IL-06: Tuesday Fighting Dem: Tammy Duckworth

I have teamed up with Majority Report Radio to feature a Fighting Dem every Tuesday. Today's edition features Tammy Duckworth in Illinois' 6th Congressional District.

Duckworth is probably the most controversial of the Fighting Dems, and it's a shame because she has one of the most compelling stories of this cycle.

In 2004, this district was a lost cause, a lean-Republican district with an incumbent, Henry Hyde, that had served for about 7,000 years. Christine Cegelis took up the hopeless cause with no party backing and no local party infrastructure of note. Yet with little money, Cegelis scored 44% percent of the vote and helped kickstart local progressive activism.

With Hyde retiring after this current term, the DCCC's Rahm Emmanuel took a look at Cegelis' 2004 fundraising and decided to cast about for a "better" candidate. And he found Duckworth and sort of thrust her into the district.

In a lot of ways, this story isn't fair to Duckworth, portraying her as sort of a tool of Rahm and the party establishment. She is a woman of incredible courage and accomplishment:

Life for Maj. Tammy Duckworth, 36, and her husband, Illinois Army Guard Capt. Bryan Bowlsbey, has changed dramatically since the afternoon of Nov. 12. That's when a rocket propelled grenade hit the chin bubble of the Blackhawk she was piloting in Iraq and exploded between her legs, according to the on-line journal her husband is writing.

Her copilot, from the Missouri Army Guard, landed the crippled Blackhawk before other crewmembers, air ambulance personnel and doctors began working feverishly to save her life, Bowlsbey stated. The helicopter's crew chief, Spc. Kurt Hannemann, from Illinois was apparently hurt but "was listed as not seriously injured," Illinois Guard officials reported.

Duckworth lost half of the blood in her body, said the woman who had served in Iraq with the Illinois Army Guard's 1st Battalion, 106th Aviation, an assault helicopter unit, since last March. All three bones in her right arm were broken but have since been pinned and plated together.

Nearly all of her right leg has been amputated, and she has lost her left leg beneath the knee. Her left leg will be fitted with a prosthesis, and Duckworth is grasping at every hope that she can also be fitted with a right-leg prosthesis, her husband explained, so she can again fly helicopters or fixed-wing airplanes or at least remain in the Army Guard.

By all accounts, she is a great person and would make a great congresswoman to represent the district. But, to put it bluntly, the way Emmanuel got her into the race was simply bullshit. People from me to Howard Dean have preached the power of people taking charge of their political futures and organizing locally. Yet here in this district, Rahm decided what was best for the locals. And the ham-handed way he did this ensured a great deal of unecessary local bitterness toward both the Democratic Party and to Tammy Duckworth.

I am nuetral in this race, though I have a great interest in the outcome. This district is my old stomping grounds. At 17, I was a precinct captain for the local GOP and worked to get Henry Hyde reelected in 1988. I'm still atoning for that "youthful indiscretion", and so I'll be extra motivated to recapture this seat for the Dems. And that'll be on behalf of whoever the district's Democrats decide should represent them in November.

Both candidates are stellar. Both can win the seat.

But this series is in celebration of our men and women in uniform who are deciding that they've endured enough Republican bullshit and will work to take our government back. And given that Republicans claim to be the party of the troops, it's quite telling that while about 40 veterans are challenging Republican seats as Democrats, only one veteran is doing the same as a Republican.

This is a story that needs to be shouted at every opportunity. Let America see who our veterans prefer. Let America see Republicans attempt to swiftboat our heroes. And whether our vets, several who face primary challengers, make it to the November ballot is irrelevant. Their decision to fight back against those in DC that are getting our men and women killed in unecessary wars speaks legions about which party is really the party of veterans.

The Illinois 6th:

(Click image to enlarge)

More:

• My take on why the Fighting Dems matter.
  
• The Mother Jones article on Fighting Dems.
  
• The Atlantic Monthly covers the Fighting Dem phenomenon.
  
• Tammy Duckworth's official campaign site.

The segment will run at around 9:20 p.m. ET, though your local Air America affiliates may have it at different times.

Previous Featured Fighting Dems:

• Bill Winter (CO-06)
  
• Tim Dunn (NC-08)
  
• Charles Brown (CA-04)
  
• Eric Massa (NY-29)
  
• Dave Harris (TX-06)
  
• Andrew Duck (MD-06)
  
• Patrick Murphy (PA-08)
  
• Paul Hackett (OH-Sen)
  
• Bryan Lentz (PA-07)
  
• David Ashe (VA-02)

You can get streams of these segments on Air America's Fighting Dems site. And there's a Fighting Dem ActBlue page, so show your support if you can.

•  Band of Brothers SHOULD BE

  Band of Brothers AND Sisters.

  by Drdemocrat on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 03:49:45 PM PDT

  •  No it shouldn't.

    It's clumsy and awkward to say it that way.

    It's also a matter of tradition.

    I would like to think we'd get to the point one day where you could say "Band of Brothers" or "A Few Good Men" without people getting defensive and feeling the need to remind us that women are apart of this too.

    Brothers in this context is clearly a masculine term, but I don't think it has to be a gender specific term.

    That's my view anyway.

    by tricky dick on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 03:55:44 PM PDT

    •  There is nothing wrong

      with saying Band of Brothers and Sisters.  Women as I am would really appreciate it.

      by Drdemocrat on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:19:35 PM PDT

      •  There's nothing wrong

        but it doesn't have poetry.

        PCism that makes our language less pleasant to listen to, that removes the poetry, makes people uncomfortable with the important parts of being politically correct, really a silly way of saying tolerance.

        And please, I'm a woman. But "mailman" is a lot more comfortable then "letter carrier."

        by zic on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 05:53:17 PM PDT

        •  Uh, you're kidding, right?

          "Mailman" is "comfortable"?

          Whee!

          by PeaceMatters on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 10:10:32 PM PDT

    •  It is clumsy and awkward...

      Could you imagine Henry V getting up and saying before Agincourt:

      
      For we few, we happy few, we band of siblings
      For s/he who sheds his/her blood with me today
      Shall be my sibling, be s/he ne'er so vile
      This day shall gentle his/her condition
      And gentlepeople in London still abed
      Will think themselves accursed they were not here
      And hold their humanity cheap whilst any speaks
      That s/he fought with us upon Saint Crispian's Day!
      

      Doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?

      by teenagedallasdeaniac on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:23:25 PM PDT

      •  Let's start a new ring!!

        by Drdemocrat on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:25:50 PM PDT

      •  Ha!

        Good one kid. Nice.

        Seriously, you could never change the language to the point where everyone gets complete recognition. It's absurd.

        Rather than tripping over ourselves to try and squeeze men, women (and while were at it lets not forget transgender) into the equation, how about this.

        Don't fucking worry about it. Let women occupy masculine roles, if they are so inclined, and let men occupy feminine ones.

        Just because some women want to be Soldiers doesn't mean we have to feminize the term. Nor do we have to make ballet more masculine because some men are dancers.

        It's not as if all Soldiers are super macho He-men anyway. Some of the guys I served with in Iraq had stuffed bears and shit. I wouldn't have made it without my SpongeBob pillow.

        People need to get over their prejudgedices, but we don't need to change the language.
        

        by tricky dick on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 05:02:35 PM PDT

      •  Your Right!

        Lets just change it to band of Sisters then.

        by Krush on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 05:49:21 PM PDT

      •  at agincourt...

        the required skillset was swinging a big axe and chopping (and being chopped). sounds like a male task to me.

        now, flying a helicopter, that's different.

        by campskunk on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 06:21:41 PM PDT

        •  I think I could be chopped.

          Maybe some tasks are not predetermined by sex. It's not like the women in the army just sit around and answer phones.

          by Krush on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 06:28:58 PM PDT

          •  imagine the whining...

            ... if it were a male that had a RPG explode between his legs.

            by campskunk on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 06:46:53 PM PDT

            •  Anyone would 'whine' about that.

              I get scared when I get the flu. I thought I was going to die last time, but I made it through ok.

              by Krush on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 06:58:51 PM PDT

      •  Give me a break. Just think of what

        tradition supports and Shakespeare's dialogue encodes.  Like, Elizabethean values.  Not all bad, but the world view is pretty awful.  Unless you like literal interpretations of the values, anti-semitism, etc.

        by JPete on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:13:37 PM PDT

      •  let's just quit pretending we're Henry V

        I agree that it's awkward to change the phrase, and silly -- the effect is really to trivialize women's concerns about being overlooked. So how about we just drop the whole "Band of Brothers" phrase altogether when talking about today's military?

        by inkalo on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 08:52:36 AM PDT

    •  Someone ought to do research.

      As it is, the reputable research says that as long as we use the male forms of speech, women will be experienced as excluded, not there, invisible, etc.

      AND thereby we will perpetuate all sort of unconscious decisions that disadvantage women.

      It's about time that the debate here on this board took advantage of research - we're all distressed by creationists, but dismissing "PC" speech is scientifically equivalent to creationism.

      by JPete on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:09:08 PM PDT

      •  Righteo

        Bring us your double blind sociological studies.

        Because as far as I know "man" being a masculine term is comparatively recent, from an etymological perspective. Its original usage in proto-germanic would have been equivalent to the latin "homo" or the modern english "human". Its cognate in german "mensch" means exactly that.

        Also compare the loss of gender cases in english as opposed to german.

        Usage defines language. So if masculine terms started being used in a gender neutral way they eventually become gender neutral (a process which was and is slowly happening).

        So bring us your wealth of evidence that is obviously comparable to the wealth of evidence that supports evolution.

        I do understand the Sapir-Worf thesis but I think that it's more likely that the change of the signifier to point at a different referent over time is more likely to hold and create a gender-neutral language than engineering a change in the usage of signifiers.

        If the underlying cultural values remain unchanged then all that will happen is that the new signifiers will eventually gain the same negative connotations as the old ones.

        As an example count how many times Ann Coulter has said "gay" versus say "faggot". Now think about what Ann Coulter thinks of the referent.

        I'm willing to be swayed. Convince me on your point of view.

        by kraant on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 11:08:36 PM PDT

        •  my recommendation was that people do

          some research themselves.  It's easy; just go to any university/college library and use a search engine.  

          It isn't a good idea to base political stands on views that seem true when there is a great deal of evidence against them.  

          Everyone laughs at the creationists, but in fact a lot of people see to have no desire to check out the credibility of their own opinions.  

          by JPete on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 03:55:32 AM PDT

          •  And my point

            Is that unless there's been some major breakthroughs in sociology that I've missed recently the Sapir-Worf hypothesis is nowhere near as settled as the theories behind evolution.

            There's some convincing arguments for it, but there's also some convincing arguments against it. Particularly from Chomsky.

            There're also good arguments that people who worry about the language over the attitude of what's being said are supressing their own attitude into their shadow and projecting it out.

            You seem to be fairly knowledgable so have a go at doing a post-structural reading of some gender-studies or cultural-studies text.

            It's pretty scary.

            But yeah, just pointing out that this isn't something that most people will agree is probably true after having done the research. It's still very controversial.

            by kraant on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 07:30:50 AM PDT

            •  there is something of a national movement

              that is looking scientifically at the huge waste of intellectual resources that Western countries go in for by giving women inferior education and effectively excluding us from the sciences.  It's funded in part by the National Science Foundation, but most science funding agencies are critically aware of the problem.

              Hence, there is in fact a great deal of research going on in the whole area about factors that exclude women; most of the very top universities in this country are involved.  I don't think anyone at all involved in any of this work - as I myself am - thinks the evidence of the exclusion by language is anything more than proven and settled.

              One thing that has happened over the last twenty years is that Jungean and Freudian appeals to the unconscious and shadows have been dropped by the best psychology departments.  Literary studies continues with them, but they are not considered scientifically credible any more - they're a literary interpretation of one's experience, perhaps, but not a scientific one.  The scientific ones are coming increasing from cognitive neuroscience.

              I expect this is more than you wanted to see.
              

              by JPete on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 08:31:00 AM PDT

              •  ps

                I really liked your diary about the newbies.  It might have gotten a lot more attention at a later time.

                You are a bit of a bite-er yourself!  As I sometimes am too.

                by JPete on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 08:35:08 AM PDT

              •  Actually

                It's exactly what I was wondering about since most arguments in favour of gender-neutral language have been from a cultural/literary studies, bastardised post-structural, perspective. And you sounded more confident on it than that kind of perspective deserves by comparing it to evolution vs. creationism.

                So there's some research coming along that strongly supports the Sapir-Whorf (doh! don't you hate it when you misspell things?) thesis or at least a modified version of it?

                That has some fairly major implications. For starters it means that Strong AI is back in business. Any papers you can point me at? I'm pretty impressed, up till now I was pretty sure lobjan was the only possible way to conclusively prove or disprove the Sapir-Whorf thesis and that's a multigeneration project.

                How tightly focussed is the research? If it's focussed on getting more women into science I'd be wary of applying it further than its scope. That way leads madness ;)

                Yeah, biting with added bite is pretty much normal around here isn't it? But since people tend to respond in kind on an emotional level[1] I wanted to point out that getting hyper-combative with newbies mightn't be the best way to get them onside...

                Thinking about it I've decided to it in my .sig.

                [1]I've seen studies on this and know it to be probably true :)

                by kraant on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 09:35:17 AM PDT

    •  Yup that's awkward

      So band of sisters will work just fine I guess.

      by TeresaInPa on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:22:19 AM PDT

  •  I wish she was in a band of democratic brothers

    I can't find the word "Democrat" anywhere on her site.  WHY ARE WE STILL AFRAID OF OUR SHADOW??

    We have to quit being ashamed of the word.  It's on the freakin' ballot box.  She's not running on the newly founded "VET Party" is she?  If the so-called 'heartland' can't stomach a Dem unless he/she is shrouded in enough mystery or flags, then maybe it's time we start talking about secession.

    by tkrueg on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:41:21 PM PDT

    •  Tammy Duckworth doesn't live in the district.

      Tammy Duckworth would have made an excellent candidate, except that she doesn't live in Henry Hyde's congressional district.  I feel the DCCC has made a big mistake promoting this non-resident for a congressional seat at the expense of other candidates that actually live in the district.

      by phoenixandrew on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 05:24:49 PM PDT

      •  asdf

        you'd be surprised how little this matters to many people.

        especially in suburban districts where many people haven't lived there very long.  Residancy will matter to some people, but not to many.

        I can understand the inlcination to assume it would, but in districts that are suburban... it matters a lot less.

        by brandonp on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 08:35:02 AM PDT

        •  Residency doesn't really matter to be, but...

          ...the fact that none of the people trying to push her into the seat are from the district does matter.

          If Cegelis (or Scott) wins, they'll owe the victory to those of us who live in the Sixth. If Duckworth does, she'll owe it to Emanuel, Durbin, and other out-of-district interests. And that's who she'll end up representing. It's that simple.

          by Gary Kleppe on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 09:00:51 AM PDT

    •  Beacuse...

      She's a "Prepackaged" Candidate...A product of Rahm Emanuel's (DLC) DCCC (a/k/a Dem apologists). God forbid we should be PROUD to be a Democrat, you know, while running for Henry Hyde's (soon-to-be-vacated) seat and all.

      Just another reason I support Christine Cegelis. A REAL Democrat. A PROUD Democrat. A GRASSROOTS Democrat. And she actually lives IN the district she's running for....For decades. Unlike Ms. Duckworth, who only recently moved to the area...Just OUTSIDE the district...Which makes her a Carpetbagger...Modified house or no.

      Furthermore, Cegelis has been against the war from DAY 1. Ms. Duckworth, OTOH, was FOR the war, until she was AGAINST the war. Amazingly, she decided the war was "bad" just AFTER she decided to run for Congress...Or should I say, just after she was "anointed" by Durbin & Emanuel.

      Sorry folks, Duckworth is just another hypocritical DLC DINO, just like Feinstein. You know, the kind we Kossacks are trying to get rid of! I admire her service to her country, and sympathize with her injuries. But she's letting Rahm exploit those injuries, to further his own personal agenda.

      by mlkisler on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 06:56:35 PM PDT

      •  Bye-Bye TU!

        Well, there goes my (newly reacquired) Trusted User Status. Too bad. Every word I wrote above is TRUE!

        Flame Away...Just remember what I said, when you're complaining later that "Duckworth is another Melissa Bean".

        by mlkisler on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:04:42 PM PDT

      •  I've just about had it

        I don't vote in this district but I live close enough to work as a campaign volunteer. The shrillness of Cegelis supporters is turning me off to her campaign.

        by KeithH on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 10:09:59 PM PDT

        •  That's funny...

          It's the shrillness of the DCCC plants pretending to be Duckworth supporters who are getting to me.

          Carolyn Kay
          MakeThemAccountable.com

          by cmkay on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:07:58 AM PDT

          •  Too True

            "It's the shrillness of the DCCC plants pretending to be Duckworth supporters who are getting to me."

            Indeed. Some of these plants aren't even bright enough to cover their tracks.

            BTW - The DLC Offices are co-located in the DNC Building. They share the same computer network. They were definitely DCCC Operatives....BUSTED!

            by mlkisler on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 02:16:56 PM PDT

      •  eh...

        there is no award for trying in this business--really, there's just an "award" for winning. Barring someone being like Zell Miller or Bob Toricelli, the most important thing for us is that Democrats win elections. One can have a legitimate discussion about whether one thinks that in certain races both or all candidates can win the general, in which case, the primary really is about who would be the best Democrat for the job. But in some cases (see Bob Casey), it's a reasonable assumption that only one particular Democrat can win and not others, and I think then it's really more important to support that Democrat than lobby for someone who can't win.

        This may or may not be the case here. Rahm Emanuel obviously thinks it is. You disagree. Nothing wrong with a primary to sort things out. But "Christine was there first" or "having a platform that appeals to kossites" is not really a legitimate reason to think Tammy Duckworth shouldn't run. If she can run legally (and she can), why not? And if she actually has a stronger chance to win than Cegelis, then really why not? And if it turns out she could win, but Cegelis could not, that's important.

        It's not like this stuff is cut and dried, of course. For example, if Menendez were to not hold the seat in New Jersey, it might be viewed be a disasterous example of backroom politics over merit. Gaining seats really should trump considerations like cronyism OR ideological purity, but I suppose it doesn't always happen like that in the real life.

        by JMS on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 07:41:47 AM PDT

        •  i agree

          frankly my ears perk up anytime i hear someone call Diane Feinstein a DINO... just how far gone are some people?

          I'm not a fan of the DLC, by any means... and while Emmanuel comes from that school, he's also proven to be an adept candidate recruiter, and trainer.

          it would be nice if we could just have candidates run with super grassroots organization and win... but you know what? there just arent that many paul wellstone's out there.

          personally, i think it's a mistake to attack ones own party harder than one attacks the GOP... we're big tent, which means there will be those in the middle who disagree with those in the progressive wing... this doesn't mean we should be in the business of kicking out anyone who doesn't believe exactly as we do.  That's a recipe for losing elections.

          by brandonp on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 08:47:50 AM PDT

          •  You don't think Feinstein is a DINO?

            Just how far gaone are you?

            by TeresaInPa on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:29:05 AM PDT

          •  seconded (but for a different reason)

            ... personally, i think it's a mistake to attack ones own party harder than one attacks the GOP ...

            what you said. exactly.

            So why, back in December 2004, when Christine Cegelis had made it clear that she was running again, after her outstanding showing - without any substantial support from the ILDemParty (thanks Mike Madigan) or from the DNC (thanks, TMac) or from DTrip - did Rahm E. & his closest associates make it clear that they were, even then, seeking to oust the energetic challenger who had arisen with an outpouring of local grass roots support? The Democrats never gave thought to challenging in IL-6, and, in fact, the district was drawn as a wink-and-nod GOP bastion.

            Sure seems like Rep. Rahm was attacking his own party, no?

            (And, as already noted upthread, it'd be nice, I mean really nice, if the word "Democrat" were more prominently featured on Tammy's website.

            by wystler on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:39:25 AM PDT

  •  BEST DUCKWORTH LINE

    On this week with George S. on Sunday what was said:

    George: President Bush, for the last couple of weeks has been talking about his plan for victory.  Do you think he's laid out a plan for victory?

    Tammy: No, but I think he's got some great banners...

    (She is on target!!!)

    by Drdemocrat on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 05:48:29 PM PDT

    •  And you think Duckworth...

      ... came up with that line?

      I'm sure she's a fine person, and she's certainly given a lot for her country, but she doesn't understand the issues.  She's being coached, and she's being fed cutesy lines.

      This is EXACTLY what's wrong with the Democratic Party.  Candidates with real fire in the belly like Cegelis are passed over by the Party establishment in favor of people they can control.  If that's what you want, bend over.

      I want a different Democratic Party, and so does Progressive Democrats of America, which supports Cegelis.
      http://www.pdamerica.org/...

      Carolyn Kay
      MakeThemAccountable.com

      by cmkay on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:06:33 AM PDT

      •  Hold On a Moment

        Jeebus!

        Yes, she's being coached.

        No, Tammy Duckworth is not stupid.

        Yes, I'm a Cegelis supporter (just outside IL-6).

        But to suggest that she does not understand the issues really does go to far. It's not been well established yet one way or the other.

        No, I don't like Rahm's motives or machinations.

        Yes, I'll support the winning candidate after the primary.

        Yes, raising the profile of this race by having a contested primary is likely to help the winner, no matter who prevails.

        by wystler on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:44:36 AM PDT

        •  Not Stupid

          I don't think they meant to imply that Tammy is stupid. I certainly don't believe that. What the commenter was saying is that every word coming out of her mouth is scripted by media coaches. Media Coaches who devote their entire lives to developing the "perfect sound bite".

          It's true. I've worked with these people...WITH RAHM...in the past. That's exactly what's happening.

          So don't buy into the BS image that these "handlers" have created. They could have created an equally impressive persona for Christine. But Rahm HATES DFA/Grassroots candidates. They don't fit his "mold".

          by mlkisler on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 02:31:15 PM PDT

  •  I think this is wonderful.

    My way of thinking, hey, if it elects more progressive Democrats, I'm cool with them having a military background. My only conern is, I need assurances that these military Democrats will prioritize the #1 military issue. Namely, overturning the "don't ask/don't tell" policy. In addition, I hope they will put a laser on the rampant sexism and homophobia in the military academies. Those should be the military-styled priorities of the Fighting Dems.

    by billybufu on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 07:13:40 AM PDT

•  I'm just gonna sit back and watch

  this unfold.

  Although I do have a suggestion; I know it's against the whole idea of the "fighting Dems" series, but in the interest of peace and unity at Dkos, can we get a front page post on Christine Cegelis too.

  This primary is startin to get a bit nasty.

  by AnnArborBlue on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 03:52:31 PM PDT

  •  Oh come on.

    Kos wasted two paragraphs trashing the DCCC for going out and getting us a great candidate who will likely win, IMO.

    What else do you want?

    Dean lost. I know that stating that fact is considered flaming around here, but I feel I have to keep reminding people...

    Dean lost. Badly.

    by tricky dick on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 03:58:12 PM PDT

    •  this post amuses me

      in every other IL-06 diary I've been accused of being a Duckworth supporter biased against Cegelis.

      I have no horse in this race. I'm just hoping to keep things cordial around here.

      by AnnArborBlue on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:01:32 PM PDT

      •  I, however...

        seek only to incite mahem and violence.

        But, in absence of triggering blog Armeggedon, I'll settle for a cheap laugh.

        Dean sucks!

        The DCCC rules!

        Go Establishment!!!

        Come on guys, I'm really trying here.

        by tricky dick on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:06:36 PM PDT

        •  To....?

          by Palamedes on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:09:50 PM PDT

          •  Waste life?

            Kill time?

            Now that you mention it, that's a good question.

            by tricky dick on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 05:18:34 PM PDT

            •  Certainly destroying Dick Nixon

              as a TU here - lol -

              - man you are getting buried, and I quite frankly don't see why - I think a little humor is welcome sometimes.

              Come on folks, lighten up a bit. Change those zeros to 2's or something ..

              by shpilk on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 12:17:46 AM PDT

              •  Shed no tears for my TU status.

                It is like many women I have dated, too easily gained and just and easily lost.

                I know my audience and their reaction is quite predictable.

                I am pretty much asking, perhaps begging for it.

                It amuses me.

                by tricky dick on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 04:11:56 PM PDT

        •  What's your problem?

          I find your whole rant about Dean, etc, to be totally out of place here.  Seems like you have some kind of ax to grind and you're anxious to intrude this where ever you can, regardless of whether or not it's appropriate.  I find it a bit irritating.  Don't bother throwing in a bunch of comments re your problem with Dean, as I'm not looking to continue that argument here, as my point is, it doesn't fit.  I'm just pointing out to you that as a reader of the blog, if you have a real point to make, you might go about it in a different way.  Perhaps I should have just ignored your comments as being off-point, as was my first inclination.

          by Cook on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:30:51 PM PDT

          •  I love Dean.

            Love him.

            But he sucked as a candidate.

            That is certainly not off topic. I am, however, attempting to maintain a certain lightheartedness about it.

            If you give me your address, I'll have a sense of humor sent to you, no charge.

            by tricky dick on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 05:06:19 PM PDT

            •  Nah, Dean got a raw deal

              He made a mistake or two, but the scream wasn't one of them, and that's what sank him.  It was ridiculous.

              by Sarpedon on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 05:08:12 PM PDT

              •  Yeah dude.

                Politics is so MEAN!

                We should ask the media to be nicer.

                by tricky dick on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 05:17:39 PM PDT

                •  That wasn't my complaint

                  Just earlier, I was telling someone else that "politics ain't beanbag."  I'm well aware that politics is mean.

                  The point is that what sank him, the scream, was ridiculous.  When as a man's political campaign ever been ruined because of one yell of enthusiasm?  This isn't an example of the media being mean, but of their being absurd.

                  by Sarpedon on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 06:11:00 PM PDT

            •  Which is why he may make a great DNC chair

              by vegancannibal on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 06:05:39 PM PDT

            •  I'm with this guy

              Dean was a terrible presidential candidate. The fact that he was even in the race says more about his incredible organization than it does about his own political acumen.

              by MaxBaba on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 07:11:57 AM PDT

            •  stop being such a jerk

              you are a jerk about sexist language.  You are a jerk about Dean.  Dean didn't suck as a candidate.  The party sucked as a party machine and boy did they get it wrong.

              Let me tell ya... the day it's okay to say "Band of Brothers" is when no one is fucking lame enough to talk about soldiers as a "Band of Brothers".  

              Are you capable of learning at all?

              by TeresaInPa on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:33:46 AM PDT

              •  Take your own advice.

                You've prejudged me from the beginning.

                I like to try and keep things light, when appropriate, and I know have a sense of humor in there somewhere. It appears to be an elitist, "I'm way smarter than you" sense of humor... but I can deal with that.

                I cannot deal with you accusing me of sexism, that's untrue and it's bullshit.

                Calling me stupid is, well, stupid.

                Perhaps you are not as smart as you think you are.

                by tricky dick on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 04:16:28 PM PDT

          •  Zero Was A JOKE

            See Comment below.

            by mlkisler on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 02:35:15 PM PDT

        •  Here, Let Me Help....

          DAMN THAT FELT GOOD! Haven't been able to Troll-Rate anybody in awhile.

          <sticks out tongue>

          by mlkisler on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:08:16 PM PDT

          •  Likewise.

            The Democratic Party...

            constant infighting and electoral losing streaks.

            I just love my party.

            by tricky dick on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 11:54:38 PM PDT

          •  JOKE

            This was a JOKE, folks. Hence the "Sticks Out Tongue"

            He was begging for a Zero, so I gave it to him. And he gave me one back. No harm, no foul.

            by mlkisler on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 01:37:26 PM PDT

    •  HUH

      is there some sort of parallel Earth I don't know about?

      Dean lost what?

      yes, he lost the nomination-- thanks to dinosaur-like Iowa voters who quite frankly, as long as they are the gatekeepers, I'm confident dems will continue to lose.

      Kerry lost the presidency. let's talk about the actual candidates in 2004.

      by Superpole on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:15:59 PM PDT

      •  Damn you.

        Kerry is my God.

        Clearly I reject the notion that John Kerry is anything other than the greatest man alive and the savior of the Democratic Party.

        OK, I really hate this, but...

        snark tag.

        I put up a snark tag, everyone bitches at me for not using them. I can't believe that people really can't tell I'm not completely serious when I say something like "Kerry is my God", but whatever.

        You want fucking snark tags, you got fucking snark tags.

        Snark ends.

        In all seriousness. Kerry sucks monkey balls. He sucks the hair off them.

        I cannot adequately express the full force with which John Kerry sucks monkey balls, nor can I express the sheer quanity of hair that he sucks from said monkey balls.

        That, however, does not in any way diminish the extent to which Howard Dean sucked (note past tense) goat dick (as a candidate, not as DNC chairman) nor does it negate the fact that said goat dick was without hair as a result of the aforementioned sucking.

        That's all I'm saying.

        OK, that last bit was a little snarky.

        by tricky dick on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 05:15:51 PM PDT

        •  Language

          The "1" is for language only.

          "nor can I express the sheer quanity of hair that he sucks from said monkey balls."

          I do appreciate your (somewhat feeble) attempts to inject some levity into this debate.

          by mlkisler on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 02:42:08 PM PDT

          •  Feeble?

            That hurts, man.

            by tricky dick on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 04:04:11 PM PDT

          •  I gave you some fours...

            just to make you feel bad.

            by tricky dick on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 04:19:29 PM PDT

        •  Snark On

          I appreciate the humor-- I do.

          I'm not sure how you figure Dean would have done worse than Kerry?

          with Trippi and others on board, it's clear to me Dean had a wayyyy better shot at actually beating the incumbent.

          by Superpole on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 07:14:31 PM PDT

    •  My take...

      Here's the thing.  I think what the DCCC did here is kinda counterproductive.  What the Democrats need is a much stronger base of locally grown candidates accross the country.  The message they are sending here is that candidates like Cegelis shouldn't run when the race is difficult because they'll get undercut when it's likely to be more competitive.  

      I know nothing about the thinking that the DCCC put into this, but it seems like poor strategic planning.  Personally I'm backing Cegelis with my time and money and we'll see who wins the primary.  If Duckworth wins I'll support her, but probably not as actively as I'm supporting Cegelis.  It's no slight against Duckworth, I just feel unusually motivated to support Cegelis since she had the courage to fight Hyde when everything was stacked against her.  

      My hope is, regardless of who everybody likes for whatever reason, we can all get behind the winner.    

      by sterno on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 08:57:44 PM PDT

      •  Emanuel is a creep

        He deserves to lose his seat.  He could easily have recruited Duckworth to run in some other district she doesn't live in.  He deliberately went after the DFA candidate because he is a vindictive DLC asshole.

        by TeresaInPa on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:38:04 AM PDT

        •  I agree with you.

          There was all that fuss about NARAL endorsing Chafee.

          Maybe the Party is attempting to get the grassroots in line.

          Politics is a nasty business, as you should know better than anyone.

          by tricky dick on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 04:22:21 PM PDT

      •  Here's Somebody Else

        Dan Kotowski's running for IL Senate (33rd). District intersects with northern part of 6th congressional. The district was also a wink-and-nod GOP majority area as drawn, but trends have been pro-Dem.

        Check him out here if you have the chance.

        by wystler on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:55:59 AM PDT

    •  Where is the need to get new candidate

      when the last one pulled 44% of the vote?

      When the MAJORITY of the American public not only wants us out of Iraq, but also said they'd like to see Bush impeached?

      Why impose a candidate from the top down? Don't live there, but strikes me as nuts. And if she's not in the district -- what? Redistrict so she can run? If she just moved there -- that's nuts, too. We should be electing people from the area, not from elsewhere.

      by PeaceMatters on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 10:18:14 PM PDT

      •  It was a direct attack on Dean

        the grassroots and DFA.  Emanuel is the DLC butt boy.

        by TeresaInPa on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:39:12 AM PDT

        •  Yes, It was.

          I ackowledged that up thread.

          But what the fuck do you expect.

          Dean said he was going to "take back the Democratic Party".

          He harshly criticized the Party in his run for President.

          Perhaps that criticism was justified (I tend to think it was) but many saw it as political opportunism (which I tend to think also was part of it).

          You wanted a war and now you've got one. Cegelis is a casualty of that war.

          by tricky dick on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 04:26:26 PM PDT

  •  Cegelis Might Respond Here

    Right after Duckworth entered the race a month ago, Christine Cegelis posted a diary here at dKos welcoming her into the race.  The comment I attached to that diary remains as true now as it was then:

    My hope for this race is that the media permits the focus to remain on the issues of importance to the 6th District and to our nation.  My fear is that the focus will rather be on Maj. Duckworth's service and disabililties as well as the DCCC's taking sides for the primary.  A rather large story in today's (Dec. 17) New York Times seems, unfortunately, to fall far more into this latter category: "Red District, Blue Candidate, Purple Heart".

    Certainly the residents of the District deserve to be informed about matters that concern them now and for the future, and not to be treated to a personality contest.  While it appears clear your preference is that the primary race stay on the issues and the need to achieve a Democratic pickup for the seat, we will have to see whether your opponent encourages (even implicitly) the media to make her recent personal history the principal focus.  Time will tell.

    Unfortunately, it does seem as though much of the media coverage (at least what I've seen from well outside the Chicagoland region) is focused primarily on Maj. Duckworth's backstory.  This, of course, is a disservice to all the district's constituents and only reinforces the current trend of making political races more about the personalities than about the issues -- a trend I had hoped would be reversed this year.

    by The Maven on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:05:02 PM PDT

    •  It's what sells, not what is

      Duckworth was the 5th person approached to contest Cegelis for IL-06.  No one else wanted to do it especially with Lindy Scott already in the race.

      Everyone shines a light on Duckworth's "backstory" without ever mentioning her voting record:  absent or not, Primary or General.  There's a whole lot of silence going on in that area.

      The voters still rule.  All they have to do is show up on 03/21.  More than the usual 20% for a Primary would be nice.

      by Philosophe Forum on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 08:24:57 PM PDT

      •  Contrary

        From what I can tell, a low turnout might well work in Cegelis' favor. She's the choice of the LOCAL Dem party people in DuPage County, as well as having the only serious grass-roots shoeleather backing in two of the in-district townships in Cook County.

        by wystler on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 11:00:43 AM PDT

        •  2002 Mid-Term

          Last Mid-Term had a 29% turnout with 55,077 Dem votes.  I was thinking Christine would only need 12,500 votes.  If 2006 is similar with 2002, she'll need 20,000ish.

          I'll discuss with poli sci profs.  Math's not my forte'.  I hope you're right.  Low is good in this case.

          by Philosophe Forum on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 07:16:48 PM PDT

  •  Ten...Nine...Eight...

    However, I will commend Michael in Chicago for taking a more productive approach in his diary the other night about Marcy Kaptur's event for Cegelis.  It was positive in tone, conveyed why people might be exicted by Cegelis, and didn't carp about Rahm or the evil DC people or anything else.  I was happy to see it, and would love for all the discussion on this race to be that productive.

    by DHinMI on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:07:54 PM PDT

    •  Yup

      that was a big improvement over discussions of how the candidates came by their endorsements, or whether the candidates blogged or not.

      Maybe there's hope yet.

      by AnnArborBlue on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:10:18 PM PDT

      •  Maybe not

        I'm confused as to at what point do we actually take a hard look deeply at our candidates. Is it gloves off, don't say a bad thing about Duckworth regardless of what our opinion is? I'm in the district and hear and see things first hand that I don't like. Should I be silent?

        I genuinely don't understand where the line is. I've heard several first hand impressions of Duckworth that haven't been positive - and not just from Cegelis supporters but Joe residents dragged along to events by their spouses. Do we ignore this, and instead focus on how great her bio is - because quite frankly this is just about all I hear and nothing of substance.

        There was a forum in Wayne Township yesterday, and I have spoken with several who attended. There was much to say, but - oh my -  I might say something negative. Should I just ignore this and go with the gee, she has a great bio and personality so she must be a good candidate? Don't you two see how shallow this is? How personality trumps substance in this logic? It's electability all over again. This did us so well in 2004.

        How a candidate came by their endorsements is valid. Whether they blog is important to me as it shows how open they will be to communication with their constituents. It's a simple thing to do. A gesture. Obviously not key on the list of priorities, but one of many indicators of how a candidate walks the walk to me.

        This polite politics is bullshit in my opinion. If a candidate can't withstand something some local on a blog hits their campaign with, they don't stand a chance against Roskam.

        by michael in chicago on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 06:26:08 PM PDT

        •  Be critical

          I've got no problem with anyone being critical of an opponent and I'd never suggest to anyone that they should bite their tongue, unless the criticism morphs into personal attacks.

          by Prison4Bushco on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 06:31:24 PM PDT

          •  I feel

            Anytime anyone says anything negative about Duckworth that they are immediately slammed for hurting the party, hurting our chances in 2006, dividing the party, or attacking a war veteran.

            I've been very careful since back in November to keep my critism about her campaign or issues, and yet I've been taged as attacking her.

            If this is how we are going to react on the blogs, where of all places we should understand being really stringent with political candidates, what hope do we have of ever electing people who are truly of the people.

            As Kos notes, Rahm's ham handed recruitement has created division. I've tried to be very polite about it, but I'll be honest: I'm ticked but there are many many people who are very active locally who make me look down right passive.

            This is an issue. Both in IL-06 and the larger picture.

            When Duckworth was recruited to run - wether she made the decision on her own or not - there were several IL districts without Republican challengers. A couple of these close to IL-06 even. But instead of encouraging her to run in one of those districts and support Cegelis who has the infrastructure in place, they chose to waste resources and create genuine division in my district. I don't know if this division will be overcome, and that hurts us as a party.

            What does that say about how Rahm and the party value local Democrats? What does that say about how our party values substance over attractive bios and money.

            We need to be careful here. The House is suppose to be the house of the people. We are giving it away to affluent interests. If we as liberal Democrats - especially on the blogs - buy into this and allow ourselves to be manipulated by attractive bios instead of who has the understanding of the issues and will best represent the district, we put our desire to win at all costs ahead of our party and our democracy.

            As Nancy Kaptur (D-OH) put it this weekend at a Cegelis event on jobs and union issues:
            "America needs change. Congress needs change. But we need change not by people who want to buy an election. We need change by people who count votes, not just dollars."

            by michael in chicago on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 06:48:50 PM PDT

            •  Well said

              It has always bothered me that the only criticism anyone has ever lobbed against Cegelis is that she can't raise money.  Well, perhaps that's a plus -- look, all her campaign funds came from small donors, therefore when she gets to Congress she'll be a) scandal-free and b) in responsive to the people in her district rather than the needs of . . . the credit card companies, the gun industry, the military-industrial complex, the banking industry . . . and so forth.

              And having scandal-free fundraising won't hurt in the general against DeLay crony Roskam, either.

              by Hope Despite All on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 08:35:18 AM PDT

    •  Well that was a public event

      What would you expect Christine to do?  This on the other hand is a blog where people are going to express what is actually going on.
      Emanuel could have run Duckworth anywhere.  He chose to try and take out a DFA candidate.  I hope he gets a challenger for his seat, or loses.  Ultimately the DLC is out to kill the democratic party as far as I can see... unless they can make it over to be the bench team for the republicans.

      by TeresaInPa on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:42:22 AM PDT

  •  Bad idea

    I'm a supporter of Cegelis, but this series is about vets who are candidates, and Cegelis is just not a vet.

    by curmudgiana on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:08:51 PM PDT

  •  where's the nastiness coming from?

    is it from the candidates, their campaigns, or from grassroots supporters. if the former 2 then someone needs to be taken to the toolshed. if the latter then the factious-addicts among us, and they are many indeed (hillary bashers, kerry bashers, dean bashers, gore bashers, clinton bashers) need to be set straight.

    by swissffun on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:54:30 PM PDT

  •  Thank you.

    That was one of the best comments about Christine I think you've written. As a Cegelis supporter I really appreciate it.

    by michael in chicago on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 06:09:44 PM PDT

•  Big Balls

  She's got 'em. She's the real deal. She'll have the chicken hawks sucking their thumbs.

  by LandSurveyor on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 03:52:47 PM PDT

  •  She's next to Hastert, right?

    Could you imagine being that sorry fat-ass knowing a real hero is in the district next to yours?

    by LandSurveyor on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 03:57:36 PM PDT

    •  I could imagine her opposing Hastert

      Illinois law does not require a Congressperson to reside in the district she represents.  Duckworth is legally free to run in the 6th district, but there is no reason she couldn't have run in Hastert's domain, instead.  Or any other district where the Republican incumbent was running with little of no opposition.  OR she could have run in the district where she lives, to try to unseat Melissa Bean, who is a Republican in all but nominal affiliation.

      But if she is such a winning candidate, why didn't they put her up against the biggest porker at the trough, against Hastert?

      by curmudgiana on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:14:34 PM PDT

      •  Hmph

        so what your saying is

        "If she's so good, then why not put her in a very hard situation instead of an open seat?"

        That's not actually a brilliant strategy.

        Anyways, if that happened, somebody would say "Why doesn't she run somewhere else and not run against Laesch or Zamora?"

        by RBH on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:21:02 PM PDT

        •  If she's so good

          "If she's so good, then why not put her in a very hard situation instead of an open seat?"

          So you're saying she's not really all that good a candidate, after all?

          At the time Duckworth was put into the race, there were districts in IL where Republicans were running unopposed.  There was no legal impediment to her declaring for those races.  But instead, she is inserted as a spoiler into the race against the strongest, most experienced of the Democratic challengers.

          This is good strategy?  

          by curmudgiana on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:51:25 PM PDT

          •  she entered of her own will, she wasn't PUT

            anywhere.

            by swissffun on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:56:30 PM PDT

            •  RIght

              And who collected all those nominating signatures for her?

              by curmudgiana on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 05:35:13 PM PDT

              •  Exactly..

                I don't blame Tammy Duckworth for this; if someone came to me and offered me unlimited $$ to run, I would, too.  Duckworth is not the villain here.

                Emanuel, however, IS the villain.  The DCCC is NOT supposed to take sides in a primary; if Duckworth is a capable candidate, she could have found the $$ and the grassroots support necessary to win.

                The fact that Emanuel crapped on Cegelis because she hadn't raised much $$ overlooks the fact that she had done a terrific job of creating a grassroots upsurge in the 6th District.  It also underscores the DC tendency to view fundraising as the only quality that matters, which is what I thought we were supposed to be AGAINST.

                Emanuel needs to have his ass kicked for this one.

                by sjs1959 on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 06:45:49 PM PDT

                •  Cegelis met their goal

                  She met their July goal, then they raised the bar.

                  IMO they never meant to give her any support but were buying time to find another candidate. Duckworth is the 5th they approached.

                  by michael in chicago on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 06:54:22 PM PDT

                •  Not About Money

                  That was Just Rahm's "Cover Story". Every time Cegelis MET Rahm's goal, HE UPPED IT!

                  This is about POWER...RAHM'S Power. Cegelis scares Rahm because she's not a DLC Dem. He can't control Cegelis...Or her votes.

                  A candidate like Duckworth, however, whom he has "bought and paid for".........You get the point.

                  by mlkisler on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:26:56 PM PDT

            •  baloney

              and I am sure you have some swamp land you'd like to sell.

              by TeresaInPa on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:44:42 AM PDT

          •  Beating the Speaker of the House is not easy

            Hastert was the top fundraiser of all candidates in 2004, when he didn't even have a serious challenge. As well, He has been in Congress since 1987.

            You're applying a very bizarre standard here.

            by RBH on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:57:10 PM PDT

            •  Hastert is vulnerable now

              The stench of the Republican corruption scandal clings to him. He could be defeated this time if the Democrats had the will to try and a winning candidate to back.

              Why -not- Duckworth?

              I would be happy as a tick if I could see Cegelis defeating Roskam and Duckworth taking Hastert's seat.

              by curmudgiana on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 05:11:10 PM PDT

            •  Yeah, And???

              "Hastert was the top fundraiser of all candidates in 2004"

              Yeah, and Rahm HANDED DUCKWORTH ONE MILLION DOLLARS for her "Campaign-in-a-box". Not to mention the money that (backstabber) Durbin has raked in for her.

              She could have easily taken on Hastert with that kind of $$$.

              by mlkisler on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:42:08 PM PDT

            •  How much from Abramhoff, though? n/t

              by PeaceMatters on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 10:45:24 PM PDT

              •  Abramoff money

                Hastert got more of the dirty money than DeLay did.

                by curmudgiana on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 07:58:45 AM PDT

      •  I've driven through Hastert's district-

        I live in a similar one in Dallas. Those morons wouldn't know what to do with a real American hero. Chicken hawks and insular uppity-ness.
        I shudder at the thought of landing a helicopter after my legs had been evaporated by a missile. Amazing.

        by LandSurveyor on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:40:21 PM PDT

        •  NO DOUBT!

          "I shudder at the thought of landing a helicopter after my legs had been evaporated by a missile. Amazing."

          I couldn't have said it better myself. I truly admire her courage...But that doesn't make her a good Congressional Candidate.

          Nor does it give her the right to "squat" in another candidate's district. (Yes, I know, the law says...yada, yada, yada. It doesn't make it ethical.)

          by mlkisler on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:47:37 PM PDT

        •  Being picky

          but I believe that it was her co-pilot that landed the Blackhawk.

          by Prison4Bushco on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:57:56 PM PDT

          •  Just honest

            Facts are just facts, not picky.

            by PeaceMatters on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 10:52:39 PM PDT

  •  When asked about

    the war in Iraq, Duckworth said, "There's good and bad in everything."  She has been pretty cautious.  Not ideal.  On the other hand, Cegelis has been bold, solid on the issues (from health care to labor to the war and foreign policy).  

    It's extremely discouraging to those of us who have been working extremely hard to encourage grassroots participation to have the DCCC torpedo a candidate because they perceive her as flawed or 'too liberal' for the district.  As Kos pointed out, Cegelis took up the challenge to run when no one else really would, and put together a very impressive volunteer organization.  

    She worked very hard, she's solid on progressive issues.  She's a hardworking worthy person.  She isn't a soldier - but she's a single mom, who's been working at a job all her life, and that's pretty damn courageous in itself.  

    Duckworth - a very impressive person, nice person, who doesn't even live in district.  If Emmanuel wanted to primary someone, why not primary Melissa Bean with Duckworth?  She's in Bean's district, after all.  And Bean has lost the support of labor, so vital in her win last election.

    I'm very discouraged by what the Democratic party has done here.  We worked extremely hard to get people involved in Christine's campaign, and it is a true grassroots campaign, and it's nonsense that she can't win.  She certainly can.  And one of the main reasons she didn't raise 'enough' money (Emannuel kept raising the bar of what was 'enough', btw) was that he told key donors to wait, that he had a candidate.  

    I will, of course, work for and vote for whomever wins this primary because getting a Democrat in this district would be a true achievement and a great thing.  The horrific Peter Roskam is the opponent.  Obviously, Duckworth would be infinitely preferable.  But this has angered many, many people.  It's nothing personal against Duckworth.  She's obviously a very good person.

    by KibbutzAmiad on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:28:48 PM PDT

    •  responses

      When asked about the war in Iraq, Duckworth said, "There's good and bad in everything."  She has been pretty cautious.  Not ideal.

      This was before she was discharged from the Air Force. I would imagine that she was not totally free to make hard-hitting statements in newspapers while still in the Air Force.

      Duckworth - a very impressive person, nice person, who doesn't even live in district.  If Emmanuel wanted to primary someone, why not primary Melissa Bean with Duckworth?  She's in Bean's district, after all.

      Don't you think there's a double-standard there? That you think it's bad to go after Christine, because she did a lot of work in 2004, but it's good to go after Melissa Bean, who also had to do a lot of work to win a district that we probably haven't won since the 40s or 50s.

      I don't agree with Melissa Bean's voting record, but I don't see her as harming the Democratic Party and I think Bean has been pretty cautious after realizing that her district gave Bush 57% in 2004.

      I don't think Melissa is in serious danger right now. And I hope that once she gets a term or two in the house, she'll start to move to the left. She'll also vote better if we had a Democratic Congress and if the Democratic agenda was the agenda of the Congress.

      And I hope that the Cegelis supporters are able to unite with the Duckworth supporters if Tammy wins in March. I would expect the same of the Duckworth supporters if Cegelis wins.

      by RBH on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:36:45 PM PDT

      •  The problem I am

        having with this is not that Cegelis is being primaried.  That's good for the party and the cause.  The problem I have is that this is that it is being done badly and for bad reasons.  I'm very disappointed with Bean but would vote for her over a Republican; however, I'd much rather vote for an actual progressive Democrat. After all, it was a close election in 2004 for Bean and having lost labor's support, I think she has less chance of victory than Cegelis has in the 6th.

        In the 6th, Cegelis is a very good  candidate.  She may not have a flashy a story but she has a good solid one.  She did what we are all constantly being told to do - get involved - and she did it from the bottom up.  Rahm Emmanuel was looking for a plient candidate who would do his bidding re: the issues that he is suspect of Cegelis on.  Is this the way the party process should work?  It was and is extremely hard to find people to run as Democrats in DuPage County, most of which is in the 6th district.  I personally was not able to vote for a single Democrat in the last off year election because none were running.  That is typical.  There are no elected Democrats in DuPage County.  

        So Cegelis steps up in 2004 and works incredibly hard but more significantly, builds a real connection with the community.  When she announced she was running again - the night she lost in 2004, she took no time off - she got, once again, very little support from the Democratic organization, in this area quite beholden to the Daley Machine, btw, Emmanuel is from Chicago - but that was expected.  What was not expected was the very unfair torpedoeing of her candidacy.  Emmanuel - with no alternate candidate (at least one and reportedly two turned him down before he snared Duckworth) told donors to sit on their wallets; that the DCCC would not support Cegelis.

        Cegelis is not perfect nor unflawed, but she is good on the issues, she is electable - again,she got 44% against Hyde (who actually debated her - the first time he's felt threatened enough to do that in eons) and she is not beholden to anyone except the voters of the 6th district. If Tammy Duckworth had simply entered the race without being dropped in at Emmanuel's behest, a lot of us would feel differently about her.  I do not believe - truthfully - she has any greater chance of winning the seat than does Cegelis.  She has a right to run.  What we are objecting to is the manner in which this was done, and the motivation for doing it. Rahm Emmanuel is not one of the good guys, in my estimation.  And this is not how to get citizens involved in the Democratic party, let alone run for office.

        I hope the Democrat wins in Nov. 2006, whomever that is. I will work for whomever wins the primary.  There is another candidate, Lindy Scott, an evangelical Christian who works at Wheaton College.  (Billy Graham's alma mater).  I'd work for him if he won.  I want to win. But I would far rather win with Cegelis, because she and her candidacy are a lot closer to what I think the Democratic Party should operate and look like.

        by KibbutzAmiad on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 06:53:05 PM PDT

    •  Duckworth on Iraq

      was proud to respond when my country called, and I have no regrets. But from a policy perspective, invading Iraq was a mistake. We should have focused our military resources instead on pursuing the terrorists who attacked our country and on capturing Osama Bin Laden. Not only did we misdirect our human and financial resources; we squandered an enormous amount of international goodwill that we acquired after 9/11.

      The fact is we are in Iraq now and we can't simply pull up stakes and create a security vacuum. It wouldn't be in our national interest to leave Iraq in chaos and risk allowing a country with unlimited oil wealth to become a base for terrorists.

      Moving forward, we need to make it clear to the Iraqi people that we will leave, sooner rather than later. During my time in Iraq, whenever I had a chance, I talked with Iraqis. They told me that they were glad that Saddam Hussein was gone. Nevertheless, I came away from these conversations with the impression that while they often said what they thought we wanted to hear, they resented what they saw as the occupation of their country. We must understand that this resentment, fueled by insurgent propaganda, continues to grow and creates the conditions for insurgency, making U.S. troops and aid workers the targets.

      To bring our troops home, we need a much more aggressive plan and timetable than the Bush Administration has offered for training the Iraqi police and armed forces, and transferring to the Iraqis the responsibility for securing their own country.

      
      Link

      by Adam B on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 04:42:38 PM PDT

      •  OK

        Compare this to Cegelis on Iraq:
        

        I have opposed this war from the start. But revisiting what brought us to this disastrous point does not solve the problem. It is time for us to bring our troops home. The Bush Administration must provide a comprehensive plan for withdrawal of the majority of our combat troops at the earliest possible date. We must bring home our 46,000 citizen soldiers of the National Guard and Reserve home as soon as possible, where they can continue their lives as our police officers, our firefighters, our workers and our neighbors. The U.S. must spell out a reasonable and detailed plan to transfer power to Iraq's military and police forces.

        Defending our nation against the threat of terrorism is a top priority. The issues of Iraq and terrorism are now the same. Al-Qaeda had no link to Iraq before our invasion. Now it is a breeding g