Funny I don't recall any outrage from you when Moran went negative...

The SUSA polls have shown Moran the least electable candidate.  Are you worried about that?
In reality, McAuliffe is the least electable Democrat, but Moran may not be much better.

So Deeds is the strongest Dem, or not?

Vote for Creigh Deeds. Failing that, vote for Brian Moran. Failing that, don't vote. Instead, consider Scientology.

Brutal.

I saw the Nader story. I don't care for political machinations. I'd rather lose an election than disenfranchise voters. McAuliffe strikes me as scum, personifying the "what's in for me" crowd.

I will be surprised, though not shocked, if Democrats win in November. I'm not thrilled with either of the three and Deeds been a disappointment for me. I'm bracing for losses here and in NJ in November.

I don't have a dog in this race - or in New Jersey - but I think "why McAuliffe" has been the question all along... but I'm not sure the other possibilities have closed the deal, either over one another or over McAuliffe and the money he's got to throw at the race. Virginia may be a more Democratic state than it's ever been... but Mark Warner, Jim Webb and Tim Kaine illustrate the dilemma of what it takes to thread the needle statewide, and I think for those of us who are not southerners, it's hard, still to face the entrenched realities of that region (what we like, basically, is knowing that Northern Virginia now behaves like Maryland and Delaware, i.e. like the rest of the northeast liberal-ish suburbs). This next election is challenging for two reasons - one is the hard economic realities that have upended everything (the main reason Corzine is struggling), and the other is that after two elections of easy reversals, we're reaching our limits on low-hanging fruit - closing the deal in areas where Democrats don't naturally have the upper hand has not been easy, and the "netroots" have yet to show, conclusively, that they know how to pick the hard locks. VA's governor is one of the hard ones (so is NJ, really), as are a number of others (I find it bewildering that people essentially have given in to the idea of Charlie Crist in FL, but it's true that Dems have a hard time winning state wide there, too). McAuliffe is the kind of "safe" known name who will do what it takes to win; there's nothing "inspiring" about that... but I can understand why a lot of people would go for it.

Thanks, Jerome. FWIW, my goal in writing that blog entry wasn't to do anything but lay out, as honestly as I could, which neurons fire in my brain when I hear the name "Terry McAuliffe," and why. It's an emotional blog entry rather than a logical one, for better or for worse.

McAuliffe just has that effect on people...

The most progressive candidates splitting their votes and allowing a "centrist" and/or machine type to win it.

Luckily right from the start in IL-05 the less and non-progressive candidates didn't have a chance. We had the total luxury of working and voting for whomever we felt was talking the talk we wanted to hear.

Good luck you all.

Have we all suddenly become political naifs here? McAuliffe called Nader's bluff in 2004, he offered to raise money for Nader to build a party if Nader stayed out of battleground states. Nader, who was happy to take Republican money, refused, demonstrating that his real interest was in destroying Democratic chances rather than building anything.

Looks like the notlarrysabato endorsement really stung. That blueweeds endorsement at least outlines substantive reasons for his Moran support before falling into character assassination, but what is up with Jaquith? That kind of deranged opposition is part of why McAuliffe has any traction. People hear McAuliffe saying reasonable, positive things while his opposition goes rabid.