Friday, March 31, 2006

Facing Facts in the 6th Congressional District

As promised, I have had a little more to say about the revelations from The Hill, courtesy of Capitol Fax, that Christine Cegelis is searching for excuses not to fully endorse Tammy Duckworth. My apologies if I repeat myself a little bit, but as this debate gets to core issues, I think it belongs on page 1, not page 19, and since others have asked me to move it there, here I go.

I'm reminded of that old Nike commercial, where Michael Jordan recounts how many times, with the game on the line, he took the final shot, missed, and his team lost. But champions learn from their mistakes, try harder, and move on.

They do not blame everybody else for their loss, and as Rich Miller put it so eloquently "take the ball and go home."

Here are some facts the Cegelis camp needs to own up to:

-- Team Cegelis put together a great field operation, but they were still soundly beaten, despite having a two-year head start. The main reason they lost is that Christine Cegelis could not make a compelling case that she was the better candidate to face Roskam, either to core Democratic groups, prospective donors or a plurality of voters. And, as I've pointed out many times, you won't even find the names of any other Cegelis family members or many of her most ardent bloggers on Cegelis's campaign finance reports.

-- Cegelis's 44% showing against Henry Hyde was no predictor of her performance in 2006. Peter Roskam would have slashed and burned her for her extremely liberal views, including but not limited to: banning not just assault weapons but all handguns, decriminalizing possession of narcotics, increasing welfare spending, raising taxes, and "developing a universal single health care system for this country similar to our Canadian neighbors." Even though I personally agree with many of her views, no one in their right political mind can possibly believe she was electable in DuPage County with those extreme views on record.

-- Whatever you think of Rahm Emanuel, Tammy Duckworth ran an honorable and positive campaign, never criticizing Cegelis or Scott, but instead focusing all of her criticisms on the Bush administration and Roskam.

-- The "old line democrats" aren't casting Christine and her supporters as "disloyal Democrats," as bored now claims. Team Cegelis did that yourselves, by constantly attacking the Democratic Party and it’s leaders over the last six months and laying out your "us versus them" attacks. In fact, by Christine Cegelis’s own admission, it took an invasion of another country under false pretenses to get her activated in the Illinois Democratic Party. She was what — 50? I’ve been walking precincts since I was 12, and have paid my dues doing grassroots campaign work for candidates in all but a handful of Illinois counties across three decades. Many of the people I know supporting Duckworth have given up that and much more, so forgive my umbrage when Cegelis appoints herself the arbiter of Democratic ideals and whether or not Duckworth is living up to them.

-- Besides that fact, the contention that Duckworth has somehow abandoned core principles on health care is nonsense, as Arch Pundit points out, and Duckworth's own words just a week ago reinforce:

“I’m running because I think Congress should put our interests – not the special interests – first. That begins, first and foremost, with the issue that has been the centerpiece of my campaign: bringing affordable, accessible healthcare to all Americans who need it.”
And while this may fall short of Cegelis's promise to vote for Single Payer or support a repeal of CAFTA, what person in their right mind believes Cegelis's rhetoric? The push for Single Payer in the U.S. (which I spent two years campaigning for) began before World War II, and CAFTA is now the law of the land. Would anyone in their right mind believe a freshman lawmaker from a Republican-leaning district who implies she is going to lead the way in revolutionizing health care or turning American trade policy 180 degrees? Take a lesson in hubris from Barack Obama--and Tammy Duckworth.

-- Cegelis's "Good luck" is not an endorsement. It is a polite way of saying "go screw yourself, you're on your own," while bored now is much less polite when he says "Sounds to me like y’all are trying to set up blaming christine for duckworth’s inevitable loss against roskam." If that's your idea of being a team player, you must play alot of Solitaire.

-- Speaking of bored now, who complains of "old line democrats" and the learning curve he and other core Cegelis team members are going through; we haven't forgotten he's a longtime Illinoisian and has lectured us time after time after time after time after time after time about how much he knows about politics, and how experienced he is. The Dumb Act about how to give an endorsement from a guy who claims to have predicted John Kerry's loss is, well, dumb.

-- By contrast -- and contrary to William Maggos's claims -- Tammy Duckworth has been extremely gracious in victory, complimenting both Cegelis and her supporters. Despite my well-deserved cynicism about Cegelis's ability to be part of the Democratic team (as in "There is no 'I' in team"), even I've recognized that Cegelis has many strengths, and I even pledged my support is she decides to run for the Statehouse as part of that Democratic Team.

Cegelis's camp is right about one thing: The Democratic Party of Illinois does need new blood. But Team Cegelis seems to think we need to spill all of the old blood out on the pavement first. Her supporters downplay the differences between Democrats and Republicans, even though in just the last three years, Illinois Democrats gave 450,000 minimum wage workers a raise, and the earned income tax credit was expanded and made permanent. 90,000 kids and 300,000 working parents got health care. Roughly 10,000 kids gained access to pre-school. Illinois became the seventh state to require homocide interrogations to be videotaped, we cracked down on racial profiling, and we put the brakes on a death penalty system that is deeply flawed. We banned discrimination against gays and lesbians, and we told insurance companies they couldn’t exclude birth control from their coverage. These are no small accomplishments, unthinkable when Republicans were in charge. Definitely something to build on, not tear down.

I've no doubt that, if they want to, Cegelis and her band of loyalists can scuttle Duckworth's efforts. As I keep saying, it only takes one arsonist with a match to destroy, but it takes real power to build. If Cegelis supporters really want to demonstrate that they are a force to be reckoned with, they should take responsibility for a few townships and deliver the votes on Election Day. Talk is cheap, but numbers don’t lie, and if you can actually back up all of that talk, you won’t have to kick the door down to the Democratic Party. They’ll come find you. If you don't believe me, ask Barack Obama, Jan Schakowsky and Pat Quinn -- they were all anti-establishment candidates once too.

I know that So-Called Austin Mayor, William Maggos, and bored now don't speak for everybody who supported Cegelis in the primary, and I’d just like to take a moment to say thank you to all of the Cegelis supporters who have pledged their support for Tammy Duckworth. Tammy’s remarks about your idealism and hard work are right on the mark, and the Democratic Party is lucky to have you in its ranks.

The Democratic Party is not a stone monolith, but a forged coalition. As Baird Staughan says, like the head of an axe, in every coalition there are groups that form the blade: small bands of radicals, uncompromising, rich in energy, and often on the fringe of public attention. And there are groups that give that blade its heft: large institutions, incrementalists, rich in resources, and they are always in the public spotlight.

You should be proud to be on the cutting edge, but not vainglorious; you can’t chop wood without them just as they can’t chop wood without you, and if you stay at it long enough, some day some snot-nosed Meathead will be calling you Archie Bunker. Like it or not, we are part of the same family, we live under the same roof, and we do need each other.

UPDATE: Since I won't be around to fullfill my duties as hall monitor, comments are now closed.

25 comments:

wndycty 7:33 AM  

Excellent post, I have constantly defended Duckworth on democraticunderground.com and have gotten beaten up for it. Your posts says a lot of the things I wish I would have said.

Bill Baar 7:43 AM  

I voted for Democrats from McGovern to Gore.

I voted for Gore because I believed the United States needed to be more actively involved. I believed we needed to do Nation Building after Bosnia and Rhwanda in the 1990s.

I believed Bush senior had abandoned Iraqis after the first Gulf War. I believed Clinton when he signed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998.

I learned in the Democratic primaries, when I voted Lieberman, that there wasn't much room for a Democrat like me anymore. I was dirven out of the Grinnell College class of 76 listserv by Dean supporters who dominated the place and turned everything into politics and slammed anyone who didn't agree as an agent from Halliburton (and they knew nothing about DoD's LogCap procurement process either).

The Cegelis folks don't surprize me at all. They don't want Democrats like us anymore.

I understand Reagan now when asked what made him change and he said he didn't change, the Democrats did.

Anonymous,  7:57 AM  

Your obsession with Cegelis is second only to the infatuation you have with your own posts, anyway, thanks for the laugh!

Anonymous,  8:05 AM  

since your "attack" seems to be against me as well as it is christine, i shall merely point out your numerous errors here.

let's start right off with your first false assumption, that cegelis supporters blame everyone else for her loss. WRONG! your famous ineptness follows you. since you've offered me up as a typical cegelis defender, this is very easy to dispense with: we lost because we failed to id enough supporters, failed to turn out those supporters we did id on election day, and failed to blunt the barrage of messages that duckworth bought. but *that's* not what you're looking for, is it? you need to tie cegelis to the whipping post because she isn't playing your game! loser.

your second false assumption is that cegelis "put together a great field operation." amateur. the fact is that the cegelis campaign barely put together an adequate field operation, as attested by anyone who participated in the last few days -- and duckworth still only garnered 44%. i understand that the "great field op" is the current myth that the shocked democrats are floating, but here's the real lesson: duckworth is a pitiful candidate who has a long way to go to beat a henry hyde campaign, let alone a peter roskam campaign.

roskam had more people on the streets on election day than duckworth. but that's a comparison you avoid. why is that? (it doesn't seem to occur to you that cegelis supporters may be avoiding duckworth because her campaign is terrible, and they don't want to be involved in another failed effort.)

the people i talked to in the cegelis campaign were more than aware that beating roskam would have been tougher than beating duckworth. but we will never know, will we?

since i'm not a lose with honor kinda guy, duckworth's positive campaign falls right off the map. if i thought that peter roskam would only run a positive campaign i *might* be impressed. but i'm not. she was uncomfortable in public settings, had trouble thinking on her feet, etc. i keep wondering where this great candidate is? i mean, is she only about her story? is that all there is?

she's toast!

(understand that i'm taking these in order:) poor yellow dog! feeling so unappreciated! dude, i've been walking precincts for longer than you -- and i dare say in more races than you -- but i long ago determined that all candidates think they are annointed by god. the fact that you've missed that, well, shows that you're a little slow on the uptake. you want to criticize christine for her idealism -- go right ahead. you've done that from day one since i've been here. but you seem to vacilate between wanting to suggest ways for keeping christine engaged and a full frontal assault. your credibility is in question here, given your "flip-flops."

and i have to say that your inability to recognize that this criticism of the democratic party will outlast christine is a huge glaring weakness on your part. yes, we get it, you're connected to the powers that be! money flows your way! you are mr. mainstream. you're also the one that pointed out that democrats like you didn't support christine in november '04 and inferred (iirc) that they wouldn't do so in this general. yellow dog, my aXX.

so the question is, if mainstream democrats wouldn't support chris in a general, why should cegelis supporters support the mainstream candidate? when you have an answer, please get back to us!

i'm going to forego correcting your criticisms that stem from the hill article, because i've talked to numerous people in washington about this and your take isn't as realistic as you want to believe. we can address it again, if you are proven right (i'll await evidence), and you know that i can admit when i was wrong.

i personally view cegelis' statement wishing duckworth "good luck" as a statement of support, perhaps the most she's capable of right now. i will grant you that it was bittersweet -- she came damn close to slaying the dragon -- but she did what was required. quite frankly, i don't think you can expect more from her before she retires her debts. and, no, it's not my idea of being a team player -- but i don't think that is anyone's goal here. you've laid out all the reasons why christine would be an incredible albatross around duckworth's neck -- so let's not assume that the victor wants it hanging there. and let's not forget that you would not be encouraging the duckworth people to be "team players" if christine had won.

i'm sorry that you think i've learned anything from this primary. but your lack of insight has been established. i get that you're jealous. it's ok. maybe someday *you* can get a presidential appointment! then we can meet up at the special 'experienced politicos' club and have a drink. and don't worry -- i didn't defend you because i'm such a nice guy, i did it because you were right.

see, i *have* honor.

your repeated offer for cegelis to run for the illinois general assembly is, quite frankly, insulting. now, i suspect you didn't mean it completely that way -- after all, what can you do in washington? all the action is in that tiny little town downstate where the clubhouse is filled with you and yours! but i suspect you knew that this was an insulting idea, although i also suspect that you don't understand that there's more to the democratic party than the dpi. most of the people i've met volunteering for cegelis don't give a thought to the dpi, it's the national democratic party they want to change. if they've given any thought to the dpi, it's only on how disconnected the dpi is from the rest of the democratic party.

i don't think anyone expects you, mr mainstream democrat to understand how "outsiders" could reasonably compare the democratic party to the republicans. after all, nixon raised the minimum wage, reagan supported the earned income tax credit, nixon proposed a national health care program. oh, i forgot. that's outside of illinois. not everyone wears your blinders!

no one needs to scuttle duckworth's election. she'll lose. we've seen the results of axelrod's "air war" strategy with claypool (and the detroit mayoral race last year). roskam already brags about how many doors he's knocked on; he's put together an army of volunteers to run a decent field plan, and he seems to be implementing the lessons of ohio. can't wait for those adverts on tivo. his supporters are already prepped with response messages about duckworth (roskam spends more time in the district in one day than duckworth does in a week, one republican election judge told me). and while you seem to be worried about cegelis being tied around duckworth's neck, roskam has been quick to tie rahm around it.

he's a moderate, right? rahm fits the 6th nicely, right? (btw, i agree with duckworth's plan to run to the middle, i'm merely questioning how effective she'll be at convincing voters that she's not rahmbo's protege. how many times a week does rahm talk to duckworth? let's compare that with how often roskam talks to delay!)

as for your challenge to cegelis supporters, they are already being courted by scheurer (sp?) in the 8th, kotowski and seals. but there are others, as well.

here's what you glossed over (because, well, your insight is suspect):

* cegelis has a right to be disappointed. like most congressional candidates, she put as much as she was able into her campaign, and it's unlikely that she'll get it back.

* cegelis has a duty not only to her party but also to her principles. while i expect her to support duckworth, rahm's intervention makes that highly problematic. rahm always says that he can smooth over the hurt feelings later. well, here's one that has to be smoothed over. ydd won't tell you (probably doesn't have the guts); i just did.

* duckworth exposed some serious flaws in her campaign strategy that i'd expect to be exploited by roskam. even if all of cegelis' supporters flocked to duckworth and started today, they could not change that. these are strategic flaws, not tactical ones. trying to guilt people into supporting duckworth doesn't change that.

* yellow dog tries to paint this as a moral victory for cegelis and her supporters. that's bull. it's a hard loss, and people should learn through the pain, not try to accomodate those who won. they won! they want our help, they'll ask. indirect messages from people like ydd don't cut it. if *duckworth* wants your help, she'll ask. plain and simple. this *isn't* an illinois house or senate race, this is a congressional race. expect nothing less.

Anonymous,  8:06 AM  

Cegelis was "soundly beaten"?? Right off the bat you're wrong.

But, this is great that Democrats in the district are divided.

ROSKAM FOR CONGRESS!!!!!!

Anonymous,  8:52 AM  

anon 8:06 -- i wouldn't count on democrats in the district being divided. ydd's pimping his own (longstanding) biases here. while i don't personally see how duckworth wins (unless she changes her campaign tactics and strategy -- no, it's really hard to imagine a duckworth victory), the 6th dems are growing stronger. some people are missing that...

Anonymous,  8:54 AM  

awwwwwwwwwwwwww, is somebody picking on YDD's candidate again? Poor baby.

Anonymous,  8:59 AM  

yeah, i expect to be called a whiny little amateur any moment now! god forbid i use ydd's standards to dismiss his peeps!

Anonymous,  9:10 AM  

Hey YDD -
The strongest candidate won, remember? Primaries are good, remember?

It's time for Duckworth to start earning her own victory for a change rather than relying on everyone else to provide it for her. Cegelis supporters don't owe her anything, especially after the treatment they've recieved from party people like you.

If Duckworth is the strongest candidate, then prove it.

And in case you haven't noticed, the primary is over and Cegelis lost. Why the continued obsession with blaming her for a Duckworth loss that hasn't happened yet. Yet.

Anonymous,  9:25 AM  

You Cegelis people are pathetic. Duckworth may be toast in November, or maybe not. But Cegelis is toast right now. Face it, she lost, and whether it's her fault, Lindy's fault, Duckworth's fault, Rahm's fault, or bum luck, she lost. Her supporters have to decide if they want to stay in the game or not. Those who do will come out again, making a responsible choice among the candidates they have to choose from and making plans to build for the future. Those who don't will go back to armchcair quarterbacking. Do what you want, but recognize that every decision has consequences. If you can't live with yourself for making compromises, then get out already.

Anonymous,  9:53 AM  

YDD - I never said Tammy wasnt gracious in victory or that I didnt think folks should support her in the general. I said that it does look like she has changed positions for political purposes and that folks should support all Democrats if they can. we really appreciate your words of thanx, if they apply to us as current supporters of Duckworth. Tammy didnt make that caveat, as youve linked to her statement. already responded to many of the other arguments you made here when you originally made them, and I guess I just wish you wouldnt misrepresent. till you do that again, later

William Maggos
DFI coordinator

Anonymous,  9:58 AM  

i agree, cegelis has exited the (political) stage. that's why it is so surprising to me that people want to drag her back on it! (as for her supporters, some will stay, some will go, cie la vie...)

Anonymous,  11:04 AM  

Anon 9:25
What exactly do you define as a "responsible choice?" Duckworth isn't the only Democratic candidate I can work for. Is it not responsible for me to work for other candidates, or do I need to work for Duckworth to be considered responsible?

I'm really tired of this attitude of "you're not a good Democrat is you don't do what we say" crap. Just as many called Cegelis certain loss and withheld support for her, I feel much the same about Duckworth. I'm not going to be actively working against Duckworth, or anyone else. I'm going to be actively working for other Democratic candidates who have both my respect and a chance at winning.

Anonymous,  11:20 AM  

Excellent post from the Yellow Dog! It makes "sense." It draws a picture of how great our "party" is. The example of the Axe is profound. To all of Ms. Cegellis' supporters, now that the primary election is over, "Come Home!" Rush Limbaugh and Newt Ginrich is the altenative. We not only need you in our great political party, "we honestly, and seriously want you." We accept diversified thought. We have a "central value as Democrats." Democrats are good hearted people and we want the best for all people. Yellow Dog, please do the public a favor and continue writing and expressing your views. You have a lot to share. Thanks, TrueBlueandThankful.

Anonymous,  11:37 AM  

Wow, so much bitterness, so little time to actually win an election.

I helped Christine quite a bit. She lost because she spent too much too early. The ground game was good but not great, but Christine didn't have enough money left in the tank to deal with the mailers and TV.

As for the "good luck," Duckworth will need all the luck she can get. I’m not saying that to be mean. I really hope she wins and we can get one seat closer to putting Nancy in the Speaker’s chair and having real oversight of the current administration. (Personally, I’ll take 50 Bean’s if I also get 50 Schakowsky’s. It takes a lot of people with a lot of different points of view to have a party.)

But Roskam is damn tough. He's a good campaigner with deep pockets. Frankly, I'm not sure anyone can beat him in that district this time out. He's working his tail off, and it's going to take a great effort, and a little luck, to swing the seat.

I'm not happy with the way the DCCC handled all this, but I'm not happy with the way my fellow Cegelis supports are handling it either. I know losing sucks, especially for the first time. (A lot of these people never have been involved to this level before.) But we need to come together. We have a common enemy, and we need to deal with him before he completely screws up this country.

Yes, we need to be convinced why we should support Duckworth (other than the fact she won). It takes a lot to decide to go walk for a candidate week in and week out. But I know a lot of people are interested in hearing Duckworth convince them.

And as for the guy who blamed Claypool's loss on the Axelrod "air war," you don't know what you're talking about. Claypool lost because the Machine woke up and decided that they'd like to increase their own power by picking the next county board president. They barely lifted a finger before the stroke.

When a candidate gets beat, there are a number of factors that contribute to it. For Claypool, none of those factors had anything to do with David Axelrod.

YDD, you make a good point on how much Democrats have accomplished in the last four years in Illinois (although it does read like a Blago campaign ad). If we’ve got so many good Dems at the state level, why isn’t the party helping stock the bench with great candidates who can beat a Pete Roskam in that type of district? Why isn’t the state party helping nurture the fledgling DuPage Dems? If we’re going to take these seats, we need to have a great pool of candidate who is part of the community, not people that get parachuted in.

Anonymous,  11:40 AM  

great pool of candidates who are part of the community...

sorry for the typos.

anon 11:37

Anonymous,  11:57 AM  

Apparently someone forgot to tell Bill that JOHN KERRY SUPPORTED THE IRAQ AND SAID HE WOULD VOTE THE SAME WAY DURING THE CAMPAIGN!!!

He was as pro-war as Bush, and unlike Bush, would have actually given us a good chance of winning the peace. Methinks Bill voted for Bush just to stick it to the Deaners even though the real Dems nominated a totally pro-Iraq War candidate.

Anonymous,  11:59 AM  

Good point on the pool of candidates anonymous. I think it would be a great idea for Democrats in Illinois and across the country to go county by county, congressional district by congressional district and recruit smart, God Fearing, charismatic, and good Democrats, who have the gift of "gab." In addition to those basic characteristics, military men and women. Although I do not think it is mandatory for military experience, it has the potential to solidify an important voting block early. I hope the Democratic "shot callers" are already doing what I stated.

Anonymous,  12:36 PM  

I like how YDD says "as promised." As if we've all been waiting on the edge of our seat for his insight into this matter.

Anonymous,  12:42 PM  

for being the cagey veterans some of you claim to be, you sure seem ruled by emotion. I read a lot of opinions backed up by not so many facts here...

Yellow Dog Democrat 12:54 PM  

Bill - I was responding to your insistence that mainstream Democrats don't respect Cegelis's supporters and what they've accomplished. I'm wondering how many times Duckworth has to praise you before it sinks in.

bored now - It's very generous of you to try to accept responsiblity for Cegelis's loss, but the responsibility was hers, not her volunteers. She failed to raise money, failed to recruit core Democratic support, and failed to convince a plurality of Democratic voters that she was the best candidate to face Roskam. Instead of accepting that, her campaign spent 6 months blaming Rahm Emanuel.

And I was trying to be nice when I complimented your field operation, not "build a myth", but if you want to say you did a crappy job, fine, you suck. But if you're supposedly Mr. Field Operation, should you really be calling me an "ameteur"?

And you don't need to point out that you don't know how to lose with honor, but I've no doubt Duckworth is willing to take the fight to Roskam. In fact, she's been criticizing him all along. But not attacking Cegelis was the smart strategic move. Why risk further alienating Cegelis supporters and risk more whining about how Cegelis is being picked on? Tracking polls showed Duckworth with a comfortable lead, why run up the score? 3%, 5%, 10%, it won't matter in November.

And I'm sorry all the candidates you worked for thought they were annointed by god. Most aren't that way, and it speaks volumes about you that you gravitate to the egomaniacs. I can tell you that DFA-endorsed Dan Kotowski and Debra Shore aren't that way. But of course, that helps explain why they won.

And the problem with Cegelis isn't that Democrats like me wouldn't support her. I agree with her positions on the issues, and I've voted for every Democrat in every General Election, and I certainly would have voted for Cegelis over Roskam. When I say Yellow Dog, I mean it. The problem with Cegelis is that her views don't mesh with the district's independents, who make up 50% or more of the electorate.

And yes, I was sincere about Cegelis running for the statehouse. Alot of good people -- Abraham Lincoln, Paul Simon, Jan Schakowsky, Barack Obama got their start there.

And I can say without a doubt that your attitude that state and local government are somehow irrelevant or beneath you is hurting the progressive cause. The notion that state government doesn't matter is why few young people vote in Gubernatorial elections. There were 474,000 fewer ballots cast by voters under 30 in 2002 than in 2004 in Illinois, a trend that goes back atleast a decade, and that only hurts down ballot Congressional progressives.

In addition, those local elections are the farm team and training ground for Congress. So while you complain those races are beneath you, Conservatives are busy electing people to school boards, city council, county board, local judgeships and the statehouse, and grassroots activists are building up their skills.

But the bottom line is that state and local government do matter. In fact, day in and day out, state and local government have a much bigger impact on people's lives than the federal government, and shaping state policy helps us connect progressive values to voters in a tangible way. You have completely missed the boat if you think otherwise.

And your point is well taken that Nixon and Reagan supported progressive, pro-middle class tax policies, but the Eisenhower wing of the GOP is dead. And in case you've forgotten, when Democrats were in charge of the white house, we didn't invade foreign countries under false pretenses or cut taxes for the rich at the expense of education and health care. I agree with you that the Democratic Party has alot of shaping up to do, but to argue that the only difference between Democrats and Republicans is a few more dollars for Headstart is absurd. Sure, that's what Republicans want YOU to believe, but do you think that's what they are telling THEIR base?

And I agree with you that Emanuel has some groveling to do and that Cegelis needs to retire her campaign debt. In fact, I've tied the two together here. And Cegelis may have exited the political stage, but she could have done it without slamming the door. And if she expects help retiring her campaign debt, she hasn't really exited yet, and she needs to grow up and do it gracefully. Like Howard Dean did.

And you're also right that Duckworth needs to ask for help, and she's clearly done that over and over by emphasizing the need for all of us to work together. You make it sound as though she should call you personally and kiss your behind, I'm not sure what more you want. But what she doesn't need, what no campaign needs, is someone with your attitude that thinks her election is a lost cause. So please, do us all a favor, please quit pretending you want to be helpful, and just sit this election cycle out.

Anonymous,  2:04 PM  

poor ydd! you failed to address any of my salient points, but you made sure you got your digs in! good for you! at least now we know what's important to you!

i'd be embarrassed to trumpet a tracking poll that "showed Duckworth with a comfortable lead" when she won by a mere three percentage points. hey, a win's a win, but either something was wrong with her pollster, her support was extremely weak, or we don't share the same definition of "comfortable." (i suspect all three are true.)

dfa endorsed dan kotowski? when did that happen? got a link? dfa shows shore and cegelis as dfa-endorsed candidates. but maybe you're confused.

i merely reiterate that there must be some genetic difference that allows republicans to run candidates who "don't mesh with the district" -- and win -- but democrats are assumed unable to do the same. i wonder what that difference is? (i'd also question your assessment of the voting universe in that race, but it could be how you define independents.)

you'd be wrong (of course!) to say that i view local and state government as irrelevant (or beneath me -- now *that's* funny!). i think your attitude that the world revolves around springfield is queer, but it's certainly not irrelevant. i'd like to see democrats develop a stronger farm team, both with candidates AND activists, ACROSS THE COUNTRY, but that's a difference post. in order for democrats to be competitive at the national level, they have to have better trained volunteers and surrogates almost everywhere. i take a back seat to no one in passing along my skills and knowledge about campaigns and elections to activists and candidates interested in running for local and state elections. i feel confident in assuming that i've done more so than you (there's also probably a good reason for that, not your fault)!

but let's get it out in the open: i think *most* voters don't believe that government, regardless of level, is relevant to their lives. i know that policy wonks like to believe it is, but that's what i've discerned over the years of talking with voters. democrats are disconnected with the electorate because they continue to believe that if voters only understand their positions, voters will naturally flock to them! there's a hell of a lot of people who just don't care about these issues. which is why i think people who claim to care about the future of the democratic party should be very tolerant of these newbies who also care about the future of the party! (i know, i know, you don't want nobody that nobody sent!) but that's why i focus on democrats needing to learn how to win, regardless. and it's why i disagree so strongly with your "perfect match" theory. but maybe republicans just are better at it.

is this message sinking in? because you can insult me all you want -- dude, i've earned my arrogance -- it doesn't change the fact that your obstinence stands in the way of the democratic party's revival (as, apparently, you think my attitude stands in the way of the dpi's continued personal fiefdoms!).

(you make some other good points that don't pertain to this discussion, so i merely note that.)

i'm fairly confident i know what republicans are saying to their base, just as i understand what democrats are saying to their's (get the hell out of rahm's party!), but i won't quibble with a policy wonk. y'all think that the difference of a few cents is a big deal! now if you'd care to explain to me the difference between tom delay's and rahm emanuel's approach to winning elections, i'd be all eyes!

no, duckworth needn't call me, i'm not a player in her election. i thought cegelis had a chance to win (including to beat roskam), based on the idea that she would employ the grassroots and build a competitive field operation. see, i'm a big believed in combined campaigns, ones with heavy air AND ground support with a coordinated message (and i understand how odd this is in illinois). but this didn't happen. rahm and duckworth aren't the least bit interested in competing on the ground, so no need. there are other elections, and other people interested in my skillset. i can live with that!

Anonymous,  2:54 PM  

Yellow Dog, great peice of writing; it is unfortunate that the dabate has not moved into the more important realm of things, the "general election." I know it will soon enough. Sometimes, we just have to fight battles that detract our energy. After reading bored now's post, it seems to me that his use of words/language seems an awful lot like a "right winger." Oh well, that is here nor there. Anyway, one last thing Yellow Dog. I have been using the name TrueBlueandThankful on other sites, but I think I just might change my "handle" to BlueDogDemocrat out of respect to you for your commitment to progressive ideas. Keep fighting the good fight brother. As

Yellow Dog Democrat 3:02 PM  

Jeesh bored now, I don't know I got the idea that you think state government is irrelevant or beneath you. Maybe it was this comment:

your repeated offer for cegelis to run for the illinois general assembly is, quite frankly, insulting. now, i suspect you didn't mean it completely that way -- after all, what can you do in washington? all the action is in that tiny little town downstate where the clubhouse is filled with you and yours! but i suspect you knew that this was an insulting idea, although i also suspect that you don't understand that there's more to the democratic party than the dpi. most of the people i've met volunteering for cegelis don't give a thought to the dpi, it's the national democratic party they want to change. if they've given any thought to the dpi, it's only on how disconnected the dpi is from the rest of the democratic party.

If you actually made any salient points, I'd be happy to address them. I'm not sure what I possibly missed.

And my definition of Independent is somebody who doesn't vote in Democratic or Republican primaries. Pretty much the only definition we have, since there is no official party registration in Illinois.

Glad to hear you've found other races to get involved in. I look forward to hearing about your victories come November, and in the words of Christine Cegelis, "I wish you luck, because you're going to need it."

Yellow Dog Democrat 3:07 PM  

TrueBlue:

Thanks. I love the Blue Dogs.

By the way, Bill Baar, thanks to bored now's departure, we have a new opening in the Democratic Party. Divergent views welcomed, as are you.

Have a great weekend, everybody.

YDD

  © Blogger template The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP