tammy duckworth smells funny.

[mopinko]

apart from the smear campaign that has been waged here and on other blogs against christine cegalis, an antiwar progressive dem, tammy duckworth has gotten an amazing amount of press. not just lately, either. i was shocked that when i googled major tammy duckworth, i got 24,800 some hits. many go back over a year, including a piece on npr. many are pro-military support the heros type blogs, etc.
that is an amazing amount of press for one injured vet out of 50,000. looks to me like tammy has been groomed for quite a while here. counterpunch has an article http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=178472&mesg_id=178472
identifies her as "pro-business" and quotes her on the war as saying "there is good and bad in everything"

so, who sent tammy duckworth? she obviously has a good pr firm behind her. there is money being spent here. by whom? and why? i believe rahmn is just the front man for the fascist wing of the party, and this is THEIR "boy"

[wndycty]

1. What an f'ing joke, you said the same thing about Wes Clark. . .

. . .who has proven to be a solid progressive. Your paranoia and your smears are very laughable.

[mopinko]

2. the standard

fox school of debate answer. you sure can follow the plan, man.

[wndycty]

3. What plan am I following. . .

. . .I'd like to know.

[mopinko]

4. so would i

[MH1]

54. Quoting "Counterpunch" (the let's re-elect Bush 3rd party cheerleaders)

rather weakens your argument.

Just sayin.'

Oh and one can be "pro-business" without being pro-mega corporation. In fact being "pro-business" is absolutely essential to progressivism - if the businesses you are talking about are small businesses. Unless of course you want to install a communist dictatorship in the country instead of free market capitalism. (note, monopoly or oligopoly by large corporation does not equal "free market", in fact it destroys it. Pro free market does not equal pro-WalMart - just the opposite. "Pro-business" is not a sufficiently clear term to identify anyone's economic policy. )

I don't know about Duckworth vs. Cegelis - I'm glad I don't have to pick - but someone pointed me here and I couldn't help but point out these two fallacies in your post. There may be problems with Duckworth but 1) don't look to a discredited anti-Democratic Party source for any rational argument about Democratic Party candidates and b) don't paint all business as bad. If the Dem party does that we will never regain power, and I mean never.

[mopinko]

57. do you think that the current democratic representation has

encouraged the growth of small business??? are you happy with the representation you are getting? this is a choice between big money and grass roots. period. if you look at the date, there had been very little written about the race. there is plenty written now, including this
http://www.suntimes.com/output/sweet/cst-nws-sweet06.html

[MH1]

64. As Ranking Member of the Small Biz committee,

John Kerry is doing his damnedest to encourage small business and stave off the assaults of the * administration and its lackeys.

http://sbc.senate.gov/democrat/

This is one of the areas I feel was unfortunately badly underplayed in the 2004 campaign - I didn't even know his small biz record - Microloan, Women & Minority Business Centers, to name just two major accomplishments - until after the election. (Of course I was relatively typical passive casual volunteer then. Still, they should have made sure people like me knew this stuff. Sigh.)

However, I am trying not to take sides in the Duckworth/Cegelis race since it isn't in my district. I kind of wish that Kerry hadn't either, but after reading the Durbin/Obama angle, I think I understand why it played out this way. And, I have seen misleading, ugly posts on both sides, so I'll just stay out of it.

The only reason I commented on this thread was to counter what I saw as misinformation regarding Kerry. As for Cegelis/Duckworth, may the best candidate win. I have plenty of candidates in my own district that I need to send my money to and campaign for.

[Chicago Democrat]

5. The political version of Ambulance Chasing!

So smelly..... Sooooo TRASHY



TRASHY TRASHY trash

[Chicago Democrat]

6. On the war: "There's good and bad in everything!"

wow

[mopinko]

7. the funny thing about her being "an unknown" as wndy cty said

is that she is not. nearly 25,000 hits on google. i wonder how many other of our war heroes get that kind of press.

[mopinko]

8. some of the folks that support duckworth

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2005/11/major_tammy_duc.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1422724/posts
10 posted on 06/14/2005 1:06:51 PM PDT by OldFriend (MAJOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH.....INSPIRATIONAL)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >

http://nobettercountry.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_nobettercountry_archive.html

According to Bill Burton, the Democratic Campaign Congressional Committee’s (DCCC) spokesman, Emanuel believes her military credentials and wounds give her an edge in a district that no Democrat has ever won.

[followthemoney]

9. Cegalis is an insurgent, Duckworth is a soldier

Cegalis is independent of the Democratic party bosses. She ran as an anti-war candidate when the party wanted to support wobbly pro-war candidates. With popular support she would be independent of the party bosses and undisciplined from their perspective.

Duckworth is a soldier and has proved that she will ignore her reason and conscience and follow orders. This will please the party bosses because she has proved that she will take orders, unlike an independent Cegalis type. She will be pro-war or anti-war as the party bosses determine is necessary. The parties will support those subordinate to its discipline and will chose to lose rather than encourage undisciplined independent behavior.

[Nexus7]

10. Can we like... win something first?

I don't mean to criticize your concern about this candidate, but priority #1 has got to be winning. The only rap against her can be that she is less likely to win than Cegalis. But that isn't the argument you're making. You think she doesn't fit your ideology, and that is what got Nader the votes he got. 1 year after that election, I still talked to people who defended that choice.

[wndycty]

11. "she is less likely to win than Cegalis"

. . .I'm not so sure about that, the main reason insiders support her is because they feel that she has best hope of making the 6th district competitive for the Democrats.

[Nexus7]

12. And that's my point

If she has a better chance to win than Cegalis, then she should be the one to run.

[undercoverduer]

13. Well her candidacy should be respected and whomever wins the nomination

Deserves to be one to run.

[Ken Burch]

16. Why should we bother electing a non-progressive?

Tammy is a pro-war centrist. That means she'll ALWAYS be a pro-war centrist(i.e., a Republican). If she is elected we can therefore assume she'll never support Democratic viewpoints on any issue that matters. Why bother?

It's sad that she lost her legs, but if she's still pro-war after that, we have to assume the woman is a moron.

[mopinko]

17. yup

if she wins, i will work for someone else in the general. other districts in the area have been written off by the party, and they have good progressives running. i think we are about to see a tidal wave of blue. at least, anywhere that they still actually count the votes.

[wndycty]

18. Very immature. . .

. . .have you heard Duckworth supporters say: If Christine wins I will work for someone else? Not really, we really want to win the district.

[mopinko]

19. i think it is immature to

swallow whatever candidate the party throws at you. if the party wants to put up rotten candidates, progressives are smart to put their efforts into a candidate they agree with. it's called having principles.

[Ken Burch]

29. They're doing it by bringing in the big boys to gang up on Cegelis.

That's what's so galling. I started posting on this because Kerry sent me an email asking for money for Duckworth. How dare he ask this of progressives?

There is no reason for all the heavy hitters in the party to be trying to impose their will here. It's not like Christine Cegelis
is the worst candidate in history. It's the heavy-handedness and arrogance that is so galling.

[mopinko]

34. yup

just yup.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[WilliamPitt]

24. Link?

[billyf65]

25. Okeedokee -

Unfortunately, the internet skills by which others so cleanly post links are lacking. Nevertheless:

Let's start with Cegelis' Campaign Manager's own blog:

"The irony of the dispute is that on Iraq, Cegelis and Duckworth don’t differ that much."

http://spidel.net/blog/

We go on...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/18/AR2006021801295.html

www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-sweet18.html

the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Jan/08/ln/FP601080334.html

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Politics/story?id=1416472

gnn.tv/headlines/7190/An_Army_of_Veterans_to_Beat_Bush

thecapitolfaxblog.com/2005/12/16/this-just-in-3/

http://www.vermontguardian.com/dailies/012006/010906.shtml

Gee.

[mopinko]

28. don't have a link to what came out of her mouth.

i'm sure there are large differences in what has been written, and what comes out of your novice campaigner's mouth. i hear she is having a tough time on the stump.

and- let me remind you.

Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie. You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect........

You are permitted to post polite behavioral corrections to other members of the message board, in direct response to specific instances of incivility, provided that your comments are narrowly focused on the behavior. But you are not permitted to make broad statements about another person's behavior in general, and you are not permitted to post repeated reminders about another person's mistakes.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=548538&mesg_id=548714

[Ken Burch]

30. From the Washington Post article you so smugly link to:

"Duckworth is the first to say her campaign is about more than Iraq, but it is her opinions on the war that some questioners most want to hear. She tells them she supports the troops and believes the United States must persevere long enough to give Iraqis a chance."

In other words, she takes the Bush position. Thus proving the party should never have endorsed her. People who still want the war to continue AREN'T GOING TO VOTE FOR ANY DEMOCRAT. End of discussion on that one.

[billyf65]

31. How exactly does one "smugly link."

I put a quote.

William Pitt asked for a link.

I gave several.

Fin.

[billyf65]

51. OK, I'll try again

Untrue. She's been quoted repeatedly saying the war's a mistake.

Ignoring the facts doesn't make them untrue. Spreading information about her that isn't correct doesn't make your position correct - even if you spread it with passion.

[Gary Kleppe]

56. Yes, but:

Saying that something's a mistake does not mean intent to do something about it, which is what we need.

And as I've said before, what Duckworth says changes based on who's listening.

[mopinko]

60. besides, it wasn't a mistake

it was the plan of these criminals all along. chaos, looting, empire. no mistake. she really buys that whole incompetence disguise, and a lot of other bush-speak.

[Inland]

38. There's an answer, to anyone interested.

The fact is that trading a republican seat for a democratic seat is always a plus. Without a majority CAUCUS in the House, the democrats can't control the committees, investigate Bush and exercise oversight. As far as reality is concerned, if given a choice between a) a republican b) a democrat who votes republican on every issue except the control of the House and it's committees, b) is so much superior it fucking hurts. It's the difference between Conyers being relegated to a basement and him holding real hearings with subpoena power.

THAT's the issue that matters. Control of the House committee machinery. Every OTHER issue is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, at LEAST as far as a republican district goes.

The only question, therefore, is who is most likely to win this republican seat in that republican district. It can be argued, but it seems to me the complaint of THIS thread is that Duckworth has both rock star status and a lot of positions that will appeal to the republicans of her district more than progressives. Being "centrist" isn't a disqualification in the sixth, it's not inconsistent with the idea that she's a shoo-in.

[Gary Kleppe]

39. Except...

...that she's only considered a rock star among beltway politicians. And she isn't a shoo-in, as evidenced by the fact that they have to prop her up with huge amounts of cash and celebrity endorsements just to keep her head above water in the primary.

[Inland]

40. And it's "head above water in the primary" that isn't relevant to my point

It was whether she can win the district. If winning the primary meant winning the general, it wouldn't be a repubican district. And again, being a rock star among beltway politicians is the same as being a centrist and taking positions that are shared by many republicans....they are signs of viability in a republican district. Going back to my post, if it's what is needed to win the seat for a democrat, it's what's needed and therefore what should be done.

[mopinko]

42. the view from the ground

is that those that know tammy do not like tammy. she is a lousy candidate, she doesn't know the issues, and she is not talking to the people. she will not have the local parties behind her in anything like the way christine will.
you aren't here on the ground, you do not know. really. you don't.

[Inland]

44. Her beltway popularity and centrist postions, however, don't prove that.

Who doesn't like her and who won't vote for her are matters to be established, and they aren't proven by showing she has a ton of money and centrist positions.

[mopinko]

45. "matters to be established"

yet her electability is being stated as a fact here. hmmm.
the people of the 6th are not looking for centrists. they are looking for honest, good government. they are opening their eyes. the party is trying to pull the wool over them. it is not going to work.

[Inland]

46. I'm not stating it as a fact. I'm stating it as a factor.

The question was, why would somebody vote for a person who would side with the republicans on every issue? And I gave an answer: because it would switch a republican seat to a demo seat in a republican district.

I'm not stating it's the case, I'm stating it's a relevant question going to what's really at stake in the Sixth.

Somebody else had better address electibility, and not with the irrelevancies that Duckworth is popular in the beltway or that Cegelis is more popular among the democrats. That's all I'm saying.

[billyf65]

50. Here's the thing...

There is no candidate in the 6th who sides with the GOP on every issue or even most issues. Not Cegelis. Not Scott. And not Duckworth - false statements to the contrary notwithstanding.

The first true test of electability is on March 21. You can't win the general without winning the primary - no getting around it.

[Inland]

62. But the converse isn't true.

Winning the democratic primary in a republican district isn't proof of electability. It's more like buying a lottery ticket, that is, it's a precondition to winning, but the odds are only slightly better than the person who doesn't.

I was just illustrating why someone would back a candidate for the democratic party who is going to be much like republicans on many issues. My hypothetical said that one would rather have a democrat who was going to vote with republicans on every issue besides committee control than any republican. Given that the republcians are the easy majority in the sixth, my guess is that there's going to have to be someone closer to that than to me in order to win.

[Gary Kleppe]

66. No, it doesn't work that way.

People who want to vote for Republicans will vote for Republicans, period. Bending over backwards to appeal to them is a lose-lose proposition. It will alienate the base who would otherwise not only vote for you but work at convincing others to do the same, and Republicans will still think you're a dirty hippie librul just because you've got that "D" by your name.

What you've got to appeal to is swing voters. These are generally people who aren't married to any particular ideology. What matters to them is, do a candidate's ideas make sense? Does that candidate seem honest and trustworthy? Does that candidate seem concerned over the same issues that I am and willing to listen to me when I express my concerns? Who are that candidate's friends, and do I trust them?

I'll also note that it's a moot point, because Duckworth's platform (to the extent she even has any sort of consistent one) isn't the kind of Republican lite that you're talking about. She's called the Iraq war a mistake and (sometimes) expressed support for universal government-sponsored health care, which would be enough to turn off Republican voters even if her being a Democrat weren't.

[Inland]

77. In a republican district, then, every democrat loses.

Republicans who want to vote for republicans will vote for republicans, and.....and that's all.

Let's see, Duckworth has newspaper endorsements, plenty of postitive media buzz, an appealing personal story, and tons of money. Cegalis has the support of partisan, idelogically committed democrats. I'm not surprised that your theory discounts everything Duckworth has and makes important everything Cegalis has, but what bugs me is that even so, Cegalis ends up losing in the general. Because if republicans find a way to vote republican, it's an off year election so turn out is low, and it's a republican district. Seems to me there's really no preceived formula for victory over anyone but Duckworth.

[Gary Kleppe]

80. Not quite.

First of all, it's "Cegelis". If you're going to criticize a candidate, it might help to get her name right, if only for the sake of your own credibility.

As I said before, there are plenty of swing voters. They are not Republican, but they are not Democrats either. Their votes have to be earned.

As for what you list as Duckworth's positives, let's see:

• Those newspapers are going to dump her like a hot potato in the general election. After all, we're talking about papers which repeatedly endorsed Bush and which called Hyde a great statesman. So this won't be an advantage against Roskam.
  
• Positive media buzz? Again, the media isn't going to support her against a Republican, especially when her novelty will have worn off.
  
• Personal story? I'll grant you this one.
  
• Money? Yes, she'll have money, but Roskam will have far more, as he will against any Democrat. So Duckworth won't have the advantage here either.
  

On the other hand, Cegelis' positives, areas which she's at least equal with Roskam:

• She's part of the community. She's been to people's houses, churches, mosques, temples, and union halls to meet and get to know the people in the district.
  
• She can articulate her positions on the issues and sound knowledgeable and sincere, not like someone who's reciting prepared talking points.
  
• She has widespread support in the district, not just among partisan Democrats but among others too. The people who voted for her last time certainly weren't all Democrats.
  
• She has the stamina to run a campaign and show up where she needs to be. She doesn't blow off campaign events for no particular reason.
  
• She's consistent.
  
• She's independent. She owes nothing to the Chicago machine, to the beltway Democrats, nor to lobbyists, all of which are not exactly well-liked in DuPage.
  

[Inland]

82. It's my fault I didn't know how to spell her name?

You don't know me, but if you did, you would realize it's a knock on her campaign, not me.

But once again, you discount things like media buzz because those same papers supported Hyde. Well, most of the voters in the district supported Hyde, too. You never really get straight that the same qualities that make duckworth a less than marvelous candidate for democratic partisans make her a better chance to win the district. When you want to argue that endorsements are bad, because Duckworth has them, they show that she's no better than a DINO. Same goes with popularity, money, and all the other indicia of a strong campaign.

Really, there's no plan to win the general when the sign of a good candidate is that she hasn't the endorsements, money, backing, or even the positions inherent to a republican district. Whatever the value of what's her name, I am duly umimpressed with the attempt to make indicia of strength into the mark of satan. I would rather see a dem victory.

[Gary Kleppe]

83. Yes, it is your fault.

It's common courtesy to spell someone's name correctly if you're going to discuss him or her.

And nobody is arguing that endorsements are bad. I'm arguing that endorsements from the Tribune, et. al. won't help Duckworth in the general if she's nominated, because she isn't going to get them in the general.

[Inland]

84. I'll apologize to her if it comes up.

But indeed, the inability to spell it is related to the likelihood of it coming up again.

But of course, the endorsements, even if they don't come in the general, tell us something, and tell the republican voters something. It tells us that Duckworth appeals to these conservative republican organs, and it tells republican voters that Duckworth appeals to these conservative republican organs. That's not a bad thing when it comes to winning in a suburban republican district. Certainly, it's not a "smell".

[Ken Burch]

85. Why do you talk as if it goes without saying that Duckworth

will take the primary in a landslide?

And how can you talk as if Duckworth is an inherently more electable candidate when, as I've repeatedly pointed out
there hasn't been a single poll taken showing Duckworth running a stronger race in the fall?

There's really very little for you to sound so smug about, my friend.

[Inland]

87. Goes without saying, or nobody has said it? There's a diff, you know.

I don't talk as if Duckworth will win the primary at all. Nor do I tak about "inherently more electable candidates."

All I've been saying is something apparently too obvious and true for any Cegelis supporter to let stand, that is, there's a reason to vote for Duckworth even if she's the most conservative of democrats, and that endorsements and contributions and stands that appeal to republicans aren't a "smell". "Smug" is when people participate in an election in a republican and hold out a lack of such indicia of support as a badge of honor.

[Gary Kleppe]

47. Quite so.

They are proven by talking to people in the district, which I've done and I assume mopinko has as well. People in the district do not support Duckworth.

And the idea that her positions are centrist is mostly a misconception. Her positions change depending on who she's talking to. She told me specifically that she would support HR 676 (the Single-Payer Bill) and then told the Chicago Tribune that it wasn't yet time for universal health care. She told another questioner that she'd have voted against CAFTA and then she told the Tribune she hadn't made her mind up yet.

[mopinko]

48. talking and driving.

it's tammy who? christine, oh, yeah, she nearly beat that asshole hyde, yeah i like her.
tammy just does not know the issues. she punts, screws up, and her handlers yell at someone else. sound like any presidents you know?

[billyf65]

49. If all of this is true...

...then why all of this sniping back and forth? If, as you and Gary Kleppe and others contend, Christine is the favorite of Dem voters in a walk, then why is there all of this arguing?

No one, to the extent I've read, has impugned the character of Christine Cegelis. No one has called her a liar, cheat, thief, or anything of that nature -- you're arguments seem to be 10% defending her electability, 90% bemoaning Duckworth's.

If you're right, the voters will hash it out, and on the evening of March 21, you'll be hoisting your glasses high in victory.

S/he who laughs last, laughs best, no? Then you reach out to your primary opponents, invite them aboard, and get to work at beating Rawscum. That is the goal, isn't it?

I'm serious

[dogman]

52. You're also correct.

The most often mentioned question about Cegelis is elect-ability. Duckworth on the other hand has been criticized for her high level support and has had her integrity attacked from the first mention of her name. If Cegelis is the most electable, you would not expect the level of angst expressed by her supporters.

[Gary Kleppe]

58. It isn't angst.

It's anger. We are justifiably pissed off at the Democratic leadership, which after years of doing absolutely nothing to support any of our local candidates has now decided to work actively against them.

I think Cegelis will win, but that'll be after lots of ill will on all sides, and after hundreds of thousands of dollars have been wasted supporting a candidate whom the people in the district don't want. That's money and effort that could be used against the Republicans -- in, for example, the special election to replace "Duke" Cunningham, which I think is going on now.

[Gary Kleppe]

59. And another thing...

To talk about attacks against integrity in a vaccuum and ignore any possible substance behind them, as if they were just another campaign strategy, is a very Republican thing to do.

The fact of the matter is, we've questioned Duckworth's candor because she's given us reason to question it. She answered one way on health care and CAFTA at a Democratic Township Organization meeting and gave a completely different answer to the Chicago Tribune. She still insists that nobody recruited her into the race, even though somebody obviously did. And she still tends to avoid any sort of personal, back-and-forth interaction with the general public.

[dogman]

61. You're right. Attacking a person's integrity at the announcement of their

candidacy is a very Republican thing to do.

[Gary Kleppe]

65. Nice dodge

Get back to us if you'd ever like to actually respond to what I said.

[dogman]

70. I don't respond well to that bullshit.

We are Democrats posting on a Democratic forum and you throw in Republican. I have respect for your position but I have no respect for personal attacks on a person who is exercising their rights as a citizen without denying you yours.

[Inland]

63. Not proven by talking to some of the people in the district.

There's either polling or something based on some real experience. I don't have it, but duckworth isn't being put out there for nothing.

[mopinko]

81. duckworth isn't being put out there for nothing.

you got me there.

[LSK]

15. she seems to think there is something to win in Iraq

Thats enough of a turnoff for me.

[LSK]

14. yep

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5685426&mesg_id=5686046

[WilliamPitt]

21. Good PR firm? The best, actually.

Axelrod's crew out of Chicago is doing her PR.

[billyf65]

22. They aren't a PR firm.

[WilliamPitt]

23. Rilly?

David Axelrod, 49, is one of the pre-eminent political media consultants in the United States, having produced winning media and messages for over 150 campaigns at the local, state and national levels.

Axelrod recently helped state Senator Barack Obama score a landslide win in the Illinois Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, developing a message and media campaign that enabled Obama to defeat six opponents with an astounding 53% of the vote. Axelrod also helped guide the intense 2003 re-election campaign of Mayor John F. Street in Philadelphia, and served as a senior strategist on the John Edwards for President campaign.

A former journalist, Axelrod established his firm in 1985, after managing Paul Simon's upset victory over incumbent U.S. Senator Charles Percy in Illinois. Since then, he has worked for leading Democrats across the country, including Senator Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eliot Spitzer in New York, Governor Tom Vilsack in Iowa and Congressman Rahm Emanuel in Illinois. In his book Bare Knuckles and Back Rooms, Republican consultant Ed Rollins listed Axelrod under the category of "Guys I Never Want to See Lobbing Grenades at Me Again."

A specialist in urban politics, Axelrod has produced victories for mayoral candidates in major U.S. cities. His clients have included Richard M. Daley and the late Harold Washington of Chicago; Anthony Williams of Washington, D.C.; Dennis Archer of Detroit; Michael White of Cleveland; Deedee Corradini of Salt Lake City; and Bob Lanier and Lee Brown of Houston.

In addition to candidate races, Axelrod has developed successful media campaigns for many ballot initiatives and independent committees. Last year, Axelrod’s ad campaign featuring former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop was cited by the media as a major factor in defeating an anti affirmative-action statewide initiative in California. Axelrod has also served as the principal media consultant for the national AFL-CIO and has produced media for both the Democratic Senatorial and Congressional Campaign Committees.

A native of New York City, Axelrod graduated from the University of Chicago and spent eight years as a reporter for the Chicago Tribune, where he covered national, state and local politics. In 1981, he became the youngest political writer and columnist in the paper's history. He also served as the paper's City Hall bureau chief.

Axelrod is currently an Adjunct Professor of Communication Studies at Northwestern University and has lectured on political media at many other institutions, including Harvard University, the University of Chicago and the University of Pennsylvania. He's a frequent guest on national TV shows, including CNN's "Crossfire" and “Inside Politics” and MSNBC’s “Hardball.”

http://www.akpmedia.com/partners/daxelrod.html

...sounds like big-time PR to me...

[billyf65]

26. Rilly.

Edelman Worldwide is a PR firm. Hill and Knowlton is a PR firm. Ogilvy Worldwide is a PR firm.

AKP is a political media firm - just like Adelstein Liston - Cegelis former Media Firm. People running for office hire them (like Cegelis did).

Is Cegelis thusly guilty of hiring "PR" people because of her former alliance with Adelstein? Or is she exempted?

[wndycty]

27. She is exempted of course. . .

:sarcasm:. . .I'm in the Duckworth camp, but quite frankly if Christine beats Tammy I think she will have proven she has the chops to take on Roskam in the fall. However I feel that many DU Cegelis supporters have a double standard when it comes to this race. My two cents.

[Gary Kleppe]

37. Once more:

The problem with Duckworth is not that she has slick PR people. It's not that she sends out expensive mailers or uses robo-calls.

The problem is that she is using all of the above as a substitute for actually interacting with and listening to the community.

[mopinko]

41. and that people are insisting that this is winning strategy

when they know damn well it isn't.

[minvis]

43. She has to do it that way

because since she came in so late, she doesn't have enough people on the ground to do door to door canvassing. Plus, in order to catch up she has had to spend most of her time fundraising instead of attending community forums, neighborhood groups, etc.

It's a strategy of blanketing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible. Just think about it. She has TV ads done and runs them on Chicago area TV, which encompasses 8 or 9 congressional districts. It's a lot of wasted money, in my opinion.

What makes it even more ironic is the main criticism of Cegelis is that she didn't raise enough money. Well, that's true if you plan on using your money for mass mailings, TV commercials and robo calls. But if you have a good, large ground organization canvassing every day robo calls and TV commercials aren't as important.

It's a classic battle between the tactics of ground organization vs. TV commercials, mass mailings. This is not to say that mass mailings, TV commercials and robo calls can't work. It's just that they are that much more effective when a candidate is known, seen and heard in the district as well. I just haven't seen that from Tammy as I've canvassed door to door in the 6th District.

[mopinko]

35. you are quite right about axelrod.

they have no campaign, just pr aand muscle. can you say "blowback"?

[Inland]

32. It's the smell of victory.

It's just not something you're used to, just as the vet, the popularity, and good press are hard to come by.

[Ken Burch]

33. There's no obvious reason to think that Duckworth exudes that smell.

No one has produced a single poll that shows Duckworth running a stronger race in the fall.

[mopinko]

36. she has a different smell to the dems in the district.

fear not.

[LSK]

53. its the smell of more Dinos voting lockstep with Republicans in Congress

[mopinko]

55. how come more people here do not recognize that smell?

or maybe they do, and it is perfume to them.

[Ken Burch]

86. What popularity?

Being liked by the party hacks at the top isn't "popularity". And it doesn't really mean that much in terms of electability.
in 1968, the hacks liked Hubert Humphrey and insisted on nomination, even though they knew they were voting to lose by doing so.

[madrchsod]

67. has anyone told tammy she needs a bath?

[mopinko]

68. we will tell her on march 21 nt

[greatauntoftriplets]

69. Smart ass.

:rofl:

[madrchsod]

79. i`m back to work --just got home

i thought i`d just make fun of the whole dam thing...geez, people are touchy around here!! it is kind`a funny isn`t it????

[dogman]

71. Tammy smells fine to these folks.

Snip>The Daily Herald endorsed Tammy on Friday saying, "We...believe Duckworth is the strongest candidate in the Democratic primary and earns our endorsement."

"She understands not only defense issues, but also has good ideas on health care, the budget and immigration."

And on Thursday, the Pioneer Press wrote: "...Duckworth...brings a wealth of education and background to her candidacy. With degrees in political science and international affairs, she focused her studies on Southeast Asia and its public health systems. She also has published research on the link between environmental health hazards and cancer."

"...She also brings the leadership and motivational skills necessary to deliver on her mission."

"When Duckworth says she will be a strong voice in Congress who truly understands the consequences of lawmakers' decisions, her credibility is undeniable."<snip
Source: E-mail from tammy's campaign

[mopinko]

72. newspaper editorial boards are used to that smell? imagine that

alert the media. oh, that's right, they are the media. what is it we call them here at du? oh, yeah, whores.

[dogman]

73. An excellent rebuttal!

Of course any endorsements for Cegelis are welcome.

[mopinko]

74. not speaking for christine

but i would be embarassed to have the endorsement of the trib. im sure she would rather have the ivi's.

[dogman]

75. Did I cite the Trib?

I'm sure Cegelis would have enjoyed Emily's List also. There were a number of endorsements she failed to renew this time around. That wasn't the point of my post though, it was the content of those endorsements. It seems Tammy has qualifications beyond the only one we see posted here-that she is Rahm's tool.

[mopinko]

76. just making the point

that not all endorsements are created equal. look at all the ones that bush racked up.
a lot goes into the endorsement process, some of it sausage. but, tammy didn't even bother with the ivi questionnaire. why is that?

[dogman]

78. If it was just endorsements I would have mentioned the Sun Times.

Or Citizen Action/Illinois, or the Illinois Federation of Teachers (IFT), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 31. I don't know about the IVI. I can only speculate that it was too soon after she entered the race or possibly, as I've noted before, she saw Dick Simpson's op-ed and felt it had been decided. You'd have to ask her.