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You might want to remember, it's OK to have an unpublished or unblogged thought.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