Fellas:

Have you noticed how many votes Cegelis gathered?  Turnout was PATHETIC.  If Cegelis had such a great grassroots effort, how can you explain the unbelievably small number of votes she received?  There was no prairie fire in this district.

Before Chris and Matt go off again about the big bad Party leaders, ask yourselves this question?  Who did the Republicans want to see
win this Dem primary?  I don't think it was the biracial female double amputee, war hero/war critic.  Just a hunch.

And calling Paul Hackett a coward?  Not cool.

Duckworth paying for a recount?  Absurd.

You might want to remember, it's OK to have an unpublished or unblogged thought.  

Jim Hannon

But the thing is, I had no other information about the race from Cegelis's side.  I can't just fly to IL-06 and check out the district, I can't afford it.

I have the same problem with your criticism of Michael in Chicago that I do with Jerome not blogging about Warner. Since Jerome stopped providing information about Warner there has not been a credible or authoritative source of information about Warner. I can slam Warner to my heart's desire and there is no one capable of defending him or his positions.

In the case of a House seat the problem is even more magnified. What other source of credible information should we rely on if candidate supporters, either paid or un-paid are suspect? The local paper? The NY Times? Maybe the LA Times will start covering House races in the Mid-west so I can stay informed. Right.

Michael in Chicago was placed in an untenable position by the false dilemma and unreasonable standard that Jerome has set by refusing to blog for Warner. His answers were both accurate and sufficient about his role in the Cegelis campaign. How was Michael in Chicago's role, insights or opinions any more suspect than Emmanuel, the DLC, Obama or Durbin? Why should bloggers be held to a higher standard than paid political operatives for the DLC and Democratic Party?

Are we supposed to believe that none of the anonymous DLC trolls who participate at MyDD and Dkos are paid staffers? Give me a break. The standard Jerome set by not blogging for Warner compels bloggers to compete with one hand tied behind their back.

I complained vociferously when Jerome was intimidated into not blogging about Warner even though it is highly unlikely I could ever be persuaded to support Warner. We need to allow paid staffers to compete on an even playing field with paid Democratic Party staffers.

1. The electoral mechanism here is this: you go to the polls, ask for a Democratic ballot, and then choose between various Dem candidates.  Although I accept that the electorate was probably fairly confused/uninformed, once they had the ballot in front of them, they didn't think Cegelis wasn't a Democrat.

2. It wasn't the Chicago machine (Emanuel's old-time connections to Daley notwithstanding).  It was some funny new coalition of DC power brokers and local insiders.  This may sound like a stupid technicality, but remember that the Chicago Democratic machine is still a very organized system of ward bosses and precinct captains who know exactly how to turn out the votes and also know that their job security depends on it.  I was actually pretty impressed with Duckworth's GOTV team, but it was mostly local (DuPage county) volunteers who'd seen Tammy on TV and felt inspired to help out, not something sinister and machine-driven.

Politics, like business, is tough.  "The New Guy" is always disadvantaged, particularly if he or she is wearing renegade colors openly.

I don't know how many times I've seen an honest campaign get derailed at the last minute by an effective piece of dirty mail, for example.  

I have to say, your ideas about what thoughts are in Paul Hackett's head are totally unproductive, imaginary at best, and will not make you look good.  Candidates will be wary of you.

A tip: if you want to stay in politics, do not air dirty laundry like this in public.

Ouch.

Now I understand why we were asked to change our user IDs to our names a while back.

A million years ago when I volunteered on the Forum for America, may it rest in peace, I was regularly accused of getting paid by various campaigns. I wrote under my name, so it was easy enough to give such accusers the phone number of DFA and the Kerry campaign, along with the URL for the Federal Election Commission and taunt said accusers for not being smart or industrious enough to do their homework. I was merciless.

In that place, long ago and now far away, I always warned everyone (also in the "FAQ") that "not everyone who posts here is who they want to appear to be." "No one, other than the management has been vetted as to their identity."

That's the way of the world.  

Wow, Matt, kudos to you for really sticking your neck out with some brutal honesty.  At the end of the day I think it only helps us confront some issues that need to be addressed.

The bottom line for me, if someone like Michael discloses that he is a paid employee of the Cegelis campaign, my reaction is that I appreciate his honesty (since, after all, this is the Internet where everyone is anonymous by default).  Will it make me take his statements with a little grain of salt, maybe so, but we ought to be taking everyone's statements with a grain of salt, really.  It's not like if "asdf1234" tells me how things are in IL-06 I should just be taking his word for it.

Jerome can do whatever he wants, but really, I don't understand the point of saying "I'm an employee, I guess I'd better not blog," unless of course that's how the candidate wants it.  I'd think the candidate would generally want the opposite, because more communication with your activist base is a good thing.  I'd like to see more, not less, blogging from people involved with the campaign, and it goes without saying that full disclosure should be the norm.

Been meaning to write a post on this since I spoke on the phone with AdamB about this in Feb. But short response as time is limited now:

1. I made a mistake.

2. The majority of my design work was completed before Duckworth entered the race.
   
3. I cut my posting back greatly after my discussion with Adam, and his explanation of the FEC ethics issues he was directly involved with.
   
4. I maxed out my in-kind contribution in response.
   
5. I changed my profile to include my contractual status.
   
6. I always posted as partisan Cegelis, and never tried to hide the fact that I was a supporter.
   
7. I ignored or did not completely answer "are you paid in any way" questions as I felt they were personal attacks, and intended to undermine the points I was making by attacking the messenger. I still believe that, but it was a mistake not to have addressed this sooner and more honestly.
   
8. I was not paid in any way to blog for Cegelis. I was paid for design work, of which I did a considerable amount.

She can always run for U.S. Senate in 2010.

I'm going to stick my neck out here. But this is just getting to me.

I seriously don't know why you all were trying to get behind Cegelis. I really don't. I haven't heard a lot about what her positions were as opposed to Duckworth's. All I've heard about is the fact that she was the supposed grassroots favorite and Duckworth was the favorite of the Powers That Be.

Seriously, this all has felt like a little temper tantrum thrown at the Powers That Be for no otherr reason than that the Netroots could do it.

I hear lots of complaint about how the Establishment corralled donors to give money to Duckworth. But what is the Establishment supposed to do? That's their job! It's part of how the Democrats win elections. yes, the PTB has not gotten the power of the grassroots. Yes, they have not taken the Netroots seriously. But that doesn't mean that they should shirk their job and be criticized when they succeed at it.

This in-fighting has really gotten me down. Or perhaps it's woken me up. Yesterday I was so exercised by all of this -- the whole Duckworth/Cegelis debate sparking things for me -- that I wrote a lengthy blog post trying to figure out how to do this differently. You're welcome to read it here: http://mlflorence.blogspot.com/2006/03/n etroots-and-relationship-to.html or http://tinyurl.com/okpt2.

I love blogs.  I love MYDD.  But I am starting to see an annoying trend (and not just here)x.  Its seems the trend is to root for the underdog, or the anti-establishment candidate, and then when they lose, to yell foul, and attack the Democratic Party for it.

Rooting for the underdog is great.  It is the American way.   But underdogs lose most of the time.   Thats why they are underdogs.   There is no use going on and on about it.

Cegelis ran hard in '04.  But others ... with more pull and more money ... thought Duckworth would run better in '06.   These folks won - fair and square.  Why can't we just move on?

I wish Tammy Duckworth lots of luck.   She is now the longshot to win, but if she pulls it off it would be something for all of us Democrats to crow about.

Good for you for this entire post.  It's good to put your cards on the table, especially this early in the lifespan of the netroots.  

An awful lot of the newcomers to politics who make up a good portion of the netroots and grassroots seem to feel a sense of entitlement, as if because they have pure hearts and a little experience the DCCC should get out of their way.

Well, the fact is you have to earn it.  As I've said on a few other posts, this game is not about this election or the next one but about a lifetime of work.  Getting motivated by Howard Dean in 2003 (I was one of the first elected officials to endorse him in NJ so don't think I am belittling that campaign) and spending three years blogging and volunteering for campaigns isn't enough.

If you want the respect of the party you have to earn it over years, and put like-minded people is positions of authority starting at the precinct and eventually in the statehouse and beyond.  

You have to demonstrate you can inspire people to give money and time and vote for your people.  You have to demonstrate that you can do this even after you lose a few, and that you improve these skills over time.

Your candidate lost an election?  So what.  I've won two and lost two personally, and won more and lost more working for others.  I can tell you it hurts pretty bad when you are the losing candidate, hurts a lot more than it feels good to win.

The proper reaction is not to winge and cry out at the inequities of the world, but to drink heavily for a week and then get the hell back in the game trying to beat back those inequities.

You may not win in 2006, 2008, 2010, 2020, 2050 or  any other particular year but the issues we face will be just important then as they are today.  If you quit today then it will be harder on those who follow you, and those who still fight.

And this is about the issues, and improving the world.  It's not netroots vs DCCC, or locals vs Washington, or any other facile comparison.  This is a long-term fight to change the things we don't like about the USA and protect the things we do like about the USA.

To be totally sappy, this is about making the world a better place for our kids and their kids and their kids.

But that's where sappy ends: in our motivation.  We have to be tough as nails and not quit just 'cause we got beat.  Recognize that the battle is about the issues we believe in, and not about our own personal disappointments.

Be tough.  Fight hard.  Lose often.  Get up.  Fight again. Win sometimes.

I was impressed with Cigeles' run in '04 and continuing to support her efforts was easy (I ponied up some North Carolina love).  Instead of capitalizing on that earlier noble effort, the DCCC brought in a ringer (I have heard she had to first establish residency in IL6 before she could run) instead of expanding on Cegelis' already established support.  Given Duckworth's credentials, it appears they could have picked any CD in the state in which she would have been an immediately credible candidate (if that residency story was true).

Who was complaining the other day about Dean not focusing resources on key races?

I was a proud Cegelis supporter since 2003, but I abandoned her in the last few months of this campaign.  I still think she's a great person, but I chose to stop contributing because I want to beat Roskam and I do think Tammy Duckworth has a better chance.
Not because Tammy's a better candidate (they're both excellent candidates), but because of the support of the establishment.  After all their efforts to influence this race, I'm confident that they'll pour millions into the general election.  If Chris had won the primary, she would have received almost nothing from the DCCC. They would have written her off like in 2004 and then would have been utterly shocked when she finished just a point behind Roskam.
It's complete bullshit and completely unfair, but that's the system progressives are up against.

This race is winnable and it's important to have a candidate who can afford to compete.  I think that Chris would have been able to raise adequate funds, but I know Tammy will.
If I lived in the district, I would have voted for Chris.  I feel awful for how Emanuel and his ilk have treated her.  I feel badly for not sending checks in the final months.  But I'm pragmatic about things like this.

For the same media cost the DCCC could highlight all primary candidates. It  would support the DCCC candidate AND the grassroots candidate and I can only think that it would help to motive the base.

Just a blogged thought ;)

Okay, can we please explode the myth of low turnout being a reflection on Cegelis?  Turnout was generally low throughout Illinois.  It's an off-year election, there's no Senate race in Illinois, and the Democratic governor race was not a real race.  The GOP had the sexy race (for governor) so in an open primary, people who were unaffiliated likely took a GOP ballot to stop the loon Oberweis from winning.

Moreover, we're talking about a district in which there are NO elected Democrats.  I read someone's comment somewhere suggesting it would have been better if a local elected official had decided to run instead of Duckworth.  WHO?!?  There's. No. Body.  This is an area in which I would hear people whisper to me that they were Democrats, because they thought they were the only one on the block (of course, when five people on a block say the same thing, it's pretty funny).  Where it was suggested by a volunteer that we not place door hangers on the outside of doors because people didn't want their neighbors to go.  Where a few years ago there was no such thing as a yard sign for Gore or Durbin.  Where, if you go to vote with your husband or see  your neighbor in line, you can't quite bring yourself to ask for a Democratic ballot, even if you would have voted for the Democrat behind closed doors.  Where even with our gains, GOP registration outpaces Dem registration 2-1.  That's what made Christine's run in 2004 so remarkable (particularly on a shoe string) and one of the factors that bugged residents about DCCC's "we know best" strategy.  Christine was helping to BUILD something.  A moribund county party was becoming reinvigorated thanks in large part to Christine and the support she received.

Around 32,000 people cast votes in the race.  Only 36,158 cast votes in the 2004 primary ... which was in a presidential year, with a very high profile Senatorial campaign.  This compares to 26,791 voting in the 2002 primary.  16,010 in the 2000 primary (which was contested)!  This is a district in which Henry Hyde received 67% of the vote in 1998 - AFTER his hypocritical affair was revealed.  75% was not uncommon throughout his career.  Christine held him to 55%.  With no help from national.

So please, take a few seconds to look into what the hell you're talking about before spouting off.

One last point.  Michael in Chicago did heroic work throughout this campaign.  Yes, he made a mistake.  But the reason you didn't hear more from local folks is because a lot of us are still neophytes in the big bad national blog world.  MOST of Christine's grassroots support came from folks completely disengaged from the net, or who got connected to the blog world BECAUSE of the Cegelis campaign.  These are not latte-drinking urbanites.  Grassroots should never be confused with netroots.  Christine had both, but yes, I agree, many of the big-name coastal bloggers who should have known better chose to sit this one out.  Even some local bloggers refused to come to the defense of the Cegelis partisans who, when we pointed out what was wrong with this picture, were painted as too rabid, too immature, not sophisticated enough in the game.

The game, the game.  That's all it is to you people.  A game.  What?  Get emotional about a candidate?  About Democracy?  That's for suckers.

Dear Matt,
When I met you a few weeks ago in California, I told you your shirt was on inside out.

I'm going to tell you that again.

Michael in Chicago is a teacher. He has a family to support. He's also a professional designer who sells his services to augment his teaching income. The Cegelis campaign, as other campaigns have done, paid Michael for design services.

I also could not afford to fly out to Chicago. But I did it anyway. I paid for my own trip out from California. I've met Christine and Michael and lots of the other volunteers. I've worked with them all by phone and email. So I do know the situation and the people and am in a position to straighten your shirt out yet again.

I have not seen such dedication and enthusiasm for a candidate since Howard Dean. These people gave up every spare moment to work for Christine. Christine did even more. She quit her job and re-financed her house to run this race. The hours she kept would have killed a lesser woman. Her passion inspired the volunteers to work hard enough that they almost overcame the massive amounts of money and media the Washington elite poured into this race. And, believe me, Duckworth's support was 90% bought and paid for.

Like Michael, I do this for a living. I have a bill in to the campaign for $100.00. It has not been paid yet. Despite that, I still flew to Chicago. I still spent nights and weekends writing Christine's website, doorhangers, emails, newsletters, and mailers. Even if the bill gets paid, I obviously didn't do it for the money. I make that much in a couple of hours. I've spent hundreds of hours on this campaign.

Michael didn't do this for the money either. I know how much time he spent on this campaign, and how much that would have cost. What he was paid was a pittance for all the work he did. And it was only for design work. It did not cover the hours he spent delivering lawn signs, driving Christine to campaign events, setting up events, going to photo shoots, blogging, making phone calls, and walking precincts. He did all that because he cares about the district he lives in. The district his students live in. The district he's raising his daughter in.

Like Christine, Michael and other volunteers gave up their personal lives to try to take our country and our government back from big-money special interests. They deserve our thanks and admiration.

And you owe Michael and the other volunteers an apology.

Comparison of Cegelis to Hackett is inapt.

For one thing, it is far harder to run a statewide campaign than a congressional campaign; the logistics of running a grass-roots campaign in a populous state with multiple large DMAs like OH is far different than runnign a more or less local congressional campaign. Not saying the latter is a walk in the park - it isn't - but Hackett was running in OH, statewide. Far harder.

Second, it is unclear that Cegelis was knee-capped to the extent Hackett appears to have been.

Calling Hackett a coward was over the top.

End of day, we now have roughly a half-dozen ongoing cases of DC Dem meddling in elections (IL6, PA, OH, MN, soon to be CT I am sure). The national leadership of the party does not represent us as progressives, have not done so for decades, and in fact has spent the last 6 years demonstrating their eagerness to actively work to undermine reform efforts and progressive causes dear to us. Bankruptcy "Reform". Tax Cuts for the Rich. Iraq War. SC Confirmation Sell-outs, one after the other.  

We are the left's "values" voters, and we are being ignored by a value-less party, one whose leaders seem to prefer the comforts of the trappings of their minority-status office to the rigor of actual conviction and leadership/

It may be too late for the party. Part of me thinks it is too far gone to be reformed. Part of me hopes I am wrong. If I am, there's only one way to turn this situation around, and that is to do what the Right's "values" voters did to the GOP, and that is to stop supporting Democrats carte blanche.

The time has come to stop voting for Dems who do not represent our values, regardless of immediate consequences. The only way we get the DC Dems to take note is to quit giving them support. Only when faced with real consequences will these folks ever start taking our votes seriously. And '06 is a pivotal election for these gutless Dems - it's theirs to lose due to serious GOP weakness, and if they were to actually lose seats this time around playing GOP-lite for the 6th election cycle in a row, maybe then would the DLC crowd take a hint. Then again, maybe the won't - and just blame it on Dean. Only one way to find out - and that's to withhold votes. It's now or never.

IMHO, there's never been a more important election for progressive Democrats to sit out. If your candidate represents your values, by all means vote for her or him. If not, abstain or look into the Greens or the Social Democrat candidates if you are fortunate enough to have those choices.

In my case, this means an easy vote for my DFL Representative, Betty McCollum, who walks the walk. But it likely will also mean passing on the Senate candidate, hand-picked by the DSCC, Amy Klobuchar, who sounds a lot like a Feinstein clone.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Chill, Matt, don't flegellate yourself. You didn't miss much. Cegelis didn't set the world on fire, she got about 13,000 votes. My God, you need more than that to get elected to city council in a medium sized suburb in bumfuck Colorado. Yes, she successfully turned out her dedicated voters, which is all to her and her staff's credit. But turning out 13,000 voters in a primary doesn't really count for "massive support". If anything, it shows that Duckworth needs to work on her GOTV operation. Plus, it was a tiny turnout with a third candidate who got over 10%. Not sure much greater of a margin was really possible. Finally, Duckworth had a load more money and free TV, not to mention endorsements, but Cegelis has been running for this seat since late 2003. It's more surprising that Duckworth won this thing at all than that Cegelis got 13,000 votes. Biggest disappointment is the turnout, which strongly suggests either candidate would be a longshot in the general. Just not enough interested Democrats.

Not sure your connection to Hackett makes sense, although I agree he didn't turn out to be the stand up guy we thought he was.

I really appreciate both Matt and Chris's mea culpa.  It shows a real maturity and humility on the part of our side.

As I was watching the returns on Tuesday night, I was dreading the inevitable "Now we have to get behind Tammy" posts that would have sounded so condescending and dismissive.  There will be time to get behind Duckworth (we've got over 7 months until November), but let's spend some time discussing the big issues first.

It seems to me we're talking about two things:  one, who is more likely to win the seat for the Democrats in November?  Two, what is the relationship between the netroots and the party going to be?  I think a good case could be made for the first question that Cegelis's grass-roots efforts would have made her stronger against Roskam.  If she had been the nominee, she would have had the funds she needed to compete--I don't think Rahm Emanuel is that stupid that he would deprive her of funds in November for beating his candidate in March.

Also, when I've heard Duckworth speak, she sounds as if she doesn't understand the issues.  She is a true neophyte, and Roskam is an experienced legislator.  I'm afraid he's going to wipe the floor with her in debate.

For the second question, I think a lot of us appreciated Christine's willingness to take on Hyde in 2004, and her enthusiasm for party-building in the years since.  For Emanuel to cut her off at the knees feels--well, it feels like some weird combination of Machine/Mob/Republican behavior to a lot of us.  

I liked Cegelis for her positions on the issues--I think she would be less likely to vote for a future CAFTA or bankruptcy bill than Duckworth, who will vote for whatever Rahm tells her to vote for.  For the record, I didn't give her money and I live in IL-1, not IL-6.  I belong to the IVI-IPO, which endorsed Christine, but I didn't take part in the endorsement session.

Just my two cents.  Flame away.

Nicely said Matt. I knew nothing about the ethical issues you raised and think perhaps you overplay them as others overplayed similar complaints raised about other bloggers but I understand completely why they caused you to question what you were being told.

Just so everyone is clear on my posts...

I am not paid in any way shape or form by the Gillibrand campaign for any service or function whatsoever. Nor do I have any financial relationship of any sort with her or any of her family members, campaign staff, employer, or any other possible association you can think of.

I am a volunteer for her campaign and one of 10 county coordinators. I do live in the district and I do care what sort of person is hired to represent me in Washington. I do not approve of the current person filling that role nor do I like green eggs and ham sam I am. I do like Kirsten Gillibrand and heartily approve of her candidacy for congress in New York's 20t Congressional District.

I am also a former Chicagoan. I have never lived in Illinois-6 but I know the area well. I no longer live anywhere near the district nor do I have sort of aboe mentioned relationships with any of the campaigns there.

I do care about the various factions of the Democratic Party learning to work together and not at odds with each other. This is why I have such a strong opinion about what happened in Il-6 and the DCCC's role in this primary.

They need to learn to share, play nice with the other kids, and work as part of the team. We are part of that team and they need to learn to adjust to a brave new world.

I also agree with your comments vis a vis Cegelis and Hackett. I might not have stated it as strongly as you did but I was very disappointed with his withdrawal from the race and the manner in which he did it.

Peace,

Andrew C. White
Stephentown Democratic Committee Chair
Democracy for the Hudson-Mohawk Region President

We need to show them the grassroots can beat back National Democrat puppets. IN PA-08, a seat we can totally win, Patrick Murphy is a vet facing Andy Warren in the primary.

I saw this guy Murphy on Hardball! He can't even string a sentence together on the war, which is the one issue Rahm Emanuel picked him to talk about.

ANDY WARREN is the guy we need to get behind, and show them the Cegelis grassroots fight was not a fluke, but that it was a MESSAGE to RAHM: you need us as much as we need you.

Paul Hackett's a "coward," huh? Maybe he's just an adult. Maybe he knows that the "Netroots" crowd is a self-promoting paper tiger that couldn't elect a dog catcher, and whose loyalty can be measured in nanoseconds.

"Coward." Wow.

Cegelis still lost.  There's NO second place for losing closely.  To call Hackett a coward is REALLY fucking cheap.  You say YOU couldn't afford a plane ticket to Chicago.  Well, don't assume that Hackett wanted to waste his life and spend money on a losing proposition.  One could even argue that he spared his supporters like me who would have given him money.  If he knew he would lose, then I am glad he spared us spending scarce contribution dollars on him, whilst there are many many other winnable races to fund.

Btw, I agree with you on the Cegelis stuff.  That was tough.  I sent her no money either.  I FULLY understand being reticent when people are lying to you.  I would have done the same.  I hope the campaign loves the webwork that Michael in Chicago did, because he COST them big in more ways than one.

The point is, the big (stated) knock on Christine (by Rahm) is that she couldn't raise money.  Then Duckworth is GIVEN money by self-same Rahm.  Duckworth's ability to raise money HERSELF is shown by the fact that 2% of her money was in-district, and that Cegelis outraised her by a significant amount in-district.

Politics isn't for whining crybabies. If your candidate loses in the primaries, then you support the winner. There are exceptions to the rule, of course, but this ain't one of them. The "Netroots" babies need to sit down, shut up and move on.

Maybe one of these days you'll actually elect someone. I have seen no evidence that any of the "Netroots" wannbes have been able to do that yet. When they do, and when it's clear that they've done it, then we can talk.

And whoever calls someone who volunteered for Iraq and then went over there a "coward" has a screw loose. What the hell are you peoeple thinking?

Matt said:

"I bet that a substantial portion of Duckworth's voters simply did not know that Cegelis was a Democrat.  They probably saw Duckworth on TV with Obama, got some mailers, and figured, hey, I'll vote for the Democrat."

Cegelis ran once. Got a lot of votes. Essentially ran non-stop for THREE years and people didn't know she was a Democrat? Now does that speak to the quality of the last two years of campaigning or what?

With the turnout, which one poster informs us was bigger than usual, she had more than enough time to make her name ID HUGE! But I'll bet she never mailed the entire Dem district more than once if at all because of money.

THREE years and they didn't know she was a Democrat in a Democratic Primary?

Sorry something really wrong with the Campaign that might not have been fixed with some state based professional help. Those people she had enough money to hire, but I think the 'ego' of the 'grassroots' precluded that obvious answer.

Does anyone have a good shot at the General election? I admire the dedicated Cegelis supporter who admits they switched because they think the winner will have a better shot at the General! That takes guts on the Blogs and in person.

And one person here thinks the same solution is to do to her what they did to Hackett....throw him into an even harder more money intensive race: the Senate! What a ridiculous thought. Talk about the frying pan into the fire!

Here's what I do want and haven't seen...it sure isn't on her website...I want her to be and actual Democrat and get an email out to every supporter requesting in the strongest language that they get into the Duckworth campaign. She's going to need them.

Cegelis herself should be making Media appearences today with the winner to show solidarity to the Opposition who only has 805K in the bank!

You want to be a real Candidate and then you lose...that's what you do with the winner...show up and offer to help.

For those that laugh...remember what Gov. Dean and Gen. Clark did for John Kerry? They were the two most active non-stop surrogates in the Presidential Campaign! Did either of them agree with John Kerry? No, not really. But that was their job...as Wes Clark famously said..."I'm reporting for duty." And his supporters did too. I can't speak for other campaigns.

And Cegelis and all her supporters should do the same. It's called Being a Democrat and gracious loser.

Well, ok, but they could have talked to the local party apparatus on the ground in DuPage and suburban Cook BEFORE they brought in Duckworth -- see what was really going on in the District instead of assumming they knew all about it.  And much of the local party people were energised by the Cegelis campaign, much more so than they had been in years and years.

Hey BigDog: Truer words were [b]NEVER[/b] spoken! Now's the time when we find out whether the losing candidate was ever worthy of support to begin with. We also find out whether her supporters are worth a damn.

Very honest report Matt.t takes a real mench to say what you said. I chipped in $25 for Christine based only on reports appearing in MYDD about Duckworth not supporting an Iraq Troop pullout and sounding more Hillary like than Feingold like. I hope none of your points indicate that i was misled here on that?

Matt:

You didn't know Michael was in the can for Cegelis?  You're the one who needs a head examination. I've been reading Michael's posts since him and Gary Boatwright were bitching about Duckworth even entering the race. I kept asking him if he was on the payroll. I just assumed he was.  

To be honest with you, it doesn't mean squat to me if he was taking inkind money or cash.  

Cegelis got 18,000 votes in the primary in 2004 and less than 11,000 in 2006.  That pretty much says it all about her building a constituency. You weren't misled by all the DC folks.  They called it right, there was just had a low turnout of Duckworth supporters.

Cegelis was a horrible candidate and that is why Durbin, Obama, and Rahm all sought somebody different to run in the general against Roskam. I get the impression that talking to Cegelis was about like me telling my 8 year old something.  She doesn't listen because she is the smartest person in the room.  Dad doesn't know anything.

Don't buy this malarky on Rahm kneecapped her on fundraising.  Cegelis sucked at fundraising and more importantly, at holding onto the money she did raise.  Holding coffee klatches! Give me a break.  That works for the PTO, not for the rough and tumble of House politics.

But Matt, you probably were wise to distance yourself from this losing proposition because of some of the weirdos that the Cegelis campaign seemed to attract.

Like this post today from "Donna Loves Dean" who says this in her post "...have nothing against Tammy Duckworth, but I have no connection with her.  How can a war vet with no legs represent me?  It seemed to me that the DCCC were making her a side show rather than a candidate".

Some other Bill Frist wannabe but a "progressive (what the fuck does that word mean to these two people) eluded to Duckworth having PTSD and was "concerned" about her breaking down on the House floor. These people were neither wise or progressive, they are just plain friggin pathetic in making such statements.

If I read one more statement about how Cegelis was building the party I will have to throw up.  Leaders and winners build party organizations that generate voter turnout, not 2nd place finishers who can't think beyond the next lofty progressive idea. She actually thought that uranium tainted munitions was a cutting edge issue for the voters of IL-06. Who is out of touch?