Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

by Matt Stoller, Thu Mar 23, 2006 at 01:17:11 PM EST

I'm just going to follow up on my earlier post with an explanation of why I brought up Michael in Chicago.  He emailed me very hurt and angry that I made him look bad.  And honestly, it wasn't my intent.  Michael is clearly a passionate and driven supporter, and he provided a lot of good information on Cegelis.  I had earlier bumped some of his diaries because I thought they were great.

In that last post, I was just explaining why I stopped writing about Cegelis.  As a practical issue I try to avoid subjects on which I have unreliable information.  For instance, even though I hate Lieberman, I spoke to a lot of people before getting on the Lamont bus, and even went up to Connecticut to meet him.  

I did not have a good way to do that for IL-06.  And in a very contested and vicious primary, there was a lot of misinformation, as there always is (Daniel Biss has more on this problem).  Initially, I was relying partially on Michael's diaries and a few other IL contacts for my info on the race, and I was getting pushback on the district from DC people.  When Michael had some disclosure issues (read this thread, this thread, and this thread if you want more), I decided I could no longer reliable talk about the district with any sense of what was actually going on.

Now, Michael seems like an ethical guy who made a mistake.  For one thing, he admits he made a disclosure error, which I think is pretty stand-up of him, and he then changed his profile to reflect his contracting status.  I wish we had had these discussions earlier.  It's just that at the time I had no idea what was really going on, and I felt like everyone was trying to spin me instead of level with me, and I didn't know the district.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to make this into some sort of attack, I just wanted to explain some of the problems I had in terms of getting reliable information.

Tags: Cegelis (all tags)

Comments

61 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Re: Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

I too respect and admire the many very passionate supporters of Ms Cegelis, who is clearly a very good person and very good candidate.

I am just hoping that her supporters will not take their balls and go home, but will rather continue to support Democrats for the greater good of the country, Illinois and IL-06.  Please, friends, don't be mad, or if you are mad, take it out on that turnip Roskam.

by dataguy 2006-03-23 01:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

Didn't want to launch an attack, you say? But you've decided to smear Paul Hackett as a "coward" and have made it crysal clear that you think Duckworth was elected through some sort of corrupt bargain. You know, that's GREAT way to welcome combat veterans into the Democratic Party.

I wonder if that's how the Republicans treat combat veterans who want to run for office. And I really what the general voting public would think of a party that treats returning Iraq veterans this way. Sorry, Matt, but your non-apology cuts no ice with me.

by cwilson 2006-03-23 01:34PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

Hackett just didn't want to get on the phone to raise the money he ndded, instead he blamed the establishment and refused to put the question to voters.  That's cowardly and irresponsible behavior.  And I gave to him three times.

by Matt Stoller 2006-03-23 01:36PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

Great. Why don't you see if you can get everyone else in the whining "Netroots" crowd to go out and call every other combat veteran who joins with the Democrats a "coward" when they fail to meet your political standards?

For all the self-proclaimed brilliance I see on the "Netroots" websites, I sure see a lot of incredible stupidity.

by cwilson 2006-03-23 01:49PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

Why don't you see if you can get everyone else in the whining "Netroots" crowd to go out and call every other combat veteran who joins with the Democrats a "coward" when they fail to meet your political standards?

Ok, I will attack any other Democrat who refuses to do call time and then drops out of a race becuase of fundraising problems while blaming unnamed insiders, smears the minority leader, and goes on local right-wing radio to blast the eventual nominee.

by Matt Stoller 2006-03-23 01:59PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

And all of your brave truth-telling does WHAT for the Democratic Party again?

by cwilson 2006-03-23 02:08PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

Dude, get a life.  These attacks are unwarranted, and I think Matt's eloquence on his points is rather succinct.

Seriously, just shut up.

by Alexander Drummond 2006-03-23 03:07PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

No, I won't shut up.

by cwilson 2006-03-23 03:29PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

Duckworth will not be able to win this election with money alone.  She will need Cegelis's network to help.  Pissing off those people will not help.  Why do you persist in doing this?  

by lisadawn82 2006-03-23 04:37PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

Are you trying to tell me that all of Cegelis's supporters hang out at this blog? If so, then it's worse than I had thought.

by cwilson 2006-03-23 09:35PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Hackett - Cegelis - Contrasts in Defeat

And I really [wonder] what the general voting public would think of a party that treats returning Iraq veterans this way

Paul Hackett let alot of people down when he picked up his ball and went home. Along the way he decided to trash talk his opponent and has hurt the effort to oust Republican Mike DeWine.

Contrast that with how Christine Cegelis handled similar circumstances. When the party brought in a returning Iraq War Vet to run against her Cegelis didn't give up even though boatloads of money started flowing to Duckworth. Instead, she buckled down and fought the DC money. In that same situation, Paul Hackett bitterly quit his race, inflamed his supporters with whining about the unfairness of it all, and made victory against Mike DeWine all that much harder for the putative Democratic nominee Sherrod Brown.

When Cegelis was defeated she released a very conciliatory and bridge-building concession statement which mentioned her opponent and reminded everyone about the Republican we are trying to replace. Paul Hackett .... well you already know what Hackett did.

Today I am announcing that I am withdrawing from the race for United States Senate. I made this decision reluctantly, only after repeated requests by party leaders, as well as behind the scenes machinations, that were intended to hurt my campaign.

Coward may not be the right word but I'll tell you what you cannot call Paul Hackett. You can't call him a good Democrat like you can Christine Cegelis.

by Curt Matlock 2006-03-23 02:17PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Hackett - Cegelis - Contrasts in Defeat

Great synopsis.

Coward was the wrong word, especially for a military person.

While dems are fighting for the soul of the party exactly who or what makes a good democrat is subjective.  

by aiko 2006-03-24 05:18AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

You're right to criticize Hackett for his comments about Brown. I agree with the criticism. Hackett was shamefully done in by the Democratic establishment, but that's still no excuse for Hackett's behavior.

That said, it's probably worth mentioning the Hackett is immediately going to be raising money to fund the campaigns of Democratic veterans. Give him some credit for that. I personally know a military member who I believe to be influential among his peers who has been inspired by that group and will be giving them money.

Okay, one guy. No biggie. But that one guy will probably end up swinging more votes than a month's worth of postings on this blog. Beyond that, at the moment I'm inclined to bend the rules a little bit for newly returned, politically-inexperienced Iraq War veterans who have decided to run as Democrats.

Yes, it's unfair and smacks of a double standard. So be it. We Democrats have always been pragmatists.

by cwilson 2006-03-23 02:44PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

Ok, that's a fair point about Hackett.  He's raising money for Dems.

by Matt Stoller 2006-03-23 02:50PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

And he used new progressive media to show people what really goes on when the bosses choose a candidate. He showed how the some Democrats will swiftboat another Democrat worse than the Republicans will. He showed how both the DCCC and DSCC are fucked up. I think he deserves an award, he has already done more to help Democrats outside of DC than he could have done during his first term in the senate.

by Bob Brigham 2006-03-23 06:16PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

Got anything other than unsubstantiated accusations?

He showed how some Democrats will swiftboat another Democrat worse than the Republicans will.

I saw the claims of "swiftboating" of Hackett. I recall a day or two of bluster by Hacketeers about how this was just like John Kerry getting swiftboated. That comparison is overblown.

Who said what and who did they say it to? Did reporters statewide start talking about the whispers? Did the whole tenor of the election change as a result of the whispers? Were voters minds changed? Did anyone actually believe that crap?

Doubt it. Just a way to slam Brown that won't seem to die. Mike DeWine appreciates it.

by Curt Matlock 2006-03-24 02:35PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

On 02/25 in this thread, I provided additional information on Michael's alledged disclosure issues.  There weren't any.  I knew it.  I published it.  You didn't pay any attention.  "Kagro X" kept up his fixation on "needed disclosure".  End of story.

If anyone had done any complete research & compared publication dates, this was a non-issue.  IF anyone had paid attention, the proof was there.  Some of the people on this blog blew it all out of proportion.  That's on YOU, "Adam B",  & "Kagro X".

ONE e-mail to the man -- to the campaign itself -- would've done it.  In the end, you based your deductions on your flawed research.  Cegelis didn't deserve it.  Cegelis paid the price.

You can send your letter of apology to Cegelis via DCCPAC.  It'll get to her.

by Philosophe Forum 2006-03-23 04:32PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
point of personal privilege?

What, exactly, are you clarifying?  Michael was paid by the Cegelis campaign throughout 2005 and as recently as March 1, 2006.  I believe he should have disclosed it from the start; he now believes that as well.

I don't understand the argument against disclosure as an ethical norm -- surely, if I had served as Maj. Duckworth's counsel and been paid thousands of dollars by her, you'd believe I was a total shit if I didn't disclose it at some point, even if I never had anything to do with the substance of her campaign.

Why Cegelis lost has nothing to do with anything that happened here, IMHO.  It was the expectations game in the local media, not from a bunch of out-of-state bloggers, which was critical.

by Adam B 2006-03-23 06:02PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: point of personal privilege?

The point is that this was a non-issue for anyone really paying attention.  You blew it all out of proportion.  Matt chose to believe it.  The operative word being CHOSE. The point is that ONE e-mail to the man -- to the campaign itself -- would've done it.  

And not one word about the paid Duckworth bloggers.

You successfully discredited Michael where Matt is concerned.  He allowed it to happen.  He owes Cegelis an apology for the choice he freely made to not follow up at the source -- the campaign.  

I congratulate you on mission accomplished.

by Philosophe Forum 2006-03-24 02:30AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: point of personal privilege?

I had no mission, and many of us paying attention did believe it was relevant.

As far as "paid Duckworth bloggers" are concerned, you've got full access to her campaign's expenditures from the day it started until March 1, 2006.  If it's true, you should be able to find them.

by Adam B 2006-03-24 02:36AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: point of personal privilege?

You mean those checks made out to Adam B and Kagro X?  Those should be easy to find.

A proud, UNPAID Cegelis supporter.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

by Caro 2006-03-24 07:38AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Nope.

There are none.  Neither he nor I were paid at any time.  Please accept the fact that some people looked at the same facts you did and came to different conclusions about the race.

by Adam B 2006-03-24 08:44AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
She has valid point

I owned up you your accusations of being paid when you made them. The links to my name must have took looking through a lot of my comments, and even then, going back a while. Which says there was quite a bit of digging going on. But even then, there are plenty of people with the "michael" out there. If I wanted to be completely dishonest and hide what I was doing, I didnt' have to agree that I was who you were saying I was.

But what of blogger asdf123? What if this person just signed up and had no comment or post history? That would be easy to hide. No FEC report out there is going to list a blog name.

I'll take you and Kangro at your word, but I don't even know his (her?) real name. But there were others spouting the talking points and using the same exact phrases who's blog names are not traceable. She raises a good point. Unless someone spills it, we will not know who was and wasn't paid by the Duckworth campaign to undermine the work I and others were doing on the blogs.

by michael in chicago 2006-03-24 09:16AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
actually

It didn't take very long.  There was only one "Michael" who was prominent in the FEC filings, and I googled that last name along with "Michael in Chicago".  You can see the results it produced.

I absolutely agree with you on the issue of how pseudonymity and anonymity complicate things.  

by Adam B 2006-03-24 09:53AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: actually

But what if Michael had a company name--Sterling Consulting, or something like that?  My point was, as Michael understood, that we can't trace back who works for whom--not for certain, anyway, from screen names.

Some people will purposely hide their associations, not because they're not sure if an association needs to be revealed, as in Michael's case, but because they definitely want to conceal it.  As did the DCCC folks who tried to start blogging for Duckworth soon after she announced.  We only found out about them because someone knew how to derive their IP address and then find out who the address belonged to.  The owner was the DNC, but it was used by the DCCC.

Frankly, I think whatever anyone says on the Internet who is afraid to give his or her real name and a way to get in touch, should be disregarded.

I, too, have noticed a cooling of the blogs.  I, too, think some big vested interests are performing successful seductions of big bloggers.  Just as the mainstream media were seduced.  God forbid that we great unwashed hordes should get "too" riled up.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

by Caro 2006-03-24 02:26PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: actually

I agree that credibility is a funny thing online.  To me, what's often determinative is seeing how a poster reacts to new or negative information.  If they don't behave like someone who's processing it with an independent mind, I know to look elsewhere.

by Adam B 2006-03-24 03:21PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: actually

What I see is too much read/react, instead of read/reflect/react.  Too many people are trying to be smart or funny or outstanding or "bad" or whatever, instead of having real discussions where we help each other learn.

I can't remember where I heard or read this, but someone said college students learn more from their discussions with other students than they do in the classroom.  That was certainly true for me as an undergraduate.

I'm only sorry we're not pursuing more of that kind of learning in these discussions, rather than just trying to impress each other.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

by Caro 2006-03-26 05:21AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: actually

People aren't trying to impress each other, when it comes to intra-party primary fights.  They're trying to demolish each other.

by Adam B 2006-03-28 07:22AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
A Bit More Civility on This Blog...

What I find annoying around here is the constant urge to badmouth people -- simply based on their uid number!

I've seen several instances where one person has dissagreed with another and then raised the issue that the other person had just registered with the site -- as if this fact demolished one's credibility in any way.

We say "godwin" when someone accuses someone else of being a nazi.  Is there some term we could come up with when someone accuses someone else of bad faith, lack of logic, being a troll, etc. -- based on their uid number?

"uid"!??

by patachon 2006-03-23 05:44PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
A little background info

It was passed along after Duckworth entered the race that her campaign had reached out to at least one, and I've heard 2-3 bloggers, to work for her campaign as paid bloggers. The one I'm certain of I know about because the blogger was supporting Christine.

So when suddenly every post I would make was flooded with comments by people who had just registered and uid, many pumping out standard anti-Cegelis talking points that had been debunked many times over, there was a great deal of distrust - rigthly or wrongly.

Doesn't make it right, but it does give some background info.

by michael in chicago 2006-03-23 05:59PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: A little background info

m_in_c,

I wasn't at all thinking of you.

But I have seen people call others trolls simply because they had just signed up -- which doesn't seem like compelling reasoning to me.

Naturally if they had just signed up and then started extolling the virtues of Dick Cheney, that'd be completely different.

by patachon 2006-03-23 06:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: A little background info

Since the DCCC was busted pushing Duckworth online, others saying the same thing are understandably ignored.

by Bob Brigham 2006-03-23 06:32PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: A little background info

So what are you implying?  That being for Duckworth proves being "pushed", as you put it, by the DCCC.

by patachon 2006-03-23 06:47PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: A little background info

Just acknowledging the lack of trust.

by Bob Brigham 2006-03-23 06:58PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: trolls

When someone registers one day and extols the virtues of rahm, pelosi, and the great winning traditions of the democratic party the next day there is reason to wonder what the hell they are doing here.  

Why this blog?  Why now?  Why, why, why?

by aiko 2006-03-24 05:27AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: A little background info

And let's face it, simply signing up to extol the virtues of Tammy Duckworth isn't proof of being a troll since it's within the realm of possibilities of what a progressive/democrat might support.

Even with supporters of Dick Cheney -- so long as they weren't disruptive, inflamatory, etc., I don't think technically they'd be trolls either.

It's takes a bit more than simply having an argument that people don't agree with and signing up to argue the point -- to make someone a troll.

I mean, probably the most common way people register at a site is that they finally see something so compelling that they have to make a comment on it.

by patachon 2006-03-23 06:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: A little background info

You are wrong.  Calling a spade a spade is necessary.  We are fighting for the soul of the party and 'inside the beltway' folks don't want change and don't want to share power and they will and are doing anything and everything in their power to ensure the status quo.  (in the name of winning!)

I have noticed a different tone on this blog--more concilatory towards the status quo.  Where did all these bloggers come from?  Is it just coincidence?  Go look at how often they have posted and what they have said.  It is not by chance they show up when they do.

Calling them trolls is just a way to call out the bullshit as bullshit.

by aiko 2006-03-24 05:34AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

...I was getting pushback on the district from DC people.

This should have been the clue you were doing the right thing.

by Bob Brigham 2006-03-23 05:46PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

I'm curious to know, Matt, in the interest of full disclosure & ethics and stuff, what exactly do you mean by "pushback" and who were these DC people pushing back?  Is there a reason you can't reveal identities and/or the substance of this "pushback" campaign?  I think that would go a long way in clarifying exactly what the Cegelis campaign was truly up against, and possibly a long way toward vindicating Michael and the other Cegelis supporters who were up against something far bigger than themselves...

by jakester 2006-03-23 07:23PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

It seems to me that if full disclosure on the pittance that MiC was paid is so crucial, then it would be equally important to know who was "pushing back" against the Cegelis campaign.  

Or are Beltway Boys held to a lower standard than Michael in Chicago.

by AustinMayor 2006-03-24 12:58PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I'm still waiting

For verification of the second Cegelis supporter who you claim lied about their location, as well as you claims about SoapBlox Chicago, an outstanding and growing Illinois blog of which I'm very proud to be a member. But thank you for the clarification post.

My main contention with your post, as I pointed out in my email to you, is that you seemed to imply that since I had made a mistake, my writining was no longer credible. This is "attack the messenger" in my view, and one of the reasons I felt that answering question like "have you ever, past or present, been paid in any way by the Cegelis campaign." I viewed this as an attack on the author of a post, rather than discussion of the points I raised in my post.

I made a mistake. But it is not as cut and dry as you make it seem in your post. I volunteered for Cegelis long before I ever worked for her. Then when I did do some work for her, I was one of a dozen or more contractors who worked for her. I did not work in her office, and was rarely there. If I was, I was probably volunteering in some capacity from stuffing envelopes, to scannign data, to delivering signs, to picking the candidate up to drive her to an event.

But the characterization in your post I felt implied that I was paid staff or something. My volunteering and contracts coincided. The majority of my work was completed before Duckworth even entered the race. It was a messy situation. I blogged before I volunteered for Chrisinte, I blogged when I volunteered for Christine, I blogged when I was being paid for design work AND was volunteering for Christine.

It was a very messy situation and I didn't know what route to take on the blogs. I was very upset at the treatment Jerome recieved, and his ending his blogging really pissed me off greatly. I felt the questions directed at me where being used to discredit my posts, and reacted angrily. It was a mistake.

So there it is for who ever the hell cares.

by michael in chicago 2006-03-23 05:48PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
BTW

AdamB, who originally looked up the FEC info, and who I have spoken to on the phone to clarify all this, sent me a nice email today regarding the race. It was a very nice gesture that made me feel good, and we are on good terms now.

Thanks Adam.

by michael in chicago 2006-03-23 05:52PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: BTW

Thank Zepher Teachout too, she is the inspiration.

by Bob Brigham 2006-03-23 05:53PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: BTW

I'm dense. Inpiration for...?

by michael in chicago 2006-03-23 06:00PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: BTW

Ethics focusing on you instead of the ethics focusing on the DCCC focusing resources against the people of the Democratic Party.

by Bob Brigham 2006-03-23 06:10PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
jebus

I had forgotten all about that!

by michael in chicago 2006-03-23 06:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: jebus

Don't worry, Adam didn't.

by Bob Brigham 2006-03-23 06:23PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Thanks. You too.

You made a mistake.  It's a new medium, and it was a high-pressured race.  But it does say something about how credibility functions in this space -- slow to gather, but it can erode quickly.

There's a lot for all of us to learn from this race, whether on the blogger ethics or campaign tactics front.  Hopefully, it'll lead to more wins by Democrats across the board.  

(For example, one question: what could have been done by any of the candidates to persuade voters to stay out of the Republican gubernatorial primary and vote in the Democratic one instead? It certainly sounds like that was an unexpected factor.)

by Adam B 2006-03-23 06:07PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Thanks. You too.

The assumption was that the Republican Guv race would lure away Duckworth voters.  It was a shock to see Cegelis voters going that way, too.

by Feh 2006-03-23 07:11PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I'm still waiting

Here is the supporter who lied about his location.

My main contention with your post, as I pointed out in my email to you, is that you seemed to imply that since I had made a mistake, my writining was no longer credible. This is "attack the messenger" in my view, and one of the reasons I felt that answering question like "have you ever, past or present, been paid in any way by the Cegelis campaign." I viewed this as an attack on the author of a post, rather than discussion of the points I raised in my post.

My point was much more humble.  I simply had no way of knowing whether you were credible.  In case you hadn't noticed, I was bumping your diaries and I had written about the race in terms that were pretty aggressively pro-Cegelis.  

by Matt Stoller 2006-03-23 07:35PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I care

It only matters that you took money and didn't disclose, period.  Same for Jerome.  He bailed too quickly IMHO.  He could have been a role model on how to blog about an employer.

I believe that bloggers should id/disclose income on every post related to their employer.

On every single post related to a funding source at least until the election. Not so hard to do.  A very fair expectation.  And this should apply to non-political posts as well.

by aiko 2006-03-24 05:44AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I care

I agree that paid operatives posting on blogs should disclose when they're being paid.  The problem is enforcement.  Honorable people will do the honorable thing.  Dishonorable people won't.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

by Caro 2006-03-24 07:51AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

I haven't posted anything about this race, because it is so depressing I am beside myself.

Both Christine and Tammy are good people and solid Democrats, but WTF was the DC Establishment thinking when they decided to stomp on a netroots candidate?

Seriously -- this is either rank stupidity opportunism, or a sharp poke in the eye from Rahm Emmanuel.

Consider this -- if the Fundie Wing Nuts had a candidate running against a Democratic incumbent who decided to retire, would Karl Rove kick them in the ass by putting up DC darling to challenge the wing nut candidate?

Whether it was by design or stupidity, the DC Dems have demonstrated, in this one little primary, why they have their collective heads where the sun does not shine.

And that's why I'm depressed . . .

by ck 2006-03-23 06:56PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

A "netroots candidate." I'm sorry but what a joke. So a couple hundred keyboard warriors support someone. Big deal. The so-called "netroots" hasn't shown its ability to elect a single person. I know that's a cruel and nasty assessment, but welcome to politics Chicago style.

You want credibility? Get someone elected or get someone unelected. The "netroots" crowd hasn't done either one of these things and until they do they're just so many farts in the wind.

by cwilson 2006-03-23 07:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

Christine's credibility did not come from the netroots, although she certainly showed a high affinity for the phenomenon and had lots of independent supporters who were on the net.  I think that this had more to do with smart people recognizing a solid candidate and using a medium to help get the word out, raise visibility and funds, and investigate a new means of campaigning, both locally and nationally.

No, Christine's credibility came from her forthrightness, her bravery, her vote total against Henry Hyde on a shoestring and with NOTHING from the Head Dems In Charge, and the passionate and committed volunteers who sacraficed so much to get behind someone they believed in.  In a district trending bluer but still without a viable Dem infrastructure, hell without ANY elected Dem officials.  She was the canary in the mine.  And she her reward was ruthless undercutting (or as Matt Stoller says, "pushback") and ultimately a "we know better than the locals" cynical takeout.

I agree with you that the "netroots" still have a lot to prove.  I truly hope Tammy Duckworth wins in November.  But I will stick with my other feeling -- that Cegelis was credible, smart, and courageous enough to win in November.  With the proper support.

Remember - for all of Duckworth's money, she was still outraised by Cegelis in the district itself.

by jakester 2006-03-23 07:33PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

Look, I don't want to do a scorched earth thing here among fellow Democrats. What really got me going was when Hackett got described as a "coward," which of course is separate from Cegelis anyway. I share more in common with the so-called "Netroots" than I differ with them, but the Internet keyboard generals get a little arrogant. After they've elected some people and/or unelected some people, I might be inclined to kowtow just a little more, y'know?

by cwilson 2006-03-23 09:40PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

Take heart, though, because with every one of these races we get closer to scaring the DC establishment into representing we the people.  Keep on keepin' on.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

by Caro 2006-03-24 07:49AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

by bedobe 2006-03-23 08:47PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

Karl Rove would dump a fundie wingnut for a wounded vet in a heartbeat in an open seat primary, especially one he thought he could pick up from Dems.

by markg8 2006-03-24 06:51AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

I'm trying to believe that you're not suggesting we all become psychopaths, like Karl Rove.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

by Caro 2006-03-24 07:51AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clarifying a Bit on Cegelis

Ah, but markg8, you don't want to discuss anything so crass as winning an election. Don't you know that it's not about winning an election, but rather about the glorious defeat?

by cwilson 2006-03-25 06:53AM | 0 recs

Login

 

Sign-in-with-twitter-lighter

Advertise Blogads