Next election, the key should be to support whoever Rahm Emanual DOESN'T support...

[dpbrown]

Rahm's Losers
By JOHN V. WALSH

(clip)

Long ago Rahm chose 22 key races, open or Republican seats, where Dems might win. By any reasonable criteria, all the candidates chosen by Rahm, save perhaps for one, were pro-war as is Emanuel himself. In two cases Rahm had to put in considerable dollars and effort in the primaries to drive out antiwar candidates. He drove out Cegelis in Illinois's 6th CD, at the cost of one million dollars, in favor of Tammy ("Stay the course") Duckworth who lost in the general election. In California's 11th CD primary, Emanuel backed the prowar Steven Filson who lost to the antiwar candidate, Jerry McNerney, who went on to win in the general election.

Looking at all 22 candidates hand-picked by Rahm, we find that 13 were defeated, and only 8 won! (3) (One is still undecided.) And remember that this was the year of the Democratic tsunami and that Rahm's favorites were handsomely financed by the DCCC. Tammy Duckworth, for example, was infused with $3 million ­ and was backed in the primary by HRC, Barack Obama, John Kerry, etc. The Dems have picked up 28 seats so far, maybe more. So out of that 28, Rahm's choices accounted for 8! Since the Dems only needed 15 seats to win the House, Rahm's efforts were completely unnecessary. Had the campaign rested on Rahm's choices, there would have been only 8 or 9 new seats, and the Dems would have lost. In fact, Rahm's efforts were probably counterproductive for the Dems since the great majority of voters were antiwar and they were voting primarily on the issue of the war (60% according to CNN). But Rahm's candidates were not antiwar.

http://www.counterpunch.com/walsh11112006.html

[wyldwolf]

1. Counterpunch? LOL! When Rham supports the Dem nominee in '08...

...I guess you'll go Green.

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

As the Democrats took control of the House on Tuesday, the expected new House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, told a Democratic gathering in Washington, "Let's hear it for Rahm Emanuel. He did a great job masterminding our strategy, which is bearing fruit tonight."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0611080085nov08,1,2440897.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed


"Rahm Emanuel is a very ambitious person," Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) said yesterday, glowing in his own reelection and the possibility that he will be named chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. "There's no question that with the election, he's picked up a lot of political clout..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/08/AR2006110802239.html


"... The architects of Democratic victory, Rep. Rahm Emanuel and Sen. Chuck Schumer..."

Michael Scherer,

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/11/08/pelosi/index.html

Credit in particular goes to Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer, who led the House and Senate efforts to pick candidates...

http://online.wsj.com/google_login.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB116303391191517999.html%3Fmod%3Dgooglenews_wsj

But you have to give Rahm Emanuel, the House Democratic campaign chief, credit for recruiting an impressive group of candidates, including a few non-liberals like Brad Ellsworth in Indiana and Heath Shuler in North Carolina. (From the Conservative Weekly Standard)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/08/opinion/main2162362.shtml

Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Rahm Emanuel say they are happy to share credit for the Democrats' electoral success, but not everyone in the party is feeling as generous. Progressive bloggers, who often promote and criticize the Democratic Party with equal vigor, want their props. (From the liberal The Nation)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/08/opinion/main2162618.shtml

"...Congressman Rahm Emanuel, whose staff will get most of the credit for a big victory."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=783725&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), the architect of the Democratic takeover of the House, will take the No. 4 spot in the leadership, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printedition/2006/11/13/natleaders1113a.html

Rahm Emanuel, the mastermind behind the Democratic victory and the party's disciplinarian...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448021,00.html

And Democratic gains included the addition of many conservative Democrats, brilliantly recruited by Rep. Rahm Emanuel with classic Clintonian triangulation.

http://www.baxterbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061113/OPINION01/611130311/1014/OPINION

[stepnw1f]

2. "So out of that 28, Rahm's choices accounted for 8!"

Sorry...

[wyldwolf]

4. in the initial red district seats targeted...

..but of those 28, 15 are joining the DLC. Sorry.

[dpbrown]

3. Rahm Emanual took DCCC money away from Democrats who could win

A majority of his candidates lost.

If we had only to rely on Rahm Emanual and his pro-war candidates, the Democrats would not control the House of Representatives now.

Your straw-man personal affront accusing me of supporting Greens is unfounded.

I support Democrats who can win.

Rahm Emanual does not.

The facts show this. It doesn't matter who compiled the facts, they speak for themselves.

Res Ipso Loquitur - Rahm Emanual is bad for the Democrats.

Pretty language from politicians doesn't change Rahm's record of failure.

[wyldwolf]

5. so, you think (LOL!) "progressive" candidates would have won in red states?

Do you have ANY statistical evidence of that? I'll answer for you. No.

[dpbrown]

14. Straw man argument fails - pro-war candidates lost, anti-war candidates won

Emanual is pro-war, his candidates were pro-war.

This led to a losing record in a Democratic tsunami year.

This doesn't mean progressive or anti-progressive. This means that populist candidates with a non-pro-war position won.

Emanual is pro-war and supported candidates who didn't want to "rock the war boat." That was seriously out-of-touch with where the nation was.

If he is this out-of-touch now, I'm pretty sure he'll be pretty out-of-touch next time around.

And your evidence to the contrary is....wait for it. I'll answer for you. None.

[cali]

18. You mean like Tammy Duckworth?

She was anti-war and she lost. Please demonstrate that the rest of the candidates that Emanuel backed were pro-war. Making broad statements without backing them up, is usually a mistake.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[stepnw1f]

81. Insults

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.......

[wyldwolf]

19. do you even know the definition of "strawman?"

No.

And you have zero evidence "progressive" candidates would have won. Zero. Just your wishful thinking.

[The Magistrate]

59. This 'Pro-War' Line, Mr. Brown, Grows Tiresome

The claim that any person or political figure who does not demand immediate withdrawl is 'pro-war', which is what the claim amounts to, is nonesense.

[AtomicKitten]

77. yet the descriptive term peppers much of the rhetoric here nonetheless

sigh

[greeneggs708]

31. Nice Try, Wyldwolf

You think you can give the obssessed facts.

It wouldn't sink in if you beat them over the head with a shovel.

[dpbrown]

52. 8 out of 22 is a fact - enjoy your short stay at DU

The facts say that candidates supported by Rahm Emanuel lost more than they won, even during a Democratic tsunami.

That's the facts. Put all the lipstick you want on that pig, it's still the DLC.

[Buzz Clik]

54. Gee, do you think that it's because Emanuel focused on tight races?

Why would he waste time on slam dunks for the Dems? So he concentrates on vulnerable GOP candidates and scored 8 seats. That, my friend, is the epitome of success: facing the impossible, and coming out ahead.

[Capn Sunshine]

129. No, that's contrary- EXACTLY CONTRARY to the DLC strategy

They focus on "winnable" races. Let a LOT of downticket Dems fend for themselves. It's the opposite of the 50 state strategy.

When they had all the money, it was easy to maintain control.

Nowadays, not so much.

[wyldwolf]

134. Obviously it wasn't this time...

[Buzz Clik]

137. I see the pattern here: Rahm concentrated on Dem slam dunks but lost 75% of them.

If I believed this (which I DO NOT), then Emanuel is clearly an idiot.

Not the case.

[dpbrown]

64. Voters defended abortion in SD, stem cell research in MO, and same-sex marriage in AZ

Those are statistics. Those are "red" states. Those are the wins.

You're desperate to find something to win on, but you're wrong. (That's why you change topics and resort to personal smears instead of calmly stating your point.)

Emanuel's strategy was flawed, and it resulted in more candidates he supported being beaten than winning. Relying on Emanuel's strategy would have cost Democrats the Congress.

I want Democrats to win, so I want people to see how ineffective Rahm Emanuel is.

[BOSSHOG]

7. More then likely he won't have that job in 2008.

But you are right about the back slapping pretty language. It was time to celebrate and to highlight those eight victories. Pelosi and Reid were not going to publicly castigate one of their own, who did after all have his heart in the right place.

[LoZoccolo]

36. Show us the polls if you think they could win.

I bet they weren't even close.

[John Q. Citizen]

8. If you say it enough, will it make it true? Let's see who Rahm supports in

primaries...

Hey, don't get me wrong. He helped. But he does have a losing record, 8 for 22

[wyldwolf]

9. How about if Nancy Pelosi, Charley Rangel, and others say it enough?

As the Democrats took control of the House on Tuesday, the expected new House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, told a Democratic gathering in Washington, "Let's hear it for Rahm Emanuel. He did a great job masterminding our strategy, which is bearing fruit tonight."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0611080085nov08,1,2440897.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed


"Rahm Emanuel is a very ambitious person," Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) said yesterday, glowing in his own reelection and the possibility that he will be named chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. "There's no question that with the election, he's picked up a lot of political clout..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/08/AR2006110802239.html


"... The architects of Democratic victory, Rep. Rahm Emanuel and Sen. Chuck Schumer..."

Michael Scherer,

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/11/08/pelosi/index.html

Credit in particular goes to Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer, who led the House and Senate efforts to pick candidates...

http://online.wsj.com/google_login.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB116303391191517999.html%3Fmod%3Dgooglenews_wsj

But you have to give Rahm Emanuel, the House Democratic campaign chief, credit for recruiting an impressive group of candidates, including a few non-liberals like Brad Ellsworth in Indiana and Heath Shuler in North Carolina. (From the Conservative Weekly Standard)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/08/opinion/main2162362.shtml

Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Rahm Emanuel say they are happy to share credit for the Democrats' electoral success, but not everyone in the party is feeling as generous. Progressive bloggers, who often promote and criticize the Democratic Party with equal vigor, want their props. (From the liberal The Nation)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/08/opinion/main2162618.shtml

"...Congressman Rahm Emanuel, whose staff will get most of the credit for a big victory."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=783725&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), the architect of the Democratic takeover of the House, will take the No. 4 spot in the leadership, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printedition/2006/11/13/natleaders1113a.html

Rahm Emanuel, the mastermind behind the Democratic victory and the party's disciplinarian...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448021,00.html

And Democratic gains included the addition of many conservative Democrats, brilliantly recruited by Rep. Rahm Emanuel with classic Clintonian triangulation.

http://www.baxterbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061113/OPINION01/611130311/1014/OPINION

[John Q. Citizen]

12. If they say it enough do you believe it? No need to think for yourself, you

got someone to do your thinking for you...

Lucky you, that should save wear and tear on your brain.

[wyldwolf]

17. tell you what. Ask anyone on this board the following:

1. Did the DCCC EVER have anything to do with the Senate race Tester won?
2. Did Webb, a former Republican and Reagan staffer, suddenly do a 180 and become a "progressive?"
3. Did gay marriage amendments pass in 7 states, including ones Democrats won in?

Yes, if my own research shows it, and Pelosi and others confirm it, I do tend to believe it.

John Hall (NY-19) and Larry Kissell (NC-08), the DCCC helped with fundraising and developed a ground game for both campaigns.

In Kentucky, John Yarmuth (KY-03) receieved $350,000 worth of support from the DCCC. In the case of Chris Carney (PA-10), who was a top target and obsession of staffers at the DCCC, Emanuel spent at least $1.5 million. The DCCC spent about $500,000 on Jerry McNerney (CA-11). As for Joe Sestak (PA-07), the DCCC spent over $2 million on him. The money helped destroy his opponent, Curt Weldon, and the NRCC actually abandoned the race. The idea that Sestak was some kind of blog creation is ludicrous.

The story was the same with Lois Murphy (PA-06), where the DCCC spent over $3 million; Bruce Braley (IA-01), where it spent over $2 million and where it was on the air as far back as August; and Kirstin Gillibrand (NY-20) where the DCCC spent over $1 million and ran two different ads simultaneously in the final days of the campaign.

[John Q. Citizen]

22. I knocked doors for days for Tester, and I can assure you, the DCCC didn't

have anything to do with his win.

2. Webb vocally opposed the pro-war candidate, and won.

3. Is Rahm anti- gay marriage too? Figures....

[wyldwolf]

28. of course not

..but you have others pushing your memme saying the DCCC supported Tester's primary opponent.
But they did not.

Webb vocally opposing the war doesn't make him "progressive." Pat Buchanan opposes the war.

[John Q. Citizen]

43. For one thing, the DCCC is a house organization and Tester ran for the

Senate.

Tester's primary opponent was alright, and he did get help from the DSCC. Tester crushed the guy, which was fine by me. Testers primary opponent comes from the area I live in. He lost big here too.

Testers victory showed that the electorate, at least in Montana, weren't particularly interested in electing Washington insiders.

Tester opposed the war, and he opposed the Patriot (aka the suspend the bill of rights) act. He's a populist and MT has a long history of populism.

[wyldwolf]

44. exactly

..and Tester being a populist does not make him a "progressive."

[John Q. Citizen]

51. Except he is a progressive, or at least he runs on progressive issues.

Believe it!

He even know what "Single payer health insurance means" and he's open to it.

What does the term "progressive" mean to you?

[wyldwolf]

56. he ran as a centrist

A centrist takes both left leaning and right leaning positions.

In fact, his issue positions sound like they were ripped right out of the DLC's playbook.

He is for the very centrist position of a balanced budget.

On abortion, he takes the Clintonian "safe, legal, and rare" approach, saying his goal is to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies.

He is for aggressive law enforcement - specifically on drugs.

He is for a tough national defense.

He is a strong proponent of gun rights.

His position on Healthcare isn't a universal one. He supports affordable healthcare.

His immigration position sounds like Rush Limbaugh's!

Looking at his entire list of issue positions, the only thing that separates him from the official line of the DLC is his stance on trade.

But now thatMax Baucus (DLC), the state's senior senator and new chairman of the influential Finance Committee, has taken Tester under his wing he will give him a seat on Appropriations.

[John Q. Citizen]

60. Hate to break it to you, but your analysis is way off. But that's alright, I'm

sure you know more about Tester and Montana than I do. After all, you live somewhere else, and you get your news from the people that say everyone elected this time was a centrist. You thought the DCCC was involved with Senate campaigns, and proving you are right and defending your thesis is more important to you than the reality on the ground.

I'm only on our local Democratic Central Committee, worked in the Tester campaign, and talk to people who live here evey day.

So if it makes you happy to hold completely ignorant views about Tester, Montana and what the election here meant, go for it!

Peace!

[wyldwolf]

61. I only pulled it right off his website. Are you saying what is there is not correct?

You thought the DCCC was involved with Senate campaigns

You're mistaken.

[John Q. Citizen]

65. No, I said your analysis is incorrect. I still do. I could do a point by point

rebuttal to your obvious mis-conceptions, but i haven't the time or energy.

And it wouldn't change your mind anyway. You already know all there is you feel you need to know. So good luck, and

Peace!

[wyldwolf]

67. So, on all those positions that he mirrors the DLC on, there is some nuance only you know about?

Let's take the abortion stance. Directly from his website. He wants to limit abortion. Safe, rare, and legal. What is different about that than what the DLC has said for 15 years?

[w4rma]

154. DLC's primary purpose is to support pro-corporate politicians. Tester does not meet this criteria.nt

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

116. Show me one...

...Senate campaign where DCCC gave any money. Really. That's not what they do.

[John Q. Citizen]

124. Well duh. I was responding to the post above. That was his assertian

about the DCCC. Not mine.

[wyldwolf]

135. well, duh! It was NOT my assertion.

[John Q. Citizen]

147. Oh I thought you posted something like this

before or after you edited it. Why did you edit it by the way?


tell you what. Ask anyone on this board the following:
Edited on Tue Nov-14-06 10:58 AM by wyldwolf
1. Did the DCCC EVER have anything to do with the Senate race Tester won?
2. Did Webb, a former Republican and Reagan staffer, suddenly do a 180 and become a "progressive?"
3. Did gay marriage amendments pass in 7 states, including ones Democrats won in?

Yes, if my own research shows it, and Pelosi and others confirm it, I do tend to believe it.

John Hall (NY-19) and Larry Kissell (NC-08), the DCCC helped with fundraising and developed a ground game for both campaigns.

In Kentucky, John Yarmuth (KY-03) receieved $350,000 worth of support from the DCCC. In the case of Chris Carney (PA-10), who was a top target and obsession of staffers at the DCCC, Emanuel spent at least $1.5 million. The DCCC spent about $500,000 on Jerry McNerney (CA-11). As for Joe Sestak (PA-07), the DCCC spent over $2 million on him. The money helped destroy his opponent, Curt Weldon, and the NRCC actually abandoned the race. The idea that Sestak was some kind of blog creation is ludicrous.

The story was the same with Lois Murphy (PA-06), where the DCCC spent over $3 million; Bruce Braley (IA-01), where it spent over $2 million and where it was on the air as far back as August; and Kirstin Gillibrand (NY-20) where the DCCC spent over $1 million and ran two different ads simultaneously in the final days of the campaign.
This election will swing on a number of different factors, but all of th

[wyldwolf]

148. two points: How does that imply I asserted that point in question?... and..

..why is the left here on DU so paranoid about post edits? I'm a lousy speller when I type fast and I OFTEN go back and edit misspelled words.

The claim the DCCC was involved in the campaign in question was from at several here who, in their infinite knowledge, was claiming the DCCC was involved.

on edit: spelling correction. You can put away your tinfoil hat now.

[Buzz Clik]

49. Excellent post. Nothing more needs to be said.

[stepnw1f]

82. surrrreee... whatever you say

the Easter Bunny is right around the corner.

[Buzz Clik]

117. If you want to carry on with intra-party, petty squabbling, please do.

The rest of us will enjoy this victory without urinating on those who worked hard to make it happen.

[PVnRT]

120. Wow! You found a bunch of people who hold your opinion!

Clearly, you must be right! :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

136. yet, no matter how often I ask...

no one seems to be able to dispute it. :eyes:

So, do YOU have any stats on how Dean's plan did anything for the House races?

[BonnieJW]

6. It was Howard Dean and all of us

who brought in the winners and we know it. They can say whatever they want to say but we know the truth. I never sent any money to the DCCC; I only sent it to my candidates and a monthly payment to the DNC.

[wyldwolf]

10. the only folks saying that are on the internets

As the Democrats took control of the House on Tuesday, the expected new House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, told a Democratic gathering in Washington, "Let's hear it for Rahm Emanuel. He did a great job masterminding our strategy, which is bearing fruit tonight."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0611080085nov08,1,2440897.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed


"Rahm Emanuel is a very ambitious person," Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) said yesterday, glowing in his own reelection and the possibility that he will be named chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. "There's no question that with the election, he's picked up a lot of political clout..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/08/AR2006110802239.html


"... The architects of Democratic victory, Rep. Rahm Emanuel and Sen. Chuck Schumer..."

Michael Scherer,

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/11/08/pelosi/index.html

Credit in particular goes to Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer, who led the House and Senate efforts to pick candidates...

http://online.wsj.com/google_login.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB116303391191517999.html%3Fmod%3Dgooglenews_wsj

But you have to give Rahm Emanuel, the House Democratic campaign chief, credit for recruiting an impressive group of candidates, including a few non-liberals like Brad Ellsworth in Indiana and Heath Shuler in North Carolina. (From the Conservative Weekly Standard)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/08/opinion/main2162362.shtml

Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and Rahm Emanuel say they are happy to share credit for the Democrats' electoral success, but not everyone in the party is feeling as generous. Progressive bloggers, who often promote and criticize the Democratic Party with equal vigor, want their props. (From the liberal The Nation)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/08/opinion/main2162618.shtml

"...Congressman Rahm Emanuel, whose staff will get most of the credit for a big victory."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=783725&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), the architect of the Democratic takeover of the House, will take the No. 4 spot in the leadership, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printedition/2006/11/13/natleaders1113a.html

Rahm Emanuel, the mastermind behind the Democratic victory and the party's disciplinarian...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448021,00.html

And Democratic gains included the addition of many conservative Democrats, brilliantly recruited by Rep. Rahm Emanuel with classic Clintonian triangulation.

http://www.baxterbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061113/OPINION01/611130311/1014/OPINION

[John Q. Citizen]

13. And the voters. Of course what they said isn't important. It's only what

the Mainstream Media reports that's important.

[wyldwolf]

15. so you have a poll of voters who say it was Dean's 50 strategy?

[John Q. Citizen]

20. No, I got 22 house seats elected by the voters, seats that Rahm didn't

brilliantly back.

You have 8 seats that Rahm brilliantly backed.

Good work. I'm glad he did.

I'm also glad we didn't just leave it all up to Mr. Brilliant. (As anointed by the MSM and yourself)

[wyldwolf]

24. you said the voters are claiming it was Howard Dean.

Proof? No.

But don't forget these seats OUTSIDE OF THE RED DISTRICTS TARGETED that Rahm brilliantly backed:

John Hall (NY-19) and Larry Kissell (NC-08), the DCCC helped with fundraising and developed a ground game for both campaigns.

In Kentucky, John Yarmuth (KY-03) receieved $350,000 worth of support from the DCCC. In the case of Chris Carney (PA-10), who was a top target and obsession of staffers at the DCCC, Emanuel spent at least $1.5 million. The DCCC spent about $500,000 on Jerry McNerney (CA-11). As for Joe Sestak (PA-07), the DCCC spent over $2 million on him. The money helped destroy his opponent, Curt Weldon, and the NRCC actually abandoned the race. The idea that Sestak was some kind of blog creation is ludicrous.

The story was the same with Lois Murphy (PA-06), where the DCCC spent over $3 million; Bruce Braley (IA-01), where it spent over $2 million and where it was on the air as far back as August; and Kirstin Gillibrand (NY-20) where the DCCC spent over $1 million and ran two different ads simultaneously in the final days of the campaign.

[John Q. Citizen]

33. I didn't give Dean all the credit (or any in this thread up til now.) You are

confusing me with another poster, I guess.

I never said that Rahm didn't send money to candidates he originally faught, I said his "out conservative the conservatives" stratedgy wasn't what won the majority of seats for us.

I also pointed out that the voting public went overwhelmingly for anti-war candidates in newly aquired Dem seats. That's what they said and that's how they voted.

Heck, the house Dems voted overwhelmingly against the war. Rahm was in the minority of our party when he voted for war. He was wrong, as history has shown.

[wyldwolf]

37. no, I'm not confusing you with another poster. Follow the subthread...

Post #6 (BonnieJW) to post #24

[d_b]

156. Ouch.

No need to read this thread any further.

[dpbrown]

16. "the internets" (all of them, honest!) are who shaped this election, not Emanual and the DLC

The DLC would have had us not talk about the war at all, and Turd Blossom and the Usurper Prince would be strategizing about how to lock up more citizens in permanent prisons.

This election was won by having some backbone. It was not won by Emanual, a majority of whose candidates lost. If Democrats had only Emanual's paltry 8 wins they would not have the House now.

[wyldwolf]

21. pure conjecture

You (and yours) also keep overlooking the fact that the numbers you're passing around only apply to the 20 or so races in RED DISTRICTS that Emanuel picked.

Here is Rahm's record beyond those Republican districts:

John Hall (NY-19) and Larry Kissell (NC-08), the DCCC helped with fundraising and developed a ground game for both campaigns.

In Kentucky, John Yarmuth (KY-03) receieved $350,000 worth of support from the DCCC. In the case of Chris Carney (PA-10), who was a top target and obsession of staffers at the DCCC, Emanuel spent at least $1.5 million. The DCCC spent about $500,000 on Jerry McNerney (CA-11). As for Joe Sestak (PA-07), the DCCC spent over $2 million on him. The money helped destroy his opponent, Curt Weldon, and the NRCC actually abandoned the race. The idea that Sestak was some kind of blog creation is ludicrous.

The story was the same with Lois Murphy (PA-06), where the DCCC spent over $3 million; Bruce Braley (IA-01), where it spent over $2 million and where it was on the air as far back as August; and Kirstin Gillibrand (NY-20) where the DCCC spent over $1 million and ran two different ads simultaneously in the final days of the campaign.

[lcordero2]

23. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"This election was won by having some backbone. It was not won by Emanual, a majority of whose candidates lost. If Democrats had only Emanual's paltry 8 wins they would not have the House now."

That was the whole point in not winning the House, he still gets his war. It's a win-win for him and a lose-lose for the rest of us.

[dpbrown]

26. They don't want to win - they want to collude

Just like the people like Carville who are trying to dump Dean now that he's proven he's successful.

People who facilitate the Republican position are traitors to the Democratic Party and to the multi-party system.

[lcordero2]

45. and they collude

so that they can have their war. It's a lose-lose for us, The People.

I can already tell that next spring and summer are going to be fun, more people are going to take to the streets than ever before.

[Doremus]

111. Is it necessary to c&p the same post 3 times in the same thread?

We get the point already.

Do you really think Pelosi et al are going to do anything but hand out accolades after such a huge win? Only someone totally classless (or perhaps braindead) would badmouth their own teammates.

Someone like Carville for instance.

[wyldwolf]

138. Yep.

Pelosi et al? Since when is The Nation and Salon Pelosi's teammates?

[dpbrown]

11. You're right...it was Dean and the 50 state strategy...

...not Emanual, the DLC, and pro-war candidates who won this election.

[Greyhound]

27. Whether this election was a Democratic win or a repuke loss will

be shown in the next two years. If we take control and go about "business as usual" instead of fighting for the changes demanded by the electorate, we will pay the price in '08. If we go in strong and make principled stands and implement fundamental change, we will be rewarded.

$.02

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[dpbrown]

53. Boy, you got that right...

...Emanuel looks like a loser in my book.

[Moochy]

89. And of course his thin-skinned boosters

...had to alert my post.

Same as it ever was.

Give the dog a bone, he's certainly loyal to his master. pictured below.

[AtomicKitten]

98. I think most people

that you and yours accuse of being "DLC apologists" - although conveniently uttered to deter any real discussion - are of the opinion that the victory last week is one that is shared by many, many people including BOTH Emanuel and Dean and that this in-party war is bullshit.

[Moochy]

100. We agree, except that I just took credit for democratic victory

That's right me. I voted, I won.

:+

[AtomicKitten]

104. yes, you did, and well done !!!

Me too, although some of this DU bullshit takes the buzz of that high. :)

[greeneggs708]

42. Where Was Dean

I worked two races, won one, lost one. The winner was anti-Bush, never called for us to end it right away, and he won. In a red state and district that has been Republican forever.

Guess what? Never saw Howard Dean. So how did we win.

Maybe he didn't. Maybe we have to have a recount. We can't win a race without Howard Dean.

Damn. I thought we won the House. Thank you for giving us the facts.

[John Q. Citizen]

48. Illionois is a red state? Since when? It went for bush in 2000 and 2004?

Dean put organizers on the ground in States the DLC had long ago conceded to the Repos. Which gave us the opportunity to win this time.

Your district may well be considered red, but few if any of our candidtes called for immediate complet pull out right away.

However, most of our new winners did oppose the war before it started, most of our new losers supported the war before it started. Check it out.

Look, I like winning. Dean did a lot to make that possible. If you prefer to lose because of your politics, fine. I'll take the win, though.

[wyldwolf]

73. LOL! The DLC never "conceded" states. They're not in that business

perhaps you mean the DNC?

[wyldwolf]

71. didn't see him in Georgia, either

I was close to a US Senate race, and the manager told me the DNC wouldn't get involved. 50 state strategy? My group did the same work for this candidate we've been doing since Dean was a governor in a little patch up North.

[Hippo_Tron]

133. Which Senate race are you talking about?

[wyldwolf]

139. sorry, my mistake. US Congress race

[Morgana LaFey]

160. The DNC doesn't get involved -- that's the job of the

Senate Committee (Schumer) and Congressional Committee (Emmanuel). The DNC was busy with infrastructure, volunteers, etc. It also, apparently, gave some money to Schumer's committee. But it doesn't usually fund individual races, at least not that I'm aware of.

[Lurking Dem]

25. Geezus this shit is so stupid

it defies description.

And I'll be damned if I'm going to let a Green like Walsh tell me what is good for the democratic Party.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

32. Welcome to DU! Please stick around!

:toast:

[lcordero2]

39. Life is all about choices

I don't fault the Cegalis supporters for staying home. It's THEIR CHOICE on whether they feel that a candidate merits support or not. A vote is something that is EARNED, not an ENTITLEMENT.

[Buzz Clik]

50. Great reply.

Wear a cup. You'll need it, and you won't get any help from "above".

[LoZoccolo]

30. COUNTERPUNCH! A choice source used by FReeper troll seventhson!

He tried to say that men in Haiti were growing breasts based on a story that Counterpunch published!

[greeneggs708]

38. Loserpunch

Get ready for two years of losers like loserpunch. I'm sure they did all they could to make sure Bush was elected instead of Gore.

So know what you are getting.

Hey Dopes, guess who lost an election. Nixon, Bush 1, Bush 2, Clinton, I think, Reagan.

And all became President.

And as I said earler. Barak Obama lost his first congressional race and then won the Senate.

So continue to wet your beds, whiners. Your hero, Dick Cheney will be back in charge soon.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[hijinx87]

40. Emanuel is getting 100% of the credit for last tuesday's smashing win

but I wonder how many "rahmites" we will have problems with
in the coming years.

[wyldwolf]

41. "We" won't have any problems. Who are you trying to speak for?

[hijinx87]

76. right you are. allow me to rephrase.

but I wonder how many "rahmites" some progressives will
have problems with in the coming years.

pronoun purgatory.

[Buzz Clik]

47. 100% of the credit? Really? From whom?

Quotes, please.

[hijinx87]

78. if you haven't realized that the entire MSM has anointed

Emanuel as the guru of the democrat victory tuesday, then you just
aren't following the post election coverage. and sorry, I just can't
help you with that.

now, whether or not Emanuel deserves all of the credit is a completely
different conversation.

[Buzz Clik]

123. You're right. I didn't realize that.

I saw a lot of face time for Howard Dean, Pelosi, Reid, Emanuel, and many many others. In all of that, none of them EVER -- not once -- gave full credit to Emanuel.

Which MSM outlet gave Emanuel full credit for the victory? Please be very specific. However, if you're simply engaging in hyperbole, you could be honest enough to say so...

[hijinx87]

125. for heavens sake.

this is a standard dodge. "please cite your sources, and be specific"
may as well be translated to "I don't feel like educating myself".

googling for "rahm emanuel" took all of 3 seconds.

http://news.google.com/news?q=rahm%20emanuel&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn

[Buzz Clik]

141. No one is denying that Emanuel got face time or written coverage.

What I am completely disputing is the claim repeated a dozen times on this thread that Emanuel is being given 100% credit for the Dem victory. Give me just one significant source -- not some flame monkey zealot on some blog somewhere -- that makes that claim, and I'll concede that argument.

Give it a shot -- gimme a Blitzer, O'Reilly, Roberst, anyone in the MSM. It is not up to me to prove a key underlying premise of this thread.

[Lurking Dem]

144. "Flame monkey zealots"

Damn that would be a good name for a band! :P

[hijinx87]

146. jeez. make the integer in front of the percent sign whatever you want

my POINT was that emanuel is getting the credit for success that was
mostly the product of howard dean's "50 state strategy", which was widely
derided in the MSM and within the party. it took guts to stake that
strategy out, and even more guts to stick with it in the face of criticism.
he simply isn't getting the credit he so richly deserves.

quibbling over the exact percentage is as useless as taking exception with
my use of the pronoun "we", which happened somewhere upstream in this same
thread. OH, WAIT! Maybe it was DOWNstream! I would hate to cause further
consternation. :sarcasm:

[dpbrown]

55. Emanuel lost with the majority of candidates he supported

He should not be getting all the credit for this year's win. The credit should go all around, and especially to candidates that broke with the DLC's pro-war stance.

And the Democratic Party should seriously be questioning his priorities and his candidates and his access to spend money, seeing as how he did so poorly.

[wyldwolf]

57. no, just with the majority of those he supported in tight Republican districts

I'm sure you really see the difference.

[dpbrown]

66. All the Democrats who beat incumbent Republicans were in Republican districts

It defies imagination to consider that Emanuel's failure could be blamed entirely on those races being "tighter" than the races in the other Republican districts.

Better candidates and better voicing of the message beat Republicans in districts in which Emanuel didn't support a candidate.

The majority of Emanuel's supported candidates lost. It's at least as likely that it's because the message they offered was not tailored well enough to the issues that were important as it is that their races were particularly "tight." And if it's possible that the candidates who won elsewhere did a better job in their individual "tight" Republican races, then it's possible also that candidates who were not supported by Emanuel and who did a better job espousing a populist, anti-war message would have won those races as well.

Far more Republicans were put out of office by candidates that Emanuel didn't tamper with to give him much credit for the Democratic tsunami, and the fact that more of the candidates he supported lost lends credence to the theory that his positions and tactics are ineffective.

[wyldwolf]

69. but not in real red districts - you do see the difference in NY and SC, right?

[Capn Sunshine]

126. How does Montana and Iowa fit this theory?

Just asking....

[wyldwolf]

140. I'm not sure what "theory" you are referring to.

[Buzz Clik]

63. No one of any note is giving ALL credit to Emanuel.

However, he is being credited as being part of a large, successful team.

Why is this such a problem for you?

[hijinx87]

79. I agree. he shouldn't be getting all the credit

I merely observed that he was getting all the credit.

[Buzz Clik]

46. So sick of this utter bullshit.

"So out of that 28, Rahm's choices accounted for 8! Since the Dems only needed 15 seats to win the House, Rahm's efforts were completely unnecessary."

What a lamer.

So, when Duke won their basketball game last night by more than 30 points, any player who scored less than 30 points was unnecessary. Oops. None of the players scored 30 points. Er... so, they could have won with no players on the floor?

It's called a team effort. You don't like Emanuel? Fine, but discounting his efforts accomplishes nothing.

[Infinite Hope]

58. Them being "prowar" is a stretch and obviously slanted...

because they weren't anti-war enough. By anti-war, they probably mean immediate withdrawal. By pro-war, they probably mean phased withdrawal.

[AtomicKitten]

68. The disinformation and misunderstanding of the

inner workings of the Democratic Party acted out in this appalling jihad raged against Rahm Emanuel on behalf of Howard Dean would make even Dean shake his head.

[wyldwolf]

70. but... but... Emanuel is DLC! He's DLC! We CAN'T let them win...

...and if it takes disinformation, spin, and outright lies to make Saint Dean look better than him, then by God we'll do it!

[AtomicKitten]

72. keep your arms and legs inside the ride at all times

[LoZoccolo]

74. You hit on an important point there, the difference between Dean and Deaniacs.

I was a volunteer for Dean's primary run for 2004 (people can go back and search for the posts if they don't believe me). The point where I started seeing things fall apart was in October 2003 when I started noticing that because of some of the openness of the campaign, and the power it gave it's volunteers ("you have the power"), it attracted a lot of less skillful people who were waiting for an opportunity to be powerful and shape the campaign to what they wanted. As a result, Dean got branded as an ultra-liberal and was associated with all sorts of things he was not. People basically hijacked his campaign.

I think a lot of people who weren't so socially adept (as in, pushy and rude) saw it as an opportunity to do the type of work they would normally get rejected for, too; then you had people in Iowa pretending not to be home when the orange hats knocked at their door.

[wyldwolf]

75. funny how they hold him up like Republicans do Reagan

[Moochy]

90. People basically hijacked his campaign.

How dare the people subvert the will of the candidate!!!?!?!

The nerve of some of those so-called people.

[LoZoccolo]

94. Let's see how you feel someday when people misrepresent you. n/t

[Moochy]

99. I agree with your assesment of Dean and Deaniacs

Cults-of-personality don't serve the interests of Democrats or democracy.

Who won last week's election?

I did. I voted, so I'm going on record that it was my vote that made the difference. I'm taking all the credit.

This argument can end now. Take that Rahm, Dean and Pelosi. :P

[LoZoccolo]

101. Sorry I misread your comment and overreacted. n/t

[rinsd]

80. What is with Tammy Duckworth?

Can someone explain to me how Cegelis who couldn't win the Democratic primary was a sure thing to win a district that had been carved out especially for Henry Hyde?

And Francine Busby is tacked as one of Rahm's losers?

John Walsh is a clueless shitbag.

[stepnw1f]

83. RAHM's Record: 8 wins vs. 22 losses... enough Said

HAHA.... eat it!

[rinsd]

84. ImpeachPAC endorsed candidate were 1 for 21

Eat it with ketchup!

[stepnw1f]

86. Wow.... That Supposed to Mean Anything....?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA...... GET OVER IT!

8-22 ? And you want Rahm to take credit for the Dems winning? I'll give him 8 out of 28.

[rinsd]

87. I give Rahm a measure of credit

He picked candidates that ran competitively in races where Democrats usually aren't competitive.

I give Hillary and Kerry credit for fundraising.

I give the various blogs credit.

I give the Daily Show a modicum of credit.

I give Dean's 50 state strategy the most credit for this election win because he is well aware that a big tent is necessary for the Democrats to maintains a majority, indeed to expand it.

So have fun with your purge bullshit.

[stepnw1f]

88. "purge"....?

why would I want to "purge" you? Responding to your opinion was purging..... I see. Skip the victim bullshit.

[MasonJar]

85. What did Duckworth say that made y'all think she was pro-war?

I know that she was supported by Emily's List; I heard her talk in D.C. last May at the Emily's List luncheon, and I thought she was quite impressive. It really makes me wonder if her opponent really won after his disastrous comment about her wanting to cut and run. (It was that statement by the pug that made me think she favored a pull-out within a reasonable time. Was I totally wrong?)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

91. Do you guys all come running when another DLC apologist blows a

whistle or something?

I see Dan getting dogpiled here.

[Moochy]

93. Dogs of a feather

flock together... Blue feathered dogs? The blue dog democrats are called to heel by a loud high-pitched whistle owned by Al From. :sarcasm:

[AtomicKitten]

95. So, whose whistle did you answer and are here to apologize for?

It is so awesome the way you reduce issues to such simplistic terms to use as easily swallowed red meat for the easily swayed. Brava.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

97. Nobody summoned me--I just noticed that dpbrown had posted, and

I know him from the Minnesota DU gatherings and the 2004 Kucinich campaign, so I dropped in.

But so far, Dan has not summoned either the MN DUers (most of whom agree with him, by the way) or the veterans of the Kucinich campaign. He doesn't have a posse at his beck and call.

[AtomicKitten]

103. yet you confidently label those

posting here as "DLC apologists," summarily dismissing any real discussion, which is probably just as well since I am of the opinion that it doesn't take an iota of maturity and graciousness to acknowledge BOTH Emanuel and Dean as well as a cadre of others for the victory this past week and that this in-party war reeks of the social jostling of junior high school.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

105. It's just that the same usual subjects always show up as if summoned by

a whistle if someone says something negative about the DLC. I was waiting for one particular perennial apologist to show up, and sure enough, there he was, chiming in near the bottom of the thread.

[dpbrown]

128. No posse is needed

This guy, Rahm Emanuel, is getting too much credit for the Democratic tsunami. Most of the candidates he supported lost.

What won this election was clear and decisive opposition to the Bush regime coupled with a populist reconnection with what ordinary people value in political representation.

What didn't win this election was an adherence to a stay-the-course military policy and turning a blind eye to corporate influence.

That's what is going to win the next election, too. There has to be a clear difference between the Republican and the Democrat.

Populist Democrats will win in Republican districts. Corporate Democrats will not.

[LoZoccolo]

102. No; the poster wanted attention with his flamebait thread title...

...and he got it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

106. Well, he's hardly the only one to post threads with provocative titles

For example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2966342

a thread that I have NOT joined, by the way.

[AtomicKitten]

109. me neither

good point :)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

110. That's going to leave a mark.

[LoZoccolo]

112. I wouldn't think that would be provacative on a Democratic message board.

At least to Democrats.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

113. Nor is it provocative to favor one campaign approach over another

:-)

[snowbear]

114. You are ABSOLUTELY right.... and unfortunately (so far) he's getting away with it.

BTW ~~ KUDOS to the moderator who not only locked the thread which was extremely similar in content last night that someone created only to =SLAM= Rahm Emanuel.

The awesome moderator not only deleted the thread, but they tombstoned the OP's ass!

We can only hope that this OP meets that same fate.

There is NO REASON FOR THREADS OF THIS CONTENT -- unless the originator is weeping in his or her beer over the election results. :mad:

[Buzz Clik]

118. Thank you for saying that.

I was afraid I was in a very small minority with that opinion.

[Cha]

92. This is Paul Lukasiak take on rahm emanuel's

contribution to the 2006 election..

"HOW RAHM EMANUEL LOST THE HOUSE FOR THE DEMOCRATS-- AND HOW ACTBLUE, MOVEON, MARKOS, JANE, DUNCAN, HOWARD DEAN AND A HOST OF OTHERS SAVED THE DAY"


http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2006/11/how-rahm-emanuel-lost-house-for.html

[AtomicKitten]

96. Internet opinion pieces served up as gospel truth.

yum

[PassingFair]

107. As opposed to Rahm ghostwritten propaganda,

semi-spewed by Carville, across
NYT and WSJ MSM innuendo, second-
hand CRAP, no-direct quote, laurel-
grasping BULLSHIT...

coming from the Clintonista's..

:puke:

Of COURSE we're CHOKING ON IT!

[AtomicKitten]

108. Well then, the truth must lie somewhere in between.

Like I said, it doesn't take an iota of maturity and grace to congratulate BOTH Dean and Emanuel as well as a ton of others for a brilliant victory last week.

[PassingFair]

115. Would you use the terms "maturity and grace"

to describe Carville's tactics?

[AtomicKitten]

121. I would call what he does punditry.

It is only those with an agenda that assign a personal bent to his commentary. He is old school, once a star with his War Room which he still deserves acknowledgment for, now a fading star, making a living with commentary which he is qualified to do. Just not agreeing with him isn't a reasonable basis for assigning personal connotations to his remarks. Making more of him simply doing his job as a political commentator is being used as fodder to fuel the really lame in-party wars that IMO are an exhaustive waste of time and take the buzz off the brilliant victory last week. But, as always, knock yourself out.

[dpbrown]

130. He's attacking Dean

Dean deserves a lot of credit. To the extent that this "fading star" is damaging Democrats, he needs to be attacked.

[PassingFair]

145. "Rumsfeldian"

Still wanna defend your "pundit"?

He is an OPERATIVE.

[AtomicKitten]

150. I'd have to actually give a crap about what a pundit says to defend them

which I don't ... and I'm also not interested in this really funny-if-you-stand-back-a-bit emotional investment in the inner machinations of the Democratic Party which IMO borders on junior high school kibitzing.

[PassingFair]

153. Okay, Ms. Principal...

Whatareyagonnado? Send us to the office.

Here you are, kibitzing with the kibitzers.

:rofl:

[AtomicKitten]

157. Well, you do have a point there.

I waste too much time at DU; I'm self-employed so I'm only screwing myself. It's much more fun to waste company time.

That's a straightforward response to a snarky post.

[Buzz Clik]

119. Hear, hear.

[Lurking Dem]

122. Next election let's lose!

Because winning clearly sucks!

:sarcasm:

[Capn Sunshine]

127. Well, that didn't work out so well for us in the Dean campaign

But upthread another poster kind of hit things that happened. There WERE a lot of loose canons with zero election experience on the ground in those heady early days.

The good thing was, we came out of it with a GREAT progressive machine of our own.
This represents the ongoing battle for the soul of the party.

Ask my respectable and learned opponent Wyldwolf.

[dpbrown]

132. Thank goodness people with zero election experience got involved

The pundits and advisers who were counseling the Democrats to coddle up to the corporate teat and to retreat, retreat, retreat to safe areas of the northeast were destroying the Democratic Party. The DLC hadn't had a success since Clinton (a fluke, since his draw was not corporatism on the outside so much as the "third way" like a fist inside a velvet glove of populism), and the Democrats were being defined by the Republicans.

The people who got involved through the Dean and Kucinich and other campaigns have emboldened and broadened the appeal of the Democratic Party and at the same time lessened the influence of the Green Party on elections.

The Democratic Party should be the party where new ideas encompassing the desires of the working and middle class are blasted off like loose cannons.

Courage, America.

[wyldwolf]

143. Yes, thank goodness! They were the difference...

...in Dean possibly winning the nomination and ultimately losing.

[dpbrown]

151. Like Kerry won

Geez. At least i went to Boston as a Kucinich delegate.

[wyldwolf]

158. did I dream that Kerry was the nominee?

[dpbrown]

163. Another DLC failure at getting elected, apparently

What's that, like eight election cycles of relying on "We elected Clinton" since losing Congress for the Democrats in 1994?

[wyldwolf]

164. were we not discussing the nominee?

[wyldwolf]

142. "we came out of it with a GREAT progressive machine of our own"

That has yet to win anything of consequence.

[dpbrown]

152. Except the Congress and most of the state races

Bitter much?

[Moochy]

155. Much??? hell more like always

Rahm Emmanuel did not approve of this message.

[wyldwolf]

159. no one believes that but Deaniacs

There own little spin in their own echo chamher.

[dpbrown]

162. Their echo chamber now competes directly with yours...

...but the difference is theirs didn't exist at all just three years ago, and yours has been around since before Clinton.

The DLC and its minions have been unilaterally unable to sell their particular flavor of corporate "we know what's better for you" hogwash in about eight election cycles since Perot helped elect Clinton to his first term.

Now Dean has outraised, outfoxed, and outflanked not only the Republicans, but also the Al From also-rans, and it really grates in their craw.

Emanuel and the like contributed, but it was an atmosphere of rebellion and revolution fostered by the people you demeaningly refer to as "Deaniacs" (as well as everyone else who first got involved because of Dean or any other non-DLC candidate in the 2004 cycle) that won this round.

Carville and Hoyer and the like want the netroots to sit down and shut up and take orders, and it ain't gonna fly, Clifford.

The Democratic Party is breaking free of its moldy, sad, inside-the-beltway roots and it won't be going back any time soon.

[Hippo_Tron]

131. IMO Tammy Duckworth was part of a bigger national strategy to show off veterans running as dems

It didn't matter whether she won or not, every time the MSM did a story on Duckworth (who was literally impossible to portray in a negative light) it was a boost for Democrats. At least this was part of their thinking, in my view. How effective this strategy was is debateable.

Also, Counterpunch has shown that they pretty much have zero interest in whether Democrats win or not.

[God Almighty]

149. Correct: in the primary.

We need to put people in Congress who will do what they were elected to do.

[WildEyedLiberal]

161. Calling Tammy Duckworth "Stay the Course" is a profound lie

FYI, in 2004, Alexander Cockburn of Counterpunch said there was no difference between Kerry and Bush and that he actually hoped Bush would win because then America would fall from world leadership that much faster.

These counterpuke assholes are not on our side. They, unlike the vast majority of well-meaning leftists, truly ARE anti-American, and anti-liberal to boot. Counterpuke is tripe and should be banned from DU, like several other websites that consistently push spurious agendas based on lies.