is dccc chair rahm emmanuel torpedoing good candidates?

here in illinois, rahm emmanuel has been publically trolling for a challenger for christine cegalis, a good progressive candidate that got 44% last time against henry hyde, when it was considered a lost cause. she has raised more money already this time than in the whole cycle last time, yet rahm is out saying that she is not raising enough money. she is a camp wellstone grad, a former dean dozen candidate, and a solid progressive. the dnc has invested in her campaign with training and assistance. yet rahm is putting forth a novice candidate, paying a pr company to put her forward, and putting the illinois political machine behind her. why? here are a couple of threads where a du regular is passing along these smears, and touting this candidate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=150&topic_id=9709&mesg_id=9709
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=150&topic_id=9851&mesg_id=9873

there are several unopposed, or barely opposed thugs right here in illinois. yet the chair is out scraping up candidates to challenge someone with a solid campaing going. why?
is this happening in your state?

edited to say- support christine cegalis

DLC Democrats are all allergic to progressives and turn positively apoplectic when one wins anything. It seems they'd rather cling to power and field losers than communicate with the party base and field progressive candidates who can win.

Case in point: Governor Schweitzer of Montana, one of the reddest of the red states out there campaigned as an economic populist and a progressive and won. Whenever he speaks, some wimpy DLC type purses his or her lips and sneers a rebuttal.

him and not just from the rethugs..

I like what David Sirota has to say about this on huffingtonpost..

snip~
"The Democratic Party establishment is insulated enough as it is. We need reforms that aren't going to further empower the party big wigs to anoint a nominee – we need reforms that are going to open up the process to populist insurgents that will kick the establishment into gear and finally start winning elections again."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/will-the-dncs-primary-co_b_11345.html

nail meet head. the grassroots put howard in charge. too bad they did not give him an axe to use on the dlc.

for Dean to be head of the DNC, too..he wanted change within the Dem party.

snip~
"I am not with him on all the issues, but he understands the party's problems, what we need to do and how to get there," said Murtha. "And he has executive experience. ... A lot of people in the party don't understand just where we are. We need a change. We need something different."


http://www.grassrootspa.com/2005/01/hill-murtha-wants-dean-to-be-dnc-chair.html


More reasons for me to love Jack Murtha.

Dean said that it did not matter who ran in 08 unless we changed the party? He was so right.

It is the business as usual party as far as the congressional committees go. They will not let us do what they do not want done. Period.

Another thing Howard Dean said was that it would take decades to bring enough change to matter. He is right. Even if we win back the house or the senate....many are still very much like the Republicans. Look at Lieberman et al.

And we can run all the military veterans we want, are we up to 12 now? It is not real change, it is using them.

what Dean said about 2008. He's starting from the ground up rebuilding the Democratic Party..It sounds like something some enterprising repub is going to have to do in the future for their party if they are to survive.

This business of getting Vets to run just for the sake of "Vets" is not going to serve the Dems well because it is based on the same kind of logic as bush's march on Iraq. No substance..all glitter and propoganda.

before this new phenomenum called "progressivism" is going to catch on with the DLC diehards. Progressives are the new kids on the block born out of the 2000 election fiasco and they've barely begun to get their feet wet.

There's been a lot of resistance to these "upstarts" but I think we're getting a lot more recognition now compared to what we were two years ago.

It's actually a war for the hearts and minds of the Democrats. The DNC is actually humming along quite nicely with Dean at the helm and I have a lot of faith in him.

Prepare yourself for some victories in 2008!

and believe me, the chicago machine is one of the oldest of the old school.

and one of the most powerful.

There are so many unopposed races, that it is getting a little curious why they want Cegelis out. Thanks for that post. I was feeling like the little old Lone Ranger. I probably am, but it is nice to know someone else is not all gung-ho for the party picking our candidates.

that if any of us question this, we will be accused of "swiftboating" Duckworth? Am I reading that correctly? Unbelievable.

What is this thing about having so many military run for congress?

and disturbing. i think it is time to


trying to out tough the thugs seems like a fool's errand to me.

:kick:

I did notice you are often using the terms "Dean as your Lord and Savior". LOL

. . .I love it.

was a little bit over the line. Just saying. Not jumping on you.

:kick:

an unsuccessful previous campaign does not give you a clear field the next race. The DCCC's job is to recruit candidates that can win. I don't know enough about the recruit, but it isn't because Cegelis is progressive. Its because she hasn't demonstrated the ability to raise the money necessary to win.

Who has never campaigned, has no base of support, is from outside the district, is still having surgeries, has no money.

I think sadly they are using her. I say sadly because she as a wounded veteran should not be used for PR purposes.

What I say is not popular, but it should be.

she has raised $13,000 more than she did during the entire cycle last time. her average contribution is about $100. that is the kind of grassroots fundraising that is the stated goal of the dnc.
she now has name recognition, and she never folded her campaign. she has been out raising money and talking to the people of the 6th the whole time. she has proven that she knows what it takes to run a good campaign. she has dedicated volunteers. her opponent is a rabid neocon who ought to be vulnerable with the bush agenda falling apart. with a little help from the party (like they just butt out), she can win.

she should have little trouble deafeating a 'novice' in the primary.

That is just plain bull hockey.

by the DCCC 'machine.' But do we want a weak candidate facing a strong Republican in November?

That is the plan, say critics are "swiftboating" the candidates because they are military...even if we are concerned Democrats.

And another tactic which is very big now is to say that it won't matter, that Cegelis can beat the DCCC machine if she is strong. No, she can not. She will have the whole Democratic machine against her, with all their funding from corporations.

I have noticed that is a big talking point...if she is strong she can beat her opponents. That is just not true, and our Democrats are getting too obvious about the military stuff.

she is facing a mouthbreathing right to lifer in a district where there is a great deal of demographic shift. and the transparency of the "right to life" movement ought to be obvious by now. that is all he has going for him.

but this is manipulating the field. this is where the whores infiltrate our party. where the dlc would rather have a raging neocon than a progressive dem. welcoome to the back room.

:shrug:

I am sorry, but that is out of line.

You are twisting words. Our party is in trouble, and good candidates are being forced out by the party leaders to keep the military theme going.

to a woman as a 'whore.'

That is not playing fair.

It is pretty clear to me what was meant. The tactics are whorish.

:shrug:

first and foremost, is the corporate wing of the party, which is what rahm emmanuel is trying to foist on dem voters whether they like it or not. these people are not dems, they are whores. they are the people who voted, not just for this war, but voted with bush straight down the line. in our party.

i have no problem with primary races conducted on a level playing field. i have a BIG problem with primary challenges as punishment for not selling out to the corporate interests, or looking like you might not if you get elected.
this primary challenge is a calculated move on the part of party officials to shove a progressive lifelong dem out of the party. they are trying to run a vet who does not know how she feels about the war, hoping to cash in on the many antiwar voters who are, nonetheless, very patriotic. unfortunately, the candidate that is being shoved out of the way was antiwar in the last election. this is just trying to pimp this woman.
what is whorish is running a smear campaign in the gossip columns, saying that the candidate is a loser, and not raising money, even though she has far outstripped her last campaign. (making this money shit a lie. they did not support her last time, either. but she got 44% in what was considered solid red territory. on a shoestring.) and these constant rumors are intended to scare away money. making the gossip a self fullfilling prohpecy. or just a dirty trick.

what is whorish is propping up a candidate that probably has a lot less chance of winning than the one already in the race. for what reason, i can only guess. but if your seat in congress was handed to you on a silver platter, would you bite that hand?

the real point here is that this is a wing of the party that is hurting us. these are the bush enablers. and yet, that is who is picking candidates. cegalis is doing what the chairman says is the key to winning, and to governing well. grassroots, contributions from individuals, volunteers, meeting the people. mousepads and shoe leather. not beholden to anyone but the voters. so why is the dccc chairman trying to bump this candidate?? why is he defying the 50 state straegy, and allowing unopposed thugs in his own state? why is he pimping someone who does not even live in this district. someone who does not even have to run her own campaign. someone who is being presented by a machine connected pr firm?? why?? why?? why?? i keep saying why, and all i get is talking points and bullshit!

doesn't mean she's beneath excepting money from PIMPS.

Here's our DLC/DCCC strategist now!

The DCCC chairman is elected by House Democrats to help elect more Democrats.

that the pimps sent.

What exactly are the 'pimps' selling?

the dlc. or what will be left of it after the abramoff trial is through. you know the dems that will be in the dock there will be the corporate wing of the party. so, that will help us change this party.
but they have to sink real dems to stay in power. the place to do that is the primaries. if you get someone beholden to you, good. if you at least knock out the progressive candidate, it is worth it for the trophy head. but make no mistake. christine cegalis is her own woman. beholden to the $100 contributors and volunteers of the 6th district. who is tammy duckworth beholden to?

the DLC?

either that or she is too much of a novice to read the handwriting on the wall.

He has done the same to another candidate running for Congress. I don't know what his game is, but it's pissing me off.

That is what Primary elections are for. Why not let the voters of the 6th District go to the polls and decide who will represent them? If you support a candidate, work for them or donate. Why is it necessary to demean the Party leadership or another candidate because they would not be your choice? It is Rahm's job to win Congressional seats. Is he not entitled to an opinion? Work, donate, vote, Don't help the GOP by trying to destroy the Party. Everyone wants to celebrate the fact that Illinois is currently a blue state. Destroying the Illinois Dems will only enable the GOP machine to regain control.

Instead of destroying her candidacy by funding Duckworth, share the wealth. Why not?

It seems that he feels Christine cannot win. Just as you or I can contribute to the person we like, he and his supporters can contribute to their choice. DCCC funding is not used in the Primary, it is allocated in the General election to races that it feels are sustainable. There seems to be a lot of confusion about Primary races.

So if the DCCC can not give money in the primaries....who will sustain Duckworth during the primaries? Do we now need to further check out sources of funding?

She apparently has no real money of her own to run a campaign, and is the DCCC forbidden to help her in the primary? Is that what you are saying here?

And Rahm has the magic word: "sustainable." All his own decision to make.

I'm sure if she has the backing of top Illinois Dems, that will not be a problem. All donations over $200 must be reported so you will be able to check out who the major donors are. As chair of DCCC Rahm makes decisions with the help of staff and other members just like Dean does as chair of the DNC. I don't know that the DCCC is "forbidden" from making donations, you would have to check out their by-laws. Rahm is in the position he is in because of his ability to raise money. There was a recent article about him in Rolling Stone. You might try to find it if you want to know more about him. From everything I have read it is not yet a sure thing that Duckworth will be on the ballot.

But in a country like ours, power should be used carefully. He should careful in picking candidates with even less experience than those who are running and viable.

I only assume that since Duckworth was recommended by Durbin, that politically aware people have seen something in her that gained their admiration and respect. If she is just an empty vessel. I think it would be obvious and ineffective. Since these are experienced and capable politicians, I respect their judgment but reserve the right to base my support on my own observations and feelings. Christine may well be the best candidate we have, but that does not mean we will win the General Election. That is why I have said I hope the best candidate wins the Primary.

she will be anointed and funds will flow. the sweet column said she will have the key. but they will not give the key to cegalis. why? why? why? why?
this is a bullshit talking point that cegalis cannot win. just plain bullshit. she has been campaigning for 3 years. and you think you can replace that with an anointed nobody? i call bullshit.

Run that by me slower, if you please. I am not very bright.

I know if you go to the DCCC website, Christine is listed as one of three candidates running for an open seat. Duckworth is not listed yet. I have read other opinions that Christine should worry more about Lind Scott because the person felt he won in their debates. This is still an open Primary, Rahm is entitled to back a candidate the same as any citizen. As a political leader he will try to get the candidate he feels has the best chance to win, in the race. It would be an advantage for Duckworth to have his backing because of his influence.
http://www.dccc.org/races/states/il/

That is just ridiculous.

That is all I am saying. Yes this is America and unfortunately some are more equal than others. Until we actually have true campaign finance reform, this will not change. I don't see any credible candidates ready to tackle that issue openly and honestly.

I am sorry, that does not fly.

He is misusing his power.

through their repeated, and increased, monetary and volunteer support. this is not the people choosing. it is corporate wing of the party mounting a challenge at any cost to a viable, organized PROGRESSIVE candidate. one supported by the dnc, btw. it is a platform for a circular firing squad. they are already smearing cegalis, and drying up her contributions. it is the stated policy of the dlc to keep people like cegalis out of the party. how do YOU think they accomplish this?

That is why their is a Primary. Dick Simpson who wrote the op-ed in the Sun Times supporting Cegelis beat the machine in Chicago to be elected alderman. It is up to her and her supporters to do the same. Everyone supports the candidate of their choice and has the right to do that. The real problem as I see it is how campaigns are financed. That would be a whole new thread. I have no dog in this fight but I don't see th value in attacking Rahm for trying to win this seat in the way he sees fit. If you disagree with him that is fine also, work to that end, but don't deny his right to do his job. If he feels Christine cannot win, he must make the effort to gain this seat. Not everyone I have spoken with shares your enthusiasm for Cegelis.

Unfortunately, Rahm is viewing these races through a prism of his time in the Clinton White House. A prism where Democrats ceded issues to the Republicans. In essence, becoming 'Republican-lites' by co-opting certain views of the Republicans (i.e. "the era of big government is over.", Welfare "reform", etc.). People like Rahm and the DLC are still looking at political races this way.

The way Rahm and the DLC see the IL 6th district is how do we get a candidate that will appeal to the Republicans. Geez, let's get an Iraqi war veteran so that we don't look weak on the military. What Rahm doesn't realize is that that centers the race on an issue that is generally in the Republican candidate's favor. Instead, get a candidate, like Cegelis, who will not be afraid to say I am opposed to what the Republicans stand for.

This election year is ripe for a complete turnover of power to the Democrats if they only have the "balls".

Are Rahm, Obama, Durbin,and Quinn all DLC members? I'm pretty sure Rahm is a DLC member. Are the others also? If at least half of this group are not DLC, then this controversy isn't really a bone to pick with the DLC, even if you think the DCCC actions here are consistent with DLC aims. It's still fair to say Illinois Party Leaders, and of course the DCCC, are trying to influence the race in this district if that's what they are trying to do, but if the leaders mentioned above aren't DLC, than they aren't DLC, and therefore they shouldn't be called DLC. Call them "bosses" if that is really how you see them, but DLC membership has an unequivocal meaning. Elected Democratic officials either choose to belong to the DLC or not, and if someone chose not to be a DLC member, it isn't fair to call them DLC anyway.

. . .and Quinn in this. They are making this about Rahm when he is not the only one backing and supporting Duckworth.

So now I am just as irritated at them.

. . .and consider that like Rahm, they know Illinois, and in the case of Durbin, Obama and Pat Quinn (Lt. Gov.) they know the district pretty well because as holders of statewide offices they have had to run in the district. Maybe Cegalis is the best candidate to represent the district, but if people like Durbin, Obama and Quinn are backing someone other than her you have to take a very serious look at what is going on. Hats of to Cegalis and her grassroots, but Democrats in the state, besides Rahm, feel that they can field a better candidate. Before you go criticizing these 3 take some time to learn about the district and consider why they are backing Duckworth. Just so you know, since I believe you are out of state, Quinn is considered to be very progressive.

I don't know Duckworth, and I am not being critical of her per se.

I am being critical of the committees interfering in state politics so much.

The pat answer is oh that's his job. Not done like that, it is not.

And as I said 3 of the four should know the district pretty well and have an insight as to what it takes to win there.

Just think how the war vote affected us. Think how any stances on issues will affect us all. Medicare drug bill, Social Security privatization, cutting out Medicaid.

Every vote for CAFTA and the bankruptcy bill made by my senator Bill Nelson, affects you as well.

All politics is local, yes, but at times it is very national.

You said: "I am being critical of the committees interfering in state politics so much."

My response is that Rahm, Obama, Durbin and Quinn are all from Illinois so they are impacting the politics of their home state.

One example, if we get in candidates who don't care about the issues of health care or women's rights....then a vote by one in another state impacts me as well.

Hey, the same thing is done here as well.

As I said, Bill Nelson's votes for the War, for CAFTA, for the bankruptcy bill affect others in other states.

They are doing the same in MN apparently, telling Colleen Rowley not to criticize Bush too much. Not to be too outspoken. They want proper talk, and sometimes more is needed.

. . .now you keep changing the subject. You have to acknowledge that Rahm, Obama, Durbin and Quinn are from Illinois are entitle to be involved in state politics. Hell Quinn is the Lt. Gov. so he definately has a stake in what happens in the state.

when someone is making a valid point is a way of avoiding the issues.

Of course, they should be involved. Did you see the IL page at the DCCC webiste? That district is overloaded with folks, and there are 3 others with no one competing.

My issue was that the votes made by Illinois congressman affect us in Florida. Now you can post again that I am not addressing the problem. Yes, I am.

First of all I never questioned your right to have input on the candidate from the 6th Congressional District of Illinois. I never questioned the right or motive of Christine Cegalis and her supporters. Did I ever tell you to bud out? Did I tell you this is an Illinois thing and you just don't understand? Did I tell you to mind your own business? NO!

I understand that what happens in Illinois impacts the entire country just like what happens in Florida impacts the entire country. But there are also issues important to Illinois, base closures, the third airport, O'Hare expansion, federal funding for local projects, etc.

You did however question Rahm Emanuel's role in this race, not only is he the head of the DCCC, he is a member of the Illinois Congressional Delegation as are Obama and Durbin, and Quinn is the Lt. Gov. so their interest is two-fold one for the good of the state and two for the good of the country.

Again this current sub thread is about your complaint about the DCCC's role in state politics, which might be a valid point if the parties backing Duckworth (Rahm, Durbin, Obama and Quinn) weren't from Illinois. There is no deliberate misunderstanding here, you are just grabbing at straws. . .you know Rahm and Co. have every right to be involved in this race and you just want to look for some reason to hate it. LOL

he finally found someone that seems like she might be a candidate. they are going to extraordinary lengths to prop her up. from the article, it looks to me like the involvement of durbin and obama is one of lending campaign "experts" to talk to her, to asses her abilities, etc. this is the usual chicago cabal. when you see the name of david axelrod, you know this is the backroom boy's pick. BUT, i did not see any endorsement. so let's be careful how we talk about the support of local dems. maybe durbin said she would be a good candidate. i find it hard to believe that he said, ok, take her out and shoot down a progressive dem with her. i find it hard to believe he did not think she would run in her own home district, or in one of the districts where, i repeat, for the umpteenth time, there are unopposed republicans!
she is being presented by a party connected pr firm. don't be trying to wipe emmanuel's fingerprints off this candidate. that is just plain dishonest.

and you did scold ME about letting the voters of the 6th make up their own minds about a candidate. if it is ok for obama and durbin to be a part of this process, it is ok for me. my rep has no worries. i am trying to spread the blue in my own state.
we don't want nobody somebody sent. and we don't want that somebodies spin, either. (for those of you not from chicago, this is an old machine joke. a person applies for a job, but fails to produce the letter from the alderman. "who sent you?", "nobody", "we don't want nobody that nobody sent.")

I'm not sure Emmanuel per se is the problem, as I think this is consistent practice of DCCC over years. They seem to evaluate candidates based on money raised and how mainstream the message. They even seem to currently have a whisper campaign to torpedo Rowley here in MN, after she failed to heed their advice and makeover. They apparently dislike her refusal to wear make-up and her constant harping about Iraqi war lies. Consequently, they criticize ability to fundraise and suggest other candidates are out there. Apparently, they think Coleen Rowley doesn't fit her district because she is too radical. Pretty annoying stuff, but hardly surprising IMHO.

See here . . .
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2281694

The party came up with a "safe," conservative, anti-choice candidate and made sure all the money got funneled to her.

Evidently there are people within the party who don't want the voters to be able to tell the difference between the two candidates. They want to make sure that nobody who might rock the boat has a chance of getting elected.

I don't know about the Cegalls case in particular, but it is not unknown for a candidate to ALMOST win in one election and ACTUALLY win the second time around.

the district is changing, becoming more blue collar. christine has very dem, blue collar, cops and firefighters, kind of roots. she is running on a platform of "reclaim the american dream" melissa bean, in the next district over, did exactly what you say- came close the first time, and won the second. that was cegalis' plan all along. she is a smart cookie, and is working, not just to get herself elected, but to grow the party in her RED district. the party should be behind her, or at least get out of her way.
actually, the dnc has been supporting her campaign. it's the dccc that has been playing dirty tricks. howard said the party needed reform. he should start RIGHT HERE!!!!

edited to say- that i think dick morrison, who ran a great race against delay, got the same treatment. he was a good candidate, and environmental lawyer, and he got the shove.

. . .Cegalis supporters are basically stating that if she does not win, something under handed happened, that is just BULLSHIT, but its what I would expect from people who want to keep others out of the race.

the chair of the dccc is publically calling a candidate a loser in the fucking newspapers!!!
it is what i would expect from people who want to keep grassroots, unbought and unbowed candidates out of congress.

. . .:kick:

I haven't seen him publically call her a loser. The story originally broke from a Republican source. The other major publicity was from a Cegelis supporter. I haven't seen any public statement from Rahm or his staff. If he disparaged her it would be wrong.

. . .its a tactic used to discredit a candidate they know nothing about.

is the polite phrasing, i guess. don't bother to support her, is the message. it has been reported several times, and many names have been floated as opponents.
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Campaign/110905.html


she has been disparaged here on du by wndycty,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=150x9516#9525

Cegalis will be a disaster as a candidate, she might make a good Congresswoman, but she has to win. Despite her good showing against Hyde she will lose to Roskam. In a Republic district like the 6th a far right beats a far left candidate, however a moderate Democrat beats a far right candidate. Additionally, Cegalis has no money and she has horrible management of her $$$, trust me. I know we want every Democrat to be a true progressive, however we need to win this seat and I trust Rahm on this. I'm hearing some good things about potential candidates. I supported O'Malley, but he did not have the chops, I can't get excited about Cegalis, sorry.


dirty tricks. just plain bullshit.

. . .and I backed it up with information that does not appear to be in dispute, yet I'm being accused of dirty tricks, back it up. You made allegation, tell me how looking at the facts and decididing we can do better than Cegalis is a dirty trick? Tell me!

you don't have any facts. you have factoids from news snippets, and in spite of being asked at least half a dozen times to defend your candidate, you have uttered not one word.

. . .those tricks I'm asked to defend my candidate. As I said in the Illinois room, I know about as much about Tammy as you guys do, I'm putting my faith in the powers at be at this time and as I noted in the other thread I may find that I don't like her, but I'm disatisfied enough (not hating, just disatisfied) with Cegalis to consider this alternative.

But as happened in another thread I'm asking you to justify the accusation of dirty tricks that you lodge against me.

I really resent her remarks.
Snip>Cegelis suggested the district is leery of Democrats from the big city, saying she’d rather not stump with Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), who represents the 5th District, in Chicago, and chairs the DCCC.

“Certainly, Senator Durbin, Senator Obama, they’re very well-liked here,” Cegelis said of Illinois’s two U.S. senators, Dick Durbin and Barack Obama, both Democrats. “I think the congressman, you know, it’s a Chicago thing. I think that would be a little more difficult. We’re the suburbs.”<snip
Nothing like feeding the Republican bullshit line about Chicago. I see that from Republicans all the time, with it's inherent racism and regional divisiveness. She certainly loses my respect there.

As far as wndycty's opinion, he is certainly entitled to it. How does that equate to Rahm Emanuel?
I am on the slating committe in my County. We are always looking for a stronger candidate. After the Primary we support the candidate the voters have chosen.

dry up your money? at least she is smart enough to sidestep the question.

and during your primary process do you go around publically fishing for other candidates, and tell political reporter how weak your best candidate is? would you really be out beating the bushes for a challenger for cegalis if she were in your district?
besides, the rationale keeps shifting. they kept complaining that she was not raising enough money, even though she was far outpacing her last run, and also outpacing bean's efforts at the same point. now they are putting up a candidate with no money, no experience, and no ties to the community. and when she has no money, they say, it's ok, we will turn on the tap for her. give me a break. why?? why do they not like cegalis? imho, it is because she is unbought.

The reason might even be right but I don't think so. I think they see a race they can win with the right candidate. As I have said, that is a decision for the voters of that District to decide. I personally have no problem with a Primary runoff. As I said, I think it stimulates interest and shows life in the Party. I just don't think it is productive to attack a Party leader for trying to do his job. I also think all sides should come together to support the people's choice. At this point all you have to do is tout the benefits of your preferred candidate. Ms. Duckworth is not even a candidate at this point. There are two candidates in my District, Zamora and Laesch. I would certainly welcome another candidate if they had a better chance of defeating Hastert. In the meantime I support my choice as best possible and look forward to supporting the ultimate winner. Unless polls show a possible upset or one of them finds a significant source of funding, I don't expect the DCCC to spend a lot of time or resources on this race. Once again, until we have true campaign finance reform, that is the reality.

i think the party should be as open as possible, assist all candidates with training, information, and exposure through forums and debates, run GOTV, anything to support a clean process. it allows us to get our message out with less costly tv time, which is the root of all campaign finance evil, anyway.
but we all know that that is not what is happening here. it is the part where this is being done in the papers, and on the blogs, not just opposing her, weakening her, deliberately. and AGAIN- there are unopposed republicans here.

as fine a candidate as duckworth may be, she is way, way, way behind in the race now. she is not the caliber of candidate that can justify spitting on 44% of the voters in the 6th. let her run in the 13th. hell, i'd whip out my credit card.
i wouldn't count on that uniform to buy that many votes, btw. it didn't do much for the guy who ran against kirk last time. count me among those who think this whole fighting dems thing is getting out of hand.

That's a part of our culture that is broken. People always looking for some winning formula, then beating it to death with pale imitations. Republicans do it, Democrats do it, marketers do it, Hollywood does it. I am not commenting on Duckworth specifically here because I don't know her. She is a human being so she is much more than a uniform by definition. But I do not believe in running uniforms just for the sake of the uniform, anytime or anywhere. Doesn't matter if it's a soldiers uniform, a fireman's uniform, or a football jersey. A uniform might attract attention, but there damn well better be relevant substance inside it. Just my abstract two cents.

And I welcome clean primaries also. Good luck out there in having one if it comes to that.

. . .there are those on this board who have declared that a Cegalis loss would indicate that something underhanded happened, so unfortuntely it appears the battle lines have already been drawn.

sir, that is a completely unfounded insult. as is your assertion that i would not support the winner. an utterly unfounded slur on my commitment to my party. i take great offense. i intend to see the 6th turn blue. period.
the day after the primary, i will donate to the winner. i will volunteer for the winner. i will blog for the winner. i will defend that winner with all the vigor that i have used to defend cegalis.
but i also intend to do what i can to see big money influence diminished as much as possible in my party. chairman dean does as well. for you to equate dissent with disloyalty is heinous. it is also all that you have added to this discussion.

My post talked about how certain DUers have declared that a Duckworth victory, hell her just her participation is a result of something underhanded taking place. I will let your posts prove my point. I'm not putting words in your mouth. . .LOL I will use the bold type to demonstrate my point.

104. cegalis will win, unless the circular firing squad succeeds.
Edited on Thu Dec-01-05 09:58 AM by mopinkothe district is changing, becoming more blue collar. christine has very dem, blue collar, cops and firefighters, kind of roots. she is running on a platform of "reclaim the american dream" melissa bean, in the next district over, did exactly what you say- came close the first time, and won the second. that was cegalis' plan all along. she is a smart cookie, and is working, not just to get herself elected, but to grow the party in her RED district. the party should be behind her, or at least get out of her way. actually, the dnc has been supporting her campaign. it's the dccc that has been playing dirty tricks. howard said the party needed reform. he should start RIGHT HERE!!!!edited to say- that i think dick morrison, who ran a great race against delay, got the same treatment. he was a good candidate, and environmental lawyer, and he got the shove.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2283091#2285186


109. something underhanded IS happening.
the chair of the dccc is publically calling a candidate a loser in the fucking newspapers!!!it is what i would expect from people who want to keep grassroots, unbought and unbowed candidates out of congress.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2283091#2285348

So basically you did say a Cegelis loss would be the result of a "circular firing squad" which would lead one to believe that you believe the only way she could lose is if something underhanded happened.

The DCCC has one objective:

WIN ENOUGH SEATS IN THE HOUSE TO GET A MAJORITY.

They know what wins, and they will back those who fit their profile. One part of that is taking coaching. I know it offends some to think that candidates need coaching on things like flailing the hands too much, or looking like they belong in the 1980s on style or make-up points, or simply shaping the message.

If a candidate won't be coached, they ain't gettin' any money from Inside the Beltway, and they ain't gettin' the DCCC behind them.

.

The DCCC is the HOUSE Dems' organization. Anyone who wants their backing has to meet their criteria.

It's absurd to suggest they're all the same. Each district is assessed very thoroughly to pick the right candidates.

Anyone who wants to run can run, but many of those won't take instruction, and those are the ones who whine about the DCCC.

Guess what, we lost it all last year. The House, the Senate, and the White House. Could you explain how they did so well, what did they win?

What instructions are they supposed to take? The DLC type, I think. I understand there is an attempt to get loyalty for the Clintons. Could be true.

They're the elected Democrats.

There is a science to winning elections, and while it doesn't work every time, it's still the formula.


Mr. Smith does NOT Goes to Washington. Only in the movies. THE CANDIDATE is the reality. The successful candidates are the ones who will be coached, will do what their handlers tell them, will listen to their pollsters, will allow themselves to be professionally remade, and will say the right things at the right times to the right crowd.

There are no virgins in politics. It's about compromise and winning.

That groupspeak, that is.

You sound like you only want a certain type of person in the party. Is it your party? Or can I express views as well?

WOW.
They really know how to pick the winners!!!
Or are they forcing the locals to accept their "Beltway Annointed" lapdog who will do "The Master's Bidding???"

Is ALL politics LOCAL?
Not anymore!

they were winning, half of that time losing. Candidate recruitment matters. Raising money matters. Purists do not win elections.

Just flat out stinks.

how many candidates have won competitive congressional races on less than $500,000.

It may not be long before that will be possible.

campaigns are getting more expensive to win, not less. Advertising rates keep going up as do postage rates. The internet is an active medium. Meaning people are actively seeking information. To win election, you need to reach people who are not actively seeking information. This means tv, radio and direct mail as well as aggressive field programs. You need big money to win campaigns.

Actually, since no one in DC is going to change campaign financing in a significant way, it will be changing by necessity. There will be no choice.

Howard Dean has often said we will just have to raise money by making our own ways now....and he is doing it by the smaller donations.

I got a call from the ACLU the other day, asking me to donate in small monthly payments...that they were trying that "newer" way.

There is more to it, but yes, things are changing by necessity.

raise money is changing, but that doesn't mean the fact that money is as vital as ever is changing.

for the continued movement of the Democratic Party AWAY FROM accountability to those pesky LOCAL VOTERS,
but I'm worried about the health of our Democracy.

The National Party has NO BUSINESS injecting THEIR anointed candidates into OUR local elections.
Because THEY know better than the Local Democrats is pure worthless rationalization (BS).

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM
for those who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners)
at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

of the national party committees and their professionals to recruit candidates who can win elections. i have no use for purity. We are in a fight for our survival.

What is the benefit if we gain the World and Lose our Democratic Soul?

"Party Professionals" financed by Corporate Dollars can kiss my Progressive Ass!
:dem:

good things happen for the people of this country. That's the benefit. There was a difference between Bush and Gore just like there is a difference between Delay and Pelosi. If electing moderate Dems gets us to Speaker Pelosi, then that's the tack to take.

from defecting and helping the Republicans pass:
CAFTA
Credit Card Protection Acts
More Money for Defense Contractors
IWR


Face it. If we allow the National Party to rig our local elections, forget reform. They WILL protect the Status Quo. Business as usual.
We will get more of the same, and we will deserve it.

Though I must add;
I was very proud of the Party Discipline displayed in the House during the last Budget Vote, and the phoney Republican Iraq Withdrawal Resolution last week.

voted for most of those measures. Some did. When in the majority, you control and agenda and those items don't even come up for a vote. But you knew that didn't you. But you have more fun attacking good Democrats who just aren't perfect.

This is not about FUN.
This is about Passion, Democracy, and the RIGHT thing to do!

so we can stop the right wing assault on America.

Not the freakin' election. If you are elected as a conservative then do a 180 and start voting as a progressive, then you can count on being a one term congressperson.

we control what issues get brought for a vote. The wedge issues that hurt Dems in swing districts don't get voted on. You always give members leeway on votes that can harm them unless their vote is needed. We need to win elections. Those who have power control what the argument is about and that is half the battle.

Where in the world is this arrogance coming from anyway? Rahm's bottom line is the voters, not what he wants. He should not start playing God, nor should those of you who think the leaders can do no wrong start excusing stuff like this.

There are too many districts that are unopposed. He did not have to do this.

I don't think so. Its their job to recruit candidates who will win the most votes in the general election. To do anything else would be negligence.

... you sure couldn't tell that from their results. Fuck them, they are the problem, not the solution.

They're elected members of Congress. If you want to know how to win a congressional seat, asking those who have done it is the best plan. They have street cred. They've done, not just talked about it.

Their street cred means nothing at all unless the voters approve. Street cred is highly over rated. I hear there might be some rumblings over these tactics in a couple of areas, and his role is to answer to the voters....not just to do what he wants.

He's doing his job, the one assigned him by Nancy Pelosi.

How come they ain't been winning then? How come Dems are such a minority in Congress now?

Just sayin.

They know how to win because they have won their own races.

It's a simple concept. 200 plus Dems in Congress know more about getting elected to congress than most of those who second guess the DCCC.

farther left is not the point. closer to the grassroots is. getting big money out and letting the people in. that is the direction that the chair has declared for the party. that is the direction that the footsoldiers in this party have demanded. it is being undermined by the people that are on the corporate take. it is our party. this is MY race. my candidate, in my state, that i am supporting so that i can spread the blue. if my rep was in any danger, i would be working for her. but she is not, and she is supporting this candidate. and so am i. because she is a real democrat, and not a thug-lite. electing dems that will sell us out is not the goal. electing dems that will stand up for the people is. and this is where that sell out occurs. in deciding who gets on the ballot. and that happens with dirty tricks and the installation of machine candidates. duckworth is being introduced by a machine connected pr firm, ferchrissakes.

if the party cannot build on a 44% showing, and a 3 year campaign that does exactly what the chairman of the party want them to do, in an increasingly blue collar district, against the worse kind of republican scum, then they do not know how too win. they should get out of the way, not christine cegalis. quit apologizing for the corporate whores. yes, they can call down big money, play dirty tricks, out thug the thugs, and bully their way into the people's house. but they do not represent US. and i do not consent to allow them to destroy a good democratic candidate.

It frosts me when Democrats use the same terminology as Fox News to criticize an earnest grassroots candidate who nearly won in a blue collar district last time/

If a maverick campaign was able to get 44% last time, why not pour all the DCCC's resources into it and see if they can put it over the top next time?

If "winning" is the only important thing, why should the DCCC care about the ideology of the winner? Obviously they don't care if the "winner" is a kinder, gentler Republican.

If we object to a Republican Lite candidate, we're told not to worry our pretty little heads about it and that Daddy DCCC knows best and that the important thing is to win so that the Democrats who are waiting in the wings can get their committee chairmanships, never mind that the so-called Dem votes with the Republicans on economic and foreign policy issues.

And yet if a populist candidate runs, someone who would never dream of voting with the Republicans, that's a bad thing? Because she got only 44% in her first attempt?

Why not ensure that both candidates get equal funding and then let the voters decide which one they like, given a level playing field?

dirty tricks by our own party is NOT FUCKING FINE!!

this candidate is everything the grassroots are looking for. she is perfect for her district. she has lived there, her family has lived there. she is building the party. this is just bullshit.

we have got to figure out how to support a fair and open primary process. starting right now.

when they sell out the american people, and especially the democratic base, with shit like the bankruptcy bill.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/8091986?rnd=1133456687105&has-player=true
Snip>The Republicans are on the ropes. There's House Majority Leader Tom DeLay: indicted for conspiracy and money laundering. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist: under investigation for insider trading. The White House's chief procurement officer: arrested on corruption charges. The head of FEMA: forced to resign in disgrace. Even President Bush himself: approval ratings at an all-time low. The question is, will the Democrats be able to take advantage of the mess the GOP has made?

The answer depends, in many ways, on Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Chicago.

For years, Emanuel was the political brains of Bill Clinton's White House. Intense to the point of ferocity, he was known for taking on the most daunting tasks -- the ones no one else wanted -- and pulling off the seemingly impossible, from banning assault weapons to beating back the Republican-led impeachment. "Clinton loved Rahm," recalls one staffer, "because he knew that if he asked Rahm to do something, he would move Heaven and Earth -- not necessarily in that order -- to get it done."

Now, as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), Emanuel has taken on his biggest challenge yet: to win back the House of Representatives after more than a decade of Republican control. To pull it off, the two-term congressman will have to overcome odds far greater than those the GOP faced when Newt Gingrich engineered his historic takeover in 1994. Back then, according to a study by the National Committee for an Effective Congress, 117 seats were "marginal" -- that is, close enough to be considered competitive. Last year, thanks in large part to Republican-friendly redistricting, the number of close races shrank to only thirty-four.<snip

Why try to undermine them by picking lackluster challengers?

Why do you say Ms. Duckworth is lackluster?

building a base for the party in a red district is an accomplishment in itself. where are the props for that? with any extra support at all, cegalis wins.
duckworth may be a fine person, but she has no experience, no base, does not even live in the district, and is being sent by the machine. is that the kind of party YOU want? i don't. i am sad to see so many here who apparnetly do.

Cegelis may well be the best candidate, I don't know. That is why we have Primary races. They allow the people of that district to put forth the candidate they feel best represents them. Rahm has a job to see that the seat is won by a Dem. If the people disagree with Rahm, their vote will show it. I have spoken with other Dems in that District who feel that Cegelis has spent her money unwisely. Again, I don't know. They will decide who represents them.

some say. bullshit. how would you recommend she spend her money? quit the friend of a friend bullshit.
primary races on a level playing field are fine. dirty tricks and manipulation of the field to keep the corporate whores in power is NOT!

I should have known. People I talk to, are bullshit. People you talk to, are pure as the driven snow. From all that I have read Durbin promoted this candidate. Maybe you should work to remove corporate whores like Durbin and Obama from your Party.

if there was something she spent her money on that was stupid, say that. don't come here and say, well my friend said she spent her money unwisely. you sound like judy woodruff.
and please link to any other mention from durbin. i would like to read them. saying she would be a good candidate, and launching her against cegalis are 2 very different things.

It was a person who has run for office in that District and is more familiar with the local politics. He is not as supportive of her as you. He would like a better candidate to support. I did not pay attention to the details because it will not be a decision I will be making.

The link to Durbin is here.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/sweet/cst-nws-sweet28.html

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.<snip

Snip>Jasculca said he was asked by Durbin's team to advise Duckworth -- whom he called "a war hero with a good story to tell.<snip

that's it? that's all you have read? nowhere in there does it say that durbin wanted her to challenge cegalis. but that is what is being said here. big difference.
and wanting a stronger candidate is fine. fielding another candidate is fine. running a whispering campaign against a perfectly good candidate is not.

and again i say- there are unopposed republicans in this state. why are they challenging a good dem? duckworth could just as easily challenge biggert.

Why is that?

i never said that duckworth had no business being a candidate. for all i know, she would be great. you certainly have still failed to tell us anything about her, except that she comes wrapped in the flag. that bean was outside that district, or that i don't even like bean, is not the point. the point is that she ran once, came close, and won the next time. that is the only thing about bean that is relevant to this discussion.
you are wasting your talents here, wndy. you should be working of fox.

. . .raise the point if it was not meant to be one more nail in the coffin in your desire to diminish her candidacy? You said now own it.

i have said many times to tell us what is so great about your candidate. still nothing.
i do feel that running a candidate that does not live in this district is more evidence that this is a stop cegalis campaign. if she had ties to the 6th, it would make some sense. they could run duckworth against biggert. they could run duckworth against manzullo. but no, they try to shove her into a district that already has a strong challenger. i'm not opposed to anyone ever running outside their home district. but i think it is one more thing that cegalis has that duckworth does not.
now, besides enumerating her limbs, what do you have to say about YOUR candidate?

I have no confidence in Cegalis at this point. She is doing an OK job raising money but she is blowing through it. The Republican, Roskam, is doing a better job of managing his finances. You can say money is not everything, which is true, but her campaign is not doing a good enough job managing its finances. Some will say that I'm engaging in dirty tricks, but the reality is I'm drawing conclusions and basing my opinion on what is revealed in the FEC report HER campaign filed. Should my concern based on facts be labeled dirty tricks? If so, why?

My support of Duckworth is based on bio. Some people call her a uniform, but she has an interesting story, and that story could very well shape her politics. Her eing a double amputee I'm interested to see where she stands on stem cell research, her being a veteran I'm interested to see where she stands on the war, the treatment of soldiers (and their families) and veterans, her being a woman I'm interested to see her position on choice, her being Asian I'm interested to see where she stands on Civil Rights, her being from Hawaii I'm interested in seeing where she stands on the environment. Her being a pilot I'm interested to see where she stands on the third airport and O'Hare expansion. Her being disabled I'm to see where she stands on healthcare.

You can say that is a lot unkowns, but I look at her supporters (Rahm, Durbin, Obama and Quinn) and I'm confident she falls on the right side of these issues, or else why would the be lending their resources to her effort?

She has not revealed too much about herself or her beliefs at this point and I kow there are a ton of people who can't wait to bash me for supporting her at this stage. . .so be it. If I'm wrong about her I'll admit, and I will support the nominee whomever it is but at this point I'm not a fan of Cegalis.

This probably will not quell the criticism I'm receiving for this but it is my answer to the question that was asked.

From what I understand, Ms. Cegalis' 44% was unheard of in recent memory for that district.

I'm reminded of a state legislative district in Oregon that had been considered so solidly Republican that the Dems didn't even run a challenger, and it was successfully flipped in three election cycles.

Cycle 1 (1998): A Socialist (a real Socialist) ran against the Republican knuckle dragging fundie incumbent and got 20%. It's quite possible that formerly disgruntled voters coming out to cast a protest vote against the Republican knuckle dragging fundie helped put Congressman David Wu in office by 300 votes.

Cycle 2 (2000): The Socialist's ability to get 20% made the state Dems realize that the district wasn't as solidly Republicanite as they thought, so they ran a candidate. He got 45%.

Cycle 3 (2002): The Dems ran the same guy again--he won. This was one bright spot in what we all remember as a disastrous year for Dems.

Cycle 4 (2004): The successful candidate from Cycle 3 won again.

If current lack of DCCC support for Cegalis led to the grass roots raising enough money for her to wage an aggressive and well funded campaign. Reading the Rolling Stone piece, it seems that Rahm is not applying an ideological filter here, he doesn't seem put off by Progressives per se, but he tilts heavily toward money, which traditionally favors centrists. I am not close enough to the scene to know whether or not a different Democrat than Cegalis would have an easier time raising money independent from the DCCC than Cegalis. I am in no way knocking her fund raising ability. Just saying that Rahm seems fixated on money more than ideology, for whatever that is or is not worth.

money is a code word for corporate support. this is not about left right or center. this is about corporations v people. she is doing just fine, as is the party, with small contributions, and volunteers. that is what the chairman aims to do. that is what she aims to do. that is what i want my party to do. i want big money out. rahm wants big money in. and he is using nasty tactics to show his muscle. imho, he is in the wrong party.

I strongly supported Howard Dean for DNC Chair for many reasons, but one of the big ones was I knew he would work to give the Democratic Party a revenue stream that is more independent from big Corporate Money. I am thrilled that he is our Party Chair, and I think he is doing all of the right things. But Dean is not trying to run people like Rahm out of the Party.

This "debate" on one level is absurd to me personally, because if were to base Party support only on issues, and on which Party is least compromised by the power of Money, I would never for an instant be a Democrat. I would be Green or further to the Left than that. I am a Democrat because I also see the need to find a coalition with the where with all to get Kyoto Treaties signed, stop invasions of Iraq, prevent the Privatization of Social Security, etc. etc.etc. NOW. I don't see the luxury of time to wholesale purge the current Democratic Party and then rebuild it from the grassroots up. I want to rebuild the Democratic Party from the grassroots up but I want to restore the Democratic Party to majority status in Congress in 2006 while we do so. I think Dean has it exactly right.

Which is not to say that backing an established grassroots candidate who in my opinion made a good showing in her first attempt at a Congressional race isn't EXACTLY a part of how we can regain that majority. I am just rejecting a purge. Fighting Rahm on the merits of this race makes sense to me. Backing him/them (for now at least) in the DCCC's efforts somewhere else can also make sense. I fully expect to wake up some day after the mid term elections to read some stories about Freshmen Democrats saying or doing some wonderful things. And I fully expect that at least some of them will have been effectively recruited by the DCCC to run in their districts.

If they are wrong in this district then call them wrong in this district and continue the fight exactly like it seems many here are already doing. And obviously big money has too much power in American politics so we have to continue our grassroots efforts to change that, and support Chairman Howard Dean's efforts to wean the Democratic Party from deep pocket special interests. I just don't think we can afford to go Cold Turkey purist on this now given the state of the Nation and the World.

As I said before finance reform should be a thread all its' own. Rahm was an integral part in the last successful Dem Presidential election. It is only natural to run with what you know. Yes, money drives to the center. I don't know that there is any thing wrong with the center, it would seem that would be where the majority are. I just think it is wrong to attack Rahm for doing his job. If there is a disagreement with him or his methods, you must simply work to make change. Personal attacks on him do not accomplish that. I have seen remarks posted here that he is a DINO. I believe that is not true. Check out his voting record and bills he has sponsored and co-sponsored. I do not agree with all nor would anyone be likely to however he is a minority leader for a reason.

. . .ignoring the efforts of Obama, Quinn and Durbin to help her along as well. It seems this more about an attempt to bash Rahm more than anything.

If Obama, Quinn and Durbin are supporting Duckworth, it's a different kettle of fish. It's not my neighborhood, so I don't know, other than I have have some respect for those people, especially Durbin.

:shrug:

. . .I'm not afraid to admit that I have no confidence in Cegalis at this point and my support of Tammy has more to do with the fact that Rahm, Durbin, Obama and Quinn are aiding her efforts. I might be wrong, but I'm putting some faith in them. One thing that is not being considered is a strong a challenge by Duckworth could make Cegalis a better candidate. In any posts I have made regarding my lack of confidence in Cegalis I have never declared I would not support her in the general should she win the primary. I think we can do better than her, but if she wins she has my support, which is more than I can say for those who are bagging on Duckworth.

I don't think anyone here is bad mouthing Duckworth. In fact, the truth is none of us know enough about where she stands on the issues to say she is a "good" or "bad" candidate. What my issue and I think Mopinko's issue is why is she being promoted for the 6th District seat when other districts have no Democratic opposition and the 6th District already has a well established Democratic candidate?

does not make it a reality. She may well be, but people who are responsible for winning the seat might feel otherwise and part of their responsibility is to put forth the best candidate possible. If they are wrong and their candidate does not win the primary they damn sure should support the winner and the same holds true for other Dems. No one likes to see their choice challenged but that is the way it is. It simply means you and your candidate must work harder. The real issue is campaign finance reform. It is also the most difficult because change is not in the interests of the people needed to make it.

If I am head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, why would I want to start from campaign ground zero (setup staff, fundraise, work on issues, etc.) less than a year from the election in a district which already has an established candidate?

I would much rather have that first time candidate run for a seat where there is no existing primary opposition. There's a big learning curve as a first time candidate and I'd rather the person make those mistakes in a race that you're probably not going to win the first time around and certainly not in an open seat against a former Democratic candidate.

By the way, Rahm Emanuel is my neighbor just a couple blocks down the street and I'd tell him the same thing if he'd listen.

he might have polling data and other info that you and I do not. Maybe along with the recommendation from Durbin came a promise of financial support. Primary campaigning is part of the learning curve. If Christine has learned and has all that going for her, it should be no problem for her. You might want to drop by and ask your neighbor since I am only guessing.

44% in the last election and a proven game plan. and increased size and number of donations. small ones, like dean wants the party to rely on.

I have worked with other candidates and I can tell you that the state party will not give you money and support unless you raise a certain level of funding and can show sample polls that meet their standard. I would guess that Cegelis can do that, but I'm sure you and I aren't making those decisions, so we won't be given that information. The last election is the last election. They are demanding current information. There are a number of good qualified people who are kept out of political service and some that choose to leave because of fund raising. My personal belief is that campaigns should be funded equally with public money and spending caps to limit that money that is spent. then any one could run for any office. That is precisely why it won't happen. Don't get me wrong. I understand your point but I also understand that Rahm has a job to do.

why isn't an increase in the size and number of small donations, and being ahead of where bean was in her second race good enough? that is what dean is trying to do with the party, and is encouraging candidates to focus on. and dean is succeeding.
and why haven't any of the rahm apologists explained why biggert and manzullo are unopposed?

biggert and manzullo will be unopposed. WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY?

and the tactics. cegalis is a good candidate. rahm is entitled to try to do better. but he should be giving her props for her efforts, not going around and saying she is a bad candidate. then trying to replace her with someone who has none of the things that he claimed cegalis lacked in the first place. how can he say cegalis' problem is lack of money, (which is not really true. she is doing just what dean wants candidates to do- many small grassroots donations, not mega corporate money. and big increases over last time.) then put up a candidate with no money, or anything else. then say, oh, that's ok, we have a machine in place to support her. so, that machine can't add 6% plus one to cegalis' totals? wtf, that's what i want to know. wtf.

i say again, there are unopposed republicans in this state! he should go get them.

I like Schumer more than Rahm...