Cegalis-Duckworth Race update.

DEM CON 06 DIST REP DEM
Total
Number of Precincts 399
Precincts Reporting 393 98.5 %
Times Counted 26549/268458 9.9 %
Total Votes 25214

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christine Cegelis DEM 10455 41.47%
Lindy Scott DEM 4128 16.37%
L. Tammy Duckworth DEM 10609 42.08%
Write-in Votes


http://www.dupageresults1.com/ Is there another county to be added in?

bitter race, bitter end.

I hope the winner's followers don't have any hard feelings.

What's the deal there? Do they have to have a certain percentage?

I just tuned in, so forgive the questions!

Me -->

in Illinois. The candidate has to request it, AND pay for it.

I can almost guarantee it.

She made an important statement tonight, win or lose. She sent a big message to party leaders who think they can jump in and win without a fight.

I am very proud of her. The times are changing.

The 6th district includes a bit of Cook County as well as Dupage County. The Chicago Tribune gives the following with about 90%:
Duckworth , Tammy Dem 12,603 43.17
Cegelis , Christine Dem 11,947 40.92
Scott , Lindy Dem 4,644 15.91

Looks like Duckworth is in, for better or worse.

But Cegelis clearly had more local energy...she was outspent by, what, 7-1?

...I've heard of Tammy Duckworth through General Clark and the Band of Brother's efforts.

I guess we have supporters of both Duckworth and Cegelis here?

Since I'm not overly familiar with either, I'll just say ~~ May the BEST Democrat WIN, and may they win FAIRLY ~~

For the general election.

and defeat some repubs.

backed by PDA.

Duckworth was the establishment candidate, backed by the $ of the national party.

Those former Dean Dozens had a high primary casualty rate this year, many out before primaries started.

remember that the MAJORITY of the 6th District Dems voted for a progressive candidate(either Cegelis or Scott)and that Duckworth is obligated now to reach out and embrace the progressive agenda.

If she does that, and if she finally does the right thing and runs as an all-out peace candidate, she can win. She can't win as a centrist hawk.

Do you really consider him to be progressive. Let's be honest.

And, on the other issues, he was clearly left, in fact probably to the left of Cegelis.

He is comparable to Kucinich in that regard, who had had a longstanding pro-life positions(which in his case, as opposed to Henry Hyde's, actually WAS "pro-LIFE" in that Kucinich also opposed war and the death penalty), a position he actually tempered before his 2004 campaign. Despite the fact that Kucinich was now pledged to be pro-choice, a lot of people who backed Dean cited Kucinich's FORMER anti-abortion position as an excuse to support a less-progrssive candidate(Dean)against Dennis. Katha Pollitt, the most important feminist columnist in THE NATION magazine, relentlessly pilloried Dennis over this position and later pushed hard for Dean against Kucinich.

The three Democratic candidates combined only accounted for about 40% of the total 6th CD vote. Roskam received around 48,000 votes in an uncontested race, as compared to about 32,000 for all three Dems. She can win as a centrist anti-Iraq War candidate if she appeals to the concerns of the middle-class voters.

No dog in this fight. :grouphug:

:kick:

Gosh, I think I wanted Cegalis.

With all the voting machine problems and the fact that still only 90% are reporting for hours now, this isn't over. I expect the results will be contested whoever claims victory.

520 of 526 Precincts Reporting - 98.86%

Duckworth , Tammy Dem 14,019 43.81

Cegelis , Christine Dem 12,939 40.44

Scott , Lindy Dem 5,038 15.75

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/elections/chi-primaryresults-htmlstory,0,2520894.htmlstory#governor

While its great to encourage Dem vets to run, it would be even better if they chose to challenge Republicans rather than fellow Democrats. Sort of defeats the whole purpose of gaining the majority in Congress again, zero sum. Oh well, maybe we can take Congress back in 2008.

She lost to an opponent who does not live in her disctrict who has only been running for a few weeks, despite the fact that she has been running nonstop for the past two years. If she couldn't overcome that, what chance did she have against a well-funded Republican in a GOP-leaning district?

. . .reach out to Cegelis and her supporters. If you can marry Duckworth's money and national celebrity with Cegelis' ground forces Peter Roskam is in trouble. There will be hold outs of course but if Christine were to support Duckworth a significant number of her supporters will follow. Let's see what happens. Any observer should recognize what both pulled off, 1) Cegelis with ground support almost overcame a well funded candidate; 2) In less than 4 months with the right backing Duckworth was able to pull off the victory.

No attacks on Cegelis, I was prepared to support her and I have much respect for what she has done.

If it is higher, than it is a very, very positive sign that folks behind both candidates believe that their candidate could beat Roskam (hence the interparty rivalry - based more on desire to win, with a debate of who could have the better chance at doing so) - and it would suggest a LOT of energy, very early in the race to the general elections.

It is rare for the candidate edged out, NOT to endorse the winner and encourage those active in the campaign to continue to be active. Your points are well taken per the potential strengths of the merging of the positives behind these two candidates/campaigns.

it to her.

How long do you think there will even BE "ground forces"
if the party keeps kicking them in the teeth?

. . .pride or party. I believe in standing for principle, however there is HUGE DIFFERENCE between Roskam and Duckworth and hopefully the "ground forces" will understand that.

and got annihilated.

Perhaps the "chess players" should walk for themselves.

These are the words of an American who believed in principle:

"I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want, and get it."
--Eugene V. Debs

that Duckworth had...she would have done well.

Money means a LOT.

There is often a relationship between the two.

due to backing from the national party.

if the national party had supported Cegelis, instead of bringing in Duckworth (so they could run a disabled vet?) - maybe Cegelis COULD have raised that kind of money.

They simply didn't have the same material to work with.

The chinese restaurant down the street from my apartment uses chicken, vegetables, and other ingredients to make a tasty kung po chicken. Just because they are able to make tasty kung po chicken doesn't mean that it would be as tasty if they used tofu.

so...that's now what it takes to win an election?

hell, let's start running the subjects of those stupid human-interest stories they always run on the "news", then. :eyes:

she knocked off a Republican incumbent.

instead of backing them to fight fellow Dems who are doing a good job.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. If vet candidates are that strong, they should run against tough R incumbents. Put one up against Frist or DeLay, etc.

I have no problem with Duckworth, or any other Dem vet, per se, I just don't like the fact that she was put up against a progressive Dem (who gave Henry Hyde a run for his money previously, I understand).

Good post.

Frist is not running for reelection.

Duckworth was back not to defeat Cegelis, but to beat Roskam. It is a GOP-leaning district and requires a moderate Democrat with the star-power to raise a lot of money.

because they allowed themselves to be mislead into serving the country for what he considered to be the wrong reasons.

The poster said he was SICK of hearing about Vets being good candidates.

I thought you would be more gracious.

seemed to come up just a couple of hundred votes short of victory. It really was an impressive effort fought against most of the established leaders of the Illinois Democratic Party. Cegelis is showing incredible grace in the immediate aftermath of what must be a heart wrenching moment for her. She impressed me a great deal, as have most of her supporters.

From what little I can tell Duckworth also seems to be a strong and gracious person. I am very sad that they ended up pitted against each other. I will continue to pay close attention to the issue of who gets support from leaders in the Democratic Party in congressional elections and why they do. The feelings of local Democrats must be given fair weight in this matter.

I strongly salute Cegelis for waging a hard fought campaign on the issues against strong odds, and I deeply appreciate that she is taking the lead in calling for unity among Democrats now.

it burns me up that people can't just get over it and move on in order to support the Democratic nominee. The people have spoken. Instead of whining about what happened in the primary, we need to be discussing how to elect Ms. Duckworth.

She also needs to recognize that the tactics of some of her more powerful supporters caused incredible bitterness and hard feelings and do what she can to reach out to those who sincerely feel that an injustice was done here.

And you Duckworth supporters need to be conciliatory and to admit that a good candidate and a good person was treated badly here.

Reach out and you can win. Strut and brag and gloat you can't.

Winners are obligated to be magnanimous.

. . .wait and I assume that he had an issue with Durbin, Emanuel and Obama's involvement, oh the hypocrisy KNOWS NO FUCKING BOUNDS!!!

to happen. Your side wants the Cegelis people to just endorse Duckworth and get nothing for it, not even any respect for their principles. At least admit a good candidate was viciously slammed for no reason.

And I'll support Duckworth. Fine. But It's time for the Duckworth people to stop gloating. Your candidate just barely scraped through, and the way she won created a lot of hard feelings. You need to acknowledge that.

Why Durbin and Obama wanted to stop a strong progressive candidate and replace her with an untested more or less conservative one is beyond me. I hope she wins, but we all know it won't mean as much as a Cegelis win would have.

Please back that statement up. Please explain to me what gloating is? Acknowledging Duckworth's victory? Oh please.

Well, come on, we all know "moderate" is code for "not one inch to the left of Lieberman".

Do conservatives think this war was a mistake? Do conservatives believe tax cuts for the rich are irresponsible? You like to call names because you are ignorant when it comes to this race and this candidate.

stop her".

If Duckworth takes the above positions, I can live with her. I'm addressing myself more to the heavyhitters who intervened than to Duckworth herself. Exactly what did Cegelis stand for that was so terribly, unacceptably different from Roskam? I'd like to hear something besides just "too liberal, too liberal, too liberal" from the Duckworth crowd.

And my suggestion that Duckworth take some Cegelis positions and acknowledge that Cegelis was treated more harshly than necessary by some big Duckworth supporters honestly wasn't intended to start a flame war. It was meant as a suggestion to build unity.

I support Duckworth now, and I said so on election night in one of the threads. Some Duckworth supporters I have more of a problem with, but I can handle her.

Lighten up.

And don't assume that a uniform will magically swing thousands of voters. People aren't that shallow.

You are so consumed with anger that you have not taken the the time to learn about Duckworth. You have been calling her conservative, yet you do not know what the fuck she stands for? How the fuck old are you? I would think if you are going to talk shit about candidate you would know what the fuck you were talking about. Those are Duckworth's positions, but you ignore them because you want to believe the worst about her.

It says alot about your character and judgement or more importantly the lack thereof!

You can't simultaneously argue that Duckworth that different on the issues from Cegelis and then at the same time argue that Cegelis was out of step with the district. Those two arguements contradict each other on the level of simple logic.

For me, the big thing with Duckworth was her incredibly brainless "there's good and bad on everything" statement of Iraq. What on Earth did that mean, anyway?

Winners are supposed to be magnanimous, not spiteful.

:kick:

I wasn't making anything up. Duckworth's "moderation"(which to most of us is a code word for conservatism)was the main selling point your campaign made for her, aside for the allegedly magical powers of her uniform. And I said I would support her myself. I was just talking about how to mend fences with the Cegelis people. Stop the flaming already.

Fine, we'll all back your candidate. Whatever.

It will be easier when people like Freddie and Benchley stop insulting the other candidate.

big donor backing - ($$$$$$$) = "stronger candidate" ..

strength is equated in terms $$$$ - fahgeddabout principles, convictions or policies. (what's dat got to do with anything we care about anyway?)

This was a party power play. Pure and simple. Big money still talks, but it won't always.

It takes time to get change, my friend.

BTW many people only vote by what they see on TV. Thanks Obama, Durbin, and Rahm. You will be getting more calls about butting in there and in Florida....

I agree there should be no gloating. As you see I have been very respectful of Cegelis the last 24 hours, even making a financial pledge to support her if she won. I don't think Freddie's criticism (although I don't agree with it) was gloating.

is NOT defending Duckworth.

Stop being ugly about it. If you want Cegelis people to come over, you need to praise their candidate(who did run a very strong race)and you also need to acknowledge that the MAJORITY of the 6th District Democrats clearly voted for a progressive antiwar nominee(the combined Cegelis/Scott vote). Duckworth now need to embrace that agenda. If Duckworth now runs as a PROGRESSIVE antiwar vet, she will be a formidable candidate indeed.

They aren't the party. So if the "party" gave her money, it must have been the DCCC not the DLC.

drove the party establishment to intervene.

Well, the establishment beat the idealists, the cynics beat the hopeful. I hope that Duckworth wins and notice must now be served that if she doesn't, the progressive wing of the party can't be blamed.

Bush carried the district in 2000 and 2004. It has been sending Henry Hyde to Congress for over 30 years. A progressive has as much chance of being elected there as Dennis Kucinich has of being elected President.

Defending Duckworth would be saying stuff like"Oh, no, you're wrong. Tammy is a great candidate and HERE'S WHY...rather than simply repeating Rahm Emmanuel's talking points.

She was a very good candidate. The only issue out there was whether or not she was the strongest possible candidate in this district. I actually supported her in this race and made a small contribution to her campaign. Having said that I like Duckworth as a person and Democrat also . She seems to be an extraordinary person, and should she emerge as the nominee I think she can run a good race and she will be a strong Democrat we can be proud to have in Congress. Same for Cegelis.

The debates back and forth about the personal strengths of Cegelis and Duckworth lost all relevancy for me as soon as the last vote in this primary was cast. I will say nothing against either woman and will support whoever gets the nomination.

Continuing discussions about how candidates are selected and promoted by the Democratic Party is another story completely. Those need to continue.

Of course it is an imperfect system. But it would be difficult to find a better one.

supporters to work hard for Duckworth(if indeed Duckworth has won when the whole thing gets sorted out).

Winners are supposed to be magnanimous.

And Duckworth(and YOU)need to remember that the MAJORITY of 6th District Democrats voted for a progressive nominee(the combined Cegelis/Scott vote). Duckworth is obligated now to sharpen her message and embrace the progressive agenda the majority of 6th District Dems embraced. She has no right to say "I beat the left and they have to shut up and fall in line". And neither do you.

there are simply more Republicans that Democrats in the district. They aren't going to elect a liberal. They will either elect a Republican or a moderate Democrat. Look at Melissa Bean's success last time.

The voters are not demanding that Democrats stay just as far to the right as Clinton.

"a few weeks". I first encountered her when she called into the Ed Schultz show when another Rep candidate was hosting, and pointed out that the Repubs who were hoping DeLay would be back after his trial were holding up the beginning of the House's session. I also remember seeing her picture and a story about her in the NYTimes which I'm pretty sure was more than a few weeks ago.

it was far less time to campaign that Cegelis.

Tammy will be a good candidate. Time is right for a pick-up.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Congratulations to Tammy Duckworth!!

~ :patriot: ~

You know General Clark is happy today!!

. . .there were a ton of vocal supporters for both candidates (me falling in the Duckworth camp), however I never got a true read on which way the board was leaning.

The party leaders picked Duckworth, raised money for her.

And as far as I could tell.. .. most DU'ers seem to be happy with both of those candidates.

because when she ran in against Henry Hyde she got 44% of the vote! and that was running against a repuke who has been in office his entire life, damn near. The Washington Elite Dems decided THEY wanted to run Duckworth for whatever reason? Because she's a vet? Because she's an amputee? All the Democratic Washington $$$$$$$$$$$ went to THEIR candidate. They went AGAINST the Progressives and picked their own. Cegalis can win in November. I'm not so sure about Duckworth. They're trying to tell ME to F*ck off and I don't appreciate it. I think Christine Cegalis wouldn't be their puppet. Just a guess though. Why else would they not want to run her?

Daaaaamn. The Washington Elite must be shakin' in their boots! I love Dick Durbin, but he made a WRONG choice in choosing Duckworth. Cegalis received 44% of the votes when running against Henry Hyde! fercryingoutloud.:grr:

Do we know which precincts haven't reported and who they would favor?

6th cd Cegelis letter to supporters: ``You proved something.'' Touts Duckworth.
Dem 6th cd nominee Tammy Duckworth got a call this morning from rival Christine Cegelis.


`` I spoke with Tammy this morning and wished her luck. She’s going to need it. Because she’s going to be running against the full force and weight of the Republican Party – not just Peter Roskam, but Dick Cheney, George Bush, Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman and every other Republican leader and every Republican dollar they can get their hands on.''
-snip-

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2006/03/6th_cd_cegelis_letter_to_suppo.html

:(

supports the "stay and die" strategy that Bush promotes.

. . .within the party stick around a little longer.

I 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, I met and talked with many Iraqis who were glad that Saddam Hussein was gone. Nevertheless, they resented what they saw as the U.S. occupation of their country. This resentment creates the conditions for insurgency, and makes 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.

http://www.duckworthforcongress.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=13

First and foremost, I support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are performing heroically and deserve our gratitude and respect. We must jealously husband the use of our warriors. The most important currency that we expend in times of war is not dollars, but rather the lives of our sons and daughters. When the people of the United States allow us to send their loved ones in to harm's way to support the national interest, it is with the understanding that our policy makers will exercise good judgment, and not expend a single life needlessly.

I 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.


I'm thinking her position based on that is something to the effect of we need to clean up the mess and get out, she isn't in favor of indefinite occupation and pushing it to the next president, I think she just wants us to stay as long as we have to and not a minute longer. Trouble is knowing how long that is.

And Dean is for a two-year timetable. So, why is Duckworth being attacked for her position that echoes theirs?

this is where we are as a country and a one party system and nothing we do anymore is going to change that anytime in the near future.. not for 2006 or for 2008 or probably for the next decade or so.

i weep for my daughter's children and their children...

we have not offered a clear distinction of policies differences for their future and future generations.. :cry:

I think she's putting it as we need to get the job done as quickly as possible and get the fuck out. The Administration is saying pretty much we're going to be stuck there for until at least the next administration takes power, if not longer if they have anything to say about it.

otherwise known as the Circular Firing Squad Brigade. It seems a large number of Democrats will not support a Democrat for office unless the candidate can prove that he/she can walk on water, agreeing with their viewpoint on every single issue and say every single thing about each issue exactly the way they want it. Otherwise they'd rather keep the Republicans in power.

What are 'friends' for anyway?

of this evil policy...

it's an American thing... so American. We progressives just need to get the fuck over it.. cuz it's what we are all about!

after all, we be red blooded uhMerrikuns!


:patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot:

your didn't understand it, or, probably more likely, you did not want to understand it.

She is not saying the same thing as Bush, not by a long shot. But, if you wish to drag her down and ensure that a Republican will be elected from her district because she cannot walk on water and say it precisely the way you want her to say it, you may very well be successful.

Duckworth is not your enemy. As (I think) Pogo once said (paraphrasing): "I have met the enemy and he is us."

my insignificant little voice of concerns are not being heard anyway, it is completely ignored by party Elite, their followers and the media.

so all we be well for everyone hoping for the status quo.

no worries...

those of us who have been longing for meaningful, significant change.. need to get over it.

break camp, pack it up and head on out while we still can.

we don't want to spoil the party with our desperate cries to end the suffering, to end massacres, to end the death and destruction immediately.

You seem to be against anyone and anything that emanates from party leadership when you should be evaluating each individual situation.

In this particular case there were two good candidates. While one may have fit what you are looking for more closely than the other you are totally rejecting the other because she is not a perfect fit and because she emanated from the DCCC, without really looking at what she is saying as an individual.

As I said - Walk On Water Syndrome.

She is not perfect so you are willing to destroy her.

she doesn't "walk on water" ...

"she's not perfect so you are willing to destroy her"

what am I doing, or have I done to "destroy" Duckworth?

Your all is lost, "it's back to the 2000 paradigm only worse" lament.

Yes, you would contribute to destroying Duckworth by your insistance in repeatedly saying that her position on Iraq is more of the same old stuff that Bush has been saying, a total distortion of what she has said, despite other posters posting her words to the contrary.

She is not the "progressive" candidate you wanted so you want to pick up your marbles and go home (I can also do other forms of speech besides hyperbole) and to hell with everyone else, if you can't have what you want then no one can.

If that isn't destructive, then what the hell is?

My sarcasm is more reflective of the syncism which i wish would vaporize.. in my defense, I have not until this particular moment (in this thread only) engaged in any negativity against Duckworth, and it was certainly not intended against her personally or her campaign specifically as it is more of a statement of frustration with political gaming in this country, whcih clearly is hardly about what the people want. Winning is about what corporations or big donors want and is willing to finance. The idea that would equate to "better candidate" is another point of contention.

Also, what I have said here in this thread, though pessimistic and even regrettably sarcastic - is hardly going to "destroy" Duckworth nor is it intended. It is simply a reading of the barameter, observing and forcasting the political winds of the party in general..

It's back to the notion that Progressives have no real place in the party, progressive ideas or people representing those ideas are not to be advanced or supported.

And that's why i raise the specter of the 2000 paradigm, because we've been living it for an awfully long time and it looks like there is no intention, interest or plan to change it.

That's a strong message to me from the party establishment, to simply move on.

All I can say is that these battles have to be fought one at a time. I wish it was easy, but we know that it is one tough road to hoe. I look at it another way. To be outspent something like 6 or 7 to 1 and to go head to head with perhaps the most powerful establishment Dem pols there are and to break even is pretty Goddamned good and real progress. Sure it's frustrating to get so close and yet be so far away, but just think what would have happened trying to buck the establishment in 2000. It is not the same. Things have changed.

the less progressive candidate..

that should be considered a legimitate gripe, but you know what?

it doesn't matter anymore, it's back to the 2000 paradigm only worse.

that's what this is about.

you usually can't tell from their voting record that they aren't a Republican.

It was a very hard fought race. Give people who backed Cegelis some room and time to deal with their very narrow loss. A lot of emotions were invested in this contest, and for many important principles were involved also. I would not expect a Cegelis supporter to be loudly singing Duckworth's praise today. Cegelis is leading the way toward party unity here, bless her heart. Recent wounds deserve a little time for healing and people deserve time to figure out how best to take the fight forward without doing damage Democrats chances to regain the House in 06.

. . .misrepresentation of Duckworth is another thing. Some saying she wants us to die in Iraq, saying she is not pro-choice and there is no difference between her and Roskam (GOP opponent) is BS and it should be called out. Cegelis supporters have every right to mourn (they fought the good fight) but not to make shit up.

it is quite another thing to totally distort Duckworth's position on Iraq because someone is disappointed with the primary result.

:kick:

Feingold's aligned with Kerry's out by end of 2006 plan, and Dean aligned with the two-year Korb plan - so why is Duckworth's call for timetable seen as supporting the status quo?

Our troops are a problem there. They either are not able to provide security or they attack the wrong targets thus fueling the insurgency. It's not the soldiers fault but our leaders, including Dems, fault for putting our troops in a Catch-22 position.

Our troops are way over their head and staying in Iraq isn't going to put Humpty Dumpty (Iraq) back together again. Iran is going to be the big winner from this debacle that our leaders created, but short of nuking all of Iran, there is no way for us to stop their growing influence in Iraq. We need to fall back to damage control and that is what Murtha's and Korb's plans are all about.

We definitely need to pull out our National Guard troops immediately. We need them at home.

being treated differently for saying the same?

:shrug: nitpicking I guess.

www.mydd.com

Found at Kos, MyDD has busy server.



That is something we should think about. Christine got 42%. We divided ourselves so badly. It is happening in two races in Florida right now. The anger is palpable. The party has chosen millionaires, one a Republican turned Democrat last August, to run. What are they doing and why are they doing it.

They are redefining the image of the Democratic Party, undoing decades of work by the Republican propoganda machine.

They deserve to be listened to, and they will be listened to...and not just by registered Democrats.

Because of them, Democrats will take back the congress in 06'. We ought to be grateful, and proud.

I will get attacked by missiles and guns and tanks and all kinds of military stuff. You can just argue with yourself on that.

BTW, what made you bring it up?

that represent both core Democratic values AND the ability to win in their districts in November, even if it means a very contested primary battle.

That's part of the Democratic process, and it is good for the party...as long as we all remember it's about winning in November whether or not our favored candidate wins a particular primary.

There is some merit in running some good veterans, though oddly enough the party ran one out of the race. Good ones, just a few to make a point.

But we are forgetting that others are good fighting Democrats as well.

We are trying to overcompensate for what the Republicans tell us are our weaknesses.

There is some merit to running good veterans (especially Iraq veterans who share are values, especially now).

I'm not sure who is forgetting that others are good fighting Democrats as well...that would not be me, I am sure. Rush Feingold and Barbara Boxer are two that come to mind...actually I'm not sure if Russ is a vet or not.

I disagree that we are trying to overcompensate for our weakness. Our weakness (perceived) on national security is not simply what the Republicans tell is is our weakness. It is a fact that that is the perception of the majority of Americans still...and is therefore our greatest weakness.

So, we mostly agree.

.../the DC Party Insiders and Backroom Power Brokers. That is where her debt lies.
Like a good soldier, she will do as she is told by her commanders.

Cegalis would have represented the people of her district.
All in all, Cegalis performed an amazing feat.
The Voice of the Grassroots IS growing, and I am hopeful.

She is a fighting Democrat. She got almost as many votes as did the one who had the full backing and power and money of the party.

You do not tell anyone they are posting bullsh**. That is just wrong.

The poster said that "DC Party Insiders and Backroom Power Brokers" "elected" Cegelis.

That is BULLSHIT, and it's just plain WRONG.

It's disrepectful to Duckworth, and it's disrepectful to the people of the Illinois 6th congressional district who elected her to state that Duckworth will not represent the people who elected her.

It is really stinking up the board.

I didn't have a horse in this race so stayed out of it. I realize people get emotional about politics and their stakes in races. However, from all I've read Ms. Duckworth is an honorable woman and is being penalized because she was backed by others in the party. So what? Good for her. I'm sorry to those that are disappointed that Cegelis didn't win. I can see how her positions appealed more to them. I'm sure she is a terrific woman as well. However, it's over. I'm sorry it didn't go your way. That's what happens in elections, somebody wins, somebody loses, or Diebold changes everything. I hope people will support the Democratic candidate in the general election.

I hope some of you can step back and visualize the roller-coaster ride some choose to be on as reaction to events. There is just too much shit going on in our world to get stuck on the ride.

I have not said one bad thing about Duckworth.

I am very proud of our efforts with Cegelis. She has worked to rebuild the party there in many ways in her district. When she first ran it was like many Florida areas....no Dem office, no one to call on the phone.

She has done a good job. Calling bullsh** on someone who is just reacting from the shock is not right.

No more right that some of the comments above.

Many of the bloggers are covering this today, realizing it is too important an issue to be dropped. Some who were not paying attention before are doing so now. See Firedoglake tonight. Nice write-up.

My issue with the poster is one we have been through before....so many military running. It is their right. But Duckworth should have been run against a Republican, NOT a Democrat who had already proven herself.

I'm speaking generally, mf, not at you directly or specifically.

I made reference to the complaint that Duckworth was backed by the Dem party bigwigs. I was just agreeing with the part about some not giving Duckworth any credit.

I'm trying to be respectful. I just see people turning themselves inside-out out of utter disappointment. I said nothing to disrespect either candidate. I thought I made that clear. Please re-read my post so you won't go away thinking that I did.

It's just something people need to mourn and move beyond. I'm sorry if that is offensive. I don't mean to be. There is just so much energy and so many bright minds, and we have an epic battle upcoming in November.

This is the bullshit:

"Duckworth will represent those who elected her.../the DC Party Insiders and Backroom Power Brokers."

Utter, complete, BULLSHIT.

The PEOPLE elected Duckworth, and it is the PEOPLE Duckworth will represent.

The post is the most offensive to a fellow Democrat I have ever read on DU. It is out of line to question the will and the wisdom of Democratic primary voters in such a arrogant, hypocritical manner.

She still has to win in the fall.

Three women! I hope she wins the general election!

:patriot:

Lindy Scott is a man.

we west-coasters rely on DU for info