Go Christine!

I was never wild about the Band of Brothers idea, as Ari notes, and not just because it is such a male (and white) bunch of tired and dreary no-idea candidates. It's a gimmick. A militaristic gimmick. It says Daddy's back and he hates those commie pinko peaceniks just as much as you, patriotic red-blooded red-state America! What's next, Band of Preachers?

Tammy Duckworth is a great human-interest story, but that's not a reason to support her candidacy. Running her is an act of considerable cynicism-- but it seems to be working. Ari, I'm guessing you'd barely heard of her before a few weeks ago, and you're practically ready to support her. The centrist mantra is working it's magic: Already you're having trouble telling the difference between the candidate who walks the walk and has grassroots support, and the candidate who is basically a photo-op. Who says Duckworth is the more electable of the two, besides the pols who recruited her to run?

Duckworth wants to stay in Iraq, she's allied with the more conservative wing of the party, and she seems to have very little substantive to say about most issues. She' s trying to push out of the way a candidate who has a lot of support, more local roots, who ran an incredible race last time, and who has much better politics. I would trust Cegelis a thousand times over Duckworth to take progressive stands once elected, including on women's rights and abortion rights. Duckworth told the Washington Post she thinks abortion shouldn't be a federal issue. That's not exactly a ringing defense of abortion rights, since unfortunately it IS a federal issue.

If it's all the same to you whether the US stays in Iraq or not, if you think women candidates are fungible and it makes no difference that one has been part of progressive politics in the district for years while the other was trying to get into active combat because (according to the WashPost) she thought flying helicopters was cool, by all means, support Duckworth.

Comments (13)

1. Sadly, as I understand it, some liberal Dems leaned on Sheehan to not challenge Feinstein and she apparently relented.

   Posted by Peter Rothberg at 02/22/2006 @ 6:04pm

2. I have no real verification but I've heard Lynn Woolsey, who I generally really like, was involved in suggesting to Sheehan that she not run.

   Posted by Peter Rothberg at 02/22/2006 @ 6:11pm

3. Peter

   Question for you. Is there any way you guys can alter your comment protocols for "The Notion"? Once a thread goes to number three, we can't comment anymore and sometimes when you guys are cranking them out, a thread goes up and then is shut off before all of us get a chance to read an comment.

   I you can't, I'm sure we'll survive. But it is a buzzkill

   Posted by Will C. at 02/22/2006 @ 7:05pm

4. (Is it me or are the Democrats seeming more effective at countering the growing number of grassroots challenges to seats that think of as traditionally "theirs" than they are at uniting in some sort of meaningful opposition to the flaky corporate imperialist lunacy that has been in vogue?)

   Posted by ZERO 02/22/2006 @ 6:32pm

   God, I WISH it was just you...but, it doesn't appear to be.

   " the underlying contest (Iraq war vs. opposition to Iraq war) is quite identical."

   Now you're deprssing me. All the real logistical and economic problems we have, educational issues, health care issues, security, the enviroment, energy (Which the war is about. If the right would admit such, they might be able to lay claim to an actual energy policy, bad as it is), and that pesky constituion.

   Or, we could just focus on fags and war.

   I guess it is catchier and easier to remember. And three letter words that both neo-cons (Who must think they're so clever, stringing two, three letter words together) and American educated future youth, can understand. I wonder if you can dance to it.

   Sigh

   Eric

   Posted by malcontent3 at 02/22/2006 @ 7:08pm

5. Posted by WILL C. 02/22/2006 @ 7:05pm

   'ere.

   (cough)

   Eric

   Posted by malcontent3 at 02/22/2006 @ 7:10pm

6. 'ere.

   Posted by MALCONTENT3 02/22/2006 @ 7:10pm

   The most widely used four letter word in thew sixties and seventies.

   %)

   Posted by Will C. at 02/22/2006 @ 7:24pm

7. Katha,

   I hesitate to characterize your position on this "band of brothers" issue as laughably simplistic, only because I suspect that deriding an injured Iraq veteran's reasons for joining the military is offensive enough to drain your post of whatever potential for unintentional humor it might otherwise have had. The "band of brothers" concept, while perhaps driven partially by the unattractive motivations you so easily stereotype, has more to it than you allow. A willingness to sacrifice is one of our surest tests of integrity, and volunteering to serve in combat – particularly in Tammy Duckworth's case – unequivocally demonstrates such a willingness. Certainly, military service does not instantly make Duckworth a better candidate than Cegelis. However, having lost both legs in the Iraq War, speaking out against the war, and pursuing public office amount to much more than a "photo op" or a "gimmick," as anyone with experience or imagination knows. You have every right to support Cegelis over Duckworth – in the future, though, you might want to do more than read a Washington Post article or two before you suggest that a 37 year-old woman who lost two legs in Iraq is a gimmicky puppet being used for the purposes of more powerful men, or (even more childishly, and offensively) that her reasons for joining the military were frivolous.

   If you'd like to take a look at some actually interesting writing on military sacrifice and how it relates to modern American politics (perhaps you'd get some better ideas), I suggest taking a look at David Foster Wallace's essay "Up, Simba," about John McCain's run for the presidency in 2000. If you don't have the time for this in your busy schedule, however, you might at least take out a basic English grammar book from your local library, and look up the difference between "it's" and "its." I'm sure you'd find the fruits of that endeavor quite edifying.

   From a fellow progressive, who agrees with the great majority of your positions: posts like the above are an embarrassment.

   Posted by glauconjs at 02/22/2006 @ 7:34pm

8. Zero, You have some decent points (none of which, I think, directly contradict much of anything that I said), and I have to admire your dedication to posting in the comments section of the Notion! I'm afraid I have to disagree, however, with your characterization of the motivations of the soldiers who are fighting and dying in Iraq. I've taught in extremely low income schools for the past few years, and many of my high school students joined the military, and many more considered doing so. You're right that various expediencies (such as loans, etc.), and even (to a lesser extent) advertising play an important role in these decisions (although I think you must be either unacquainted with the military's actual recruiting techniques, or be operating on a very low standard, if you characterize them as "slick"). However, I hope you'll forgive me if I tell you that you come off sounding more than a little bit patronizing and foolish when you say things like, "She probably didn't understand ... until the bullets were flying ... that war sucks." You need to give people -- even those who attend low-quality public schools, and probably don't spend much time reading the Notion! -- a bit more credit than that. Almost every student I knew who joined the military understood that they might see combat, and had principles and personal integrity (just like you!) that extended beyond brainwashing advertisements and monetary concerns. Many had injured or even dead family members and friends as a result of war. Often I disagreed with their decision, and told them so: but their thought processes usually displayed a far greater intelligence and seriousness than you seem willing to give them credit for (as, I suspect, did Tammy Duckworth's). That said, the rest of your points are well taken. Best, Glaucon

   Posted by glauconjs at 02/22/2006 @ 8:29pm

9. First Paul Hackett....now Tammy Duckworth?

   Posted by Mask at 02/22/2006 @ 10:34pm

10. While I understand the DCCC believes running vets will help build credibility for the Party on defense, I also think they were too quick to recruit vets, and didn't take the trouble to "vet" them properly. They didn't seem to care what positions the recruits took on Iraq, or on anything else. Nor did they check to see if they were actually viable candidates. And this isn't the only race they did this in. There's another here in California, one in Pennsylvania, and one more I've heard about in Florida.

    However, I know a fair bit about the one in Illinois. Duckworth doesn't live in the district. Cegelis has for 21 years. Duckworth has no support outside of the Chicago machine, Rahm Emanuel, and Dick Durbin (who didn't bother to show up for her last even, at which he'd been scheduled to appear). Cegelis has been endorsed by local unions, local Democratic organizations, the Progressive Democrats of America, Democracy for America, the Illinois Committee for Honest Government, and the IVI/IPO. She has hundreds of volunteers who have been the mainstay of both her campaigns and are quite passionate about her. In fact, so passionate that one of them got me involved in the campaign. And I live in California. However, after interviewing Christine on the phone, I could see why my friend worked so hard for her.

    I later flew out to Illinois and spent the weekend following her around to various events and interviewing her on a wide variety of issues to help develop the issues papers you see on her website. So I can personally vouch for the fact that these aren't spin from some political consultant. I taped our conversations and transcribed them. What's there is what she said--and said with some conviction I may add. Plus, she's said the same things through both campaigns. When she did hire a consultant who tried to mute her, Cegelis fired the consultant. Duckworth on the other hand has publically stated 3 different positions on CAFTA, and a few more on abortion. I don't want to malign Tammy Duckworth. I haven't ever met the woman--though I've heard plenty about her from people who have seen her at the few candidate forums she showed up at. I actually feel sorry for her. It sounds like she's in way over her head. The DCCC recruited her hard because Emanuel is a fairly conservative Democrat who considers Cegelis too liberal. And the first candidates he tried to recruit dropped out. He threw Duckworth into the fray totally unprepared and it shows. She's got lots of expensive glossy mailers. And that's about it.

    I've heard the hype about viability before. The last time it was a tall senator running for president. It wasn't true then. And it isn't true now. By refusing to honor the choices of Party activists in the districts and playing politics as usual, the DCCC has done two things: 1) make a lot of hard-working grassroots activists mad as wet hens, and 2) waste a lot of money on races where they already had a viable candidate if only they'd support them. In the meantime, there are plenty of other races where nobody bothered to recruit a candidate and the Republicans will win by default--absolutely unopposed. I'm sorry, but I think that's just stupid. I've told the DCCC so--not that I expect they care about my opinion any more than they care about the 110,000 voters in Illinois who voted for Christine Cegelis in 2004.

    Posted by cfinnie at 02/23/2006 @ 01:50am

11. Katha,

    I'd like to hear you thoughts on Webb v. Miller in the virginia senate primary.

    Posted by Mark T. Blair at 02/23/2006 @ 03:00am

12. To elaborate....

    Is there somebody running the DNC?.....a "Chairman" or something?

    or is it all just Reid and Schumer making deals with Tim Dewine (and then getting back-stabbed, for THEIR back-stabbing of Paul Hackett)...and the "grass roots" setting up their own primary challengers, without the Party's blessings?

    I know, I know "Democrats don't walk in lock-step like those Republicans!!"

    But do they atleast AIM IN THE SAME DIRECTION in their strolls?

    Posted by Mask at 02/23/2006 @ 06:42am

13. CFINNIE, couldn't agree more. Cegelis almost beat Hyde in 2004, despite getting virtually no help from the national Democratic Party. Now she's getting elbowed aside by the DLC/DCCC centrists like Rahm Emanuel in favor of Duckworth. And why, exactly? Because Duckworth gives the Dems some sort of credibility on defense? The Dems ran a decorated Vietnam veteran for president against a draft-dodging playboy, and it still didn't gain them the White House.

    Posted by pete29 at 02/23/2006 @ 09:52am