Oh boy. This is gonna be good.

I sent Cegelis flowers today.  I hope she is doing well, and I hope those outside the district who were never supporters of her refrain from offending those who may comment in this thread.

Sounds like Paul Hackett all over again. Sigh. When will the party listen to the people instead of dictating to them? That is just so Republican and there's a reason we aren't Republicans. This Ohioan is disgusted all over again.

This one might be a loss but the "establishment" will no longer think of us as another tool.

This quote could have come straight from the mouth of a Nader supporter.

I don't begrudge anyone their right to be pissed about how this primary went down.  But I do think people should pay more attention to the Nader example and how it played out in the real world.

After the 2000 election, did the Democratic Party realize that they needed to move more to the left to  bring the Nader voters back into the fold?  Absolutely not.  They just got pissed at the Nader voters and decided they were a bunch of fringe assholes.

It's not just the party leadership, either.  Read dkos sometime.  95% of dkos members think the party needs to move more to the left.  95% of them also think Nader was an asshole and his voters are responsible for the Bush presidency.  Fair or unfair, this is how real people react in the real world.

One of the toughest issues Chris, Jerome, Markos and others have been wrestling with is how progressives can change the party from within.  It's not easy.  But we can already conclude, based on the Nader example, that throwing elections in order to "send a message" to the party simply DOES NOT WORK.  It doesn't send a message, it just marginalizes you.

These are the simple facts, friends.  I'm not saying I like it any more than you do.

Progressives living in the district probably need to do exactly what the Duckworth campaign is calling for them to do: compare her to the extreme right-wing maniac the Republicans are putting up. I was a Cegelis supporter from outside the district. Whatever help I can muster will go to progressive, grassroots candidates who I know I will be able to count on against the worst insticts of power-mad politicians, whether they be Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, John Boehner, Rick Santorum, John McCain, George Bush or... Rahm Emanuel. So, although I will be rooting for a Democratic majority in the House after the November midterms, the Democratic candidates I'll be trying to substantively help be part of it will be the independent-minded progressives who represent the grassroots interests, not Rahm Emanuel/Steny Hoyer shills who you need to view as "at least they're better than a Republican."

We heard rumors that DCCC hinted they would pay CC's campaign debts if she'd withdraw before the primary.  
Now they want her endorsement.

Hint, hint.

I'm with the above poster. If I lived in the district, of course I'd vote for Duckworth over Roskam. But until Election Day gets much closer there are other races of more interest, with shorter deadlines, where I'm not holding my nose as I write a check.

Next up, for me, is CA-50. Then Ohio primaries. Pennsylvania primary. California primary. Montana primary. We might get some information before the South Dakota primary on June 6, about candidates for the state legislature that don't hate women. Busby might have a run-off June 6. Virginia primary is June 13. Joe vs Ned, August 8. Titus for gov-NV, August 15. Tell you what, Duckworthers: after Hawaii picks a candidate for HI-2, on Sept. 23, have your people call my people. We'll do lunch. I'll pencil it in.  

First of all I sympathize with Cegelis. I actually agree that the "establishment"--the DCCC, Durbin, Obama, and Emmanual--treated her horribly. I understand why she feels bitter, angry, resentful, jealousy, sad, depressed, frustrated, alieanted, and a combination of all those emotions. I can relate to her. I know what it must be like to lose a dream, especially one that has taken several years of work and effort to acheive, in one moment. I know it must be extremely hard to lose by a narrow margin like she did.

I can understand that she may need time to grieve and to heal from this disappointment. However, her attitude is not productive. It saddens that she has chosen to be a "sore loser". I understand why she feels that way, but she is not helping her future cause. If she wants to have a future in politics, she is not doing the right things. If anything she is only hurting her own self.

I would hope that she would reconsider her decision not to endorse Duckworth. I say this for the following reasons. First of all, if she EVER wants to run for anything again, having the reputation of being a "sore loser" is not going to help her. Secondly, by refusing to endorse Duckworth, she is only confirming what the establishment (already) thinks of her. Her actions are proving to them that they were right not to endorse her. Finally, if she does want to have a role in the political world of DuPage and suburban Cook County, she is going to have to play nice with the "establishment". At some point she is going to need their support because being "an outsider" can only go so far.

There are plenty of other offices in the district that she could run for in 2008. Frankly, by burning bridges, she is going to make it harder to get support. Secondly she and her followers could still make a difference by helping Duckworth even if she isn't grateful for it. I say this because it shows that Cegelis and her supporters aren't "sore losers". Also it shows "the establishment" that they are serious about making poltiical change in the formerly heavily Republican precincts of DuPage County. If they did that they might actually get "the establishment" to perhaps think, "maybe we were wrong to treat Cegelis poorly." For frankly, as others have said, her GOP state rep is unopposed. She could conceivably run for many other offices in the district. She could then run again for Congress. You can catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar.

I think of Joe Hoeffel, who represented PA-13. Did you all know that he ran for the seat three times in the 1980s, losing by 2-1 margins each time? He also ran for County Commissioner several times and finally won. That is how he was able to take the seat back from Jon Fox in 1998. He didn't let one loss bring him down and he kept on fighting until he won. This is the same for Cegelis. She needs to realize that this is more than one race. It is more than just about her too.

Unfortunately the one laughing all the way to the bank is Roskam. He and the DuPage GOP are probably giddy at the schism that has apparently emerged between Cegelis and Duckworth's supporters. For frankly, given that she is a Democrat, I would think that Cegelis and her supporters would rather have Duckworth over Roskam. For frankly Roskam represents everything that Cegelis is opposed to.

But then again I often get into argumetns with many people here and at Kos over "imperfect" Democrats (Democrats who don't vote like Dennis Kuchinich basically). I know that there are many Cegelis supporters who will do nothing and let Roskam win. Or some of them would be giddy at the fact that Roskam win because they have flawed martrydom complex; they want to "send a message". Frankly I would rather have someone who represents my interests 60-80% of the time (Duckworth) than someone who represents my interests 0-20% of the time (Roskam).

Anyway I would hope that Cegelis would put aside her bitterness. I know how hard it is for her. For frankly her attitude is poor. I understand why she feels the way she does, but it is not going to help her in the long term. I think this attitude is counterproductive and not one of a good team player.

Frankly I think that, now the primary is over, it is time for BOTH sides to put aside their grievances and work together. I undersatnd that Cegelis and her supporters need some space and time to grieve. However, eventually, at least in this cycle, there comes a point where they either will be part of the problem--or part of the solution. If they don't want to help, then they should get the hell out of the way.

Yes I understand why Cegelis and her supporters are hurt. But being a sore loser and not gracious in defeat is not going to help their--or any other "progressive"--cause in the district.

"One of the toughest issues Chris, Jerome, Markos and others have been wrestling with is how progressives can change the party from within.  It's not easy.  But we can already conclude, based on the Nader example, that throwing elections in order to "send a message" to the party simply DOES NOT WORK.  It doesn't send a message, it just marginalizes you."

Couple of points.

1) You are correct, this is a hugely difficult process, this "changing the party" from within. I would argue it is, for all intents and purposes, an impossible one, and this for a number of good reasons, not least of which comes down to money and the power of the corporate underwriters of the Democratic party leadership in Washington DC.

2) If you accept the argument that moving the Democratic party leftward is either damn-near impossible or is impossible, and you are a lefty, it is a small step to assert that the Democratic party is no longer worthy of your support.

3) Many voters do not "throw elections" to "send a message" to the party. We vote for folks who represent our interests and our values, and find the Democrats wanting. We note that Dems controlled the Senate when the Senate gave Dubya carte blanche to send the children of working families to Iraq to be killed or damaged, we note that Dems helped Dubya with his tax cut bills, and we note that many Dems were fairly enthusiastic about bankruptcy reform and other attacks on working people, so we reckon this party doesn't represent us anymore.

4) The definition of whether or not the strategy of withholding votes from Dems is "working" is essentially a Democratic party construct and, as such, is at the same time a loaded one and pregnant with the sorts of straw man Democrats like to rightfully accuse GOopers of arguing with. All the same, this definition of "working strategy" is one Democrats seem to take for granted, a sort of QED argument used on lefties when we don't get gospel and vote for a centre-right rich white guy Democrats who don't represent our interests, like John Kerry or Mark Dayton or Herb Kohl or Joe Lieberman or Diane Feinstien or Nancy Pelosi or Jay Rockefeller or Frank Lautenberg or...well...you get my drift.

Fact is, these guys haven't delivered to real working people in decades, and small wonder - the only real working people with whom they have regular contact are their servants...er...personal assistants...

5) The folks who truly marginalize lefties are not the GOP. They are the Democratic party, who ignore us 3.5 years out of 4 and who spend the remaining 0.5 years trying to sell us, once again, their "protection from the GOP" racket. And if you're not buying this time round, if the sales pitch has gotten as stale as the paper from which it is repeated by rote is dog-eared, count on the scorn of their cheerleaders in the kos tribunes and elsewhere in so-called "liberal" America.

These same "liberals" sat on the sidelines while the GOP called us traitors and unAmerican for thinking that this Democrat-underwritten Irak adventure was not just monumentally stupid but also morally reprehensible. They ain't doing jack now that many of our organizations are being surveiled.

But now they're once again on our side. Huh?

I say this as a Nader in '96 voter who bought the Dem bullshit in '00 and in '04. Votign for Gore wasn't that tough - I think a lot of him, I've very much warmed to him. But Kerry? Please, that was brutal, it was a herculean task for me, in a swing state, to vote for that utter putz.

And the reward? Democratic spinelessness on the war. The patriot act. The bankruptcy reform bill. Tax cuts for the rich. Et c.

Needless to say, this lefty ain't buying the Dem bullshit anymore. Put up or shut up. And I don't give a damn if I'm "marginalized".

I think the issue, here, is it's hard to transfer passion so easily.  I doubt that any of Cegelis's supporters will vote for Roskam.  I also doubt that many will choose not to vote at all.  But I also doubt that they will be motivated to work for Duckworth, spend their time and money for a candidate they feel shouldn't have been running in the first place.
And I don't see how anyone can begrudge them that.
This isn't a Nader v Gore situation.  This is a Dean v. Kerry situation.  The Dean supporters didn't vote for Bush.  They didn't vote for Nader.  But they certainly weren't enchanted with Kerry.
Where the party is short-sighted is in their easy willingness to treat a candidates supporters as just voters.  A candidates supporters are far more than that.  They're the foundation of a campaign.
And Rep. Emmanuel seems to have no qualms about tearing that foundation to pieces.

After the DC Dems spit all over her and Duckworth abandons all her progressive stances at Rahm's direction, maybe Christine SHOULD withhold her endorsement until the folks that raised $1 million AGAINST her do something FOR her and until she gets Duckworth to commit to actually stand for something other than her biography (the Kerry strategy that's doomed to failure).

Politics ain't beanbag!

And this is NOT like Nader: no one is talking about launching an independent bid to siphon votes.

On Soapblox Chicago, "Michael in Chicago" hightlights this passage and makes a good point:

Illinois Democrats say that they are not worried about Cegelis's decision not to endorse Duckworth because most Democrats, even if upset by the outcome, will choose Duckworth over Roskam.

The reason no one called Christine was that they don't really care. The reasons they thought they could just walk in and buy the election was that they didn't care who's toes they stepped on. It's the same old line: "Honey I won't beat you anymore, I promise. Think of the kids."

I'd like to know who is now speaking for Christine. Note that the statements in the article are not from Christine, but are attributed to an anonymous source.

Cegelis has made not public statements one way or the other, and having talked with her recently about this doubt she would make such a statement in public. So before you all go trashing Cegelis, wait until she actual puts out a statement or is quoted.

The general thought on the blogosphere is that contested primaries are a "good thing."  This just shows why they are not.

After a tough loss, Cegelis is bitter.  She has apparently refused to endorse Duckworth.  This is the natural outcome of a contested primary.  Of course, primaries lead to bitterness.  Then, often, the bitterness lingers into the fall campaign.

Hopefully, there is enough time for Cegelis to realize that the best way for her to further her beliefs is to support Duckworth.  With a united Democratic Party, we could really win the district.  But, if Cegelis and her supporters sit on their hands, butts and wallets, then the Republicans will hold on to the seat.

It's very clear that all Cegelis supporters would vote for Duckworth as opposed to Roskam, but the key question is will they help with the campaign/win.  I'm watching these races from D.C. But i have been hearing insane numbers associated with the campaign.  Something like UNDER 5% of Duckworth money was raised from INSIDE the district.  I must claim ignorance on the exact issues that affect the district, but I have to assume Cegelis, with her grassroots effort, knows more than Duckworth possibly could (Unless those donors outside know more?!).  This is clearly a case of the National Democrats seeing an opening to take back Congress (which is most certainly an admirable goal and one that we should attain) but to what cost?  What then is the point of true progressives running???

As I diaried on before this makes me sick, I'm all for internal debate and primaries but when it's over suck it up and beat the Republicans.

Could Duckworth and DCCC reach out more, YES!  If they don't, be the bigger person and do what's best for the country instead of sitting home and whining and giving anonymous quotes to reporters!!

redstar66, either you know nothing about history, or you need to up your meds.  Otherwise, how could you make a statement like this?

"Further, Democrats simply have not delivered a damn thing in my adult lifetime. Federally, not a damn bit of consequential progressive legislation has passed, and I'm 40 years old. That's saying something."

Well...I'm 44, and in my lifetime, these "damn bits" of consequential progressive legislation have passed:  the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Voting Rights Act of 1965; the Clean Air Act; the Clean Water Act; the Wilderness Act; the Endangered Species Act; the Panama Canal Treaty; the Alaska Lands Act; the Clinton budget act of 1993 (Democratic votes only); Medicare and Medicaid; the Boland Amendment--need I go on?  

The list is skewed towards environmental issues because that's what I know best, but I hope you get the picture.  It's fine to be annoyed at the Democratic Party--I was disappointed that Cegelis lost, too--but don't go overboard.  You'll lose your argument when you make wild, easily refutable claims.

I resent The Hill's characterization of Cegelis voters as single-issue activists.  They were quite a diverse lot.