About Cegelis

In his update to Johnathan's "Examining the DCCC v. Netroots Meme" Chris laments (I corrected his spelling):

Did any grassroots and movement candidates lose in the House once they got out of the primary? Makes you wonder how Christine Cegelis would have done in IL-06.

As anyone who's read this blog since the primary is aware, I was a big proponent of Christine Cegelis' campaign and a big detractor of Duckworth's. How Christine would have faired in this race is anyone's guess, and I can only dream of what we could have done with the type of resources Duckworth's campaign had along with Christine's strong anti-war populist message.  However, right after a close loss is not the time, especially for the volunteers who worked their asses off for Duckworth. I remember how I felt after the primary. They can't feel much better and deserve credit for working so hard for a candidate they believed in or to just to try and regain the House for Democrats. Now is not the time to play "what if Rahm backed Christine."

Instead, this post is about what Christine Cegelis did post-primary. I think it's an and astonishing example of what one person is capable of doing for the Party even after it threw her under the bus.

Let's be clear right off the bat. I'm biased. Heavily. I got to work closely with Christine in the primary both as a volunteer and paid contractor. During the campaign, like she did with many of her volunteers, we became friends. My daughter still calls her Auntie Chris. The relationships formed in that campaign are still active and a wonderful outcome of that difficult primary. But that doesn't change what I'd like to share in this post.

After the primary, Christine Cegelis could have easily went and said "screw it" and walked away from politics, especially given the number of knives stuck in her back by the party leadership. I think many of her more "green" and independent supporters did just that unfortunately.

Instead, after the primary, she went back to her job as an IT professional; a job held for her by her employer - a Republican - who admired what she was doing. After a few short weeks of being out of the political spotlight, settling back into a normal life, she took a position with Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) as a Midwest organizer. She gave up a secure, comfortable, good paying job with benefits, took a pay cut, and started traveling between several states in the Midwest helping to manage field organizers working 10-plus House races.

Using her experience gained on the ground in IL-06, Christine helped field organizers in these races be more efficient, not recreate the wheel, and provided  feedback and guidance. This put her in a car on the road a good deal of the time between the May and the General. From an email:

We had 36 organizers on the ground in 7 states 11 Congressional districts and one Senate race (Brown in Ohio). We used a micro-targeted list to only contact voters that we considered swing voters.  [...]  Wisconsin is a great example.  They had over 8,000 voter contacts and the race was won by just over 6,600.  The Kissell race is another place where with 2 organizers on the ground we had close to 10,000 voter contacts.  Our goal was to have quality contacts with the voters at least 3 to 4 times.

I remember talking to her, just as I did last night, as she was on the road somewhere in Iowa. She was always upbeat and excited. She was doing something meaningful. She was working toward a Democratic House and a real change in our country. She was excited to have the opportunity, and never looked back even if she did miss her sons and her dog.

When not on the road, she was a part of forming the Greater Chicago Coalition. In light of what happened in the Sixth, where the national party essentially pushed the local party out of the way and took over, there was a realization by many local coalitions that they had to stop working as separate entities and work together for to strengthen the local party. The GCC involves a variety of smaller local caucuses, intertest groups, and activist groups, including leaders from a variety of politically active sub-groups such as Hispanics, Methodist African American ministers, the Muslim community, peace and justice groups, women's groups, etc.  The advantage of such local groups is that these communities have their own internal networks. Neighbor to neighbor involvement is often much more powerful than media buys in GOTV efforts. The goal of the GCC is to tap into this ability to get the word out about candidates through the local community directly, in person, with multiple quality contacts, not just glossy mailers.

Some of the campaigns she worked through ADA included candidates picked by Rahm/DCCC. Most did not or had the DCCC jump in once victory looked like a possibility and the groundwork was laid. In the Chicago area, this meant GCC helping out in Joe Vosicky's race for for Illinois State Rep in District 46. As of this writing, Joe's campaign is considering a recount and is within 100 votes of his longtime GOP incumbent opponent. This is an unheard of result around here.

As an ADA organizer,  Christine worked on the following races:

OH-18: Space (W)
IA-01 Braley  (W)
WI-08 Kaegan (W)
MN-06  Wetterling  (L)
PA-06 Murphy (L)
PA-10 Carney  (W)
PA-04  Altmire  (W)
NH-02  Hodes (W)
NC-08  Kissell: too close to call
WA-08 Burner: too close to call.

Christine will be the first to point out that she was just one of many people helping in these races. But to me 6-2-2 is a good record to be involved with.

IMO we're lucky that she's one of the good guys working for us. Because of her actions, and many like her, there is greater Democratic infrastructure in place in several states, and a new organization functioning in the GCC. I can't help but think that this will pay greater future dividends than the media consultants and network execs who get to buy new cars with the profits made through enormous media buys.

Tags: ADA, Christine Cegelis, dccc, IL-06, Rahm Emmanuel, Tammy Duckworth (all tags)

Comments

100 Comments

Re: About Cegelis

Thank you for telling this story. That primary and all the backstabbing that went with it left such a bad feeling behind. I'm so glad to know that for Christine, there's a happy ending. And not just for her! 6-2-2 is real success. Fingers crossed, it will be 8-2. ADA is lucky to have her.

I hope more versions of GCC spring up. They're much needed. It would be great to develop home grown candidates that can't be swept aside.

by irene adler 2006-11-09 03:51PM | 0 recs
Thanks! An Inspiring Tale

Everything about her story is inspiring, except for the part where the party stabs her in the back.

by Paul Rosenberg 2006-11-09 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

Thank you!  I was another early supporter of Cegelis (I'm from Evanston, IL)...

Back when it looked like it was going to be a tight primary between THREE interesting and somewhat compelling Dems, I decided to email each of them and ask if they might speak to the issues I care about (particularly environmental concerns).  Christine is the only one who wrote me back - and she suggested that I consider volunteering for her and help her develop environmental issue statements, etc.!  I really appreciated that level of engagement and personal warmth, and was a Cegelis supporter from that point on.  It was disappointing when she was pushed out in the primary, and I'm afraid I never felt confident about a Duckworth win.

I hope we get another chance to support Christine in politics in the future!

by Syrith 2006-11-09 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

Dude, you were soooooo vindicated.

by Bob Brigham 2006-11-09 04:57PM | 0 recs
Not really.

I still have to say "Congressman Roskam." There ain't no vindication in that. Then I read stuff like this and vindication seems pretty worthless.

by michael in chicago 2006-11-09 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Not really.

Be glad thinking long term. Sure Rahm fucked up this year and then cost us multiple seats by wasting money to cover-up his folly, but the Rahm Emanuel model doesn't work and this election was a clear indication that he is the George Kastanza of the Democratic Party.

You were right, you were vindicated. But there is more to be done. I hope Christine runs again and I hope bloggers get 100% behind her.

A good candidate in the 5th will making winning a lot easier.

by Bob Brigham 2006-11-09 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: WI-8

When I saw that result on election night, I immediately thought -- I'll bet Christine was involved. Glad to see my assumption was right. Had no idea she helped in so many other victories.

Christine is an amazing lady. All those on this site who trashed her and her supporters during the primary should be ashamed of themselves.

We'll never know if she would have won the general election this year, but I guarantee you she would not have taken over $3 million from the DCCC that could have gone to candidates in other close races. I wonder how many additional victories that $$$ could have bought us....

by Jim in Chicago 2006-11-09 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: WI-8

I don't think there were regulars that thrashed her-- but operatives, yea.

by Jerome Armstrong 2006-11-10 03:01AM | 0 recs
Re: WI-8
Those are two separate questions:
-- which candidate would have done better in a general election?
-- ex ante, was IL-06 was worth the financial investment made by the DCCC?
by Adam B 2006-11-10 07:14AM | 0 recs
But the latter was predictable

Given how much was raised and spent in the primary (yes, technically by Rahm and friends personally not directly by the DCCC) it was completely predictable that Rahm would overspend in the district in the general election, putting his ego over the best interests of the Party.

As for the former, I have no idea. But there are reasons to think Christine would have done well: ironically, she would have pushed the argument against Bush's war (the Dems' best issue EVERYWHERE) harder than the war veteran did. And Christine would have had a much better field operation (see here about Tammy's: http://www.soapblox.net/chicago/showComm ent.do?commentId=11596) with far more volunteers. Many of Christine's local volunteers helped Tammy in the general, but ALL of them would have stayed with Christine as would all the ones from out of district who instead went to other races (e.g., Seals and Pavich).

by Jim in Chicago 2006-11-10 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: But the latter was predictable

I really appreciate the link to the field problems.  Tactics and campaigning still matter.

by Adam B 2006-11-10 08:25AM | 0 recs
You're welcome

FYI -- the author of that post was one of Christine's most ardent supporters who immediately started working for Tammy as soon as the dust had settled after the primary.

We really are on the same side here.

by Jim in Chicago 2006-11-10 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: You're welcome

We are.  Too bad people didn't see that in the primary.  I just did a Google search to see if Bridget and I ever interacted in these threads, and an ugly one came up.

by Adam B 2006-11-10 12:41PM | 0 recs
Yes, Bridget has her prickly side

I've seen it in person. But her heart is in the right place. And as I said, she got heavily involved in trying to get Tammy elected after the primary was over.

A lot of us felt that Christine and her grassroots supporters were unceremoniously kicked to the curb by the Party/machine, and we did not appreciate it. Think of it as on a local scale what Carville and his ilk are trying to do to Howard Dean right now.

Anyway, as I recall, you and I sparred during the primary as well. No hard feelings I hope.

by Jim in Chicago 2006-11-10 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, Bridget has her prickly side

Bridget and I were fine in that thread.  It's, err, That Art Student With The Four Pseudonyms who caused 80% of the trouble.

And you and I are fine.  There's nothing wrong with disagreeing; we just have to keep it civil, and remember that our actual opponents are the Republicans, not each other.

by Adam B 2006-11-10 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: You're welcome

How cute.  I asked in that thread "Could we maybe, possibly, have one Democratic primary where people don't totally flip out on one another, sometime before the GOP drags us all into nuclear holocaust?"

It looks like we might avoid the nuclear holocaust after all.  But my dream will probably be fulfilled right after John Lennon's.

I can't wait till we replay all of this in 2008.  Democrats are awesome, we piss each other off in victory and in defeat alike.  Secretly, my view is that we do it all on purpose so the Republicans feel that much worse for losing to such an utterly dysfunctional party.

:)

by Steve M 2006-11-10 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: You're welcome

BULLSHIT!

Bridget Dooley never came NEAR the Duckworth campaign! She went to Wisconsin to work, as in PAID STAFF, for a candidate there...Kennedy, I believe.

She never, ever, showed up at the Duckworth Field Office.

by dabuddy 2006-11-10 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: You're welcome

Wonder if Cegalis had done the right thing, as did hundreds of other defeated primary Dems and gotten fully behind Duckworth what the outcome would have been.

Remember Duckworth, if memory serves, lost by well less than 9,000 votes. What if Democrats had stuck together and really supported the nominee even if they didn't really like her?

One more house seat.

Given the choice of winning her own district the loser goes around many, many other districts to help. Her organization and support, had it been aggresively offered, could have made all the difference.

by BigDog 2006-11-11 07:01AM | 0 recs
Asking too much.

In  Arizona 8, Patty Weiss and Gabrielle Giffords faced off in a brutal primary, exchanging personal attacks and more.  The night of her primary defeat, Weiss wore a Giffords 08 button to her concession speech and offered to help her opponent win election and urged her supporters to rally behind Giffords.  Unlike Cegalis.    

by jharri1992 2006-11-11 07:18AM | 0 recs
It couldn't be Duckworth's campaign

Having more funds, all the backing of the national party, star power, Obama cutting ads and mailers, media galore, and running for an open seat as an Iraq Vet against a viamently pro-Bush and pro-Iraq War extreme Republican who held very well covered public events with Bush, Cheney and Rove. Couldn't be her campaign's fault.

It had to be Cegelis' fault.

by michael in chicago 2006-11-11 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: It couldn't be Duckworth's campaign

Michael.... take every critical comment as meaning something other than what was said. You don't deal in reality.

You've done it for months. And I'm sick of it and Christine Cegalis. What a poor loser.

I suggested that the GREAT OVERWHELMING CEGALIS machine might have been a help in overcoming a relatively small loss. They just MIGHT have been a help. Who knows? But since their leader didn't lead them into battle we'll never know.

Even that asshole Sanctorum was a more gracious loser, with his little daughter in tears at his side, than the Cegalis supporters have ever been. He insisted his overwhelmingly partisan crowd give  Bob Casey a round of appause. That was the only bit of class I've even seen that jerk-off ever show. But, by god give him credit, it came at the right time.

You comment above shows you to be a person with only one goal. Win the conversation...not exchange views.

Look at the comment about Weiss and Giffords above and you'll know what real Democratic Unity is after the Primary.

by BigDog 2006-11-11 11:40AM | 0 recs
medium

Some of it is probably the medium the discussion is taking place in. I bet it would go better in person.

by michael in chicago 2006-11-11 12:46PM | 0 recs
Stumping for candidates

So BigDog, who stumps for a candidate when they are not asked to? No one from Tammy's campaign asked Christine to stump for Duckworth. Just to be certain, I talked to a couple people, including Christine to confirm this. There was no coordination and none attempted.

Christine had one contact with Duckworth, which was immediately after the primary after she had been up all night. She was not asked to stump for her campaign. She wished Duckworth luck and promised her she would keep out of the spotlight and not campaign for any other candidates anywhere - essentally lay low and let the bad blood from the primary dissapate by keeping a low profile. She promised she would do this for Duckworth.

She was never contacted again after this intial phonecall.

Less than a week after the primary, at a wrap up meeting with nearly 75 of her volunteers present, at which she wasn't suppose to attend, she told those present that they should work for a candidate - any candidate - they thought they could. This included working for Duckworth. She freed her people to work for Duckworth. It was at this meeting that Bridget took a ton of crap for pushing hard for everyone to go to work for Duckworth. But she's lying, right?

Several candidates asked Christine to stump for her, both locally and in other house races. She declined out of respect for her promise to Duckworth. In her work with ADA she also kept a low profile for just this reason. Hence why no one knew what she was doing as they were decrying what a terrible person Christie was for taking her marbles and going home. People who didn't know what the hell they were talking about.

The only campaigns she helped out were two local races of friends. And in these she did not make any appearances or speak out on their behalf. Instead she sent a fundraising letter and let them use her campaign equipment.

Others associated with the campaign were told - point blank - that if they wanted a future in Illinois politics they would stop supporting Christine. These were volunteers! Threatening volunteers goes a long way to engenger good will, doesn't it? But I'm just lying, right?

And still others told me of Duckworth's people berating them in public at non-political events for their support of other candidates in the area because this was drawing resources away from Duckworth. How dare they support someone else! The nerve! Man, I must be complete full of shit.

Am I just a liar? Is that going to be your reply? Make some calls. I know you have the contacts.

The only one who lost this race is Duckworth's campaign.

BTW: let's also get the "support the troops" argument out of the way. Just like Republicans like to slam Democrats as unpatriotic for critisizing the war or Bush as not supporting the troops, I'm tired of hearing this argument regarding this race as well.

Duckworth's volunteers worked their asses off. They gave it their all and tried the best they could. No one disputes that. But that doesn't mean the campaign is beyond critism, and doing so is not anti-Democratic party or slamming volunteers or lying just because it doesn't fit your narrative.

You don't know the half of the story, and yet you have the nerve to call people liars.

by michael in chicago 2006-11-11 10:10AM | 0 recs
Field Organization

Umm...Bridget Dooley is talking out her ASS! And yes, I know Bridget. We've sat together in many meetings. But she has NO CLUE what she's talking about re the field operation. She wasn't there. I was.

I LOVE Christine Cegelis, and would support her again in a heartbeat. But Christine would have been hard-pressed to fill FIFTEEN 15-passenger vans with canvassers EVERY DAY FOR A WEEK, and THIRTY on election day. And that was just the final week. Canvassing began back in June!

The field organization was unlike ANYTHING ever seen in DuPage County before...Democrat or Republican. It was an amazing, well oiled, fine tuned machine. Unfortunately, it was RAHM'S Machine.

by dabuddy 2006-11-10 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Field Organization

Thanks for straigthening that out. As has been the case in this disgusting district, lies are just routine.

by BigDog 2006-11-11 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Field Organization

So you're calling Bridget a liar? Ever met her? Are you saying what she wrote is made up and that she doesn't know what she's talking about?

I know both Mike and Bridget. Do you? Both are good people. I've worked side by side with them both. Have you?

What's your motivation here? Or you just going to throw around this type of character BS.

by michael in chicago 2006-11-11 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

Two years isn't so far away... do you know if she plans to run again?

by Joe Gabriel 2006-11-09 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

I honestly don't know. But whoever is going to challenge Roskam needs to get building tomorrow. But Rahm still controlls the purse strings around here, so his influence will need to be dealt with.

by michael in chicago 2006-11-09 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

Yeah but he won't be DCCC chair anymore, so once the new one is choosen, whoever is running needs to meet with them ASAP

by yitbos96bb 2006-11-10 07:13AM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

Yeah but he won't be DCCC chair anymore...

This is very true. And Nancy Pelosi is now listening to the grassroots folks, so hopefully she'll pick someone for D-Trip chair who will do the same.

That is, if Rahm doesn't trample her too. He desperately wants to be House Speaker.

by dabuddy 2006-11-10 03:06PM | 0 recs
Regardless where he is in the Party

He still has close ties to the fundraising in the area. There just aren't that many big Democratic donors that live in DuPage the way there are in his back yard. He will have a strong effect on the purse strings for any Democrat that runs in his backyard.

by michael in chicago 2006-11-10 03:39PM | 0 recs
Cegalis would not have broken 44%

That district is simply not ready for a "progressive."  I poured my heart and soul into that race, canvassing on weekends and telephone banking after work two or three days a week.  My friend worked as an attorney the day of the election (I needed to be home watching results or I would have too), and it appears there were lots of collaborative vote-supression and other deceptive tactics by Republican-dominated Dupage County.  Were there also flaws in the Duckworth approach?  Certainly.  But, there is no amount of money that could have made Cegalis a winner; that district is not receptive by and large to her "progressive" message.  Lots of her vote in 2004 was an anti-Hyde vote.  Without being able to bootstrap his baggage, she would have been hard-pressed to exceed if she even reached her 04 numbers.  I admire the tenacity of her supporters, and there were several internal issues that damaged the Duckworth campaign.  But the stubborness and antipathy of Cegalis' supporters towward T.D. was petty and shameful.  Many times, I have rallied behind a "progressive" candidate after my centrist prefernce lost.  We fight the common enemy.  In this case, Tammy was fighting both Roskam and sour grapes from Cegalis folks.  That played a part in her defat, no doubt.  

by jharri1992 2006-11-09 06:44PM | 0 recs
I call BS

Specifically on this comment:

"Tammy was fighting both Roskam and sour grapes from Cegalis folks."

Many of Tammy's most active volunteers were "Cegelis folks" just like many of those who worked hardest for Kerry against Bush were "Dean folks" in the primary.

If you don't know what you're talking about, please don't make shit up.

by Jim in Chicago 2006-11-09 09:08PM | 0 recs
Re: I call BS

EXCUSE ME???

I was one of Tammy's MOST VOCAL Opponents in the Primary (Actually RAHM'S Opponent). Yet I worked side-by-side with her field staff and campaign mgr. starting back in june.

I worked NIGHT AND DAY during the final weeks of the campaign. Often 16-20 hours a day. Alongside one of Rahm's Top Aides, no less! And EVERY ONE of them, including Rahm's aide, new that I liked Tammy, but DESPISED Rahm. Yet we all worked TOGETHER to try and get her elected.

So I am ETREMELY offended by your flipant comment.

What sunk Tammy was Rahm's "Kiss of Death". Especially potent in IL-06, because the voters here consider him a Chicago Democrat...And they consider Chicago Democrates to be vile creatures. As one staffer put it, "they didn't believe in us (Tammy)". That's true. They didn't believe in her, because all they could see was a "pre-packaged candidate" who was being fed her lines by Rahm Emanuel.

They didn't feel that way about Cegelis. They saw her as an Independent Democrat. The "Anti-Rahm", if you will. And they were willing to bite the bullet and vote for her, because they so disliked Roskam. But as much as they disliked Roskam, they just couldn't stomach the thought of voting for Tammy, given her ties to the "Chicago Democrats". So they either stayed home, or voted for Roskam anyway.

Bottom line: Rahm Emanuel cost us a golden opportunity to break the Republican stranglehold in DuPage County. And it is US...not Rahm, not the DLC, not the DCCC...But US, the DuPage County Democrats, that will suffer because of it.

Thank you so much Rahm...You SCHMUCK!

by dabuddy 2006-11-10 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Kiss of Death

I just wanted to back you up on the "Rahm is the Kiss of Death."

I live in a nearby CD. I have lots of family and friends who live in IL-06. On hearing Tammy Duckworth was Rahm's handpicked candidate [and that circulated early on], their minds were closed to her. Period.

These are people I know. These are centrist Democrats I'm talking about here. When I would bring up Duckworth, I can't tell you how many times I would hear some version of: "We don't want the Chicago machine moving in here." Case closed. Minds closed.

One other thing. Roskam was a state senator from that district. Everyone knew him. That only reinforced that Duckworth was an import. A Rahm Emmanuel import.

Thanks for the work you put in on the campaign. I hope DuPage County will be able to regroup. Like you said, thanks Rahm.  

by irene adler 2006-11-10 03:15PM | 0 recs
Cegelis supporters predicted this

No way to know how Christine would have done in the general, but one of our arguments against Tammy's candidacy the way it was presented is that Roskam would tie Rahm and the Chicago Dem Machine around her neck like an albatross.

by Jim in Chicago 2006-11-10 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegalis would not have broken 44%

Hmmm, what was more powerful a motivator: Anti-Hyde in 2004 or Anti-Bush/Iraq in 2006?

You don't know what you're talking about.

by michael in chicago 2006-11-10 02:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Cegalis would not have broken 44%

Where do these numbers - like 44% - come from?  The same arguments were used in the the McNerney, and Shea-Porter primaries.  Those candidates got to prove that clear progressive messages actually cut through - and reached swing voters.  The Cegalis profile is similar to a lot of the successful campaigns that were waged in finals.

by StewD 2006-11-11 05:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Cegalis would not have broken 44%

WAY WAY different Districts!

When will people get it in their heads that what sells in one district is killer in another...and they can be next door.

by BigDog 2006-11-11 07:06AM | 0 recs
Agree and not

In a normal year I'd completely agree with you. But in this year I don't.

It seems pretty clear that there was an anti-GOP, anti-Bush, anti-Iraq War wave going on. Roskam was adament in his support for Bush and the war until the very end. He held events that were very public and very well covered with Cheney and Rove, and Laura and/or George (I forget if the Bush rally was for multiple candidates or not).

Point being, a candidate that was strongly anti-Bush, strongly anti-GOP would have done just fine in most any district, especially a district like IL-06 that is trending blue.

One of the things that baffled me greatly about Duckworth's campaign was her lack of beating Roskam with his photos with Cheney and Bush and his quotes on the  war. Especially after "stay the course" turned into a death knell. Instead she continued to push primarily domestic issues and responded late and weak to his distortions over her tax and amnesty policies.

Being down right partisan I feel would have sold better. Instead Roskam played offense and was never held accountable for his pro-Bush positions and Duckworth played defense responding to Roskams distortions.

by michael in chicago 2006-11-11 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Agree and not

Except if you look at NC-11 and Fl-13 and others. NE-03 would have been a good example if it had held up with more funding.

Sorry the 'progressive movement' wasn't what won this election. It was the Republican screw ups.

by BigDog 2006-11-11 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Agree and not

I'll agree with you on this statement more than not.

by michael in chicago 2006-11-11 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

But, there is no amount of money that could have made Cegalis a winner; that district is not receptive by and large to her "progressive" message.

Uh-huh.  Was ol' Virginny ready for the most liberal of the new senators?  

Webb is not a liberal you say?  You are not listening to what he says if you say that.  How many of the "real" progressives can speak without a quaver in their voice and a trembling in their bodies these days of the chasm between rich and poor?  How many have tackled the hate and trash of a George Allen head on without rancor or deceit?  Catechisms are for fundamentalists like yourself, my friend.  I prefer liberals like Webb and Tester, whether I agree with them or not.

Tammy was fighting both Roskam and sour grapes from Cegalis folks.  That played a part in her defat, no doubt.

And how exactly did she have to do that?  

I am sorry Tammy lost.  The atrocious attacks on her as a weakling after what she gave was sickening.  But it is helpful to know who is friend and who is foe I think.

The enemy of all are those who impose themselves from on high on a district.  Schumer and Emanuel are the enemy.  Democracy works quite well when it is allowed to do so.

Best,  Terry  

by terryhallinan 2006-11-09 07:15PM | 0 recs
Webb is NOT a liberal!

Webb is -- calls himself -- a "Reagan Conservative".  He agreed with Allen on every issue except Iraq where he only would mumble something about wanting a "New Direction" (I HATE political mumbo-jumbo such as the vague and meaningless "New Direction" when its handed out by Democrats as much as I hate it when its handed out by Republicans).

The only good thing about this election is taking the Reps out of management power in both houses.  But sending conservative Dems won't help much.  Not only are Tester, McCaskill and Webb conservatives (as our most of the Dem congressional candidates that won -- and that's according to Rahm Emmanuel who said, "We had to run candidates in those areas who could win")but they all won by just a hair in a very Anti-Bush sweep and know that their wins were flukes and now they have to cater to their conservative electorate or not be back.  Just what we needed, more Ben Nelsons and Mary Landrieu's.!

by Maureen Hannigan 2006-11-10 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Webb is NOT a liberal!

Sorry, but you are 100% wrong here. You may not like Webb because he's, no doubt, a pretty conventional military force structure protection advocate, but he and Allen disagreed on nearly everything except gun control (which Allen adopted for his image, while Webb is actually a hunter).

The only area in which Webb is a conservative is in foreign policy, and in that arena he is a conventional realist conservative, not the dangerous utopian neo-con nonsense that's currently en vogue. He is actually a bit too populist and anti-trade for my tastes (which may or may not be a conservative viewpoint), but that type of populism is a necessary reaction to the Gilded Age corporatism that's currently in effect.

Webb is a reform candidate, a staunch believer in the Constitution, checks and balances, and civil liberties (anti-NSA wiretapping, anti-torture, anti-flag burning amendment) -- Allen is 100% wrong on all those issues.

Believe what you like, but Webb, although not a conventional liberal or liberal Democrat, is no conservative, unless you mean a Jacksonian or Jeffersonian Democratic conservatism, which this country could use more of.

by Ron 2006-11-10 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Webb is TOO a liberal!

I got a "thank you for your support" note from Webb yesterday that was stunning. It sounded like a clarion call for the class warfare Republicans are always warning us about.

Nah, I don't think Webb is conservative.

by joyful alternative 2006-11-11 12:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Webb is TOO a liberal!

I got a "thank you for your support" note from Webb yesterday that was stunning. It sounded like a clarion call for the class warfare Republicans are always warning us about.

Let the war begin.

Now where are all the bungheads that think a socialist is a liberal? :-)

Thank you very much for that report.

Best,  Terry

by terryhallinan 2006-11-11 03:36PM | 0 recs
how mant times did you work for T.D.?

I worked the ground day in and day out.  I spoke to Tammy's staff.  I went to a DFA function where Tammy was discussed like she was some kind of pariah.  I know what I am talking about.  Were there Segalis supporters aboard? I am sure.  Were there Segalis supporters who refused to get over the fact that Tammy won the pirmary? Without question.  Face the facts.  

by jharri1992 2006-11-10 03:57AM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

Democracy worked when Tammy won the primary.  Period.  

by jharri1992 2006-11-10 03:58AM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

So nice of you to join us to point that out.

by kilb 2006-11-10 05:18AM | 0 recs
If you think Democracy is all about raising $

-- and tons of it -- outside of the district you're running in:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/3/11/1578 /49709

The IL-6 primary is actually the poster child for the need for campaign finance reform IMHO.

by Jim in Chicago 2006-11-10 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

No, MONEY worked when Tammy won the Primary.

by dabuddy 2006-11-10 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

I liked Christine for her progressive positions, but I hated the attitudes of her supporters, who seemed to feel that Christine had some sort of entitlement to the Dem nomination in the district. This race was the only one that left me feeling really uncomfortable with the state of things. And it made me wonder if Cegelis really would advocate the behavior of her supporters. Cegelis had campaigned in that district for a couple of years and still couldn't win the primary. People will whine (watch) in this thread about Rahm and his cash infusion in support of Duckworth, but if you really pound the pavement for a few years and get done in by some mediocre tv ads, maybe it wasn't meant to be.

Interpret this however you will, but this race showed that one of the big problems we Dems have to overcome is not the Republicans, but our own inclination toward infighting.

Flame on.

by mihan 2006-11-10 04:00AM | 0 recs
agree completely!

I found her supporters at a DFA function I went to to be close-minded and stubborn, as if Tammy had pulled a Katherine Harris in that district and stole the primary.  I grew sick of hearing "Tammy is not progressive enough."  Do these people have an ounce of pragmatism?  Are they going to eschew a viable moderate candidate and risk turning Congress over to the Peter Roskams of the world?  These were the same people who probably fought Bob Casey in Pa., Heath Schuler in NC and Harold Ford in Tenn.  Progressives ened to be adaptable.  

By the way, George Patton was a terrible speller.  Is he sumamrily discredited too?    

by jharri1992 2006-11-10 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: agree completely!

See, that's the thing, is that both Cegelis and Pennachio supporters were, at least to me, the absolute worst in terms of their attitudes. Not all of them, of course, but for instance, if I were to bring someone new into the mydd world, the last thread I'd show them would be one with Cegelis or Pennachio as a topic.

Now, their supporters could argue whatever they want, but isn't it strange that threads concerning those candidates generated an inordinate amount of troll and flame wars? I'm more than happy to support the progressive candidates, but simply being progressive on the issues doesn't mean that we'll put up with it if their supporters are by and large a bunch of jackasses.

by mihan 2006-11-10 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: agree completely!

Many of those "flame wars" were provoked by PAID DCCC operatives. And yes, I know that for a fact.

We took the bait, I'm sorry to say. But only out of desperation. No one was listening to the facts...Only Rahm's spin.

by dabuddy 2006-11-10 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: agree completely!

If you know that for a fact, name names.  Link to particular threads and instances.

by Adam B 2006-11-10 03:37PM | 0 recs
No doubt

I know of at least one Cegelis supporters and bloggers that were contacted about being paid to blog for the opposition. They were our supporters and we found out about the contact pretty quickly. There is no doubt that this was going on. None. I even contacted you about this privately back around primary time.

Now proving that people did this... Good luck. I'll look for that anonymous blogger handle on that FEC disbursement report right away...

by michael in chicago 2006-11-10 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: No doubt

But we don't know (a) if it was an interest in having people blog about the campaign overtly or surreptitiously, or (b) whether they ever were able to hire someone to do the latter.  It's quite an allegation to make without proof.

I stand by what I said back in the spring -- if someone's talking about a campaign as though they were on the payroll, and handles adverse information with the kind of defensiveness that you'd see from a paid staffer, then they're just not worth listening to.

by Adam B 2006-11-10 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: No doubt

I don't agree completely with your second point. I got to know quite a few people who were not on the staff of any campaign and watched them blog their hearts out. Completely for free. People get emotionally invested when they make a campaign their own. Automatically discounting what they say, especially if they have a longstanding record blogging in the community, I think is a disservice.

To your first point, there is always known unknowns and unknowns we don't know we don't know. ;-) If you want hard proof that there are people being paid to blog for campaigns, both positively and negatively, I don't think you'll ever get it short of a criminal investigation. And then on what law is being broken and who will investigate?

It's all moot now anyway. But I stand by the post I wrote a long time ago that my faith in the purity of the blogosphere is now jaded. I think beyond repair.

by michael in chicago 2006-11-10 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: agree completely!

That is incredibly lame, and beyond pathetic. It is really that hard to have a little freakin' dignity?

by mihan 2006-11-10 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

Maybe she can take out Roskam in 2 years.

by yitbos96bb 2006-11-10 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

Wait Lucas... Are you trying to tell me that a Socialist Senator might be (looks right, then left to make sure know ones around and then whispers)... a liberal?  

Surely you jest... Sanders is a staunch conservative, following in the line of such conservative greats as Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold and Paul Simon.  How dare you say he's the most liberal Senator!!! For Shame!

by yitbos96bb 2006-11-10 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

That was certainly the case for me re: supporters, with additional reasons that we don't need to get into.

That said, what Cegelis did post-primary is really inspiring.  I'm glad she took what she learned and helped others with it.

by Adam B 2006-11-10 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

I'm pretty sure that Bernie Sanders is a more liberal new Senator.

Last I heard Bernie Sanders was not claiming to be a Democrat.  Hated the Democrats so much he refused the endorsement.

When I was reading him years ago, I was fascinated by Alexander Cockburn in The Nation calling Bernie Sanders a sellout and no liberal at all.  Seemed unlikely but what do I know.

I will give you that Bernie Sanders may indeed be more liberal than Jim Webb but I ask again how many senators abjure the Clintonesque crap about the "suffering middle class" while ignoring those who are worse off like Jim Webb does?

The mark of a liberal is not the ability to repeat refrains from a catechism but to break the mold, to actually think, to attempt to right what is wrong.  How many of those can you name?  Tester and Webb leap to mind for me as, obviously, does Ned Lamont.

Best,  Terry

by terryhallinan 2006-11-10 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis
You mentioned the "Greater Chicago Coalition".
I got a mailing from Cegelis for the "Greater Chicago Caucus".
Is that the one you were referring to?
by curmudgeon51 2006-11-10 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

My bad. Caucus not coalition. You've got the right idea.

by michael in chicago 2006-11-10 03:52PM | 0 recs
Just another shrill Cegalis supporter

Thanks for the post Michael.  I hope that Christine will go for it again in 08.  I truly believe she could have won the general election.  At the time of the primary, her team had a tremendous amount of momentum that would have continued to grow and attract supports starting the first day after the primary and continuing through the general election.  If you add into this formula financial support from the national party, then she would have been difficult to stop.

I was turned off by the "politics as usual" approach that the national party chose to take in this race.  As I've said before, they left me with the impression that they didn't want my opinion and didn't need my help or my money.  Rahm was going to save us from ourselves and had the money and national backing to pull it off.   This was the good ol' boy approach to campaigning described in "Crashing the Gate".  If you haven't read this book, you should.  It describes how campaigns such as the Duckworth campaign are executed.  The big shots from Washington swoop in with their money, their consultants, and their ad men and dictate every move the campaign makes.  The book questions the viability and economics of this well worn approach.  Much of the money lines the pockets of consultants while compiling a less than stellar result - as demonstrated on Tuesday in IL-06.

I hope organizations like the GCC will help add voice to the growing progressive movement in this area and that the national party will listen to that voice.

This fight was not about the candidates or entitlements.  This fight was about democracy.  By using influence and money, a national organization was able to over power the will of the people in this district.  If you don't think that money and influence won the democratic primary in Il-06, then you're not living with your eyes open.  Is this being shrill?  I think it's being truthful.

I supported Tammy the same way I supported all other congressional candidates throughout my voting career (with the exception of Christine) by voting for her.  I'm thrilled that the Democrats did so well.  I'm glad that the results in IL-06 did not cost the Democrats the majority.  I wish Tammy nothing but good will and I respect her for her service and willingness to run.  I hope she will run again, just not in my district (now that was shrill);)

by erw256 2006-11-10 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

I think Duckworth could have won if the DCCC had run ads highlighting her Iraq War veteran status and bashing Roskam on his DeLay connections.  "Peter Roskam, same old, same old, corruption."  Instead they ran ads that were largely irrelevant to the issues of today, and which were no match to the anti-immigration ads the NRCC ran against her.  She really got hammered (unfairly) in those ads.  And they cost her votes.

I was a fervent Cegelis supporter in the primary, and no, I didn't work for Duckworth in the general; but I don't live in the District either.  However, did work for a State Senate candidate who's district was mainly in the 6th, and in the process of canvassing for him also talked to voters about Tammy.  And in every contact we made, we were very careful to say only positive things about her, and very careful to point out that the NRCC ads were a bunch of bull.  So did a little bit for Tammy, if by the side-door.  And frankly, I think it was better for her to have people canvassing for her who were truly dedicated to her cause, rather than just luke-warm.  I felt no guilt at taking my luke-warm "hope she wins!" out of the district to work for other candidates who I believed in passionately.

by Maven 2006-11-10 09:03AM | 0 recs
Kotowski?

Is that who you worked for? Great candidate. Did a little canvassing for him myself.

Unfortunately, I don't think the Duckworth campaign coordinated much with him, which is unfortunate because he was tireless in working his district and could really have helped them. Cegelis did coordinate with him during the primary (when he beat someone who vastly outspent him).

by Jim in Chicago 2006-11-10 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

and bashing Roskam on his DeLay connections.

Wouldn't have helped. Granted, Axelrod is a LOUSY ad man, but the average voter here doesn't know who Tom DeLay is.

They DO know who "Crazy Al" Salvi is however.They FLATLY rejected him a few years ago. And he just happens to be Roskam's law partner. Rahm should have tied Roskam to Salvi and his nutjob NRA friends who endorsed both of them.

But what do I know? I'm just a local.

by dabuddy 2006-11-10 03:36PM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

Christine clearly got a raw deal, no doubt about it.  And she reacted far, far more constructively to the events of this primary than many of her staunch supporters did.

I'm a big supporter of the progressive movement and progressive candidates.  But I sure got sick and tired of the Cegelis fans and the Pennacchio fans and all the rest going apeshit on everyone when they found out that, guess what, it's hard to fight City Hall.  The movement is supposed to be about spreading progressive ideals in a positive way, not attacking and demonizing everyone who stands in the way.

It shouldn't be this way, but there are few things uglier than primary season in the progressive blogosphere.  Christine is a wonderful, positive person, a true credit to the movement.  I can't say the same for all of her supporters.  And I really don't think those people realized just how many people they turned off with their constant negativity and outrage at the system.

Will we learn this lesson before 2008?  I'd sure like to believe we will.

Be like Christine.  And thanks for this inspiring update, Michael.

by Steve M 2006-11-10 09:31AM | 0 recs
Cegelis supporters did fine

Many of those in the district ended up working for Tammy.

Those out of district worked for other candidates like Seals (IL-10) and Pavich (IL-11) or local candidates like Dan Kotowski (IL St. Sen 33). The primary was in late March and by April most of the Cegelis supporters I know had moved on. Tammy herself took a break before starting her general election campaign. We did nothing to harm her effort (and many of us ended up helping her).

by Jim in Chicago 2006-11-10 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Cegelis supporters did fine

The people I'm referring to are mainly out-of-state netroots folks who, for whatever reason, get so emotionally invested in these primaries that they can't help but smear and smear and smear the less progressive candidate.  For the next six years I'll be hearing all about how Chuck Pennacchio wouldn't have cast X vote in the Senate.

From what I've heard, everyone on the ground did great work and your efforts are greatly appreciated.  Whether we won or lost our individual campaigns this year, we all wound up as huge winners, and it was a team victory.

by Steve M 2006-11-10 12:27PM | 0 recs
but, wait!

You mean, the same folks who said that there was no way Bob Casey could win a general election, right?

by Adam B 2006-11-10 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: how mant times did you work for T.D.?

If you have to rely on my mispellings to attack my arguments, then you ought to just hold up the white flag.  What a pathetic, substance-less argument.  

by jharri1992 2006-11-10 11:32AM | 0 recs
Maybe try reading

After the primary, Christine Cegelis could have easily went and said "screw it" and walked away from politics, especially given the number of knives stuck in her back by the party leadership. I think many of her more "green" and independent supporters did just that unfortunately.

In the end, who's fault is this? Is it the supporters of one candidate who felt that the national party came in and played with their local politics? Go ahead, tell me again that didn't happen. Is it the campaign staff that after the primary refused to be gracious and embrace those who had a firm handle on the ground, but insted chose to be arrogant and tell everyone they knew better? Go ahead, tell me that didn't happen.

I could go on here. Bottom line is that if you wanted all the former Cegelis supporters to work for the Duckworth campaign there needed to be some significant reaching out that didn't happen. Duckworth's staff often acted as though Cegelis people were ignorant ideological fools who didn't know what they were doing. They often acted as though they won the primary by double digits rather than by 2 votes per precinct.

To me, that is the pathetic, substance-less argument that cost us this seat. Duckworth's staff lost this race, no one else.

by michael in chicago 2006-11-10 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe try reading

True.

But to be fair, much of the graceless behavior came from Tammy's Primary campaign manager, whom she summarily fired.

But it wasn't JUST the campaign staff. Dick Durbin refused. Rahm Emanuel refused. The DuPage County Democratic Chairwoman FLATLY refused, despite much prodding from me.

And yes, Tammy herself refused, which disappointed me. But once I came onboard, they were ALL very gracious to me...Even when I vented my frustrations about Rahm.

by dabuddy 2006-11-10 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe try reading

Referring to a former candidate as a "bitch" at a public gathering filled with her former supporters and friends definately didn't go a long way to engender good will.

by michael in chicago 2006-11-10 03:50PM | 0 recs
Clarification

My comment was intentionally vauge. So to clarify, this comment was not made by Tammy or any of her staff.

by michael in chicago 2006-11-11 08:28AM | 0 recs
Summarily fired?

I thought he wound up as her field director after he was "fired."

by michael in chicago 2006-11-11 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

Cegelis, can she run for Congress against Roskam.

by Democraticavenger 2006-11-10 04:22PM | 0 recs
Much harder to run against incumbent

Of course, we should try, but it may take redistricting after 2010 to change this seat. I'd say give Wheaton to IL-13 (Biggert) and make it a super-Republican district (even more than it is already) while giving some of Rahm's district to IL-6.

Evanston should also be placed into IL-10 (as it used to be) to take care of Kirk (who will probably vote a little differently in the Dem controlled House to burnish his "moderate" credentials for the time being).

by Jim in Chicago 2006-11-10 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

I would prefer that she run in IL-05, against Rahm. Hey, what's good for the goose.......

by dabuddy 2006-11-11 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

You mean, having a candidate run in a district in which she doesn't live?

by Adam B 2006-11-11 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

That's great.  Spend time and money trying to defeat Democrats, not Republicans.  Maybe we should run to Casey's left in Pa. in 2112, Schuler's in 2008, etc.  They are our enemy, not Rahm Emanuel.  

by jharri1992 2006-11-11 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

I'm not advocating a primary challenge to Emanuel, but I wouldn't dismiss the idea of all primary challenges to incumbents the way you do.

by Adam B 2006-11-11 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

I would love a primary challenger to Rahm! I live in his district and vote for him every general . . . its solidly Democratic, and whoever won the Democratic primary would win the general.  We could have a real progressive representing this district, and save our "moderate-centrist-conservative" seats for districts that need them . . . that's what I would like to see.  Problem is, finding someone willing to take on Rahm . . .

by Maven 2006-11-11 02:26PM | 0 recs
Why not?

Just curious.

I don't think it would be successful without a charasmatic self funder. Even then, I don't see it happening.

by michael in chicago 2006-11-11 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Why not?

He plays too dirty, from what I hear . . . you'd have to be squeaky clean, your followers have to be squeaky clean and never utter anything stupid on tape . . . its asking a lot of a candidate to put him/herself through that kind of bs for a primary.  Against a Repub, maybe . . . but coming from a fellow Dem, its hard to go into knowing its going to happen. And he's machine backed.  Progressives in Chicago have not yet gained that kind of strength.

by Maven 2006-11-11 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Why not?

Because what's the message: "you didn't do a good enough job in that election where we re-took the House anyway?"

If it's the ideological message that he's too pro-corporate, well, he's not going to block what a Dem majority tries over the next year, will he?

by Adam B 2006-11-11 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

Spend time and money trying to defeat Democrats, not Republicans.

That's EXACTLY what asshat Emanuel did! In fact, he wasted...WASTED...MILLIONS OF $$$'s doing just that. Only to lose in the General Election. And not JUST in IL-06. Two other races as well. MILLIONS of Dollars thrown down the drain. While grassroots candidates that survived his onslaught WON...WITHOUT HIM.

How can you defend HIM, and then criticize me? Seems a bit hipocritical to me.

by dabuddy 2006-11-12 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

You mean, having a candidate run in a district in which she doesn't live?

YEP!

Duckworth was out-of-district, as was Bean. I believe there was a third candidate as well. And Rahm supported them all.

Once again, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Turnabout IS fair play. Although fair play is not something that Rahm is good at.

by dabuddy 2006-11-12 06:17PM | 0 recs
Out of district

Regarding Duckworth's house, this was never an issue for most. It was her lack of life experience in the area. Where she lived wasn't the issue. If Cegelis lived outside the district I wouldn't have had a problem with it as she had been a part of the area/community for over 25 years. Duckworth may have owned a home next to the district for 3 years or so, but she had more ties to DeKalb than DuPage. And even then, she had spent the overwhelming majority of her life outside the state, let alone the district.

by michael in chicago 2006-11-13 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

Michael:

Once again you are setting up a strawman argument about Cegelis' viability as a candidate even though you claim to live in IL-06. You do not do justice to what the Republicans did in the campaign to Duckworth. It's the details that always seem to trip you up.

But before I proceed to smoke your strawman theory, I have to applaud Ms Cegelis for not giving up, for putting her personal and financial viability on the line and doing the IT work for the ADA.

For all you non Il-06 bloggers, the Roskam campaign put out over 30 direct mail pieces against Duckworth, primarily about illegal immigration.  The RCCC ran non-stop ads on an expensive TV market right up to the election.  I bet if you compare or take the time to review the RCCC expenditures in this race, they will dwarf what Rahm and the DCCC put up.

The end result of this 2006 general election wasn't 54/44 like Hyde/Cegelis in 2004 but a difference of 4,000 votes. After all that was thrown at Duckworth, she looks to have been a very formidable candidate.  

Another way to look at the Duckworth candidacy is the Republicans were forced to spend millions of dollars to hold onto a House seat in what can still be deemed a very Republican district.  That money may have been used against other Democratic House candidates elswehere and they had to burn it here.

And Duckworth's GOTV operation was excellent. Reports of over a 1,000 volunteers in the days up to the election.  So many in fact that the Duckworth campaign was able to canvass some precints twice.

This message was not endorsed or paid for by Rahm or his committee.  Another conspiracy theory bites the dust.

 

by riverred 2006-11-11 03:30AM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

Actually, they spent about the same: Link -- 3.2M v 2.7M between the NRCC and DCCC, and when you add in AFSCME and Emily's List, it's a draw.

Your argument has a flip side -- had Rahm walked away from this race a little, more would've been available for Larry Kissel, Vic Wulsin and Gary Trauner.

by Adam B 2006-11-11 05:00AM | 0 recs
Care to examine your comment history

The majority of which are responses to my comments or posts. You dissapeared the day after the primary from SbC. Exstensive comments, then virtually none. Just sayin...

Regarding the rest, I know Bridget. Anyone who worked in IL-06 or the area knows her. She was one of the first people the day after the primary that was advocating for Cegelis' organizaiton to go work en masse for Duckworth. She not some volunteer, but instead highly trained and has run campaigns. I know her. I don't know you. I trust her word.

Regarding how Duckworth's campaign did, I agree with you. She came closer than anyone ever has, and got the highest percentage for a Democrat ever. No debate there.

But she also had every resource from the nation party at her disposal. She had more money than any Democrat around here ever had. She actually outraised Roskam, and had similar totals spent on her behalf. Roskam ran distorted ads about her right up until election day. But she was matching his ads as well, and her campaign sent plenty of mailers (as well as NEA on her behalf).

She should have done better than anyone ever has. She should have won. She wasn't running against a 30-year incumbent who transcended the Republican party around here. She wasn't outspent. She had plenty of support nationally. She was an Iraq vet running in the middle of a wave of anti-Bush, anti-war sentiment.

For example, Tom Berry ran against Hyde in the last mid-term in 2002. He raised so little funding that he didn't even file with FEC. He got 48,000 votes in DuPage. With no funding, virtually no campaiging, no media, he got 48K.

In 2006, Tammy Duckworth ran against Peter Roskam - a stanch Bush supporter and outspoken advocate for the Iraq war, in the middle of a Democratic wave, for an open seat. She got 65,196 votes in DuPage, spending over $3 million to do so.

Tom Berry: Spent nothing, no media, no support: 48K votes.
Duckworth: Spent $3 million, lots of media, full support: 65K votes.

I agree with you that this tied down the GOP and forced them to spend money. But we didn't pick up a seat in IL. It may have been a great victory on Tuesday, but forgive me if having to say "Congressman Roskam" pisses me off. Now who ever runs in 2008 has to run against an incumbent where Bush and the GOP and hopefully the war won't be an issue. It's just all the harder now.

by michael in chicago 2006-11-11 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

"She should have won".  Yeah, except I haven't seen you win anything yet Michael. So where do you get off calling it otherwise.

Where have I been since the primary "... then virtually none."  Raising money, donating money, canvassing precints.

I was waiting for your name to pop up here with some crass or ignorant commentary about the IL-06 campaign.  Just sayin.....  

Trust me, (whether you want to or not) you and your future IL -06 dream candidate won't get any closer than Duckworth did.

You say you are pissed because it is going to be harder now to defeat Congressman Roskam. That's where you show your political aptitude. It was never going to be anything but hard to win this race and only a fool would have thought otherwise.

by riverred 2006-11-11 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: About Cegelis

You know, I wish you made your arguements without the personal commentary -- if you could make your point without insulting the previous poster, it would seem much stronger to me.  As it is, I'm not sure I quite follow what you're saying, as it gets lost in the mindless name-calling stuff.

by Maven 2006-11-11 02:31PM | 0 recs
Very inspiring work by Christine and a great diary

too bad I can't recommend it since the time for doing that expired.

Keep up the great work, Michael and Christine!

by NuevoLiberal 2006-11-11 02:52PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads