This post constitutes "trashing?" Yeesh, if you use a word like that to describe a pretty reasonable, mild-toned critique, then it loses all meaning. It's not "trashing" to criticize someone's choice of advisors and hope that they makes changes on that front.
Excellent, excellent distillation of the entire situation.
And as a almost-30-something, khaki-wearing nerdy white male who spent plenty of time this last cycle obsessing over "my ActBlue list," I just have a few words to say in response to anyone who might question the worth of my efforts: Paul Hodes, Tim Walz, Joe Sestak, Patrick Murphy, Jerry McNerney, Jim Webb and Jon Tester.
A similar thing happened in HI-02, where Ed Case (who reminded me a lot of Ford) chose not to run again, and instead wound up losing a primary challenge to Akaka. He was replaced by the much more progressive Mazie Hirono. Definitely an improvement.
It went for Bush 54-46, but was 50-50 in 2000. I'm willing to bet that without a "favorite son" in the race, this seat will be bluer in 2008 than 2004 - and especially if the trends we saw in the runoff in TX-23 vis-a-vis the Hispanic vote hold up.
I'm pretty tired of how some anti-Rahmites keep talking about how Mr. Super Powerful Rahmbo "pushed out" so many candidates in primaries, while quite a few not only stuck around but even beat the DCCC-preferred names - and then several went on to win in November, too.
Rahm couldn't push Carol Shea-Porter or Jerry McNerney out of their respective races, and they both trounced Jim Craig and Steve Filson. And good for them. That's what primaries are for. And I'd be willing to bet that both McNerney and especially Shea-Porter benefitted greatly down the road by having a tough primary battle.
It's almost as though there is a strain of thought which says that primaries are good, except when candidates with establishment backing show up. That's absurd. A primary is a primary is a primary. They're open to all, and Rahm isn't capable of forcing anyone out. Oh, he can and does try - but he's not omnipotent.
If Lutrin thought he was a better candidate, then he should have stayed in the race. (This story doesn't even explain what happened - it just alleges that Lutrin was "offered a bribe" and then... nothing else.) He certainly could have won the primary, as the experience of others shows.
Howard Dean pulled some stunt in 2003 where he "polled" his supporters to ask if he should forego public financing. It was obviously a foregone conclusion that he would, and unsurprisingly, the vote was something like 87% in favor (if not higher).
Were we being "used" to provide Dean with a little bit of political cover, for a move which was sure to get him knocked by the media and goo-goo types? Yeah, clearly. Was I offended? To the contrary - I was happy to be "used" if it meant my man Howard would receive less flak for a smart political move.
American politics is often stupid. The media is extremely stupid. Candidates have to live in that reality, and if they occasionally do things which some view as treating their supporters as stupid, then I can definitely live with that.
The hard way (at the Big Orange) is that if you have to go into your own post a dozen or more times to defend yourself (and especially if no one else really has your back), then you've probably screwed up and should quit digging.