Healing In IL-06

The acrimony is (SLOWLY) dying down. The raw, festering wounds have been "salved" somewhat by time and space. It was one of the nastiest races I've seen in 26 years of politics. And I've been involved in races from small town Alderman, to Chicago Aldermen and Mayors, and even Presidential Campaigns. I'm talking "inner circle" involved, more often than not.

The Duckworth Supporters...Or more accurately...The "Anti-Cegelis" (for a variety of reasons) bloggers have figured out (I hope) that they were only fanning the flames of dissension, by not allowing the Cegelis Camp an opportunity to vent their frustrations, hurt and anger after the election. And in retrospect, I think we can see now that they/we were just desperately trying to be heard, above the din of "conventional wisdom", before the election.

All that being said, let's talk about what it's going to take to move forward:

   1. STOP THE SNIPING! ALL FACTIONS must agree to disagree, and just let it go. Easier said than done, but we have to do it. (SIDE NOTE: When I refer to "All Factions" in this diary I mean the Duckworth folks, the Cegelis Folks, the "Anti-Cegelis" bloggers, the DCCC, the DLC, and especially the Illinois delegation of "Beltway Boys".

  2. The REAL CULPRITS, the ones who caused this mess in the first place, need to come out of hiding and start mending fences. I'm referring to Durbin, Obama, and Emanuel. The ONLY national figure who called Christine after the election was Howard Dean...Talk about Poor Sports!

   DURBIN ESPECIALLY, but also Emanuel and Obama, need to reach out to Cegelis and her supporters. They apologized to the County Chairwoman months ago...Now they need to be GENTLEMEN and apologize to the people that they so clearly underestimated. It's the HONORABLE thing to do. It speaks to their integrity. And healing will NEVER HAPPEN unless and until they do.

   They need to reach out and make amends for the deep divide THAT THEY CREATED. Their original intent may very well have been honorable...However, the end result was anything but. It's time they acknowledged that publicly, and take responsibility for THEIR actions. Failing to do so, IMHO, is sheer cowardice. The Pottery Barn Rule definitely applies here: "You Break It, You Own It!".

   3. ALL FACTIONS need to come to the table...WITHOUT their "handlers"...WITHOUT their egos...WITHOUT their grudges...and work out their differences. TRUE Give and take. Find out what it's going to take (an awful lot, I'm afraid) to work together for the greater good.

   THEN DO IT! JUST DO IT! I think the Duckworth Camp (And CERTAINLY Durbin & Obama) are going to have to give more than they take at this stage. Things will even out come November. But ALL "give" and NO "take"...By ANY faction...Is completely unacceptable.

   4. Finally, Duckworth's "handlers" are going to have to start treating the Cegelis folks with the REAL respect that they EARNED. Nobody in politics "deserves" respect without earning it...The Cegelis Camp EARNED it! They never gave up, put up one HELL of a fight, and AGAINST ALL ODDS (and dare I say "conventional wisdom" - God I LOATHE that phrase!) they came within 2.1 votes per precinct of BEATING "the machine". Yes, they definitely earned respect.

   And  Tammy's "handlers"MUST acknowledge that they can't win without the Cegelis Ground Force...As Tammy has already done...And give them their due. Failing to do so will torpedo any and all efforts at unity. (And if they are unwilling/unable to do so, Tammy needs to FIRE THEM.) They can start by RESPECTFULLY reaching out to the Cegelis & Scott folks, quietly and privately, and "inviting them to the table" to negotiate. IMHO the ball is in their court. They have the most to lose now.

It's a place to start. Hopefully, a place we can build from.

I hope that the "Anti-Cegelis" bloggers will have the good sense and common decency to NOT start another flame war. Same goes for my fellow Cegelis bloggers. It's counterproductive...It only deepens the already monumental divide.

And please leave Lindy & Christine out of this for now. They need time to regroup before we ASSUME what they will or won't do in the future. This diary is an attempt to help close the divide...Please respect it for what it is.

There is plenty of "Crow" to be eaten by ALL factions. Everyone bring a bottle of Ketchup.

[editor's note, by dabuddy] Modified Numbering of Points to make them sequential. Hat Tip to pascal1947. Good Catch!

Tags: Barack Obama, Christine Cegelis, Dick Durbin, IL-06, Illinois, rahm emanuel, Tammy Duckworth (all tags)

Comments

53 Comments

Re: Healing In IL-06

Uhh, Dabuddy, umm, is there anything the Cegelis people have to do in order to patch things up besides accept apologies?

by spirowasright 2006-04-01 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Healing In IL-06

YEP!

They have to work their butts off to help elect a Democrat in the General Election. As I said, things will even out in November.

by dabuddy 2006-04-01 03:25PM | 0 recs
Cegelis

shouldn't have refused to endorse Duckworth.  She got beat, it may not have been fair that the DCCC backed Cegelis but you know what, the people who vote ultimately decide things, not the DCCC, DNC, or fellow politicians.  Obama, Durbin, and Emmanuel had every right to support Duckworth just like Cegelis had every right to stay in the race.  Politics isn't a friendly game and a lot of times, bad things happen to good people.  This is something bloggers are just going to have to accept.

by jkfp2004 2006-04-01 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis

Show me where she said she refused to endorse Duckworth. Show me. Not a quote from an anonymous source. Show me where she said that she wouldn't be endorsing Duckworth and that her supporters shouldn't vote for her.

by michael in chicago 2006-04-01 03:13PM | 0 recs
by jkfp2004 2006-04-01 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis

Per your link above:

Christine Cegelis will not endorse Tammy Duckworth, the winner in Illinois's 6th Congressional District Democratic primary, because she has reservations about Duckworth's positions on universal healthcare and free trade, a source close to Cegelis's campaign said.

CEGELIS didn't say anything. Neither You, nor I, know whether the "source" is even legitimate.

I'm really disappointed that people who are DEMANDING unity can't show enough COMMON DECENCY to help facilitate it. Truly bad form, folks.

by dabuddy 2006-04-01 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis

The national party officials worry that her unwillingness to support Duckworth's bid could dampen enthusiasm among some Democratic activists in November.

Dampen?  Try "extinguish".

If people are going to worry about local activists, the time to do that is before they go and piss on them.  So now they worry because they're damp.

by Feh 2006-04-01 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis

She certainly may endorse Duckworth at a later date but her refusal to initially back her will hurt Duckworth.

by jkfp2004 2006-04-01 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis

You should really be ashamed of yourself.

Your blatant lack of restraint here is reflecting poorly on Duckworth. This is a call for unity. Please have enough respect for your candidate to honor that call.

by dabuddy 2006-04-01 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis

Since when does the victor have to do major ass kissing when the defeated opponent and her band of merry bloggers refuse to accept defeat

Nobody pay any attention to these people.  Nobody in IL-06 is anymore.

Obama, Durbin and Rahm aren't hiding from anybody. These guys called it right in IL-06. All you have to do is look at how Cegelis has handled this defeat and that should pretty much tell you what she has been like since her close 17,000 vote defeat in 2004. She's the smartest person in the room and so are her followers.  The DCCC could have given her a $500,000 and she would have pissed it away on flaky robocalls and grassroots gimics.

Where does it say Cegelis won't endorse Tammy Duckworth. Right here Michael.  

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/Th eHill/News/Campaign/032806.html

by riverred 2006-04-01 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis

All I did was give you the story.  The fact is candidates usually endrose their primary rival by now and the fact that Cegelis hasn't made any attempts at bridging that devide between Duckworth dems and Cegelis dems is going to press, wheather she eventually endorses Duckworth or not.  I'm not condoning what was done to her by the DCCC or by other politicians, I'm just saying what the media is going to say.

by jkfp2004 2006-04-01 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis

The fact is, candidates aren't usually viciously attacked by their own party.

And the fact is that the Party usually reaches out to "the other" candidate BEFORE they torpedo them.  The same article you mentioned above clearly states that they made no effort to do so.

Democrats had hoped to avoid this scenario as early as last year. Top party officials studied the likelihood of trying to persuade Cegelis to drop out of the race but concluded she would not do so if asked, a Democratic National Committee (DNC) official said.

They didn't even try. Maybe if the HAD tried, we wouldn't be in this mess today. Certainly she deserved the opportunity to make that decision for herself. After all, THAT'S WHAT OTHER CANDIDATES USUALLY DO.

Now for the love of God, can we PLEASE stop picking on Cegelis, and start moving FORWARD?

by dabuddy 2006-04-01 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis

What would the media have said if Cegelis won after the entire party backed someone else? No one seemed to care about that.

The fact is the DCCC doesn't usually attain this level of involvement in contested primaries. The fact is the past presidential nominee for the party doesn't usually get involved in contested primaries.

The fact is, this race is/was anything but usual, and nothing that usually happens is going to happen here.

The fact is, Cegelis hasn't said anything yet, but people want to attribute an anonymous quote to her. That's what the media has to say about this.

by michael in chicago 2006-04-01 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis

But Michael, how many days has she now had to clarify the quote if it was wrong?  At a certain point, a non-denial is an admission.

Look: she deserves respect and gratitude for what she's done.  But her race is over; it's time to move forward.  Together.

by Adam B 2006-04-01 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis

Adam-

I understand your point. Please try to imagine what Christine has been through. THREE CONTINUOUS YEARS of campaigning. MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more vicious campaigning than the average candidate has to deal with. Having the Entire National Party working against her. And having to fight all that with very scarce resources. Yet she did it admirably.

Now she is physically, mentally, and emotionally exhausted. She needs some time and space to regain her senses. MUCH MORE time and space than you obviously realize. And certainly more time than you, or frankly I, would like. But it will take as long as it takes. And we have to RESPECT that, as frustrating as it is.

by dabuddy 2006-04-01 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis

And let's not forget that she endured THREE ELECTIONS during those three years of campaigning...ALL of which were contested.

Quite frankly, I'm amazed she's still alive. And no, that's not a joke.

by dabuddy 2006-04-01 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis

I can agree with most of that, except for the "vicious" part.  From what I observed, Duckworth ran a positive campaign that treated Cegelis like she didn't exist.

Campaigning is exhausting, and I'm sure she took the party's slights personally.  But the easy move is to give a perfunctory endorsement and figure out what you really want later; this is just keeping the attention on herself when the moment's passed.

by Adam B 2006-04-01 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis

"this is just keeping the attention on herself when the moment's passed."

That may be what it looks like from your vantage point, but trust me...The LAST thing Christine wants is attention! She just wants to be LEFT ALONE to recuperate. She needs to fade into obscurity for a few weeks.

"But the easy move is to give a perfunctory endorsement..."

It's also perfunctory for the National Party to give another candidate at least a Courtesy Call BEFORE you attempt to CRUSH them with all your might...And Spite. NOTHING has been normal, or easy, about this campaign.

Besides, Cegelis doesn't lie well. People would see right through a "perfunctory" endorsement. It would probably do more harm than good, IMHO. Better to wait until she and Tammy have had a chance to sit down and visit.

As I said, I'm feeling as impatient as you are. The difference is that I've seen her recently...It isn't pretty. Please give her a chance to regroup.

by dabuddy 2006-04-01 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis

She is more than entitled to her down time. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But she also needs to keep her staff from telling reporters that she won't endorse.

by DemocraticBass 2006-04-01 06:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis

It wasn't a staff member from what I understand. It was someone in DC, who heard from someone else, that this person said........

by dabuddy 2006-04-06 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis

Adam, right now I think all Cegelis has been doing is getting back to normal life, closing down her office, and moving on. Many loose ends to tie up.

Forgive the woman for not having the media contact she no longer has contact the press to put out a clarification for her. Plus, as mentioned somewhere in here, this isn't a normal primary fight and there is much yet to be worked out, both here, in the media and between the candidates.

Give it time and stop throwing disparaging remarks towards her actions or lack of actions. Cleaning out an office takes time.

by michael in chicago 2006-04-01 05:44PM | 0 recs
BTW

Thanks for being one of the very first I've seen to throw some well earned respect towards Cegelis.

by michael in chicago 2006-04-01 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: BTW

She ran a strong, well-funded primary campaign.  Whether she would have been a superior general election candidate is a topic for fair debate.

by Adam B 2006-04-02 04:43AM | 0 recs
Thank You

Thank you, riverred, for making my case about how the Duckworth Camp isn't making an effort to reach out to the people they need to win in November.

I'm sure Tammy "appreciates" your "unifying efforts" here as much as I do.

by dabuddy 2006-04-01 03:55PM | 0 recs
Thank You for Letting You Make a Fool of Yourself

Everbody is on to how you guys work.  You write a critical piece on Duckworth's campaign staff and party leaders who supported Duckworth and the rest of the world should just sitback and let you peddle this stuff, unchallenged.  

Dabuddy, I didn't see much unifying dialogue in your diary.  And until I do, or until you guys grow up, whichever comes first, I am going to keep on commenting.

Sorry, this ain't beanbag!

by riverred 2006-04-01 04:13PM | 0 recs
Keep it up...

Way to unify! GROW UP AND GET BEHIND DUCKWORTH NOW! That will work. Just keep pushing people away. Just keep it up.

by michael in chicago 2006-04-01 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank You for Letting You Make a Fool of Yours

"Dabuddy, I didn't see much unifying dialogue in your diary..."

What this diary does is let the DW folks know where the major conflicts are, and ground rules that will be required to start resolving them. But more importantly, it sends the signal that progress CAN be made, IF they are willing to try.

As I said, the ball is in their court. They need us more than we need them right now. And THAT sir, is why they need to "kiss ass", as you so delicately put it.

by dabuddy 2006-04-01 04:49PM | 0 recs
Keep it up!

You may yet succeed in convincing me to leave that slot on the ballot blank when it comes to November.

by Feh 2006-04-02 07:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis

"The DCCC could have given her a $500,000 and she would have pissed it away on flaky robocalls..."

That's Choice!

Once again you defeat your own argument. Any idea how many "flaky robocalls" the DW campaign put out before the election?

Here's a hint...People got almost as many robocalls per household (from the DW campaign) as they did glossy mailers.

by dabuddy 2006-04-01 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis

See, you goobers just don't get it.  That's why Cegelis lost.

It's one thing to have Durbin making a robocall endorsing Duckworth or Obama making endorsement statements on behalf of Duckworth. People recognize these two US Senators as leaders in our party and our state.  Obama had some nice photo-ops with Duckworth and a positive endorsement direct mail piece as well (By the way it all worked)

But Cegelis had "Bridget Dooley" make a robocall statement.  Who is Bridget Dooley, some volunteer on the campaign. It is a little underwhelming.

My point is that Duckworth's campaign strategy  was effective, regardless of whether Cegelis supporters think so or not.  Cegelis's daily attendance at forums and coffee klatches and "grassroots campaigning", and poor application of campaign resources made her a marginal candidate.  

by riverred 2006-04-01 04:32PM | 0 recs
I'm trying to walk away

But these types of comments are just too rich...

Cegelis campaign was so ineffective that only 2 votes per precinct separated her from Duckworth, who had the total backing, both in resources and fundraising assistance, of the entire national party, including every big name there is from Clinton to Obama to Kerry. And yet not only did she not win big, she didn't even get a majority. But Cegelis was marginal.

That's why we have the government we have today. Candidates should avoid spending time with the rabble they wish to represent, and instead spend their time out of the district with those who have money and influence.

Now there's something to rally around. Is this the change you hope to bring to DC?

by michael in chicago 2006-04-01 04:46PM | 0 recs
I'm trying to walk away but don't look back

Is this the start of another mantra about how close Cegelis came in the last election???

After awhile, you gotta win something guys to justify the elevation to leader.  People start to tire of causes, especially lost ones.

by riverred 2006-04-01 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm trying to walk away but don't look back

You're hopeless. Would you type something to make me laugh before I lose all respect for you and you never get to buy me that beer... ;-)

by michael in chicago 2006-04-01 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis

Nobody is arguing that DW's campaign tactics worked. They OBVIOUSLY worked. She won...Not by much, but she won.

So yes, those glossy fliers & robocalls did sway enough uninformed voters to vote for her...Even the TWO SLIMY HIT-PIECES that came out within 48 hours of the election.

Now that we've established that, can we PLEASE start looking forward instead of this incessant navel-gazing?

by dabuddy 2006-04-01 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis Supporters Flipflop

And you were the people that were stating that Duckworth's campaign was an affront to the people of IL-06.

Now Duckworth VOTERS (not just supporters) are just a bunch of "uninformed voters".  People who actually went down to the polling booth after getting all the warm and fuzzies from the Christene Cegelis campaign for the last two years.

Maybe Duckworth and Scott voters weren't as impressed as you and Michael are with the Cegelis grassroots campaign.  Must have overlooked a few houses. You only had two years to cover them all. Maybe those uninformed voters didn't get invited to one of Christene's coffee klatches.

Who is full of themselves here folks?????

We can move on when you guys give up on the notion that there is something to negotiate.

by riverred 2006-04-01 05:24PM | 0 recs
SAD

We'll just have to agree to disagree here. I'm disengaging from you at this point. To continue arguing with you would be harmful to DW.

by dabuddy 2006-04-01 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis Supporters Flipflop

Actually, I quite respected Scott. Didn't like his positions as much as I liked Cegelis. But the man earned my respect. He ran an honorable campaign and always was respectful of Cegelis and her supporters. He did well for his first run for office.

If there's nothing to negotiate, then why all the fixation on what Cegelis does or doesn't say? I'm mean, if there's nothing to negotiate, then her endorsement doesn't really mean anything, nor the support of the ground troops who volunteered for her.

by michael in chicago 2006-04-01 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis

Read the bold print above...

by michael in chicago 2006-04-01 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis

I'm going to copy this diary and the comments.

Then, if DW loses, and people like riverred start bashing us for not (blindly) supporting her, I'll repost the diary as a reminder of WHY we didn't back her.

by dabuddy 2006-04-01 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis

Blame me!

You guys will always be looking for an excuse even if I didn't comment.

by riverred 2006-04-01 04:34PM | 0 recs
Since when?

Since the victor of a primary now needs the people their supporters to win the general. Since a candidate with the full backing of the national party barely managed to beat an opponent with nothing much more than a "band of merry bloggers." Since this victory didn't get a majority of the votes in the primary. Since the district this victor is running is leans GOP and she'll need as much help to win as possible, including the "band of merry bloggers" who live in the district.

And you may want to read that article and notice that the "rigth here" you refer to isn't right anywhere in that article. Read closer and you'll notice the quote is from an anonymous source.

It is more telling how someone handles victory in my eyes. You guys should have won and won big. You didn't. Your victory is tainted and you had better do something to wash off that taint other than insulting someone a lot of us believe in.

You're not doing Duckworth any favors here.

by michael in chicago 2006-04-01 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Since when?

Michael, your argument that Cegelis didn't "say" she won't endorse Duckworth is just bullshit equivocation. If a source at her campaign calls a reporter and anonymously and cowardly declares that she won't endorse then that is "saying" it. If Cegelis disagrees with her former staffer's interpretation then she has the responsibility to correct the record and shut that person up.

Regardless, you all need to stop whining and see the forest for the trees here. You had your shot and lost. Now quit bitching and beat Peter Roskam.

by DemocraticBass 2006-04-01 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Since when?

"If a source at her campaign calls a reporter and anonymously and cowardly declares that she won't endorse then that is "saying" it. If Cegelis disagrees with her former staffer's interpretation then she has the responsibility to correct the record and shut that person up."

You are making a whole lot of assumptions here:

 1. Where does it say that the source called the reporter? For that matter, where does it say they talked by phone?

 2. Where does it say that the source was a staff member or volunteer? Or anyone else that Cegelis can "shut up".

 3. What PROOF does it offer that the source truly is someone "close to the campaign"? LOTS of people, many who are FULL OF CRAP, say things to reporters, so they can have their 15 minutes of fame.

You don't know (I assume) who the source was anymore than I do. Until you do, please keep your acrimony to yourself. You are doing a disservice to Duckworth by "fanning the flames" of animosity.

I'm trying to start a dialogue to bring all the parties together. You, on the other hand, are trampling on an already fragile olive branch.

by dabuddy 2006-04-01 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Since when?

Your argument is really nothing more than a straw man.

1) It doesn't matter who called whom, who initiated the conversation, whether they used a telephone, two cans on a string or met at a coffee shop, someone closely linked to her campaign decided to tell a reporter that she wouldn't endorse and that is a huge issue.

2) No reporter worth a shit - or his or her editor - would use a comment from a random volunteer as the source for a story this important.

3) See above.

You aren't trying to bring parties together. You're trying to force the Duckworth people to kiss your ass. Time to face the facts here, Durbin, Obama, Rahm aren't going to come crawling to Cegelis for support. She has no political capital. She could only must 14,000 votes for god's sake. You lost. Support the nominee.

by DemocraticBass 2006-04-01 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Since when?

We'll agree to disagree then. Have a nice day.

by dabuddy 2006-04-01 05:47PM | 0 recs
The victor in the PRIMARY..

..needs to do ass kissing when they need the losers help to win.

In IL-06 any Democrat, including and esp. Christine and Duckworth, would have/will need all Democratic voters pulling hard to beat any republican.

So I feel in this case if Duckworth really wants to win she and her people need to do more to salve the wounds.

Also, I know April is a slow campaign month in Illinois but I know if Christine had won she would be very visible in the district working for November.  If Tammy doesn't end her post primary vacation soon and start working very hard for November by having events that highlight herself and other Democrats she will not win.

by Delver Rootnose 2006-04-01 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: The victor in the PRIMARY..

Why should she do anything? She is not a candidate. She is a product to be marketed. And I wonder how much support Emanuel, Durbin, and Obama will give her now, because I beleive their purpose was not to win IL-06 in November, but to crush an independence movement in the Chicago suburbs and maintain Machine control over the Illinois Democratic party. Witness the lack of support by the Machine for the first Democratic Governor in nearly a generation. They have no true ideology, only a lust for power.

by antiHyde 2006-04-02 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis

DID I NOT ASK THAT WE LEAVE SCOTT & CEGELIS OUT OF THIS?

You don't know what Cegelis is going to do. I don't know what Cegelis is going to do. I suspect she will endorse Duckworth at some point. But she's been campaigning...non-stop...FOR THREE YEARS STRAIGHT. She needs...and deserves...some "Down Time".

Please! Cut the woman some slack, for Christ's Sake!

by dabuddy 2006-04-01 03:34PM | 0 recs
There is NO Refusal

No where does it say that Cegelis does NOT endorse Duckworth.  Everyone's taking the lack of a "formal endorsement" as a given that it's not an endorsement.

It truly amazes me.  The article's a plant, & only serves to widen the division in IL-06 at best.  Talk about an abusive relationship!  

Give it a rest already.

by Philosophe Forum 2006-04-01 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis

A lack of endorsement speaks for itself.

She needs to endorse Duckworth now.  No waiting around.

The Cegelis people, exemplified by this diary, continue to believe that they are OWED the nomination, and that it was stolen, and that the Duckworth people need to do the heavy lifting in the healing process.  This is a negative, divisive and Roskam-friendly attitude.

BOth sides need to initiate healing.

by dataguy 2006-04-02 05:44PM | 0 recs
Poll results so far

I am frankly amazed that the majority show YES or NOT SURE (67%) and only 10% NO.

I think it more likely for pigs to fly than that reptoid Rahm should suddenly acquire a human soul and that he, Durbin and Obama should publicly recant their evil doings. (Step #2)

BTW, was there a Step #3 in the post originally?

by pascal1947 2006-04-01 05:14PM | 0 recs
Duckworth's Real Liability--Emanuel/Residency

For the skeptics -- 03/31/2006 The Frontrunner

Coming on the heels of a March 13 fund-raiser featuring Vice President Dick Cheney, Roskam, 44, was joined Friday by Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman for a closed-door strategy session, followed by a 30-minute roundtable discussion with the media." Mehlman's visit was "the first-ever to the 6th District by an RNC chairman. But this no ordinary election year. For the first time in a long time, the playing field in the district is close to level for both the Republican and Democratic candidates."

03/29/2006 Chicago Sun-Times

The National Republican Congressional Committee sent out a release with the taunting headline, ``Tammy Duckworth-WWRD: What Would Rahm Do.''

The NRCC -- the GOP counterpart to Emanuel's Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (both organizations are based in Washington) -- is injecting Emanuel into the race as Duckworth is faced with the challenge of uniting Democrats in the wake of the divisive March 21 Illinois primary.
[. . .]
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who was as instrumental, if not more, than Emanuel in getting Duckworth to run and helping her to win.

But it was Emanuel who essentially pulled the rug out from Cegelis early on by shopping around for
another candidate, so he wears the jacket.

The day after the primary, the NRCC sent out a release asking Duckworth where she stood on 10
bills the House had voted on in 2005, which Duckworth's team understandably ignored.

Tuesday, the NRCC sent out a revised version of the same release this time adding Emanuel's votes.
``Until she answers these questions, voters can and should assume that Duckworth, who has been
recruited and paid for by the National Democrats, will vote with her liberal leaders.''
[. . .]
The NRCC craftily asked Duckworth in its release where she would stand on roll call vote 648, a
resolution sponsored by Hyde ``expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to
achieving victory in Iraq'' that was voted on Dec. 16. The resolution said that setting an ``artificial timetable'' for deploying troops out of Iraq is ``inconsistent with achieving victory.''

03/24/2006The Washington Times

'A little too cute'

"The 'Iraq veteran' political strategy that Democrats hope will sweep them into Congress could be coming up short - much-touted vet Tammy Duckworth, a helicopter pilot who lost both legs in combat, barely won her Illinois Democratic primary," the New York Post's Deborah Orin writes.

"Duckworth scraped by in a squeaker, winning by just over 1,000 votes and 44 percent of the vote in a three-way race - despite the backing of stars like Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the only TV ads, and outspending her chief rival 7-1," Miss Orin said.

03/18/2006 The Associated Press State & Local Wire

"When someone decides to run for office, the first people they go to for support is their base family, friends and folks they know locally," said Jonathan Collegio, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, which is helping Roskam. "Tammy Duckworth lives outside the 6th District, raises 98.9 percent of her money from outside the district."

03/15/2006 Chicago Tribune

. [. . .] when Sen. Durbin called me in the summer and said, 'Henry Hyde's retiring, your house is not that far from the district, would you consider running?' I didn't hang up the phone on him," Duckworth said.

03/02/2006 The Chicago Sun-Times

[. . .] some of the nation's biggest Democratic names are raising money for wounded Iraq war vet Tammy Duckworth, taking sides in a suburban congressional contest.

Duckworth travels to New York on March 12 for a fund-raiser hosted by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton
(D-N.Y.), who is the Democrats' star draw.
[. . .]
On Wednesday morning, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) sent out an e-mail appeal for Duckworth and other Iraq war vets running for Congress. By the afternoon, Duckworth spokesman Billy Weinberg told me the Kerry letter in just six hours raised tens of thousands of dollars for Duckworth. Kerry ``also raised some money for us today,'' Cegelis told me. After Kerry's e-mail hit, ``they went to our site and made a contribution in unfavorable reaction to what he did.''

Duckworth got in the race at the urging of Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and the packaged campaign
Durbin, Emanuel and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) created for her has spawned resentment in segments of the grass-roots activist Democratic community.

Duckworth's campaign seed money was provided by political action committees and donors connected to Durbin, Emanuel, Obama, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Professional fund-raisers working for the four Illinois lawmakers -- all with golden Rolodexes
full of national contacts -- are helping Duckworth. And Pelosi and Emanuel also joined in another
e-mail plea for money, setting a goal of raising $250,000 by Feb. 24 in order to bankroll
Duckworth's TV spots. Retired Gen. Wes Clark also sent a letter to benefit Duckworth.

On Sunday, Duckworth's Finance Committee chairman, bankruptcy turnaround specialist William Brandt, and his wife, Patrice, hosted a big-dollar event at their Winnetka home, with special guests Schakowsky, Rep. Lane Evans (D-Ill.) and former Ambassador Joe Wilson, whose wife, Valerie Plame, was the CIA agent whose outing became the basis for a leak probe led by Chicago-based U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.

Wilson was in the Chicago area also appearing at a Schakowsky fund-raiser to benefit her political
action committee.

Cegelis will probably endorse Duckworth one of these days -- when she's ready.  She is truly a class act, & her more vocal critics just don't get that.  Unfortunately, she's right.  Duckworth will need a lot of luck.  She'll need that more than a Primary opponent's endorsement despite a campaign entirely orchestrated by Emanuel's team of political professionals.

by Philosophe Forum 2006-04-01 07:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Duckworth's Real Liability--Emanuel/Residency

Cegelis will probably endorse Duckworth one of these days -- when she's ready.  She is truly a class act,

No, she is not a class act.  She's a spoiled, irresponsible little Princess Christina, and she needs to endorse.  Now.  Period.

If she was such a dad-gum class act, she would have endorsed ALREADY.

If Duckworth loses by a small margin, Cegelis will be blamed, especially if she does not endorse right away.  Is that what you Cegelis partisans want?

Cegelis is a two-time loser, folks.  In politics, there are few second acts.

by dataguy 2006-04-02 05:48PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads