Egos make replacing establishment officeholders with progressives not such an easy task.
Witness the case of Barack Obama, once a truly progressive state senator who ran to the left of everyone else in the Illinois U.S. Senate primary and won handily.
But once elected he abandoned progressive ideals in order to position himself for higher office. He chose people like John McCain and Joe Lieberman as his allies and restrained his own conscience in censure matters in order not to make waves.
So I think the key is not just to choose progressives, but to choose people with a sense of humility and a significant history of commitment to the progressive cause.
When you look back on Obama's relatively short time in Illinois state politics, and the bids for Congress and Senate during that brief timespan, you get the sense that it probably was all about ego. And you feel stupid and used.
I supported her in spirit until the end. I think the world of her. I just stopped giving money.
Hey, if things go as you predict, then Chris should return in 2008 and run as a Democratic outsider with nothing but contempt for the Democratic establishment. I'm sure it would be sincere, and in this GOP-leaning district it could be a successfuly ploy.
I think party leaders need to reevaluate such aggressive actions on behalf of a particular candidate in a primary.
I got a mailing attacking treasurer candidate Alexi Giannoulias paid for by the Illinois Democratic Party. It really pissed me off. I donate money to the party and here they were spending it to attack my candidate in the primary. So no more money for them.
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.
I don't think it has compromised Sherrod Brown. I don't have a grudge against him, though I do think he's a flip-flopper.
I have a grudge against Schumer (but I was already pissed at him for trying to get Suozzi to run against Spitzer) and Emanuel (but I was already pissed at him for getting Duckworth to challenge Cegelis). Why do they think they're kingmakers? That's OUR job. Consequently I had myself removed from the DSCC and DCCC mailing lists today.
If, however, it turns out that Brown was involved in some of the underhanded things that drove Hackett from the race, I will not actively support his candidacy.
Sherrod Brown is a liberal. Not a progressive.
Although a liberal is definitely preferable to a conservative, they are part of the same money addiction-- the same game of entitlements and carveouts.
I have fought backroom dealing for the last 15 years in Chicago. It's no better when a Democrat does it than when a Republican does it.
Elected leaders showing preference for their friends, those who are well-positioned and monied, is as anti-democratic and corrupting as blatant vote theft.
You can convince me to support Brown. I will. But there is no way that anyone can convince me that what happened to Paul Hackett was fine and fair. It was sickening. Democrats should be better than that.
I think Hackett dropped out because he was repulsed by what he saw, just as I have been.
Perhaps you can explain to me why Schumer, etc., felt the need to pressure Hackett to leave the race (especially since they had earlier encouraged him to run). Why they contacted his donors and discouraged their contributions. Why the establishment hates competitive primaries. Why the Democrats seem as much about money and the old boys network as the Republicans.
If progressives are fighting for anything, it's to end this type of backroom, insider bullshit and open the system to everyone. Days like this that make me realize so little has changed.
It's funny seeing all these apologists invent reasons why this was all Paul Hackett's fault.
I've heard Kos say that Hackett's entrance into the race was bungled. Bullshit-- Brown's was. Hackett didn't announce his intention to run until Brown told him that he wasn't running.
Now Stoller says that Hackett didn't have a chance of winning the primary because of lack of money and low name ID. Does that mean we knife him in the back and try to force him out of the race? Is that what good Democrats do to their underfunded candidates?
NO! That's what fucking Republicans do to their underfunded candidates.
This is GROTESQUE; Hackett's reaction is understandable; Schumer is a scumbag; and if you don't see it that way, you have no idea what a progressive is.
Even the link you posted suggested that the kid in Texas was "probably" innocent.
I believe there's a case in Virginia that might be the example I'm referring to. I read something about a group trying to get Gov. Warner to approve additional DNA tests.