Duckworth supporters JOHN KERRY is on board. . .

. . .I see the Kerry flamefest starting now, but who cares he is on board with Tammy!

-snip-
Meanwhile, the political action committee of U.S. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is urging supporters to donate to Iraq war veteran Tammy Duckworth in her bid for the Democratic nomination against Christine Cegelis and Lindy Scott for the congressional seat being vacated by Rep. Henry Hyde.

In an e-mail to be sent Wednesday to Keeping America's Promise contributors, Kerry said Duckworth "knows that it's time for veterans to speak up for a stronger America."
-snip-

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/west/chi-0603010257mar01,1,203373.story?coll=chi-newslocalwest-hed

She was brushed aside by establishment, back room Democratic politicians. I'm supporting her.

Professional politicians, leaders of the Party by will of active Party membership, actually making decisions about who would be the best candidate to slate for a general election run! No more ghastly a business has come to my attention in decades; it quite takes my breath away.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

making these decisions actually won a national election.

Seriously (and I voted for Kerry and believe that he possibly won were it not for Diebold), I think the problem many have on this board is that some of these insiders haven't done much to make the Dem Party more viable in all 50 states in years and yet, now, they're deciding who is best to run in a general election.

Kind of like the Hackett thing. You know.

My friend turned to me the other day and asked "Don't you sometimes think that you could do a better job than the leaders of the democratic party." I replied: "Sometimes? Try all of the time."

We can't have that.

Ms. Duckworth sounds decent enough, actually. I wonder why this endorsement would be a bad thing. Indeed, she was probably at the Band of Brothers rally with Kerry, Clark and Clelland. It only makes sense that he would "have her back" as it were.

He has been fundraising for BandofBrothers also.

I understand that there is some competition in the district and that some will be unhappy with that, but at least, BoB is supporting only Democrats.

(I have no position in this race and dont know enough about anybody to have an informed opinion on the rest).

BTW, Kerry is also the first Senator to have endorsed Cuellar's opponent in the TX race.

. . .because he is supporting the challenger to an incumbent. Most progressives are, in gives more credibility to his Duckworth endorsement.

I would thought he would stay out of it.

Clark, then Kerry.

You can support them or not.

The whole thing is heartbreaking. Pitting segments of the party against others.

It is like deja vu all over again.

Oh let the pity party begin. . .this is getting old. Painting the Duckworth as a lost for the party, but its what I come to expect.

I get that same uh oh feeling I had in the primaries. They are giving the finger to the candidate who stepped up to the plate when no one else did.

I am starting to think this is deliberate...to make sure and keep only their choices running.

I did not think Kerry would do this, I really did not. I think it is being partly sent as a message to the upstart wing of the party.

Your getting mad at me all the time, putting me down, does not solve the problems we face. BTW I recommended this...as I think it needs discussion.

Clark and Kerry and Obama have made a recommendation in a race where there was a good candidate running already.

I hope others will recommend, I think it needs the light of day.

counted....should he have done that, back in the '04 primaries? Was that deliberate? Was Al Gore giving the finger to Kerry and Clark?

Cause sounds like you are saying that folks shouldn't endorse during primaries.

Or is it that you are in disagreement with their choice of candidate they chose to endorse?

It is piling on, and there is no need for it. Didn't early voting start already?

I am very sick inside at this.

and this was my first comment to you. I don't get the "pile on" remark. As far as you being sick inside...why? Cause John Kerry, Like Al Gore, decided to endorse a candidate during a primary? I don't get your "angs".

One set of rules for Dean/PDA/DFA one set of rules for everyone else. It had to be said.

and Obama. We have been fighting with HQ about this, they kept saying no. They came in because of fairness.

You need to be fair, not misrepresent.

I will leave the thread now so all of you can gloat in peace.

. . .when PDA came out the other week in support of Cegelis, I don't think any Duckworth supporters complained, moaned, dogged PDA etc. But anytime there is anything positive in the Duckworth camp some Cegelis supporters can wait to complain or criticize.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and who's moaning about "Jim"'s endorsement?

You need to be fair, not misrepresent!

I will leave this thread now so that you can moan in peace.

have spoken. They made their endorsement. They stand by it. Good for them. Just us little grassroots at DFA and PDA spoke up for the candidate that proved that district could be in play.

It is so nice to be kingmakers. Then windycity goes after DFA which is a little nervy considering the circumstances.

But hey the big guys always win, don't they?

:kick:

SO true.

It's only grassroots if DFA does it - everyone else is an establishment tool :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

That's very dishonest.

I apologize... MF is such a strident "spokesperson" it's hard to not conflate her with DFA. But she doesn't speak for DFA, you are right.

Do you really really want to go there? Do you?

Which is the entire fucking problem. YOU aren't the "grassroots." Stop telling everyone that Cegelis is the "grassroots" candidate, as if anyone supporting Duckworth cannot be grassroots. I'm every bit as grassroots as you.

Once again, your paranoia kicks into high gear. :eyes:

She's basically accused me (and countless, countless others on DU) of some sort of shadow war against her. Whether or not you agree with her about Cegelis is completely irrelevant to the fact that she can't disagree with anyone without claiming that they are some cyber mob boss with her name on some List or something.

someone else has paranoia issues.

if you've endorsed the conservative candidate against the liberal candidate IN A DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY.

It is this candidate, this situation, it is now inflamed more.

He could have left it alone with the early voting underway.

If you don't know this situation, there is plenty on it here at DU.

I am referring not so much to endorsing as to taking the side of the DSCC against the grassroots candidate. Again, if you are not aware this is going on all over the country.

I will fight it when it happens.

He's doing this for all types of canidates from around the country! YOU STILL GET TO VOTE DON'T YOU?! NOBODY HAS BACKED OUT (YET)! Geez! So in the 2008 primaries nobody is allowed to endorse anybody, right? Just like Gore endorsed Dean. Good grief!

Maybe, having done better in that District, he knows what the electorate wants. Obama and Durbin are the elected Senators of that District. Durbin saw a person that impressed him and she fit the need. Cheney is coming to the 6th CD now, to raise funds for the GOP candidate. This is a key race. Because some perceive Cegelis as a good candidate is not enough. They felt the need for a better candidate. The people of the 6th CD will make the choice.

The woman STILL isn't against the Iraq War even though she lost her legs in it.
She hasn' taken stands on most issues.
When she did, they were centrist or conservative.
And there is no polling showing that Duckworth would
do any better than Christine Cegelis.

Where's the beef? as someone once said...

Well, Cegelis did not fight in Iraq, and she did not lose her legs. But she is just as patriotic as Tammy D.

I wonder if all these guys endorsing really realize what the DCCC and DSCC are doing. I know Sherrod Brown had a grassroots meeting to calm some fears, and after having someone "warn" them not to make waves...he indicated he did not know the party leaders were doing this everywhere...nor did he seem to care.

This is the basis of our country, to have people who care run for office. Party leaders need to butt out. They need to stop recruiting millionaires and war veterans...other people are worthy as well.

. . .I guess you were just being dramatic for effect. . .LOL

This race has angered so many people, I don't really think you have a clue. You keep gloating and high-fiving with all of Duckworth's big name endorsements, and you don't even realize you are making it all worse....or do you?

The anger is there, it is not going away.

Pyrrhic Victory

"A victory that is won by incurring terrible losses"

Hey, the big guys will probably win, they usually do, don't they?

And are you going to gloat when the election is over as well? Probably.

They are making a statement about military and vet issues that are important today.

I see that this as a planned PROTEST MARCH on DC that the vets are making and they intend to carry it INTO the capitol building to the floor of congress - I think it's quite a statement to make.

It's a hook and a gimmick that can pay off for Dems big in Nov. I am sure that Dean is all for the plan and gets why they are doing it. I doubt his speech about veterans' benefits the other day happened in a vacuum. They are acting as a team, imo.

Pyrrhic Victory

"A victory that is won by incurring terrible losses"

Look at more about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory

this district for the last 32 years. That reign may finally come to pass!

Pyrrhic indeed!

.

:kick:

What are we up to now...over 50? Over 60? And in Florida TPTB are putting millionaires in the race.

They assume average people can't win. You assume only vets can win. Both assumptions are arrogant, and they are hurting us.

I support Jesse Jackson Jr., not a vet. I support Bobby Rush, not a vet. I support Jan Shakowsky, not a vet. I support so many candidates who are not vets, but if you need to believe that to feel better so be it.

Can you see the future?

Edit: But I do enjoy the sparring :-)

:think:

wouldn't Dean be a part of that party establisment you're against? Or do you see him as being on the outside of the party establishment because of who wanted him in that position, and who didn't?

Sincerely looking for your point of view re: Dean's role and where he fits.

. . .nor do I seek out pro Cegelis threads started by madfloridian to criticize Cegelis. I lose no sleep over madfloridian. . .LOL It would be a shame if moderators shut this down as a flamewar strictly because madfloridian is unhappy and turned it into to such. This thread was launched to spread the good news about Kerry's support. Nothing more, nothing less.

And the big boys are coming out in huge numbers. Gotta get all the bases covered.

so it must be Grassroots vs. Grassroots!

May the best woman win....

And may the Democrat Win in the GE!

:hi:

.

Neither can I. You can only be grassroots if you are for Cegelis :crazy:

It's beyond arrogant for you to presume that DFA is the be-all and end-all and speaks for the "grassroots." Spare me. I suppose I'm less "grassroots" because I'm not a member of DFA and because I'll probably send Duckworth ten bucks? I'm not grassroots, even though I'm a middle class college student whose parents aren't rich important political poobahs? That, despite all of that, I'm somehow part of the "establishment"? :rofl:

I'm tired of you co-opting the entirety of "grassroots" to tear down ANYONE that doesn't goosestep to every diktat from DFA. MANY ordinary Democrats aren't in the DFA and don't prefer DFA candidates. You know, Howard Dean and DFA supporters aren't the only members of the grassroots, and there are a LOT of people here - hard-working, ordinary, average Democrats who make up the base of this party - who resent to high hell your constant implications that we aren't a part of the grassroots or a part of the base because we don't support the same candidates or PAC that you do.

NO ONE IS SAYING you can't support DFA or Cegelis. Knock yourself out. But stop speaking on behalf of the "grassroots." Stop implying that anyone who doesn't support the DFA's anointed is part of some ridiculous "establishment" agenda. Because guess what, MF? I'm every goddamn bit as grassroots as you, and you do not speak for me, and I'm tired of you telling me and wndycity and countless other hard-working committed Dems here that we are not good grassroots Democrats like you.

I was told not to read the Kerry forum, not to post there (though we donated almost a thousand to him).

Yes, I am upset today. This should not have happened.

Your hatred of me is so sad.

"Hatred"? :rofl:

No, I told you to stop trolling in the Kerry forum for the express purpose of starting arguments, which is ALL YOU DID. Did you ever post anything about your support for a Kerry initiative in there? Did you ever come in to make friendly conversation with the people who reside in the Kerry forum? No, you came in to raise hell because someone committed thoughtcrime about Dean or some other sacred cow and you came in to chastise us. Don't blame me if you can't read the rules of the candidate forums.

You are more than free to come into the Kerry forum as an ally and post supportive, helpful things. Everyone would welcome you, including, though you won't believe it, myself. But you've never done that, have you? No, the only times you've ever come in have been with hackles raised, ready to chide us for God knows what - which, btw, again, is against the rules of the forum.

When you want to have a productive dialogue, let me know. You are more than free to come into the Kerry forum if you can manage to do so without pulling this passive-aggressive thoughtpolice crap. However, I highly suspect you'll continue to deny that I have extended an olive branch many, many times, and continue to blather on about how I "hate you" or some other such nonsense, because, sadly, I truly don't think you're happy unless you can pretend that the entire world is against you.

It might work someday

You stopped reading after the subject line. When you're ready to engage in a productive dialogue, let me know. When you're ready to stop playing the victim, let me know.

I am no victim, nor will I ever be one or play one. I resent that.

I stay out of Kerry forums now, I don't even read them. But my friend I am NO VICTIM.

As if your M.O. isn't obvious a mile away. You come into a thread with the express purpose of being hostile and then accuse everyone who disagrees with you of hating you, stifling you, etc etc etc etc etc.

I don't really care if you read the Kerry forums or not. You'd be welcome there if you could post without being belligerent. I don't think that's possible for you, though.

You don't approve of me. Which puts me on guard for the 08 coming up.

Gotcha loud and clear.

Oh, you're just funny.

As if you're on anyone's radar for 2008, sweetie, least of all mine. It's actually flattering that you think I'm important enough to be on guard for. Imagine, me, a lil ol' college student, accused of party psyops. Would that I were half as important as you think I am!

Just asking?

Obviously, you support Cegelis. That is cool. However, that doesn't mean you have to defend MF's gestapo thoughtpolice tactics just because you agree with her about the specific candidate or issue at hand. She comes into this thread, claiming to speak for the grassroots, and anyone disagreeing with her is accused of all manner of skullduggery and what have you.

I'm perfectly capable of disagreeing with someone civilly about Duckworth vs Cegelis or whatever... madfloridian, unfortunately, is not, and you'll notice that EVERY flamewar in these threads starts and ends with her.

. . .because certain people who don't like Duckworth are throwing temper tantrums. Is that the new tactic? You can't stop the Duckworth support so come in and act up until the thread gets locked.

Like I said downthread... it's like she carpetbombs these threads, posting 20, 30, 40 times just to get it so hopelessly embroiled in a flamewar that it gets locked. Why is someone who claims to be the ultimate defender of grassroots politics be so obsessed with trying to stifle grassroots support for Duckworth? I guess it's only grassroots if you agree with her.

You don't have to read it.

Consequently do not assume I am defending MF because I like Cegelis.

For the record, your posts in this thread seem fairly cut and paste. And when you use words like gestapo and thought police, you can no longer claim the other guy is trying to play the victim card.

:eyes:

At least be honest about the reason you're in this thread.

:eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Accusing others of name calling, while calling others names. lol

Accusing others of playing the victim, while playing the victim yourself. lol


Here is the part that is going to hurt, I am talking to you. Not protecting, defending, nor a sycophant. Look in the mirror and learn the difference.

Your Quote: "Obviously, you support Cegelis. That is cool. However, that doesn't mean you have to defend MF's gestapo thoughtpolice tactics just because you agree with her about the specific candidate or issue at hand. She comes into this thread, claiming to speak for the grassroots, and anyone disagreeing with her is accused of all manner of skullduggery and what have you.

I'm perfectly capable of disagreeing with someone civilly about Duckworth vs Cegelis or whatever... madfloridian, unfortunately, is not, and you'll notice that EVERY flamewar in these threads starts and ends with her.END QUOTE

You are trying to destroy my reputation here, and I resent it.

I am not at all concerned about your words as directed to me, but I find the tone disturbing.

I will defend myself when I need to so. You do what you need to do to feel better, and I will take care of myself.

I guarantee whatever dark insidious plot you've conjured in your throes of paranoia is pretty much dead wrong. I wish I had HALF the Dark Evil Power you attribute to me.

Who the hell are you to say other people aren't "grassroots"? Do you even know what the definition means??? It's not just a word to make you feel special.

How do you know who the hell is grassroots and not? Get off your damn high horse!

I resent that very much. We had to beg DFA for months. Though local groups were still with her, DFA national had decided not to get into the race this time even though was a Dean Dozen before.

I respected that but was upset. But then Obama, Durbin, Clark all started getting into the act, and DFA got Christine's back.

I am glad they did. She has a lot of good people working for her, and a lot of us doing other things for her.

Go ahead, laugh, gloat. Duckworth has the power behind her. We all know that. But your LOL and your gloating do not make you look good.

Think schoolyard bullies.

. . .you can start your own thread about Cegelis.

.

. . .however you have made a habit out of visiting Duckworth threads and starting flame wars, its getting pretty predictable. I try to respect Cegelis threads, but if you get your jollies by coming into Duckworth threads so be it.

I guess the notion that calling Cegelis an incompetent boob was okay in your eyes.

Or a DLC room? Then you can tell everyone who to vote for
and determine which candidate will get all the money and
endorsements through your skulduggery channels in DC!

And NO ONE will be able to contradict you!

FAB!

You've made at least 5 replies to the original post, not counting your replies to people within the thread. How many different times can you say the same thing over and over? You can't just say it once and be done - you repeat yourself endlessly then act put upon when people tell you that it's not necessary to flog the dead horse.

Whatever floats your boat I guess.

.

So mature.

Defined


:hi: F A 82

I dont know how anyone would flame over this.

I don't applaud him for it. He and Clark and Obama and Durbin should have stayed out of IL 06 and let things just happen.

Did you say that when Gore endorsed Howard Dean in 2004?

Everyone is entitled to support whom they want.

Oh, I forgot, it's okay for DFA to endorse candidates, but no one else is allowed to. Riiiight.

Boy, you love to find me posting, don't you?

How many times have you posted in this thread? 20? You're bound and determined to stifle any "grassroots" support for Duckworth, aren't you - it's pretty obvious by the way you carpetbomb EVERY thread about her. Why are you stifling the grassroots?

Hey, you got it.

Which is why you carpetbombed it. I clicked on it because it was also about Kerry. I doubt you would have flung such copious amounts of shit had it not been a Duckworth thread, because we all know that you aren't allowed to support Duckworth on DU, according to madfloridian, the Thoughtpolice.

No, actually I have no opinion on Duckworth. I supported Cegelis in 04, and I support her now because she proved the district could be in play.

You need to stop this.

:rofl:

you sure seem obsessed with turning EVERY SINGLE THREAD ABOUT HER into a flamewar that gets locked.

You do know what that is right??? Example: Al Gore and Howard Dean.

I resent that very much. We had to beg DFA for months. Though local groups were still with her, DFA national had decided not to get into the race this time even though was a Dean Dozen before.

I respected that but was upset. But then Obama, Durbin, Clark all started getting into the act, and DFA got Christine's back.

I am glad they did. She has a lot of good people working for her, and a lot of us doing other things for her.

Go ahead, laugh, gloat. Duckworth has the power behind her. We all know that. But your LOL and your gloating do not make you look good.

Think schoolyard bullies.

Why on earth should the leadership of a party have no say in its affairs? Where is the organization in which those charged with its leadership do not exert influence over its course and actions? People become leaders of a political party through winning elections, within the Party and outside it among the general populace. They are therefore the chosen representatives of those Party members concerned enough to participate in the organization, and persons who have displayed some mastery of the craft knowledge involved in winning elections. They would be derelict in their duties if they did not put their expertise and position to use for the benefit of the Party as they judge the matter.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

I don't think Rahm should have so much power as to do this. Our voice in Florida is being muted with our chair working with him.

http://www.mclean4congress.org/mclean4congress_003.htm
Highland County hoedown.

How do you feel about Rahm and the party chair of Florida recruiting a millionaire Republican who wears a cowboy hat and boots and is not a good speaker...to run against two good Democrats?

Is that ok as well? Do you need to know the circumstances, or is it ok just because the party says so.

This has been a very sad thread. There is nothing good to come from this.

Because I feel it needs to be an open process, with scrutiny given. I don't give Rahm the power to decide for me. I don't give Karen Thurman that right either.

Rep. Conyers has endorsed him.

He will be able to finance a vigorous campaign.

The person whose piece you linked to does not come across to me as a person who would stand much chance of success, even in a primary, let alone a genera;l election.

I am surprised you got that out of her post. She is a very bright person. Mahoney is not that good a candidate, he is just very rich.

But you and I are looking from two viewpoints...you think it is the job of the party leaders to pick candidates. That assumes they know best.

I think it is goes beyond their job to leave good candidates hanging and send in some from outside the district.

I think that our elected leaders speak for us overall, and when they get thousands of calls (which they did on this issue), then they should at least open a dialogue.

Wow, I sure know when I am outnumbered. Guess most here want the party to pick the candidates....so why bother with primaries. :shrug:
Save a lot of time and money but letting them point, say you're the guy. We should not have primaries, then. If it is going to be that way, we should be open about it and just not schedule them at all.

Then the party won't change at all for decades with no fresh blood. Let's just be honest about it...just not have primaries.

To see to it that the Party wins, and exert themselves to that direction. That is what leadership entails.

If that is totally true, then we don't need primaries. They are costly, and they are time-consuming, and they breed a lot of anger inside the party.

That is the point I make, that if the party leadership tells so many to leave the races throughout the country, tells them they won't support them, then there is no need for primaries.

So sadly I guess we agree. If the party leadership is totally in charge of deciding who runs, then primaries are no longer needed.

And if they do that, they don't need enthusiasts in the party.

On numerous occassion, they have obviously done great harm to prospects in the general election.

Nor does it seem to me that strong leadership and enthusiasts are necessarily in opposition.

If that is "what leadership entails", then those currently in charge should be fired for incompetence.

They are not just picking bad candidates, they are actively
working against those who are not beholden to them.

This is BAD!

You may disagree with their choices, but that is hardly the same thing.....

You may disagree, sir.

By the way, strange posts for "neutral" moderator!

And yet you state it as a proven fact, which it is not....

:sarcasm:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

.

It isn't "getting the Bush bastards" to fight for conservative Democratic candidates who will always agree with Bush on everything that matters against electable progressives who will actually fight FOR Democratic principles.

Reality is, Cegelis is a Democrat and Duckworth isn't. Especially since she's still prowar.

All that counts is the vote for Speaker of the House, and the tally for Majority Leader in the Senate. Anyone who can be relied on in those two items is fine by me....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

If the votes to pass progressive legislation and push to get us out of the war aren't there.

We can assume that Duckworth will never be progressive or antiwar, so a vote for her will essentially be
a vote for a younger female Henry Hyde.

Control of the agenda of the chamber is of tremendous importance. Amonmg other things, it yield committees in our control with subpeona power.

"The essence of politics is simple arithmetic."

:)

YOU DON'T HAVE TO SUPPORT HER! Kerry is doing this because he wants to help! You don't have to support her if you like her opponent better! Good grief! At least he isn't doing like Schumer and Reid with Hackett (whatever happened there). ALL HE IS DOING IS ENDORSING HER!

far as the party establishment is concerned. The Washington Post article that was reprinted in Minneapolis a few days ago about Ms. Duckworth's campaign failed even to mention that she had a Democratic primary opponent, as did John Kerry's e-mail.

I really don't know enough about either candidate to decide who would be better, but to see the party establishment lining up so solidly behind one primary candidate to the extent of pretending that the other candidates don't exist is disturbing.

The party establishment should be interested in having a Democrat win that seat. They should not be so particular about having that Democrat fit into a specific PR package, but that's what seems to be happening here.

I've seen cases where candidates have lost their first race 40-60 and have come back to WIN. I wish the party would give both candidates equal amounts of money and publicity and see which one can win the district's voters on a level playing field.

I see the party establishment in this case as being extremely ungrateful to a candidate who came as close to unseating Henry Hyde as anyone ever has.

He just doesn't mention Cegelis by name. Kerry is endorsing Duckworth for the same reason Clark did, because they support Democratic Iraq veteran candidates.

:rofl:

"because they support Democratic Iraq veteran candidates."

It is to laugh!

We'll never know if they would have endorsed him or not, because he never filed. He took his marbles and went home.

So OUR party didn't call Hackett's donors and tell them
to hold off!
Like OUR party didn't TELL Hackett to get out of the race!

He just "took his marbles" for no reason.

:crazy:

Obviously it makes you feel better to blame others for his decision to withdraw, but Hackett could have told Reid and Schumer to fuck off if he was committed to running for the Senate. Likewise, had his donors been committed to him, they would have told the DSCC to fuck off. You insist on blaming others when it is Hackett, and his donors, who did not have the wherewithal to stick to their guns.

Congratulates Paul Hackett on Hard Fought Race
For Immediate Release

Washington, DC - John Kerry issued the following statement this evening:

“This was a tough race and Paul Hackett ran a terrific campaign. He made an unprecedented showing in this race and drew overwhelmingly strong support in an historically Republican district. Paul volunteered to serve his country in Iraq and he volunteered for duty again to serve his country in Congress. He reached out to people across Southern Ohio and offered them an alternative positive vision to the Republicans who run Washington. He talked about the issues that really matter and he wasn’t afraid to speak the truth about his experiences in the war in Iraq.

“His strong showing tonight in an overwhelmingly Republican district sends a warning signal to the Washington Republican establishment and the Ohio Republican Party that voters aren’t happy with what they have seen so far. They are troubled by the corrupt culture and do-nothing Congress, and are ready for a change.

“I know Paul’s commitment to this country runs deep and I know despite the results of this election he will stand by his promises to his district, and as a citizen, continue to fight for a better future for the people of Southern Ohio. In the end, this election came down to a well-financed incumbent and an enterprising challenger. Paul worked hard and I know that we can continue to expect great things from him.”

as one who was against Hackett running. Neither did he endorse Brown near as I can tell.

The "they" you refer to re: Hackett would be Reid and Schumer, not Kerry. J17 says he supported Hackett. I dunno, I hadn't heard, so for the mo' I'll take her word for it.

He is also a Democratic candidate for this seat.

is a male or female. i didn't even know that person was in the race until the Kerry email.

I am glad he is endorsing Duckworth. :)

I don't really know enough about the race to support Duckworth or Cegelis. From what I have observed, both seem like good democrats. I'm just worried that if Duckworth wins the primary, Cegelis voters will be turned off by all of the national party support for Duckworth and that they will stay home on election day.

then fuck them. if they are willing to sit home and not do anything to beat Republicans because they are turned off by Democratic Party support. what it shows to me is they hate the Democratic Party more than Republicans.

I just want to win in 2006.

that's why i would vote for any Democrat unlike those you mentioned.

I was wrong. They know better who can win and who can't. They can have large donor fundraisers better than we at lower levels can, and the candidates they pick will be getting good support.

So it will work, and it will save us a lot of money. The only thing missing will be the heart and enthusiasm we felt before....but that is not important at all.

CD will decide in this race, plain and simple. This post is like your threat to leave this thread yesterday, its a dramatic ploy on your part to illicit sympathy. Oh the drama!

That is the simple truth.

:wtf: does that mean?

Which means effectively opposing any actual Democratic ideas, since bigger defense budgets
always mean more conservative domestic policies overall.

And it means Vietnam without end, amen.

The Dem Vets running on the whole are less supportive of Bush's Iraq war than a cross section of Democratic incumbants. Chickenhawks who never served have been pushing us into wars. They are the ones who have inside conncections to firms like Halliburton and make the millions from them that cost Americans an arm and a leg. The vets are the ones who lose an arm and a leg. Ike was the one who first warned about the military industrial complex. Let's look at people as individuals, can't we?

part. That's always a code phrase for more defense spending.

Nobody in politics who uses that line uses it to back Democratic values.

Nothing I've said here was vetbashing.