The mixed reaction here to what was done to Christine Cegelis and her supporters in IL-6 really has me scratching my head. Maybe I'm missing something. I would be very grateful if someone else could explain to me when it is okay for the Democratic establishment to go to the lengths it did to defeat a candidate who has the overwhelming support of the local grassroots and netroots? And what in particular made it okay to treat Christine Cegelis this way?
If the DCCC and/or its allies had decided to find an Iraq War vet with no hint of prior political interest to run against Francine Busby, or Lois Murphy, or other grassroots supported candidates, would that be equally okay? Or was there something about Christine Cegelis that made her particularly deserving of being swooped down upon by the entire Democratic establishment?
To review, here is what happened in IL-6: After her strong showing against Henry Hyde in 2004 - a performance that made the DC Dems realize the district was potentially winnable - Christine decided to keep running for 2006 and Hyde decided to retire. Rahm Emanuel let it be known throughout 2005 that he was looking for a self-funding candidate to enter the race, thus walling off Cegelis from the big money donors. All Rahm's preferred candidates looked at the support Christine had among local Democrats and turned Emanuel down. Then at the last minute, Dick Durbin suggested Tammy Duckworth, a wounded Iraq War vet who did not have money of her own but for whom they would be able to raise money quickly outside the district.
So, using precinct workers from Chicago, Emanuel got Duckworth's name on the ballot at the last second. He then staffed her campaign for her and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for her without Duckworth having to do anything but show up at fundraisers headlined by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Hilary Clinton. John Kerry sent out multiple fundraising emails for Duckworth not even mentioning that there was a primary involved. Emanuel arranged for organizations who were more ideologically aligned with Cegelis to endorse Duckworth instead, had her coached by the best media guru in the state, and got the most popular politician in the state (Barack Obama) to do TV ads for Duckworth.
Despite all this, and because of the heroic efforts of hundreds of grassroots volunteers, Duckworth won the primary by less than 800 votes.
Cegelis has since done the honorable thing and publicly endorsed Duckworth fot the general election.
But what I don't get is how those who are supposedly all for the power of the grassroots in this party and suspicious of the inside the Beltway Democrats (you know, the ones who are still afraid to oppose Bush's War in any meaningful way), including one who wrote a book on the subject, could be ambivalent at best, and actually rooting for Duckworth in many cases.
So again I ask: why was this okay? When will it be okay the next time? If it happens in your neck of the woods, will you say "I trust the DC Dems, all those local yokels must have it wrong"?
Enlighten me, please!!!