them those viewpoints is good. But I accept that there can and should be exceptions to that rule.

Those exceptions always revolve around possible pragmatic considerations, and how much I am even willing to possibly consider those varies from situation to situation. If your hit on this turns out to pretty much be the final word on the matter then of course I would agree with you on this. You describe Duckworth as not being well known, and not coming with her own significant source of funds. If Duckworth really is being pushed for her uniform and a dramatic story only, if there isn't also something remarkable about this woman that would make her an excellent leader who almost all of us could be proud of after we came to know her more, then that's pretty much the end of story for where I come down on this one.

Duckworth is a cipher to me now. Of course I don't know anything about Cegelis either but obviously to those in the area she is more of a known quantity. But I accept that it is theoretically possible that someone with a great eye for political talent, who may personally know Duckworth fairly well, sees something in her that, combined with her "story line", might make her a real winner and a good voice inside the Democratic Party. The fact that Cegelis ran behind Kerry last time and seemingly can't raise that much money on her own opens up the door for me to accept the possibility of bringing in a pinch hitter for her in that district. That is if Duckworth turned out to be an exceptional person with good strong Democratic values who can connect with voters in that district while on the stump, more effectively than Cegelis, with a significantly greater chance of winning.

Is any of that true? The hell if I know. Even is some of that is true, is enough of it true to justify some Party leader or leaders somewhere wanting to insert her name into the race? The hell if I know. You have reached an opinion it seems, and like I said I am leaning with you now on this one, but I honestly have to admit I am actually still in the dark. I certainly don't want to run uniforms for office just because it is the equivalent of some popular fad. Hackett seems good. I've met Eric Massa and I like him a lot. I don't know anything about any other new "Fighting Dems", but being a "Fighting Dem" is certainly not reason enough for me to want to back someone.

From what I have read from you, you haven't taken an absolutist position on this MF, you are arguing the merits of this specific case and I respect you for that. I'll try to pay more attention to this. I always start out biased toward a grass roots perspective though I will not always rigidly adhere to that over all other considerations. I was a teenager on Long Island when "carpet bagger" RFK won a Senate Seat in New York, and I was thrilled to have him with us for as long as we were able to have him. I guess when all else fails that is what Primaries are for, but it is always best to have wisdom (whatever that is) prevail early.

not only trolling for someone else to run, but doing it in the papers, and right here on du, with whispering campaigns and bullshit. nothing dries up your money faster that having some big muckety muck telling everyone that you are a loser. and to hear them tell is, she has raised a dollar and a half. she has exceeded the amount she raised in the last cycle by $13,000 ALREADY. how much more does she have to raise? just imagine how much she would have if they would "turn the key".
so, they are criticizing her for not raising money when they are out there scaring it away. and then they are basically lying about how much she has raised, and insinuating that she is not managing it well. she is doing exactly the right things. she has kept her campaign going, kept fundraising. so, the dnc is investing in her candidacy, but people around here are playing "some say" there is no "some", except the corporate wing of this party.
if the dccc would invest half the effort into electing her that they are investing in defeating her, she would be unstoppable. course, i think she is unstoppable anyway. but it would be nice if they would just get the fuck out of the way.

It is really hard to follow something like this from a distance. I think I explained how I would look at this if I were there and understood all the players better, but I don't. Sitting over here, with what I am aware of, I am very sympathetic to your position on this particular race, though I can understand that sometimes "knowlegable Party leaders" may feel a need to try to recruit someone to run in a race who has a better chance to win than someone else with more initially evident local support.

like someone who has the fire in her belly to win!

I hope she can get some more monetary support from DFA and grassroots Illinois.

Instead of helping her the dccc is throwing more challenge in her way. I'll be rooting for her to win the primary.

http://www.cegelisforcongress.com/meet

It must be earned from the voters. If Ms. Cegelis is so popular she should have little trouble in the primary.

:kick:

As they push one after the other out of the race.

I can tell that things are not changing. The ones who THINK I might be right on this subject are afraid to post in the thread. The ones who who are taking the DLC/DCCC stance are very vocal.

That is why they keep winning. You know I am not saying that, you know what I mean. You are twisting the words, and hardly anyone will step in.

I can't wait to have a military congress.

And what is wrong with having those who have served in the military in Congress?

.

enough said.

when a valid runner exists. It's about needlessly dividing the vote and NOT backing Qualified Candidates.

Up thread, someone said this same tactic benefitted Denny Hastret - R in Chicago because the DCCC wouldn't back a qualified candidate.

The voters deserve qualified candidates, not just someone who can win with the appropriate spin.

In Minnesota we had 2 qualified DEM candidates for Mayor of Minneapolis. It was nice to have a choice of DEM candidates who actually had positions on the issues and experience to back it up. We had a win-win situation. 2 good DEM candidates.

I don't hear that in this situation, though. And it smells rotten. Makes me think if money is the end all be all for the election winner, then it must be a rethug grab and a DINO. Our FORMER mayor of St Paul, Randy Kelly got tossed out on his unfaithful butt this cycle.

My barometer of support for a candidate these days is NOT "Do they have the money?" Rather "WHERE are they getting it from?"

Because if it's at grass roots level, then the candidate owes their win to the PEOPLE. IF it's corporations and questionable pac money, then how do we know if their loyalty to the PEOPLE is real? Will they be a DEM worth having once elected?

I'm an agnostic on this race, and will work for the Dem winner, but those articles are political spin. Most of us would prefer a stronger candidate.

I can tell I am in the minority on this subject, but I know that many locally are feeling just like I am. I am one who says what others are thinking in the back of their minds, but not ready to say yet.

Yes, she has volunteers and and organization. Duckworth has none. Christine has experience, Duckworth has none.

Our party is just as shamefully using our good military people as the other side. That is not a popular thing to say, but I think many are coming to recognize it. Look what the hell happened when I said it.

We're all ponying up time and money, and selecting three or four races where we will concentrate our resources. We're all from safe Dem districts, so we are looking at vulnerable Repuke seats, including Hyde's. I haven't studied the issue, but no one seems to be really impressed with Cegelis. But it will be up to what dems there are in that district to pick their candidate. This ranting about Emmanual is not real impressive; he's set on winning as many seats as possible and putting up strong candidates. You may not like his methods, but a disabled liberal soldier is going to be a money-magnet. Bashing Emmanual isn't really the way to go. I may disagree with him sometimes, but he's a smart and tough guy who fights for the Dem party.

This is my country, and candidates in PA and IL and everywhere will have an effect on me here in Florida.

Please do not tell me I can not criticize what the Democratic party is doing. Here is the quote of yours which offends me, and it should offend Duckworth greatly.

"a disabled liberal soldier is going to be a money-magnet"

You made my point for me...he is using her and you approve. Please remember that when you keep on doing the same things...pretty soon they don't work. The military stuff will get old very fast when you just keep on.

some say...

she is doing a fine job, building on her past support, getting more and bigger donations, and recruiting more volunteers.
if duckworth were running on her own, that would be fine. but this is the machine steamrolling a progressive candidate, while there are
unopposed republicans in THIS STATE!!!!!!

unopposed Republicans. Less than $50,000 in the bank isn't that impressive for a congressional campaign for a candidate who has just run last cycle.

iirc, born and raised there.
why doesn't the unconnected tammy move to the 10th, or the 13th, or.....
money in the bank does not mean shit. support of the residents of the 5th does. she has that.
if there are no further dirty tricks from within her own party, she is unbeatable.

to donate money to her campaign?

Sometimes people need to quit spreading the bullshit about this. Rahm is doing this deliberately to keep her fundraising down. Many of us will donate more to her before the campaign.

There has been a lot of discussion of this at other forums as well. It is a shameless attempt to have a military candidate coup.

despite not have the backing of the 'establishment.' Some people just have it and some people don't.

It did not matter after all. Crowds of 10 or 15 thousand at times, it did not matter after all.

It will matter someday, but maybe not yet.

Rahm's (DCCC) is not supporting Eric Massa, .and he's a vet too, running in NY-29th and one of the Fighting Dems. Massa is fundraising on his own, and against a Delay protege, Rep Randy Kuhl.

He is featured on the DCCC website.
http://www.dccc.org/races/candidates/NY_29_Eric_Massa.html

she never folded her campaign. she never stopped fundraising. she is getting more and larger donations than last year. yet people are trying to install a candidate with NNNOOO MONEY, saying, it's okay, we will turn on the spigot for her. christine didn't raise enough, tho. can you say talking point? i say bullshit.

:kick:

Apparently this is what Illinois wants, though. They apparently trust Rahm to do their candidate picking for them.

Cegelis is on track with spending with the other Dem candidates, nothing out of line. Most of her money is small donations....but heavens to Betsy we can't let that happen.

There have been many posts on this at Kos and other places. She is not out of line in her spending. She has been campaigning all year while having one person after the other that Rahm has thrown at her.

The talking points here are pretty obvious. Rahm knows what's best, Cegelis didn't raise enough or spent too much, what's best for the party, she must not be a good candidate or Rahm wouldn't do this...and so on and so on.

We in Florida know we are doomed for many years to come. Even our Democrats here are Republicans at heart, have been for years. Ask JCMach1 here at DU....when he ran for legislature his own DEC supported a Republican who was tied to their "interests." Outrageous. His own county party.

I am sure Illinois can figure it out. I may have more to say later on it. I don't want so many military being pushed for congress. It bothers me. I will be eager to see if the talking points change.

in Congress? Why discriminate against them?

Let's turn the question around.

I have no gripe with someone who is a veteran deciding to run. I do have a gripe when so many are apparently, and pretty obviously, being "drafted" to run.

It is like taking something "real" that worked (like with Hackett), and trying to do it over and over again in an artificial way.

I am very sincere that DCCC should not be drafting someone from out of district just because they are a disabled veteran. There are other districts in which Republicans are running unopposed, why do this?

I thought I would give folks here a heads up on the blogging activity of one "Fighting Vet" who very much cares about building grass roots support. Eric Massa, running for a Congressional seat currently held by a Republican in upstate New York, will be blogging live on TPMCafe, Kos, myDD, and the Clark Community NEtwork (CCN) this Sunday from 3-6pm EST. This isn't the first time Eric's done one of these marathons, and he does not do hit and run posts. Eric stays glued to the keyboard and responds to as many of the comments posted to him as humanly possible. Drop in if you want to dialog with one Democratic Vet who has his head and heart in the right place.

ferchrissakes. what bullshit. where is duckworth's money? where are her volunteers, where is her team? oh, i forgot. they will be sent.

You're too far away to actually see what's going on in illinois. You should move to someplace like Florida, where it will be much clearer </sarcasm>.

"So it does seem that Duckworth will be competing with Cegelis for the seat in IL-06. She wants to represent the district. The district that she doesn't live in. And has no plans to move to either. From The Hotline (subscription):

Technology consultant/'04 candidate Christine Cegelis (D) said on 12/1 that she did not understand why DCCC Chair Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) is recruiting Duckworth to run against her, even though Duckworth lives outside of the district. Dem. Party of DuPage Co. Chair Gayl Ferraro said that Duckworth's residency "is going to be an issue with a lot of our voters" and that many local Dems are "very angry about the whole situation." Ferraro: "They are looking at it as the DCCC coming in and telling them what to do. But I don't necessarily view it that way. It is anyone's right to run for office."

Cegelis and Duckworth discussed the controversy during a 11/28
phone conversation. Cegelis: "We didn't talk for very long. We talked a bit about the fact that she does not live in the district and that she does not intend to move to the district" (Sweet, Chicago Sun-Times, 12/2)."

Is that ok with voters, that someone doesn't have to live in their district?

. . .:kick:

It used to frowned upon, but I guess it is fine now.

Maybe you guys like things different there.

Freshman Bean lives in Barrington, in the 10th Congressional District, represented by Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.).

Bean, however, lived in the district when she first ran for the House and is just about 1,400 feet over the line, having been remapped out by Republicans looking -- unsuccessfully, it turned out -- to protect Rep. Phil Crane (R-Ill.), whom Bean defeated in 2004.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/sweet/cst-nws-sweet02.html

the boys from chicago sending someone out there is not going to go down well. the chicago machine is part of why this is a red district. if she pulls it out in the primary, i doubt she will win the general.
why she doesn't run in the 13th, right next door, with an unopposed thug, i would still like an explanation for.

Actually it is more of a question than an explanation even. Can I assume that the unopposed Republicans are incumbents running for reelection? Are those Republicans "popular" or did they win big last time? If the answers are all yes that is probably the explanation you are seeking. It would mean that they don't think that any Democrat could win in those districts, but that the "right" Democrat running for this open seat might actually win. Again I am not defending this, but I am guessing that must be the "logic" at work, a disagreement over who is the "right" Democrat to run for the only "winnable" seat.

Not in this coming election year anyway. I was just musing about "conventional wisdom", but personally I never was big on "conventional wisdom" to begin with.

Henry Hyde was a long time GOP incumbent, and she did well against him.

And based on what I can find out from a distance, without making a huge effort at this, personally I would back Cegelis again.

he cited the difficulty of running against her again, and the strength of her organization when he retired.

and that is what the 50 state plan is supposed to be about. both of those candidates were left hanging out there with no support. i do not know about manzullo, but biggert's opponent was not that great. she worked hard, but did not strike me as that well versed on politics and government. likewise hastert's opponent, who is running again. he is a good guy, and a good speaker, but a little naive. they dug up an opponent for him, also, a kucinich campaigner. i did not have a problem with that. rubin did not come this close, did not put together as tight a campaign, did not keep the office open all this time, and did not raise as much money.

manzullo's got 31. both typical sacrificial lambs. still, there are more lopsided districts out there.
we are supposed to be contesting every seat. this is a blue state. most of the voters in these districts are what dr dean calls dems that just don't know it. bad economies and lost manufacturing jobs abound.
if the party got behind cegalis, i would hope they could pick up that 6%. if not, people should be fired. if they would just butt out, i think she would win.
and really, local politics-wise, this is a stupid, stupid move. it is the chicago based machine that is doing this, and they do hate them out there. especially someone from outside the district will be seen as sent from city hall. bad, bad, bad.
let the rookie take on biggert. let her build up her chops. it will take a cycle or 2 to make a dent.
if duckworth wins the primary, i will work as hard as anyone to get her elected. but if she loses in the general, it will be a long, long, long time before i forget it. for that matter, if cegalis wins the primary but loses the general, it will be even longer.

I have been called naive here a lot, though I am really just sort of trusting.

I really did think though that someone should live in district to run for office. I know we had things come up in our area, and the person dropped out when the truth was known that they had primary residence elsewhere.

I don't know if it a law here, just know it is not a popular thing to do.

Are there any laws against running and living out of district? And how far out of district can one live? Way out? Just a little out? Just wondering.

How does one represent the best interests of a district when one does not even live there and does not intend to do so?

:shrug:

can't swear that, but it think that is the deal.

:kick:

How far is too far? Doesn't that bother anyone at all?

incumbent in her first time out is an impressive candidate and deserves another chance.

Is no "almost" winner EVER to be trusted to run again?

Why doesn't the DCCC support the existing campaign in the 6th and set up Ms. Duckworth to run against one of the currently unopposed Republcans?

That would actually make sense.

To most people.

None of this is really making much sense to me. I don't understand why more people are not upset.

i am not sure. i got the impression that she was in a temporary situation until she is a little more adjusted, and able to live alone.

I will only post a snip or two because of the controversial nature. But it does point out that money could be at the root of it all. But just not in the way it is being presented in this thread. In a different way.

http://www.corante.com/mooreslore/archives/2005/11/14/war_among_the_democrats.php

"Then there is a “movement” party, sometimes called the Netroots, born in the wake of the Iraq conflict around the candidacy of Howard Dean.

.."the difference starts with money. Dean operates from the bottom up, the “establishment” from the top-down."

..."Underneath all this is a concerted attempt by the establishment party to shut-out Deanlike candidates. You can see this in Illinois’ 6th Congressional district, where Christine Cegelis, who got 44% of the vote against longtime Republican incumbent Henry Hyde through netroots support last year, suddenly faces a primary challenge from the money party’s Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq veteran."

I can name two other places off the top of my head as well, two that bother me. Some I could name don't bother me because of the nature of the candidate, and other factors. Like the one we ran here, got petitions signed for, worked for. We knew he could not win here then, because he was openly gay. But he gained respect by his debating skills, and he was embraced by the grassroots over all. It was the party OUTSIDE our area that stepped in to run a very religious person who was anti-gay and anti-choice. He lost big time because he was a terrible candidate.

there should be no problem for Cegelis. She would have a majority of the electorate supporting her. When she wins the Primary, the leaders feet should be held to the fire to support her. Here is todays coverage of this story with answers to some of the questions posted.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/sweet/cst-nws-sweet02.html

Do you remember 2004? Having the grassroots on your side means nothing if the party machinery is aligned against you. They can turn things around so quickly, use the machinery, and one they don't want is toast.

Change will take time. Victories will be few at first.

He is the one that wrote
Snip>It should also be noted that a million from 10,000 people brings you 10,000 votes, while a million from 1 brings you 1.<snip

It's not quite as simple in practice as in theory then. That's often the case I guess. I wonder what else he has exaggerated. Maybe all corporations, just like any group, aren't all bad. Maybe a concerned coalition could accomplish more in the long run.

My gripe with apologists for the establishment "handling" everything is just this......you just twist words and say nothing.

Did he simplify, not really. The numbers you mention is the way it should be. But money begets money, and then things get out of control.

Most of the people "arguing" with me on this thread have no real answers, just party speak.

You need to think outside the box.

http://www.a-clue.com/archive/03/cl030804.htm

And a favorite of Pete DuPont....

Here's another sample of his "progressive" thought: "Liberals often are flummoxed by the way conservatives seem to love big business (including, of course, big media). Yet the reason is simple: they love winners, literally. They like to reward strength and achievement. They hate rewarding weakness for the same reason a parent hates rewarding kids' poor grades....Some of it is intelligent historical analysis, like this passage, quoting a "National Review" article. (Knowing who to quote and where is an important aspect of creativity.)"

http://www.a-clue.com/archive/03/cl030804.htm#story4

He's JUST the guy to give Democrats advice, all righty.

Maybe that is the reason I like to read some of his stuff. I don't agree with it all, but he see things in a clearer fashion that our party establishment does now. He sounds like a true conservative.

Dana's also a big fan of right wing smear job artist Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit....

http://www.corante.com/mooreslore/archives/2005/05/09/dirty_little_secret_glenn_reynolds_is_ok.php

You've hitched your wagon to a real star there....

You have criticized everyone who put forth rational arguments. Rather telling.

But it is hilarious to find the guy who announces he has unseen supporters who are afraid to post in the thread (63) patting himself on the back for his "rational arguments."

I don't have supporters. I don't post smears either.

they did not expect anything of the sort to happen. and her candidacy did so much to build the party out there. if nothing else, they could have respected that.

http://jjhare.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/19/155216/92

The DCCC is meddling in the IL CD 6 race
by lobdillj
Sat Nov 19, 2005 at 01:52:16 PM PDT
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is supposedly trying to help improve the balance of Democrats in the House of Representatives. They are a PAC dedicated to this goal at any rate. There are many seats for which there is no Democratic contender in 2006. One would hope they would be trying to recruit candidates for those seats and helping good candidates who have announced in the other Congressional districts.

However, in Illinois the DCCC chairman, Rahm Emanuel, (D) 5th CD, IL is trying to derail the candidacy of Christine Cegelis, a good progressive Democratic candidate for the 6th Congressional District of IL.

more.....

Same way I have in this thread. Same talking points. Read some of the posts.

...but I've observed a similarity between the tactics used by the neocons in taking over the rethug party and the DLC attampting to regain control of the Dem party.

Attack Attack Attack.

Pity.

this little up close and personal taste of the dlc is really turning my stomach. i was agnostic about it for a while. now i see the enemy. this has really been a co-ordinated smear campaign.

the fox news style of debate. never any answer to the questions like
why are there unopposed thugs in rahm's home state??
and why do they keep saying cegalis can't raise money, when she is getting more, larger grassroots donations, just like dr dean says to do.
no answers, no answers, no answers, just repeated talking points- she lost, she raised a good amount of money but spent it (figure that one out. she never closed her campaign office, she paid her bills, that is a bad thing?) she's not a good candidate.
it's the dlc slime machine.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=103&subid=110&contentid=251073

DLC | New Dem Of The Week | December 2, 2002
New Dem of the Week: Rahm Emanuel
U.S. Rep.-elect, Illinois

Newly elected U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) is not your average House freshman. Having served as a senior advisor to President Clinton on issues ranging from crime to trade, he comes into Congress with extensive high-level experience shaping and implementing innovative public policies.

Notably, Emanuel worked on both welfare reform and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) -- two signature New Democrat initiatives that helped millions of Americans take their first steps into the private sector workforce, while making sure it actually paid for them to work. Both initiatives have proven remarkably successful: Welfare caseloads have fallen 57 percent since 1996, and two thirds of people leaving welfare are employed. The EITC, meanwhile, has become the nation's largest and most successful anti-poverty program, lifting some 4.5 million people out of poverty every year.

But Emanuel believes it's time for Congress to expand the EITC to make it an even more effective work incentive. "Now is the time to build on a very successful program rather than rest on our laurels," he said during his campaign.

He proposes two key expansions, the first to give more low-income workers eligibility for larger refunds, and the second to help large families by creating an additional "tier" of benefits for those with three or more children.

"While welfare reform has been seen as a widespread success, there is increasing evidence that the families that remain on welfare are those with five or more individuals in their household," Emanuel said. "As the national recession slows welfare caseload reduction, programs that promote work, like the EITC, should be strengthened."

One of the big obstacles for parents wanting to step out and make the transition from welfare dependency to work -- particularly for parents of large families -- is the struggle to arrange childcare for young children and supervised after-school activities for latchkey-aged teenagers. An estimated 8 million children, mostly teenagers, are left unsupervised after school every day. No coincidence, that's when juvenile crime is at its highest.

To help keep students off the streets after school, Emanuel proposes expanding the existing Dependent Child Care Tax Credit, currently only available to dual-earning parents of children between 6 and 12, to cover eligible parents of children up to 16. The expanded credit would be worth up to $2,000 and would be targeted to pay for after-school activities that provide academic and cultural enrichment and tutoring.

In addition to pushing for initiatives designed to make work pay for people struggling up the first rungs of the career ladder, Emanuel also plans to focus in Congress on ensuring that all workers have the ability to save for a secure retirement. He has proposed giving working families greater power to protect their retirement savings through a universal pension system. The idea would allow an individual with a 401(k) to opt for investing his or her holdings -- along with ongoing contributions -- in an Investment Retirement Account by direct deposit.

Representing Illinois' fifth district, which covers a swath of ethnically diverse North Chicago, brings Emanuel home to his roots. His father, Ben, practiced medicine as a pediatrician on the north side of Chicago for 40 years after emigrating from Israel, and his uncle, Les, has served in the Chicago Police Department for over 20 years.

Emanuel began his own career working on consumer rights issues. He plans to draw on those same values as he looks out for the interests of his constituents in Congress. One fight he plans to take up on their behalf is a push to ban oil drilling in Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes by establishing a Great Lakes Trust.

"The Great Lakes are our lifeline -- for our water, our economy and our health," he said during the campaign. "Drilling for oil puts all of this at risk."

Joining him at the announcement of his proposal was former EPA Chief Carol Browner, who predicted that Emanuel's background and experience would be his guides in all the work ahead:

"Rahm brought not only vision and commitment to everything he did in the White House, but he also brought a Chicago sensibility that ensured that the people around him would never forget who they served: the working families of this country -- and of Chicago. I know he will do the same in Congress."

Cegelis has raised $160,000 but has spent all but $50,000 already on a seat she already ran for and LOST. The Republican running for the seat already has $500,000 in cash.

I don't see any reason to surrender a race to somebody who's already lost who can't raise money.

"I don't know anything about the reporter, but I know he hit the nail on the head with this column or article."
Google is a wonderful thing...he's a former alderman, not a reporter....who ran against Democrat Dan Rostenkowski twice (and lost)

http://www.uh.edu/cpp/lanierconference_simpson.htm

And it appears he's not a Democrat....

http://www.greens.org/illinois/archives/founding.html

Yes, I said this which you quote:

"I don't know anything about the reporter, but I know he hit the nail on the head with this column or article."

BUT I was referring to this article, not Simpson at all. You must not have read the post I referred to when I said this.
http://www.corante.com/mooreslore/archives/2005/11/14/war_among_the_democrats.php

And yes, it is "this" again. And I imagine there will a lot more of "this" to come.

We don't want the party committee leaders picking candidates in the primaries at the expense of other candidates.

That's there job. They are elected or appointed by elected leaders to do that. If you want input, get elected or get appointed by helping an elected person. Why is your candidate choice better than theirs. That is why their are primary races. A number of candidates seek a job and the voters pick one.

Clearly, we can't trust what Rahm Emanuel or anyone actually IN Illinois has to say, because we ought to accept blindly what a guy who isn't a Democrat or in any way liberal says. For the good of the Democrats and progressive values, of course. </sarcasm>

Perhaps they are not as jaded, and perhaps they look at things from outside....and see the corruption.

We are in this war because our Democrats got in bed with the Bush regime. We are unable to care for victims of storms because of tax cuts our Democrats helped them vote for.

And then we all yell...hey, shut up...it is only the Repubs who are corrupt. Well, we voted with them in large enough numbers to give them a win.

"perhaps they look at things from outside....and see the corruption"
I have no doubt they'll make it up even if they don't see it.

Congratulations. I can't keep up with all the degrees of separation.

on his own website. That's not "distant association"--that's YOUR homeboy Dana claiming an imprimatur from authority himself.

:shrug:

.

You? Dana? Pete DuPont?

.

So WHO says Democratic party committee leaders should not function as Democratic party committee leaders?

And more will be saying so. There is a difference between the DCCC doing its job, and just trying maneuvers like this. Running someone from a different district with no money and no campaign yet set up, seemingly because they are disabled military.

You want the last word, I leave it to you. Sometime a continued contest to get the last word is foolish.

and the wheehole from the Green party....because so many DEMOCRATS think so (hahahahaha)....

However Durbin is not DCCC. Obama's staff is not DCCC. Lt.Governor Pat Quinn is not DCCC. As a matter of fact, Quinn was very involved in Illinois with DFA. It is their responsibilty to help produce a winning candidate. They are Democrats and this is their state. They very well have a right to do it.

We have one, too. Ours is run by Bill Nelson of the DLC. He contacted some folks when the state chair was being chosen, he made sure the one candidate who wanted to bring grassroots into the party was shut down.

They were. Well, you got your party machine, we got ours.

We are trying to fix ours, and you like yours like it is.

Good luck to Duckworth. If she wins it will be at the expense of the grassroots who nearly took a good candidate to victory last time.

It is deliberate, and if you guys like it....then fine.

DLC?
DCCC?
Grassroots?

GRASSROOTS, you don't believe me? Dogman and others can vouch for my grassroots credentials.

I believe in the grassroots, because that is where I come from. I don't see how a Duckworth victory will be at the expense of the grassroots. For that to be the case you would have to view the grassroots as a monolithic group that only has one vision, can support one candidate, etc.

A Duckworth win will not be at the expense of the grassroots, hell some of the grassrooters who are not excited by Cegelis might help Duckworth. I'm ready to support whomever wins the primary, but at this point I'm in the Duckworth camp.

:shrug:

. . .however it seems you are passing judgement on her. Once she introduces herself you might like her. . .I mean you do have an open mind don't ya? LOL

If Rahm plays political games in that district with someone from out of district when there is a viable candidate....and the district he is sending the person from has an unopposed Repub opponent...well, what the hell else can I say.

Pyrrhic indeed. Because you simply don't understand what we will have lost.

Tammy lives in the 8th CD. Bean is the Dem Congressperson for the 8th, who lives in the 10th CD. Illinois does not require residency in the District. The fact that you feel a candidate is viable does not make it so. Rahm's job is to win the House seat for the Dems. If you look up Rahm's history you will find he is more qualified in politics than you or I. It would be far better to work for Cegelis than attack Rahm. He gets 70% of the vote in his district. He might be around for quite awhile.

. . .makes her stronger.

What are the demographics? What are the issues in the 6th CD? What is the business environment of the 6th CD, what is the educational environment of the 6th CD? How is the 6th CD impacted by O'Hare expansion? How is the 6th CD impacted by a 3rd airport?

I'm conceding we have a lot to learn about Duckworth, but tell me how a Duckworth victory hurts the 6th CD?

You talk about what "we" would lose if there is a Duckworth victory, so tell me. What do the people of the 6th CD lose if Duckworth wins?

If you like it, fine.

If you don't like it, tough.

It is your district. Why should it matter how much I know about it. You have plenty of people taking care of that for you. You are lucky to have so many Denocratic leaders deciding who your candidate will be.

Then you don't have to worry about it.

. . .which you admit you don't, how can you tell me that Cegelis is the best choice and Rahm's recruitment of Duckworth is all that bad. You need to let go of your hatred of anything DCCC related and allow the voters decide between Cegelis, Duckworth and Lindy Scott. No matter how much of a role the DCCC played the voters of the 6th CD will decide, not you, not I, not the DCCC.

For the record I live in the 2nd CD (Jesse Jr.) not the 6th CD.

Because the leadership has decided it for you. It is a pyrrhic victory.

Noun: A victory that is won by incurring terrible losses.

In your case you are losing the ability to decide your own candidate. To me that is a terrible loss. It happened to us last year when we worked hard for our local candidate.

"In your case you are losing the ability to decide your own candidate. To me that is a terrible loss. It happened to us last year when we worked hard for our local candidate."

Why the hell do you assume that all Democrats in the 6th CD are losing their ability to decide their own candidate. Maybe some of them DON'T SUPPORT HER! Let's be honest about Duckworth, SHE HAS BEEN RECRUITED BY EMANUEL AND DURBIN, yes but you have yet to tell me why that is bad. If Cegelis is the best candidate a weak Duckworth will lose, if Cegelis is not a good candidate a strong Duckworth will emerge.

Is Christine entitled to this nomination? There is a 3rd candidate, Lindy Scott, who is running on his own, no DCCC backing. For the record he was not a member of Dean's Dozen, so if he wins is that pyrrhic? Would you and others spin it as Cegelis and Duckworth splitting the women's vote and Scott won as a result. Your concerns about the DCCC recruiting a candidate are understandable, HOWEVER they are just concerns and in the coming months the voters (I hope you trust voters, don't you) will get to know Duckworth, Scott and Cegelis and then make a choice.

It seems there is so much resentment against Rahm, that there are those who are UNWILLING to consider any alternative to Cegelis he may offer, even if she turns out to be best candidate.

You keep beating the shit out of me reminding me that we know nothing about Duckworth, WHICH IS TRUE, but that ignorance of what she stands for extends to those would oppose her candidacy. Lets meet Tammy before you decided she is an unworthy candidate.

For the record I don't live in the 6th, I live in the 2nd (Jesse Jr.), however I'm very interested in doing what I feel is best to turn the Illinois Congressional delegation blue.

There's an even crappier source than the asshole from the Green party.

http://www.a-clue.com/archive/03/cl030804.htm

"We don't want the party committee leaders picking candidates"
But obviously you seem happy to have some right wing shitlicker do so....

""Dana, it is GOOD," raves Pete duPont, lawyer, futurist and once a candidate for President."

He is just seeing through the utter bullsh** that is going on in our party.

You are doing the DCCC no favor by not presenting a better defense than "omg he's a libertarian talking about Dean...run run."

I think that is funny, myself. Blankenhorn has a good mind, and his non-tech articles are pretty interesting. Hey, I even read Lew Rockwell sometimes...

"He is just seeing through the utter bullsh** that is going on in our party. "
Yeah, imagine--some people are trying to pretend that we ought to listen to a guy who's a conservative libertarian that Pete DuPont thinks is hot shit. Because he's SO "progressive."

"You are doing the DCCC no favor by not presenting a better defense"
No favor with whom, exactly? Pete DuPont fans?

"Hey, I even read Lew Rockwell sometimes... "
Hey, if a loony pimping for neoNazi and neoConfederate gibberish doesn't bother you, it don't bother you.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/01/25/123118.php

Yeah, THAT Lew Rockwell.

we think this is our party, and want to know why a candidate that is doing exactly what our charmian wants candidates to do is being slimed, and pushed aside.

but- dick simpson. there is a lot more to knowledge than google. not surprised you did not know that.
i know about dick simpson because he is a hero to many, many chicago dems. he was the only alderman to stand up to richard j daley. and he did it all the time. he stood up for honesty and good government. and he got re-elected over and over, even though you can bet that his constituents paid the price for his independence.
he knew had no chance to beat rosty, that is not why he ran. he ran to have a platform for his ideals.
i don't blame him for wanting to see the green party take root in chicago, it was and is a one party town.

"is being slimed"
Where is ANYBODY "sliming" this woman?

"there is a lot more to knowledge than google. not surprised you did not know that"
Geeze, I knew he wasn't a reporter. Funny you didn't volunteer who he was when it was claimed he was a reporter.

"he knew had no chance to beat rosty, that is not why he ran. he ran to have a platform for his ideals"
Then he's JUST the guy to take advice from....if you want to know how to run a campaign that doesn't win.

"i don't blame him for wanting to see the green party take root in chicago"
It makes him a worthless source for advice on what democrats should do, though.

But it all seems to be talking points, like not enough money...or the worst one...if Rahm is running someone else she must not be very good...or things to that effect.

Sometimes it takes someone outside the party to look upon things more clearly.

It is to the point here at DU that stale talking points are getting pretty obvious. Rahm is inserting a candidate into this with no money of her own to begin with. She is not well, still might undergo more surgeries, and she has no real opinion on the war. One person said she can't, as she is still military.

Ok, someone said the DCCC can't help candidates during the primary financially. So what will he do, direct the DCCC donors her way then? Isn't that interfering in primaries. Oh, jeez, stop, my head is spinning like a top.

If it be true that she can't take a stance against the war, then what about all the other "fighting Dems"? Will they be speaking out against the war, or not?

I think we know what we going on.

I just posted this above but it could get lost up in the middle of this thread, and it directly relates to what you just asked:

I thought I would give folks here a heads up on the blogging activity of one "Fighting Vet" who very much cares about building grass roots support. Eric Massa, running for a Congressional seat currently held by a Republican in upstate New York, will be blogging live on TPMCafe, Kos, myDD, and the Clark Community Network (CCN) this Sunday from 3-6pm EST. This isn't the first time Eric's done one of these marathons, and he does not do hit and run posts. Eric stays glued to the keyboard and responds to as many of the comments posted to him as humanly possible. Drop in if you want to dialog with one Democratic Vet who has his head and heart in the right place.


You can ask him yourself MF.

Pointing out her somewhat glaring shortcomings doesn't amount to "sliming", unless you're so hypersensitive you collapse on a fainting couch at every cross word. Geeze, if the Cegelis supporters are this weenie now, what are they gonna do when the Republicans start tossing real slime?

"Sometimes it takes someone outside the party to look upon things more clearly"
Geeze, why not ask Rush Limbaugh or Pete DuPont what they think Democrats ought to do?

"stale talking points are getting pretty obvious"
And they're not only pathetically stale, they're coming from greens and conservative libertarians.

"Oh, jeez, stop, my head is spinning like a top. "
So are your posts.

I think some people just criticize without offering much in return.

Oh, BTW, great article above by Blankenhorn. I missed that one, and I like it. I have another great article of his I like to share, but this thread is not the appropriate place for it.

ought to be able foment trouble among actual Democrats by pretending that an underfunded loser ought to be run against a Republican, well, then you're in luck.

"I have another great article of his I like to share, but this thread is not the appropriate place for it. "
Why not try a website for libertarian conservatives?

is not an ASSHOLE, although you may be. his advice is quite pertinent, as he knows quite a bit about he machinations of machine politics, circular firing squads, and such. he has been around for along time and seen it all. he is not a dem any more because he was pushed out of the party for standing up for what was right, fair and democratic. that you don't know anything about him means nothing. that you would call him an asshole says a lot.

and yes, cegalis has been slimed. obviously no one can say for certain at this point if she could win. but no one can say she can't. certainly there is plenty of evidence that she can. she is following melissa bean's formula for winning and is not only right on track but ahead of where bean was at this point. so, there is actually considerable evidence that she could win. so why is it being stated as a fact that she will not win? to scare away support, and money. if it was true that she was a bad candidate, it would not be slime. but since she is, it is slime. and since she is following the chairman of the party's plan, but still being shoved aside, it smells.

"he is not a dem any more because he was pushed out of the party"
One wonders how some of our DUers put up with such an evil and wicked party as the Democrats. If I really thought the party was pushing out anyone worth having, I sure as shit wouldn't stay. By the way, I ain't going anywhere.

"yes, cegalis has been slimed"
WHERE?

"so, there is actually considerable evidence that she could win."
If you ignore what actual Democrats say and listen to a wheehole from the Green party. And not only a wheehole from the Green party, but by your own account, a wheehole from the Green party with a grudge against Democrats.

But in my opinion many of the arguments are more extreme in their conclusions on both sides than I think the facts warrant, and it seems to be devolving into more of a feud now than anything else.

If Cegelis supporters want to propose anything concrete that DUer's can/should do to help her, that would be useful. Same for Duckworth supporters I suppose.

Personally, I would now be interested in hearing from Democrats across the country how the DCCC is relating to races in their own CD's. Have they recruited candidates to run? Should they have? Were there already Democratic challengers in the race? What type Democrats did the DCCC recruit? What were the original candidates like, if there were any?

Would Cegelis be a viable candidate with money?

By that, I mean does she have the smarts and prsonal qualities that would draw support if she had the resources for an effective campaign?

In this case is it the candidate who is the problem? Or is it an example of the Democratic Party undermining someone just because she is not a "centrist"?

Personally I don't like the idea of the Democratic Party undermining primary candidates who take the initiative to run. Grass roots politicians is supposedly the essence of democracy. The national Democratic Party ought to let candidates slug it out on their own in the primary and then support the winner in the general election.

But on the other hand, the Democratic Party ought to be recruiting quality candidates, to build up the bench.

. . .is the fact that Durbin, Obama and the Lt. Governor Pat Quinn all appear to be supporting Duckworth's candidacy. So while it can be portrayed as the DCCC or the national Democratic Party meddling in a local election all of the individuals involved in bringing Duckworth into the race are from Illinois. As I have said Durbin, Obama and Quinn hold statewide offices and have an understanding as to what is necessary to win in the 6th CD.

I'm not trying to defend the DCCC or Rahm, but it seems like there is a rush to condemn them instead of learning about the disctrict and its candidates.

It's a dilemma to maintain the balance between an open party and the need to recruit good candidates.

I am not automatically criticizing what Rahm and the otehr Democratic leaders are doing if she is a weak candidate. But if she would be viable if she can get heard, I would object strenuously if they are supressing a candidate just because she doesn't fit some pre-fabricated "mold." or if the democrats are so shallow as to ignore her just to put some vet in there just for marketing purposes.

Cegelis' 3rd quarter FEC report raised a lot a eyebrows. She brought in about $159,000, but had less than $50,000 cash on hand with about $39,000 in debt. In contrast the likely Republican nominee had $500,000 on hand.

There is a rift between Cegelis and Emanuel as well, she previously said she did not want him to campaign for her, Durbin and Obama would be fine but not him.

The thing that tell me there is more here than meets the eye is the role of Durbin, Obama and Quinn. If this was just about Rahm I might be suspect of Duckworth's candidacy, but efforts, that have been reported in the press, have allowed me to move into the Duckworth camp. I don't know a lot so my backing of Tammy is based on faith in Durbin, Obama and Quinn.

Like I said, I have no dog in this hunt.

But I do generally trust Durbin, both personally and his political positions.

she got 44% of the vote, in what is a long time, solidly republican district. (it is shifting to a more blue collar tho.) she has a solid base of volunteers, and a campaign team that has been together for 3 years. she is a camp wellstone grad, a second round dean dozen in '04. so far in this cycle, she has raised $13,000 more than in the whole '04 cycle, $163,000. she has gotten more and bigger contributions, although her base is most definitely small donors. now, people who want to oppose her keep saying she is not raising enough money, but she is ahead of where melissa bean was at this point in her last campaign. there are vague suggestions that she does not have enough "money in the bank", although to be honest, i suspect this criticism comes from a remark in a story in the hill, where, in my reading, a critic, (an R) used the term "in the bank" to mean raised. but people are harping about "in the bank" as though there is something improper or imprudent about how she is spending her money. nobody seems to say what, tho.
she is following bean's model. she kept her office open, and started campaigning again immediately. she has talked to nearly every voter in the district, i think. so that means she spent $100,000 to keep her office open for a year. does that sound like a lot of money to anyone? it doesn't to me.
so, do you think she could win with a little help from the party? i sure the hell do.

edited to say, if they can't turn this district, they should go home! the Rs in this district are well educated, upper middle class. they are not the crazed fundies still on the bandwagon. they will not be behind the flaming bushbot in the general.