Does anybody remember my 10/22 Wes Clark in a skirt comment RE: Il 6th CD?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=150x9516#9537

Well this broke today I was tipped off early last month but kept it a secret as you can tell by my post on 10/22 I already knew, damn I'm good! (OK enough of the self congratulation!)
-snip-
Decorated Black Hawk pilot to Congress?

A Republican source tells The Hill today that Democrats are trying to recruit Tammy Duckworth to run for Henry Hyde's seat, and against Christine Celegelis in the primary.

An Illinois GOP campaign aide said Democrats are banking on Tammy Duckworth, a former Black Hawk helicopter pilot who was critically injured in Iraq; she is a double amputee.

Duckworth’s candidacy, the campaign aide said, could be modeled after that of Democrat Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran who narrowly lost to Republican Jean Schmidt in Ohio’s strongly Republican 2nd District.
-snip-

http://capitolfax.blogspot.com/2005/11/decorated-black-hawk-pilot-to-congress.html#comments

up right now..interesting discussion about this and also a niu appreciation discussion

as long as this candidate gets her own signatures, runs her own campaign, raises her own money, gets her own volunteers, fine. and as long as the party supports that process and not the person, fine. putting up iraq war vets is fine, also, although i do not like this brand of 'out tough the bullies' politics.
meanwhile, back here in the real world, i think this sucks.
and don't go slamming the cegalis campaign again, windy. we don't need that kind of backstabbing slander.
this party needs to either find a way to support a fair primary process, or just junk it, and admit that we pick our candidates in the back room. either we value the grassroots, or we piss on and poison them.

Or just an honest assessment?

is weak? a camp wellstone grad, a good progressive. get off it windy. when it isn't really true, or relevant, yes, it is backstabbing, and it is bullshit.

. . .she should have $200,000 barely has $50,000, given her performance in 2004 there is no way she should have so few $$$. Additionally, there were a lot of her campaign insiders who are not signing up for 2006, that is not good, its a sign of a weak candidate.

from her blog, late october-
"Through Sept. 30, we raised $160,045.53. We have received donations from 1,236 people, and they’re giving an average of $129.49. You made this happen. Thank you for your continued support. This is just one more example of how you have made me a candidate selected, supported and funded by the grassroots.

What is astounding to me is that, so far, we have raised $13,000 more than we did in all of 2004, and we’re 13 months from Election Day. "


and if she has not gotten people back, maybe it is because they are not professional campaigners. they were college kids, and volunteers. i do not know that many of them, but i saw mostly familiar faces at the last event i went to.

backstabbing is when people go around saying things that are not true, in order to scare off support, make people look like losers, so that they can get "their people" a clear path. and it ain't just christine. the party shoved richard morrison aside, they are trying it in new hampshire, and they "sent" someone to challenge rubin zamora.
how many more? and not for people who are better candidates, but for people who have more money, or can raise more money, or just know how to kiss ass.
primaries are a great thing. the party should support them, on a level playing field. a primary challenge should not be a punishment. lack of a challenge should not be a reward. backroom deals are not democracy. the game is rigged right here- by who gets on the ballot, and who gets lied about, and sunk with rumors. it's time to clear the cigar smoke, and let the voters decide.

Again you are jumping all over me, calling me a backstabber when I'm stating facts. Now if the facts I'm stating are wrong you and other Cegalis supporters should sue the hell out of "The Hill."

-snip-
In the third quarter of the year, Cegelis raised $52,000. Her cash on hand, as of Sept. 30, was a little shy of $50,000. Democrats say that, ideally, Cegelis should have at least $200,000 in the bank by now.

They note that Roskam is far outpacing her. In the third quarter, he raised nearly $286,000, bringing his cash on hand to $550,000.
-snip-
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Campaign/110905.html

Again, its funny that you are so mad at me for STATING FACTS, I have not problem with people supporting Cegalis, I do however, have problems with people who attack me for supporting someone else. This name calling, etc. is just so unbecoming, its not really going to get me too excited about Christine should she win the primary. Have I attacked her because I believe their is a better candidate? Have I called her names? LOL this is damn laughable.

If the above facts are wrong SUE THE HELL OUT OF THE HILL, this whole "back stabber" argument is just laughable.

let's have a conversation about primaries. you correct me if i am wrong, okay?
imho, the main tool for shaping the party is manipulation of the primary field. if you are a sitting incumbent, or the chosen candidate for an open seat, and you are a good boy, you will not have a challenge if the party can help it. congratulations joe, you are the only girl in town. if your district belongs to the party, or can be won by the party, you get the seat.
if someone should stupidly insist that candidates are chosen in the primary, by the people, and decides to run against the chosen one, they will probably get a phone call from the appropriate party chair. they will be gently dissuaded- you can't win, joe has so much support, look at the last vote totals, he already has $xxxxxxxx.
if you don't take the hint, and run anyway, stories will appear in the press, saying that your campaign is in trouble, there is no money coming in, that you are ready to fold, so that you shoeleather campaign is starved. or that you are gay. or the contents of your divorce proceedings show up in the paper. the gossip columnist says you are through. whatever. dirty tricks, in other words.
then the chair will go out there and beat the bushes, and offer money, and make sure that you have a contest. if they really, really want to stop you, the fight will be so bloody, that the other party will win. oh well. it's worth it for the trophy head.

i think it works that way in all parties, in all democracies. i think it is human nature. but lets not tutt tutt, and call it laughable. it is the way things work.
and here you are, following the script.
whatever the hill wrote, whatever lynn sweet wrote, the fact is that she is $13,000 ahead of last time with 13 months to go. if we are counting dollars as a measure of support, then she has proven she has more support than last time. and she is running against alan keyes jr. she got 44% in a district thought to be pure red, against an incumbent thought to be untouchable. (which is how she got as far as she did. nobody minds a sacrificial lamb. anyone is welcome to run a lost cause campaign. just don't go thinking you can actually win the seat without the approval of the party.)

and so this is what you come here and say about this candidate-

"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."

why is that?

we know that dem voters must frequently hold their nose, and vote for some sorry excuse for a dem. we know that the party is full of liebermans, bidens, add your favorite corporate sellout here_________.
how do these people end up representing this party, and how do they continue to represent this party? well, this year, rahm emmanuel, member of the corporate wing of OUR party, is pulling these strings. he is sinking a progressive dem, a second round dean dozen candidate. a shoe in. not just a good candidate, but without a primary challenger, a shoe in.
i don't have any problem with candidates being picked in the primary. i support a clean primary on a level playing field. but that is not is happening here. the party is out there playing dirty tricks on a great candidate. one that won with the kind of grassroots support that ought to be the holy grail of the democratic party.
with all due respect to tammy duckworth, we don't want nobody somebody sent. the people of the 6th district will prove that they want christine.

I seriously have no idea what's up with Cegalis -v- Duckworth so I don't want either of you thinking I'm taking "sides" here-ok?

Having laid that out, I do want to interject something here about primaries. They are how the party self IDs, IF it is a level playing field. More often than not, however, the power brokers come into it behind the scenes and it just really leaves everyone bitter for a very long time.

Too many times I have been there to see "Big-wig X" (Hell no--I will never name anybody!) put people in the field that practice a scorched earth sort of strategy that just devastates local relationships. They also leave a trail a mile wide that leads right back to whoever sent them in the first place. THAT is no way to make new friends.

I will also say that I have been at meetings where possible candidates are being discussed. Quite frankly, there have been times when people who were GROSSLY unsuited to the job wanted to run. That is a huge waste of party time and resources, and we all realize that. What can be most difficult, are the times when somebody is deemed a "bad candidate" for some reason or another (usually involving some personal slight or social mis-step with a power broker) and they are, in fact, quite viable with the voters.

I've seen it happen, and I have seen races lost in the General because the power brokers backed the wrong person in the primary. As a party, we'd be ahead of the game if we figured out a way in Illinois to fund primaries that are independent of the deal makers and the power brokers. Good luck making THAT happen, however. This IS Illinois.

Luckily, I am outside this district, and I don't have to deal with this particular fight. We have Dr. David Gill to run against Tim Johnson, a GOPiglet if I've ever seen one. Our choice is quite clear and very easy.

Peace to you all.


Laura

edited for typos

but silly me thought that democracy was invented to get around human nature's baser instincts.
good luck with gill. he looks like a great dem to me.

. . .if Christine has the support you claim she has, shouldn't she be able to beat Duckworth in a primary? Why the name calling of those of us who support an alternative in the 6th CD? I have not called Christine names? I have stated strong opinions based on facts that you have to dispute. Why the venom? If the people really want Christine, then why not let Tammy take a shot at winning the primary? What's it going to hurt? If Tammy wins it will prove she is what the Dems in the 6th CD want, if she loses it will prove she is not what they want. Why the venom, if Christine is all that she should be able to dispose of Tammy very easily. Now you may respond with more name calling and accusations if you feel that to be productive.

I'm not in the district but I understand its importance and I know we have to keep Roskam out.

why do you come on here and say things that are not true, and why are you quoting an article that states that the source is a republican staffer?
like i said, i think that a clean primary fight on a level playing field is a fine thing. a primary challenge as punishment, or to cripple a candidacy, accompanied by slander and innuendo, is not a clean primary fight on a level playing field. it is a power play.
now, would you care to point out what i said exactly that you find to be name calling?

Those figures that the Hill report came from an FEC filing (they were flied on 9/30 as required by law), so you can discredit the article by citing the Republican staffer, however when I tipped this information it came from a number of Democratic insiders and the $$$ came from FEC filings. . .however if you don't believe ask the Cegalis people to challenge the Hill and declare those numbers as lies. You forget that campaign disclosurs are acurate so if those numbers I quoted are wrong pull the FEC report filed on 9/30 and prove it.

I'm not spreadind misinformation as you accuse me of.

H4IL06096 CEGELIS, CHRISTINE House
Illinois 6 Democratic Party Open Seat

Total Receipts: $159,884
Transfers From Authorized Committees: $0
Individual Contributions: $153,762
Non-Party (e.g. PACs) or Other Committees: $5,342
Contributions from Party Committees $350
Candidate Contribution: $0
Candidate Loans: $0
Other Loans: $0

Total Disbursements: $113,902
Transfers to Authorized Committees: $0
Individual Refunds: $0
Non-Party (e.g. PACs) or Other Refunds: $500
Candidate Loan Repayments: $0
Other Loan Repayments: $0

Beginning Cash: $2,989
Latest Cash On Hand: $48,972
Debts Owed By: $39,179

Committees Included:
CEGELIS FOR CONGRESS
C00394007
Through: 09/30/2005


so, you will note that the numbers in the hit piece are wrong, ok? she did not raise $53,000 in the quarter, she raised 3 times that. do you not think that it is damaging to a candidate to be painted as an unsupported loser? do you not think it is damaging to have LIES circulated in the media about this? do you think this was an honest mistake? don't you think you should apologize to this forum for repeating something damaging to a DEMOCRATIC candidate that turns out not to be true?

Two things jump out when I look at them:

1) The ability to raise almost $160,000 this far out (period ending Sept. 30 a full year before the election) is clearly demonstrative of an ability to generate significant support. It is even more impressive that almost the entire amount was in individual contributions, rather than organizational or institutional support.

2) On the other hand, what is she spending over $100,000 on during the same period? It's a full year before the election, she's not even on the ballot yet, and there wasn't any hint of a primary challenge at that point. (Remember, this is the period that ended six weeks ago.) I have to wonder about the campaign management that spends that kind of money this far in advance. Of course, I don't know what it was spent on, so it could have been perfectly justified.

and staff that was never laid off. they never closed the doors. they never slowed down. (and i want windy to name names of who has "deserted".) she has been doing fundraisers all along. she knew from the start that she would have to run twice. do you think she ought to be sitting on her cash, so that windy and rahm will be impressed? i wish her cash on hand was zero, and every dollar was at work. you are conflating 2 different totals.
if cash=support, she has already proven herself to be more popular than last time, with more cash, and bigger donations. and a team that has been together for 3 years. a network. one that includes a growing party organization in dupage county.
and she is spending it well. she has many contacts in chicago, and has done at least a dozen events here so for far. last i saw, ald. moore, and an schakowsky were still behind her, although i wouldn't have any particular knowledge beyond seeing them at a spring early money fundraiser.
apparently the dnc and dr dean have seen fit to invest in her candidacy. this is from her blog-

What a Weekend!
Submitted by Christine Cegelis

Wow, what a weekend!

My campaign manager and I spent the weekend in Phoenix at an invitation-only campaign training event run by the New House PAC and AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees). We came away with some great tools to turn the 6th district and this country around.

We spent the weekend with 14 other Democratic candidates from around the country organizing and learning. We’ll be able to continue working together through the election, learning from the successes and setbacks of others.

While there were many great speakers and training sessions, the highlight of the weekend was meeting Nancy Pelosi, the next Speaker of the House. The party leadership which Nancy represents realizes that bringing candidates together and giving them a helping hand through training and advice is the best way to take back the house in 2006.

The most valuable session for me was about house parties. Last cycle, we met hundreds of people in the district through house parties and the “Coffee with Christine” meetings. I still meet people that tell me they first met me in a Caribou Coffee where I stopped by for an evening of dialog.

These informal gatherings of give and take have always been my favorite part of the campaign. With this training, we can be even more effective in the use of house parties. We hope to do 100 to 150 over the next year.

We are going to do a variation of this at the Lombard Library, “Conversation with Christine”, Tuesday on October 25th at 7:00 PM. This informal gathering will be focused on Education and the idea is to have a conversation, to really discuss what’s happening in education and what needs to be happening. If you are able to attend, please come by and add to the conversation.

I have come back energized from the training and know that both the New House PAC and AFCSME will be behind us as we move forward in 2006. If you would like to gather a few of your friends and neighbors together, hosting a house party is a great way to get involved and to make some new relationships. Contact us at info@cegelisforcongress.com and we’ll help you make it happen.

The Democratic leadership understands that if we are going to change the direction of this country, we’ll need a different type of candidate. We need to elect candidates that are in touch with their constituents and with their concerns. That part of campaigning, meeting people in the district and hearing what they think, has always been my favorite part of running for office. I’m pleased to have it confirmed that it’s also the most important.

I hope you will help me win this race to represent your interests in the 110th Congress. Let’s work together to change the direction of this country.



now tell me again why she is a bad candidate?

That's actually very astute on her part. I remember a post she put up on kos last spring that addressed that very issue, and I was impressed by how savvy she had become, and how many lessons she learned from her first run.

"do you think she ought to be sitting on her cash, so that windy and rahm will be impressed? i wish her cash on hand was zero, and every dollar was at work."

I don't think that impressing anyone is ever a good reason to save resources and build a war chest. The reason candidates should do these things is so that they will have maximum firepower when it counts the most, in the heat of the campaign. As someone who has been both a candidate and a campaign manager, I know how important it is to conserve for the things that really matter, to maximize voter contact in the final months. I have seen way too many campaigns spend their money too early on things that made sense at the time, but left them short of resources for media, mail, and materials at the end. Again, without being on the inside of her campaign, I don't know whether that is happening here or not. I hope that you are right that she is getting good value for what she is spending now.

"you are conflating 2 different totals."

Actually, I'm not conflating anything. I recognize that money raised and money spent are two different things, and I addressed them as separate issues.

"last i saw, ald. moore, and an schakowsky were still behind her,"

If Cong. Schakowsky is on board, that's good enough for me. I've known Jan personally for over twenty years, and I trust her implicitly.

i have no doubt you would trust him, also. he is usually the one behind any city council resolutions on world issues, and has been a big part of local antiwar activities. as good a guy as you can be and still be allowed in the chicago city council.
and the comments about the cash on hand were meant for windy.
but fear not for the home stretch. i honestly think roskam is alan keyes jr, and the folks in the 6th have had it. but whatever happens, these guys will be ready. btw, i presume obama will be out there in the general, also. he owes the dupage dems. he shared many, many stages with christine last year.

. . .the numbers are not good. As I said she should have about 200,000 on hand she does not have 50,000. The numbers are not good.

the goal was RAISE $200,000, she did $160,000.

Jeeze. . .it was cash on hand. . .I know you need you a dispute. But post #10 shows that I was talking about cash on hand. But if you need to twist the facts to try and win an argument, that shouldn't even be an argument, then go right ahead. Ignore the facts, twist my statements whatever it takes.

Like I said, let Tammy run and see how she does. If Christine is the better candidate then she will be the nominee. . .simple as that.

look, this cash on hand crap is an honest misunderstanding, but i think that you are sticking to it, because it bolsters your side.
do you really care how much she has raised? or how much she has sitting in the bank, when it ought to be working? if you are saying that anybody cares how much she has sitting around, and not how much she has actually raised, then i think you are spinning. besides, your first attack here was based on failure to RAISE enough money. that was what the $200K goal was- raised. i'd say that $160K is short, maybe, but hardly the pathetic performance that you and rahm are trying to paint. and why fundraising is the measure of a candidate is a whole nother can o' worms. especially when you don't put any value AT ALL on grassroots support.

as far as a primary contest, go back and read my post #11. until this party, and this country for that matter, figures out how to support a primary process where there is a level playing field, and the people really decide, i consider having the chair of the dccc out fishing for opposition to a good, PROGRESSIVE candidate, while pukes go unchallenged in his own home state, to be anti-democratic manipulation. and to do so through this kind of rumor mongering stinks.
stop acting like some little virgin, windy. you know what is going on here, and so do i. and i am still waiting for you to name names of who jumped ship.

1/1/2005 - 09/30/2005
Total Receipts $479,106
Contributions From Individuals $219,910
Contribs from PACs

PAC Contributions Totaled by Interest Heading
1. Organized Labor $75,250
2. Finance, Insurance $64,500
3. Business - Retail, Services $22,000
4. Communication, Technology $21,500
5. Single-Issue Groups $10,000
6. Transportation $9,500
7. Health Care $9,000
8. Real Estate/Construction $9,000
9. Law $8,000
10. Energy, Natural Resources $6,000
11. Agriculture $4,500
12. Manufacturing $1,000
13. Defense $1,000
14. Undetermined $500
$249,250

Over half of his funds are from PACs and if you look more closely at the individual contributions, about half of the $200,000 raised from individuals were from Illinois. I went through that list and I could find only 6 at the most that are from his district.

Perhaps he'd like to have someone run against him in the primary. I'm in his district.

ya gotta wonder how some of the rank and file in those unions feel about what they are getting for their money. you know the corporations are happy.

i think that howard ought to give rahm a sharp one upside his head.

(R) Ruskam - $550k (much of it his own)
(D) Cegalis - $50k
(?) Duckworth - $0

The sole reason given by the DCCC for replacing Cegalis has been her lack of fund-raising. Yet Duckworth has acknowledged she knows nothing about fund-raising and would only run if the DCCC promises to handle that for her. So the DCCC is saying:

"We are going to raise money for Duckworth, since she can not raise money herself, to replace Cegalis as a candidate because Cegalis can not raise money."


Some of us have a problem with Yogi Berra as Rahm Emmanuel's chief adviser!

i reiterate that her staff was made up mostly of volunteers and college kids. you make it sound like david axelrod jumped ship, which i guess would be the sign of a something.
but, i know that her campaign manager is the same, her treasurer is the same, her web team is the same. so who left?

. . .not that you are backing Cegalis, but that you are unable to view constructive criticism as anything but back stabbing. . .it really is disappointing. I believe she is not candidate, that is not backstabbing. I'm only stating facts and drawing conclusions from those facts. . .that's not backstabbing.

She was outspent about 4-1 (the Almanac of American politics is probably available at your local library). And that's probably a stretch too -- I suspect Hyde dumped a lot of his money in other directions, because he did little mail and no network TV.

What the is the staff doing right now? Why does she need to continue to pay staff at full campaign mode?

mostly. i am not really that close to the campaign, just a contributer, and volunteered a little time last time around. i have been to a couple of fundraisers. i get the e-mails. i am not any more connected than that. so, i would have no idea what people are being paid, just that i have seen the same faces, and i know they never closed the office. i'm pretty sure christine never went back to her job, but i do not know.
but- they have been continuing to hold fundraisers, they have been having small house parties, and town hall type meetings in the district. they redid their web page, and i think they did a really good job.
spending $100,000 sounds like a shoestring to me.