Except for last week's
interview in RawStory, the press has almost entirely blacked out Colleen Fernald, the best Democratic candidate for US Senate by every relevant measure.
The primary is coming up June 6th, and Fernald is on the ballot, but the press is treating us all like anyone who can't spend millions on TV ads doesn't deserve to be heard.
Even if you love Diane Feinstein, please recommend this diary so Colleen Fernald's candidacy can be debated. With no free press, Daily Kos becomes the only place we can have the debate that is so essential to real democracy. It begins below the fold.
Here's
a link to Colleen Fernald's campaign web site.
Fernald has about 100 advantages over aging incumbent Diane Feinstein. For starters:
- Fernald consistently opposes pre-emptive attacks and the Iraq war
- Fernald hasn't endorsed warrantless wiretapping or CIA crook/spook Hayden
- Fernald hasn't abandoned her oath of office regarding the 4th Amendment
- hasn't obsequiously stumbled and fumbled on Judge Alito or filibusters
- didn't vote for Michael Chertoff, architect of abusive detention and Katrina response
- has no Bechtel connections that benefit from US `response' to phony threats
It's increasingly clear that we have to replace most of the negligent, corrupt and incompetent incumbents in Congress over the next 5 years if we're going to restore our Democracy. It's painful, but let's face it - most Democratic Senators support illegal wiretapper Hayden just as Bush, Cheney and Lieberman do. Only a handful openly oppose atrocities like
kidnapping teens to Guantánamo that actually fuel terrorism and threaten our safety. They truly don't represent us - and according to a poll in the same diary, it's going to cost them votes in November.
Feinstein is California's Lieberman; ever ready to attack patriots like Russ Feingold for upholding their oath and the Constitution. If a truly progressive candidate like Fernald got a fair shake in the press, Feinstein would lose decisively.
Of course, you can always argue that having more money makes a better candidate than having wiser policies. If you think so, don't you dare call yourself a Democrat.
Like Ned Lamont's candidacy against Lieberman, this is one of our big chances to replace the weakest, most maddening "Democratic" Senators with ones that truly represent us in 2006. Californians here know what I mean - we mustn't suffer with DiFi for another 6 years without putting up a fight. There's no real down side; the more votes Colleen Fernald (and Ned Lamont) get, the more accountable to progressive ideals the Democrats will be.
Now that you've heard of Colleen Fernald and her candidacy, won't you support her? If the "lesser evil" model of elections is going to be challenged, it has to start with us.
Update:
What an interesting discussion!
1) Some Kossacks have already voted for Fernald by absentee ballot, or plan to on election day.
2) In the first 100 comments, I see one directly supporting Feinstein. A typical comment questioning Fernald's candidacy begins "I loathe DiFi.' Others weren't as nice. DiFi's stands on Iraq, censure (Clinton yes, Bush no), wiretapping, and even underhanded attacks on Jello Biafra stood out.
3) Many were disappointed that
a. this is the first they've heard of Fernald
b. she lacks a strong web or other presence, and
c. she isn't dKos literate
Obviously most would rather oppose Feinstein from within the party, but didn't see an opportunity earlier.
4) Fernald's strongest supporters seem to be Californians.
5) Nay sayers are mainly negative. They insist Fernald won't get any votes and worry that she'll too likely cause Feinstein to lose - practically in the same breath. They question Fernald's competence but don't have a candidate they prefer. To me it says they're resisting change out of fear, when they could be voting for the best candidate or telling their friends to. Saying "I don't have time or money" to recommend a Tasini, Masel or Fernald diary doesn't seem honest. Reminds me of the way popular fighting Dem Paul Hackett was undermined by insiders. I decline to let them redefine Democracy.