Skip to main content

Hi, folks. This is Adam Green with the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. Stephanie Taylor, one of my co-founders, just sent out this email to our members. She's on a plane, so I wanted to share it with the Kos community which was such a big part of the Bill Halter movement experience:

Hey everyone,

Last night was a really tough night. You've probably heard by now, but Bill Halter lost the Arkansas Senate primary to Blanche Lincoln in a squeaker.

The Democratic Party establishment and the White House teamed up with big corporations to protect one of the most corporate-owned senators in America -- and they barely won.

Today in news reports, the political insiders are gloating. They're proud that they beat thousands of people fighting for change.

But what the political establishment doesn't realize is that the progressive movement built power in this election. 

Bill Halter started nearly 20 points down. He wasn't taken seriously by most insiders. But he gave Blanche Lincoln the scare of a lifetime with the help of a vibrant progressive movement -- thousands of people who committed time, talent, and small-dollar donations in the fight for change.

We formed the PCCC last year to create a new model for supporting progressive candidates. This race was an important building block:

  • PCCC members donated over $250,000 to Halter's campaign. Unprecedented for a new organization.

  • PCCC staffers Michael Snook and Keauna Gregory directed Halter's field program and invented new ways of working seamlessly with our partners like Democracy for America and MoveOn...practices we will bring to future races that we win.

  • We mobilized 3,000 Arkansas PCCC members -- and our field program empowered volunteers across the progressive movement to make a whopping 400,000 calls to Arkansas voters.

And the Washington Post's Greg Sargent writes:

"Make no mistake: Progressive activists and labor...came within a hair of unseating a longtime incumbent who had the backing of the entire Dem establishment and the two most recent Dem presidents. No matter what you read about this, the Halter challenge was a show of force by the left. Period."

So thank you for being part of this movement. You have so much to be proud of, and this experience will help us to win big fights ahead.

That said, if you're frustrated and really want to do something today, here are 3 things you can do.

1) Write a note to Bill Halter, telling him how you feel. Click here. We'll deliver your note to him personally.

2) If you appreciate the progressive infrastructure we're building, tell your friends about us. Click to share on Facebook and Twitter. (You can also follow us on Twitter here.)

3) A lot of you took action against the voting irregularities in Garland County, where the number of polling locations were reduced from 42 to 2. Some legal action will likely be taken, but we don't think it will impact the race's outcome. But new facts will likely come out, so click here if you'd like to stay updated on the situation.

Thanks for being a bold progressive.

-- Stephanie Taylor, Adam Green, Aaron Swartz, Forrest Brown, Michael Snook, Keauna Gregory, and the entire PCCC team

Thanks for reading. Would love to hear your thoughts below...

Originally posted to AdamGreen on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 12:08 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (243+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, Manhattan Dan, Renee, JekyllnHyde, Alumbrados, Davinci, Angie in WA State, JWC, boydog, chrississippi, tmo, LeislerNYC, decisivemoment, copymark, Rolfyboy6, Unstable Isotope, PeterHug, juls, tnichlsn, LynChi, Andrew C White, Pondite, hyperstation, Pompatus, autoegocrat, Sandy on Signal, blogswarm, shpilk, ssgbryan, Heart of the Rockies, Dumbo, Gustogirl, opinionated, Zinman, DaleA, Agathena, CoolOnion, peace voter, boadicea, mkfarkus, Aquarius40, sngmama, oceanview, VA Gal, wader, athenap, Eric Blair, psnyder, Doolittle, MrSandman, TexDem, Dallasdoc, DeadB0y, pat bunny, TiaRachel, crackpot, ccr4nine, defluxion10, Catte Nappe, Pohjola, Brian82, dkmich, Diana in NoVa, JayDean, sawgrass727, Gowrie Gal, harlinchi, joanneleon, 3goldens, PBen, Flint, willibro, panicbean, kaye, ratzo, cfk, Heartcutter, Pam from Calif, jimreyn, deep, WisePiper, Pluto, benny05, jackster, bookwoman, xanthippe2, reddbierd, SSMir, SoulCatcher, Audio Guy, dhfsfc, poco, trashablanca, tarheelblue, jsamuel, ferallike, BlueInARedState, buckstop, tbetz, greenearth, blueoasis, MJ via Chicago, agnostic, Libby Shaw, Charles Chamberlain, chicating, lynneinfla, PhilW, bartcopfan, markthshark, tegrat, lightfoot, Ken in MN, dotsright, walkabout, Cottagerose, possum, moosely2006, yoduuuh do or do not, Outrider, Sydserious, yowsta, Jimdotz, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, certainot, Nick Lento, Unbozo, bnasley, jayden, jedennis, cyncynical, millwood, Joffan, keikekaze, wblynch, Counselor730, roycej, TomP, jwinIL14, Blue Boy Red State, JayC, lisastar, ShadowSD, Fossil, dadadata, beltane, monkeybrainpolitics, Wek, Jeff Y, codairem, Gemina13, meldroc, Ruff Limblog, o the umanity, James Kresnik, dan667, allie123, ZhenRen, 1BQ, multilee, Rhysling, cybrestrike, UkieOli, ARS, Discipline28, rudy23, maryabein, janmtairy, sweeper, SciVo, shopkeeper, Daily Activist, MooseHB, jazzence, allep10, kevinpdx, The BBQ Chicken Madness, Muzikal203, Little Flower, ArthurPoet, Nonconformist, futureliveshere, deviant24x, smileycreek, seesmithrun, confitesprit, KroneckerD, p gorden lippy, icemilkcoffee, roadbear, clutch1, candysroom, stunzeed, Crabby Abbey, Klaus, elginblt, ypsiCPA, ItsSimpleSimon, scarlet slipper, sharonsz, Betty Pinson, elengul, science nerd, DudleyMason, BrowniesAreGood, heart of a quince, ems97007, BlueJessamine, m00finsan, soothsayer99, Situational Lefty, Sand Hill Crane, mrsgoo, evremonde, Angela Quattrano, me llamo sebas, LSmith, MRA NY, Vtdblue, EdgedInBlue, svboston, The Rational Hatter, Wom Bat, bloomin, Dbug, blue aardvark, innereye, StepLeftStepForward, ParkRanger, AguyinMI, PrometheusUnbound, progresso, twinshappen, James Robinson, ridemybike, pistolSO, We Won, Bensonola, prdrums77, barkingcat, DarkWater, Ginger1, wisny
    •  Thanks for fighting, Mr. Halter! (31+ / 0-)

      you ran a great campaign.

      my number one political wish
      was to see you win.

      we share in your disappointment.

      "Toleration is the greatest gift of the mind; it requires the same effort of the brain that it takes to balance oneself on a bicycle." -Helen Keller

      by ridemybike on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 12:15:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I won't inject negativity into this result. (30+ / 0-)

      Lt. Gov. Halter's response appeared gracious and measured.  But what the heck is up with Garland County closing 40 out of 42 possible polling places?

    •  We all need to look at it as having lost the (32+ / 0-)

      battle, but we are damn sure not gonna lose the frackin' War.

      This squeeker loss/win should encourage all netroots and grassroots activists that their hard work has been noticed - and that a bit more of it in the near future may, in fact, complete the maturation of the 'Internet-generation' into an real world force to be reckoned with.

      It's really starting to feel like a generational change is coming over our national politics. Candidates are getting younger instead of older, on the whole; progressive candidates are not only getting on ballots - some of them are winning and others (like Bill Halter) are coming so close to winning that the loss is heartbreaking.

      Me, it's the political climate I've been waiting for (and hoping for) my whole adult life; since my first vote as an 18 year old in 1980.

      Fresh, new ideas. Disgust with corruption and unregulated business practices. Non-career politicians throwing their hats in the ring - and some of them winning.

      I'm terribly sorry for Mr. Halter, he appeared to have been a bright, talented, experienced reasonable person who could have served the people of Arkansas quite well.

      But I'm also very, very excited to watch the ripples from this extremely close election make bigger and bigger waves in the DLC-Centrists ponds wherein dwell the balance of our Democratic Party in D.C.

      It's going to be an exciting general election cycle, to say the very least!

    •  Adam, We could have used your help in CA-36 (9+ / 0-)

      Where the Progressive Dem, Marcy Winograd took on Jane Harman.




      ````
      peace

      "There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people." — Howard Zinn

      by peace voter on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 12:53:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

        •  41.2% = clobbered? (9+ / 0-)

          The Harman campaign attacked & distorted & relied on dirty tricks.

          The Democratic  incumbent's club circled the wagons to protect a Blue Dog who often voted with Republicans an war, bankruptcy, etc.

          What's your point Adam B?  


          ````
          peace

          "There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people." — Howard Zinn

          by peace voter on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 12:58:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, an 17 point loss is a clobbering. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blogswarm, BruinKid, fou, rcnewton

            The idea that PCCC could have made a difference is naive.  Maybe Winograd could have expended her own money like she did last try.

            •  Yep... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              N in Seattle

              And this run certainly seemed to me to be less about actually winning than about pure self-promotion.  (Of course, my state of New York is not immune from this syndrome.)

              •  Goodness, how would you know that? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                peace voter, Budlawman

                I'm curious how exactly, from New York, you could discern the extent to which Marcy's campaign was motivated by the desire to self-promote, as compared to the desire to win.  I, myself, happen to be a guy who personally volunteered for Marcy's campaign (phone banking) several times over the past month, and I can tell you firsthand that Marcy and her staff worked like dogs, chasing down every possible vote.

                It was an organized, active, disciplined and hard-working campaign, significantly more professional than the '06 run (which I also volunteered for).  Marcy and company did all they could do, but this year (as in '06) they simply ran headlong into a billionaire, with name-recognition through the roof and the active backing of every corporation known to man, in addition to the entire Democratic party establishment (from left to right and everyone else in between).

                Given the disadvantages, Marcy Winograd had no business pulling in 21% of the vote, much less 41%!  

                I certainly am curious to hear what you would have had Marcy do differently.

                Patrick Meighan
                Culver City, CA

                •  Not run... (0+ / 0-)

                  in this race, but instead consider a race for a different office (for instance, state legislature or city/town council) as a starting point, rather than continue a crusade that was quixotic at best.

                •  She knew all that going in. (0+ / 0-)

                  And Winograd's no slouch in the personal wealth department either; she could have self-funded.  She also had the name recognition from her 2006 run.

                  •  Marcy self-funded in '06. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    peace voter

                    I, personally, don't blame her for deciding against blowing her family's life savings on this 2010 run.  After all, this run was never about Marcy Winograd, herself, defeating Jane Harman.  It was about L.A.'s progressive community defeating Jane Harman.  It was, therefor, on all of us in L.A.'s progressive community to pitch in to make it happen.  And many, many, many of us in L.A.'s progressive community did, indeed, pitch in, and though we lost, we did, indeed, do better than last year, despite the many obstacles in Marcy's/our path.

                    "She knew all that going in."

                    a) If someone like Marcy sees those many obstacles and still makes a difficult and principled stand, that makes her brave, not craven.

                    b) I don't personally believe that Marcy knew, going in, that the Democratic Party's progressive establishment would rally around Jane Harman as it did.  The fact that Lynn Woolsey (Lynn freakin' Woolsey!) went to bat in the primaries for a Congressperson who supported the Iraq War, the bankruptcy bill, warrantless wiretapping, the Bush tax cuts, the Patriot Act, the death penalty, the drug war, the continued occupation of Afghanistan and apartheid in the West Bank and Gaza is (or should be) the sort of thing that haunts her when she looks at herself in the mirror each morning.  Truly, Lynn Woolsey should be embarrassed, and so should many others in the "progressive" wing of the party establishment who did for Harman what they did for Lincoln.  I mean, I expected the Dianne Feinsteins of the world to rally to Jane's side.  I didn't expect John Conyers and Henry Waxman to come along.  And I wouldn't be shocked if Marcy didn't either.  

                    All the more reason why it's so hard to get "more and better Democrats."  The current Democrats in office don't want us to elect "better Democrats."  They're fine with the kind of Democrats they already have/are.

                    "She also had the name recognition from her 2006 run."

                    Better name recognition than she had in 2006?  Sure.  But, still, not even a fraction of the name recognition she needed.  I say that as someone who phone-banked for Marcy several times over the past month.  The number of voters I talked to who told me "Oh, sure, I know about Marcy!" was dwarfed by the number of voters I talked to who could not recall ever once hearing the name "Winograd" until I uttered it to 'em right then.  Meanwhile, Jane Harman was building on her already-astronomical name recognition by not only putting her signs on street corners in her Congressional district, but also in surrounding Congressional districts, just in case CA-36 voters ever happened to drive through 'em.  Now that is fuck-you money.  Marcy's campaign could never hope to have that kind of funding.  The fact that she got more than 41% of the vote under those circumstances is frankly stunning.

                    Patrick Meighan
                    Culver City, CA

                  •  You are clueless (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm sorry, but Marcy is my spouse, and this "no slouch" crap is not a valid basis for criticism.  If she had self-funded, you probably would have found a reason to criticize that, but the point is that political candidates may work for the public and they subject themselves to a high degree of scrutiny, and so be it, but they are not owned by the public.  So there is no point to second-guessing the fact that Marcy didn't use much of her own money.  The real question is, why did and does Harman accept scads of corporate cash?

                    "The true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love."

                    by Budlawman on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 11:15:42 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No one criticized Ned Lamont for doing so. (0+ / 0-)

                      A self-funded candidate is owned by no one, and you're smart enough to know that corporations cannot make direct contributions to political candidates, no (I believe) did any make independent expenditures on Harman's behalf.

                      •  We know what corporate cash means (0+ / 0-)

                        That's why contributors have to list their employers when they donate.  And that's why public lists of Harman's corporate donors group them in terms of corporations and corporate PACs.  Those in Harman's top 10 include Raytheon, Northrup Grumman, and Boeing.

                        Most fundamentally, in terms of fundraising, Marcy ran exactly the kind of campaign that should be beyond reproach, because she refused to accept corporate money and still managed to collect well over $400K, including a substantial sum from people motivated right here at DKos.

                        Marcy does not have the kind of money that would put her in the Fiorina/Whitman/Mike Bloomberg/Westly class of buying elections, but that's one danger and one legitimate criticism, because it arguably shows that the candidate has no inherent sway with the electorate, has not paid any organizing boots on the ground dues, but can instead buy name recognition and respect. Marcy has always been an organizer first, a politician second or third.  It was the height of hypocrisy when Harman, in one of her Harvey Englander sleaze mailers, accused Marcy of being an "heiress" who'd lived on an "estate" (the former being literally true, as would be the case with anyone who inherited anything from parents, and the latter was among several total and knowing lies proclaimed by Harman/Englander).  And frankly, she shouldn't be expected to drain her retirement fund in order to seek office.  

                        "The true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love."

                        by Budlawman on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 06:24:20 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Maybe you didn't know... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  peace voter

                  ...that Jane Harman's very first ever electoral campaign was for Congress (CA-36).  Jane Harman had never run for (nor ever held the office of) state legislator or city/town councilor.  So, per your logic, does that make Jane Harman's run motivated by the desire to self-promote, rather than to win?

                  I'm sorry, but sometimes a person runs for office (and indeed runs to win) because the woman currently holding that office is so onerous (relative to his/her constituency) as to urgently merit removal.  And, yes, sometimes the challenger has gotta be a person who has not held formal electoral office, because every alternate potential challenger (who had held formal electoral office) is deterred by the incestuous, undemocratic culture of intra-party comity and incumbent protection.

                  I, for one, and immensely glad that Marcy ran in 2006 and forced Jane somewhat to the left.  And I'm also glad that Marcy ran in 2010, did even better than she did in '06, and gave Jane even more to think about vis a vis the potential electoral threat she faces from the left in her district if she strays back rightward.    

                  Patrick Meighan
                  Culver City, CA

                  •  one more thing (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Budlawman

                    Hi Pat,

                    One of Marcy's Wilmington supporters recently told me that Jane moved (from Washington DC) into the 36th congressional district about two weeks prior to her first congressional run.

                    And yet - Harman's minions attacked Marcy for being a carpet bagger - her campaign sent out a mailer with a little cartoon car graphic showing various places that Marcy had lived.  I wonder why they left out Marcy's time in Delano California organizing grape pickers for the United Farm Workers?  Well - not really - I actually don't wonder why they left that out - after all - it wasn't consistent with their propoganda.


                    ````
                    peace

                    "There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people." — Howard Zinn

                    by peace voter on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 07:53:43 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The difference was that in this race (0+ / 0-)

                      Marcy was NOT a carpetbagger, and Harman/Englander were lying, which had something to do with their tainted and malodorous triumph.

                      "The true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love."

                      by Budlawman on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 11:12:04 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Anything (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Adam B

            Over 10% is a really bad beating.  No way to sugar coat it.

            Population of the US=310 mil. # of voters in 2008=130 mil. Size of each "side" on DK= about 200. Thinking you speak for all of America=priceless.

            by Jeffersonian on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 01:08:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Given that... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Adam B

            Marcy got 37.5% back in 2006 with MUCH less name recognition and money and national progressive groups weighing in as much as they did this time, and that they were the only people on the ballot... I'd say yeah.  Improving to just 41.2% given her showing in 2006 is NOT a victory in any way.

            And the ugliness at the state convention really turned off some progressive college students who had been rooting for Marcy to knock off Harman, until that Sunday.

            •  the ugliness at the convention???? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Budlawman, Tropical Depression

              I was there & would love to know some specifics

              you paint with a rather broad brush

              I personally saw (and was briefed about) Harman's staffer John Hess intimidating individuals who were trying to gather signatures to allow the delegates to decide who to endorse.

              That was pretty ugly.

              Did you you think John Burton treated Marcy in an ugly way?  Many progressive delegates to whom I spoke were outraged.

              BruinKid, AFAIK you've never expressed any support for Marcy's leadership and activism on healthcare reform, election protection, anti-war work.

              So please explain what you mean.


              ````
              peace

              "There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people." — Howard Zinn

              by peace voter on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 06:45:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  One student... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Adam B

                who was volunteering that day, and was one of the ones tasked with counting the votes on the floor in that time frame, said he was harassed by Winograd supporters as he was trying to count the votes.  I wasn't there to witness it personally, but this isn't something he would lie about.  He had no dog in that fight.

                And another student just didn't like how they wanted all the state delegates to decide who should get the endorsement from the state party for a local House seat, and that it should've been left to the local delegates to decide for themselves.  Oh, and while he didn't like Harman's AIPAC coziness and foreign policy stances, Winograd, he felt, went to the extreme in the other direction against Israel.

                Again, I wasn't there to witness the ugliness first-hand.  But several people I know did, and for whatever reasons, it turned them off to Winograd more than it did to Harman.  You can choose to pretend I'm making this up, or you can accept that the behavior did turn off people who would otherwise have been supporting Marcy.

                Because you witnessed intimidation from the Harman camp, obviously you're not going to be happy with Harman.  And when someone gets harassed by Winograd supporters, obviously that person's not going to be happy with Winograd.

            •  There was ugliness, all right (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              peace voter

              Like the lies Harman told during the campaign about her polling, and the lies about Marcy she and campaign slimebag consultant Harvey Englander peddled during the last week of the campaign.  I am Marcy's spouse, and I was at the convention, and any "ugliness" bubbling up there was from the Harman camp, from people who believe that the status quo matters more than principle and ultimately, peace. John Burton was trying to engineer the train from the station, but we would not be railroaded.  We heard a great deal about how if the seat were open and it was Harman vs. Winograd, Marcy would be the natural choice.  Why should incumbency, money and inertia make all the difference?

              "The true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love."

              by Budlawman on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 07:12:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't disagree. (0+ / 0-)

                But several of my friends witnessed bad behavior, so to speak, from Winograd supporters (not you or Marcy, obviously), and it reflected badly upon Marcy, like it or not.  All the stuff about polling lies and whatnot, well, they never saw any of that.  All they saw what the scene on Sunday, so everything you wrote about, was completely unknown to them.  Their reaction had nothing to do with hearing about any rumors or lies about Marcy.

                But again, once we got past that and into the actual primary election itself, with many more national groups like DFA and MoveOn helping out, with more time for the stories about Harman and AIPAC to percolate, I have to say, looking at the numbers, a less than 4% improvement from 2006 is not good.

                •  It's all about perspective (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  peace voter, BruinKid

                  Perhaps I wasn't clear, but the lies and sleaze I'm talking about mostly came after the convention.  What we faced at the convention was a stacked deck.  But as for the behavior of Marcy's supporters -- you offer no example(s) -- it is sad if people write her candidacy off because of that; we've heard it before, however (including in '06 about alleged "rudeness" when Harman deigned to join the fray here at DKos), and it often smacks of an excuse to lean toward the easy way, the incumbent way, the inertial way.  That's too bad, and we'll never make progress if we allow ourselves to be excused for that "reason".  Of course, there's plenty of bad behavior to go around, and so to some extent you choose what behavior will and won't turn you off.

                  No, we weren't satisfied or happy with the outcome, but whether you think it was a thumpin' or not good, or a positive sign of progress is a matter of perspective.  Obviously when a presidential race is decided by this kind of margin, it is labeled a landslide.  But it's about expectations; when you are outspent, when you are going uphill because of name recognition, when there is nothing else of great interest to drive voters to the polls, when the groups who would be philosophically in your corner mostly stay away out of fear of retaliation (all the power of incumbency that has no parallel to a presidential race, or really, any R vs. D race), when the Iraq war is not the factor it was in 2006, when Harman has been faking left and going right for the last four years in great measure because of Marcy's efforts that year, and when Harman stoops to lying about her poll numbers, Marcy's positions, where Marcy lives and even suggests that they are on an even playing field when it comes to finances, then that 4% improvement attests to the substantial and indefatigable effort that Marcy and her campaign made, and is an encouraging and hopeful sign. (After all, Halter had huge backing against Blanche Lincoln, including from the netroots, and still "only" got to 48%).  

                  Like I said, it's about your point of view.

                  "The true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love."

                  by Budlawman on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 08:49:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  See above... (0+ / 0-)

                    in my response to peace voter.  I gave examples of two different students I know.  Yes, I don't get into specifics and name names, because I don't know the specifics.  It's not like when they told me what they experienced, I started grilling them with 20 questions to get every single detail cross-referenced.  I'm just relaying the final impression they got from that Sunday.  Since we're at UCLA, that was the one time they got to see the Harman and Winograd campaigns up close, and first impressions matter.


                    BTW, on a tangential matter, since we're in L.A., and not on the ground in the South Bay, there were only snippets of news I would hear from the campaign, and I read Calitics on a semi-regular basis.  (Most college students sadly do not.)  And obviously the only snippets I'd hear about Marcy were about her foreign policy views on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel.  I'm on her e-mail list, but I didn't even know she was a teacher until I saw one of her flyers at the state convention!  And I'm one of the biggest Bruin honks you can find on this board, and I had no idea she went to UCLA for an advanced degree until... this morning when I went on Wikipedia and saw her bio.

                    Here's the thing.  Given the shitstorm we're facing with budget cuts at the UCs, for any student who's not Jewish or Muslim or Arab (and even for a lot of them), the whole Israel/Palestine issue is simply not in their top 5 list of important issues.  Even after the flotilla fiasco, it's not.  Most students, even Jewish ones, have no clue what AIPAC is.  And I'm sure Marcy did, but I never heard her address those issues that concern students wondering if they have to drop out of school next quarter because they can't pay the tuition.

                    Yes, I understand this all relates back to fundraising to get your message out.  And yes, the deck is stacked against any non-millionaire challenger.  But such is the playing field, and good campaigns need to break through that barrier.  Look, UCLA is close enough to CA-36, and there's probably quite a few students from the district here.  Was there ever any outreach on your behalf to the Bruin Democrats?  We would've loved to have Marcy come to one of our meetings.  We did host several candidates running for the same assembly seat; if they wanted to come speak, they were welcome.  I'm not saying you guys didn't do this outreach; I'm just saying I never saw any of it happen.

                    If you guys want to challenge Harman again in 2012, that's just one way to break through those incumbent barriers.

                    •  I appreciate your insight (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      peace voter, BruinKid

                      Marcy's been talking about her ed cred for ages, and I believe she's visibly demonstrated (as well as railed against the UC cuts, including at UCLA.  No doubt the campaign was focused within the district.   We will certainly deliberate on what you've said.  Thanks.

                      "The true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love."

                      by Budlawman on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 09:56:16 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  Honestly, Marcy said some really dumb crap (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        peace voter

        and that baggage just makes her unelectable.

        Too bad, because I agree with 98% of what she says.
        I like Marcy. But her rhetoric is suited to talk radio; perfect for Mike Malloy, Nicole Sandler.

        Not ready for prime time.  

        It's one thing for me to post anonymously here, but some of the garbage she's injected into the narrative over the years just took her right out of the process.

        That said, I'm surprised [and happy] she did as well as she did. It shows that even flawed candidates can pull off surprising draw and maybe even wins.

        BP's song of the moment. "Breaking Up"- Sedaka. Unlikely encore? "JailHouse rock".

        by shpilk on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 04:27:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Very true! (9+ / 0-)

      For all the bluster by Rahm that anonymous White House official, the fact is that Blanche Lincoln only won by the skin of her teeth.

      She and her allies had to pull out all stops, spend tons of money and use every trick they've got to survive.  She'll not want to repeat that experience.

      I agree with you. I want to do it. Now make me do it! - Franklin Delano Roosevelt http://meldroc.com/

      by meldroc on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 01:23:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Election was lost when (7+ / 0-)

      the party hacks were allowed to control who got to vote by reducing the number of polling locations.

      Get control of the local government positions and control them.

    •  Good analysis. Tipped & Rec'd... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joanneleon, Outrider, bnasley

      As usual, the media missed the whole point. We scared da bejeebus outta Lincoln. And just because it didn't work in Arkansas doesn't mean it won't work in other states.

      The message was sent... loud and clear.

      The history of the CIA's involvement with the American press continues to be shrouded by an official policy of obfuscation and deception -- Carl Bernstein

      by markthshark on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 01:54:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I have one question: (0+ / 0-)

      We mobilized 3,000 Arkansas PCCC members -- and our field program empowered volunteers across the progressive movement to make a whopping 400,000 calls to Arkansas voters.

      What are all those people going to be doing in the fall?  Please tell me that you have plans to keep them engaged, in any way other than helping Lincoln get re-elected...

    •  Let's hope so. (0+ / 0-)

      Right now, I think we shot ourselves in the foot. Moreover, I would suggest swallowing a massive amount of pride and crow and getting behind Blanche.

      Truth is there is no way in hell she can win without us.

      She probably can't win with us, but without us, she is dead meat. We should be able to exact a price for at least the next 5 months.

      I have never been able to figure out if Fox is the propaganda arm of the Republican party or is the Republican Party the political subsidiary of Fox.

      by Dave from Oregon on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 05:28:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for the post, Adam. (14+ / 0-)

    Hard having to take a deep breath today after what I thought were surprising results from AR-Sen yesterday.  Great candidate, good campaign.

    Terrific comment from ThAnswr in a different diary gave me strength, and helped to renew my hope.

    Here.

    Thanks for your work and efforts.  And no, we're never giving up.

  •  this campaign, though unsuccessful, is a (36+ / 0-)

    template for what must be done in the future.  These corrupt DC machine democrats must be flushed down the drain using the primary process.  at least this approach will be easier than forming a third party.

    •  Right---We Have To Start Somewhere (12+ / 0-)

      If at first you don't suceed, try, try again.    

    •  We also need to follow through . . . (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CoolOnion, grrr, blueoasis, jedennis, m00finsan

      . . . by not financially supporting or voting for Lincoln in November just because she's "the Democrat," or is said to be.  These people need to LOSE THEIR SEATS in order to learn any lessons--or in order for anybody else to learn any lessons.

      "Americans are a wonderful people: They will always do the right thing--after exhausting every other possible alternative."--Winston Churchill

      by keikekaze on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 12:44:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We also need to follow through (4+ / 0-)

        Maybe yes - maybe no. I always like to look at the alternative and for me, another Republican in the Senate is not a good or better thing.

      •  While that might seem like great advice (8+ / 0-)

        right now, we shouldn't rush to judgment.

        Perhaps (while not likely, grant you) Sen. Lincoln will have a ephiphany between now and General Election period...

        Perhaps she will start to re-organize her legislative priorities, based on the fact that she just barely managed to hang onto her seat in the Primary where she has been the Senator for 12 years already.

        If this proves to be true, the Progressive Caucus may now have some 'pull' when it comes to the votes that Senator Lincoln will cast during the remainder of the year until November. There is a whole lot of legislation up for debate this summer and fall...

        I'm willing to see how she plays it, before I'm willing to give the Senate seat to a Republican without any further consideration.

        •  Well, if she has a MIRACULOUS conversion . . . (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oceanview, blueoasis, James Kresnik

          . . . and turns into another Bernie sanders, and not only talks it but follows through with action, then I'd be prepared to support her too.  But I do think that's dreaming, though your faith in human nature, Angie, is inspiring!

          People, in building a movement in politics, you have to think in terms of the future, not only (and not primarily) the present or the short-term.  If Lincoln does not have a miraculous conversion, there are worse things than losing that one seat for a term to some other party.  The loss would enable Arkansas to nominate a real Democrat--like Bill Halter--next time, and get him elected.  As long as (the unconverted) Lincoln stays in the seat, that can't happen, and the seat isn't really a Democratic seat.

          "Americans are a wonderful people: They will always do the right thing--after exhausting every other possible alternative."--Winston Churchill

          by keikekaze on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 01:50:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  How much difference? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        keikekaze, methinshaw, m00finsan

        How much difference is there between a Senate with a majority of Democrats dominated by Blue Dogs and a Senate with a Republican majority? A lot in terms of political theater.  Not a lot in terms of legislation.

        We're likely to get a financial reform bill favorable to Wall Street to go along with a health care bill favorable to insurance companies.  We might as well have Mitch McConnell banging the gavel full time.

        Progressives need to take the Arkansas primary as a starting point to build on, not as a defeat to back away from.

        •  Committee chairs. Subpoena power. (0+ / 0-)

          You really want James Inhofe (R-OK) chairing the environment committee instead of Barbara Boxer (D-CA)?  The guy who called global warming the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people"?

          You don't think the new crop of Senate Republicans (almost completely devoid of any reasonable Republicans anymore) is going to start subpoenaing anything and everything they can about the Obama administration to try to impeach him?  It will happen.  They'll make a grand spectacle of it all, Fox News blowing up insignificant events as if they were the smoking gun, and at the first sign of the most remote of indiscretions, just watch.  If the GOP regains the House, Obama will be impeached.  And if the GOP controls the Senate at the time, he WILL be convicted and removed from office.

          When one party has been wholly taken over by nutjobs, it really is that simple.

    •  Yes, LRT as long as we can make sure that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Betty Pinson

      they don't close over 98% of teh polling stations.

    •  hmmm.... (0+ / 0-)

      Is it not the case that that "progressives" from outside the state swooped in with huge money and attacked Lincoln on Halter's behalf, so he got branded as a left winger (which he is not) in a ruby red state?  Did those outsiders not allow Lincoln to run as the "populist" and make Halter the "elitist"?  For they allowed Lincoln to run as the native Arkansan fighting for the common Arkansan against big labor elites from the outside, which Halter got tarred with?  Is that the "template" for victory to which you refer?  

      Maybe that's the template for states like Connecticut, but ruby red Arkansas?

  •  Thanks Adam!! nt (4+ / 0-)

    Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves. Henry David Thoreau

    by Sydserious on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 12:28:13 PM PDT

  •  a huge split in the democratic party is openning (15+ / 0-)

    up between the democrats who believe power is at the corporate level and democrats who believe power is at the level of the people. i use to think the democrats will not lose to many seats in november because the republicans did not have any ideas, but now i see a huge fissure happening in the democratic party (fueled by the whitehouse) and it could cause a good part of the party to go off on its own. corporate dems and corporate repubs are the same people, so why even vote for either side - vote for another party

  •  Thank you. (6+ / 0-)

    I hope that we have actually built power.  I sure hope that with consistent pressure we can remove DLC and other trojan republicans from the Democratic Party.

    Distrust of authority should be the first civic duty. - Norman Douglas

    by Fossil on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 12:39:47 PM PDT

  •  I donated over 100 bucks to Halter.. (17+ / 0-)

    And i'd do it again in a heartbeat. Next up Lieberman and Ben Nelson..

  •  Proud to have been a (8+ / 0-)

    supporter; confident that more will come of it.

    Nice diary, nice work.  Kudos.  DKos at its best.

  •  Risk (11+ / 0-)

    Anything worth fighting for involves some risk taking.  Taking on an incumbent -- anytime, anyplace -- is risky.  At least, the voices of real Democrats were heard and Sen. Lincoln & other Democrats won't soon forget it.

    www.dcforobama.com Our work is not over! Giving back to the grassroots.

    by howardpark on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 12:42:22 PM PDT

  •  I generally don't love these diaries (14+ / 0-)

    as they are unnecessarily oppositional to the WH, which of course supports incumbents who have necessary votes and should not be demonized.

    However, unions especially deserve a pat on the back for standing up to Ms. Lincoln, who is one of the principal people watering down the reform agenda, pivoting during the primaries to actually make some sense on financial services industry reform.  Round of applause.  The WH bashing is bullshit, but thank you to the coalition who took a stand, said enough, and almost unseated Lincoln.  She's now in a position in which she needs to prove, via legislation, that her candidacy is worth supporting in the generals.  If she's smart, she'll make the moves to make that case, not merely cater to the crabs in the bucket "right to work" nonsense which permeates her state.

    climate.gov---POTUS' New Science-Based Climate Change Agency

    by GN1927 on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 12:44:20 PM PDT

    •  The White House... (7+ / 0-)

      ...should, and needs, to be criticized.

      •  Whateva (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        grrr, EdgedInBlue

        It's pretty stupid to throw a punch at those of us who don't like field clearing, but aren't going to demonize this WH for it, while we are grateful that in fact $10M was spent to send a message about legislative asshattery.  No one can take my appreciation about this primary challenge from me.

        If you really want to get pissed at an actual target not an imaginary one, here is a clue: POTUS has little pull in AR.  You know who does, and who could and did deliver for Lincoln?  Let me clear my throat and move on.  I'm looking towards the silver lining and thanking EVERYONE who stood up to Blanche Lincoln, who tried to play the victim about "outside interests" when in fact her campaign larder is full of people hostile to average Americans getting a fair shake.

        climate.gov---POTUS' New Science-Based Climate Change Agency

        by GN1927 on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 01:19:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I really wish he'd won. (7+ / 0-)

    I'm very proud of the accomplishment, however, and want to express kudos to you and the whole PCCC gang. I just checked and Stephanie's great letter in my inbox. Keep up the great work, folks!

    There is no more important struggle for American democracy than ensuring a diverse, independent and free media. - Bill Moyers

    by StepLeftStepForward on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 12:44:46 PM PDT

  •  Progressives Built Poweer (11+ / 0-)

    My sense, when reading about the large number of polls closed in strongly Halter-leaning areas, is that this election had substantial fraud which had nothing to do with Halter as a candidate but everything to do with the entrenched Arkansas electoral establishment. I had expected to see "us" launch a demand for at the very least an investigation of the (1) 2 polls supposedly open - which were not and the (2) 40 some polls not kept open. We just let this go???????

  •  Thanks Adam. (15+ / 0-)

    Unions and netroots, green and blue, a movement is being created OUTSIDE the establishment Dems.

    Pooties and Woozles unite; you have nothing to lose but your leashes!

    by TomP on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 12:49:38 PM PDT

  •  I volunteered for Halter in Garland County (13+ / 0-)

    This was my first time to volunteer for a campaign and I really enjoyed working with and meeting the local team, and especially the other local volunteers at the campaign office.

    Even though we lost, we've started building a local base to help in future elections.

    Special thanks to all of you around the country who phonebanked with us, donated time and money, and called and bitched at our incompetent election commission.

    I'm sorry for the result of the election, but I'm glad I volunteered and got to connect with other like-minded folks.

  •  Main Lesson from Arkansas?? (11+ / 0-)

    One lesson is clearly that getting rid of corporate arse kissing blue dogs in red states like Arkansas is not easy.

    Not sure what leverage Halter had, not sure what the economic condition of AR is--

    I do know that people within the O admim might want to be careful with their mocking/slamming the effort/money put forth by unions on behalf of Halter-- unless of course they don't care about winning in 2012.

    "Hate Arizona's new law? Ask Washington to do it's job". Ross Douthat

    by Superpole on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 12:52:37 PM PDT

  •  Losing is winning? LoL! (0+ / 0-)

    nice spin!

  •  Most out of Donation Dollars (6+ / 0-)

    The PCCC is the only organization I make an onging monthly donation to.

    I really like their approach of helping campaigns run better.  

    I think it is the way to get the most out of my donation dollars.

  •  Pretty much dashes the OFA "grassroots" image. (7+ / 0-)

    Thank goodness for alternatives like PCCC and DFA.

  •  Isn't this the same story we told ourselves (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DaleA

    after we failed to oust Lieberman?  Success is success, failure is failure, and spin is spin.  Let's stay reality-based, shall we?

    Change will not come if we wait for some other person or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.

    by WV TN DEM on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 01:02:31 PM PDT

  •  This is an important Diary (6+ / 0-)

    The progress made in the Halter race was nothing short of remarkable, even though it was just short of complete success.  I spent part of this morning making this same case in another diary, where I also suggested that, DINO though she may be, Lincoln is still better than Boozman.

    This was, after all, Arkansas, a profoundly red state right now. Still the lesson of last night is the growing power of the left in the Democratic party.

    Educate yourself. Think for yourself. Be yourself. Act for others.

    by DHinIA on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 01:02:59 PM PDT

    •  Lincoln better than Boozman? Yes. She votes (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DHinIA

      with the caucus 60%+ of the time. The stat for Boozman would be roughly 0%. There are going to be a lot of tough votes, especially in the Senate,and if we want to get as much of the Democratic agenda through as possible, we have to have every vote possible, including Lincoln's, when she'll give it.

      Building a more progressive Dem party through "more and better Democrats" requires BOTH challenging incumbents in the primaries AND voting for [almost any] Democratic candidate in the general.

      Lincoln irks the living daylight out of me. Her smugness, her spineless kowtowing to corporate interests, her ... oh, you know the list. But if I lived in Arkansas, I would hold my nose and vote for her.

  •  Progressives built power? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DaleA, drache

    At what cost?  Labor poured $10 million into defeat.  $10 million which could have been used to shore up vulnerable candidates like Betsey Markey in CO-04.  Betsey Markey who voted for health care in an R+6 PVI district.  Instead they poured money into teaching the White House a lesson.  Money that could have been better spent elsewhere.

    I'm all for progressives mobilizing to put pressure on the White House, so kudos to you for putting your money where your mouth is.  I'm just not sure how smart going after Lincoln was, particularly when neither she nor Halter were likely to prevail in the fall.

    Oba-MA bumaye! Oba-MA bumaye!

    by fou on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 01:06:30 PM PDT

  •  I'm sorry... (13+ / 0-)

    ...and you can shoot the messenger if you want to on this, but...

    My firm belief is (and has been for quite osme time now) that this decision to focus here, and pimp this primary as some sort of "statement" against "bad Dems" was pure political folly. And not well thought out. I'm sorry, that's how I feel.

    I am no Blanche Lincoln fan. That said, I live in Minnesota. I have different perspectives on what it means to be a "progressive" than does someone in Arkansas. Or California. Or Texas. But what I do know, because it is confirmed without question in every poll that is done, is that today's South is by no means a measuring stick by which we should be measuring "good Dems" versus "bad Dems", if we should be using such generic labels for Senators to begin with.

    Look, national sentiment for the public option was favorable. Southern sentiment was not. And while Arkansans wavered somewhat during the course of the debate, they never once clamored for a public option, in fact opposing it in latest polls just before the Senate voted on the final measures by over 3 to 2. Further, while Blanche Lincoln is no hero of mine, and was a painful roadblock to much of the critical elements of the early Obama agenda, Lincoln still voted with the Democratic caucus over 63% of the time, despite the fact that her state had become increasingly conservative in the later parts of last decade, and overwhelmingly supported John McCain in 2008.

    Does that mean we simply don't push to find the Bill Halters of the world and help them find the wind in the sails to keep pressure on the Blanche Lincolns of the world? Absolutely not. It is good to put pressure on Dems of all stripes to be more progressive and more resilient in the face of GOP obstructionism. But to pinpoint this Senator, this race, in this state, and create this type of coalition and political "swagger", despite the limited chances for success and reward, is political foolishness. And the PCCC should have known better.

    Your principles are MUCH better served by continuing to push the national progressive front by ensuring that GOP Senators in strongly blue states and fools like Joe Liebermann who truly ARE DINO's relative to the wishes of their consituents, are shuttled out of office at every chance. By ensuring that an election in a state like Massachusetts, where Ted Kennedy boldly represented every progressive principle we stand for, get the type of attention and muscle from PACs and activists, labor and the progressive netroots, sees ten times the public support and focus as was seen here. And by all means, NEVER, EVER, push a race like this as a "litmus test", a "shot across the bow", a "message", and a "repudiation of corrupt Dems" in advance of the election as was done by your group and FDL to name a few (and very disappointingly, by Kos, who should have known better), unless you know that the chances are strong and the apparatus is in place to get the job done. Not to just chest thump for a cause as was done here. We came off looking impotent, foolish and incompetent politically in this case, despite your assertions to the contrary. And that costs the netroots leverage, credibility, and ultimately momentum, if we chase down these irrelevant targets over and over again.

    I applaud the sentiment. And I can't stand the approach. Where is the urgency to give the people of New Hampshire a real voice after being fraudulently "served" by Judd Gregg for so long. Where are our efforts to ensure the progressives in Maine are putting forth the best possible candidate and campaign to unseat the miserable Olympia Snowe. Why isn't the PCCC already actively recruiting the netroots financially and effort-wise to ensure that Joe Lieberturd is unceremoniously disposed of when his time has come in Connecticut. Where are we when it comes to making sure that the open seat left behind by Barack Obama doesn't turn red in Illinois?

    No, this was about spite. And anger. And revenge. And putting a name and face to our frustration about being overzealous going into the HCR fight. And those are brutal motives to throw the weight of progressive PACs, the netroots, labor (oh how labor is getting KILLED today for picking Arkansas of all places to prove some sort of point - did we really need that?) and the left in general behind an uphill candidacy to win the primary, and the a mountainous climb to win in the general. And the shame is -- all the information we needed to know how tough this was going to be, and how small the reward was relative to the risk, was out there the whole while. Internal polls and data showed months ago that this was likely, regardless of how well the campaign was run. We KNEW going in that a seated President fighting for votes to back his agenda was never going to back a challenger, and every Washington insider that has ever been involved in a campaign KNEW that the Clintons were prepared to rally around Blanche Lincoln. Hell, the Clintonistas were shouting loudly to avoid this well before it started - I know, I was there watching the discussions. Yet, we ignored it all, because we were angry at bad old Blanche. How sad.

    None of the above makes it wrong. I wish Halter had won. I donated. But you asked for thoughts and here they are. They aren't popular on here, but of course, as we've seen time and time again for nearly six years, DKos is a place wherte you come to dream the dream, talk the talk, and then get constantly and bitterly disappointed. It bears no resemblence to reality, despite the intellectual arguments to the contrary on here. And it is your responsibility, Adam Green, to make sure that the emotions and well written/voiced idealist arguments on here and elsewhere on the net don't get unseperably intertwined and comingled with precision political strategy and the ability to direct resources where they have the greatest impact and most punch. To do otherwise is to simply flush your contributors' money down the toilet, and to stall the progressive agenda indefinitely. And that costs my kids and yours their futures - not OK.

    The bottom line is this. I know this will get 20 angry responses on here, and that's fine. I'm not going to waste time debating it with folks on here who are entitled to their opinions and passions. It's good this community cares so deeply and is so invested, and voices - strong voices - should continue to be heard. But you asked for thoughts, and sometimes the message is hard to take. I work closely with political consultants, strategists and insiders frequently and have for years. It's a nasty business. It should be purer and more equitable. It needs to be fixed. But it is truly a science, and until there is substantial and radical reform of the whole process, in the end, no matter how much we hate it, those who employ the best and soundest strategies win and get the agendas done, and those who can't get past their own frustrations and anger lose, and continue to be disappointed. That's reality. And if the PCCC is going to be an influencial and meaningful voice and agent for change for progressives everywhere, it must act with forethought and reason, political savvy and laser precision. It can't settle for "close was pretty damn good", for in this case, it wasn't - Lincoln was an incumbent in a difficult year with poor overall favorability ratings and still won. It must see the whole picture, and resist the temptation to please Kos, to placate the most liberal among us, and serve the national interest by trying to alter regional and state politics on the fly. Until and unless you do that, I am fully confident that all you will have to show for your efforts and money going forward will be unblemished principles and lots and lots of near misses and "moral victories". (which of course, in the end, may matter more to many on here, and that's OK - if only those things were worth as much in the bigger scheme as they should be, but that's a different story for a different day...)

    Thanks for your inquiry. I'm sorry Arkansas didn't come through. Now let's make sure the GOP doesn't hold seats where they don't belong, and let's send the message clearly in November and beyond that the opinions and principles of the voters in respective states DO matter, and that progressives will carry and hold seats where polling and demographics show that progressives are strongly in the majority. That will change the Lincolns of the South soon enough, without the pain of pushing a boulder up hill without the desired outcome.  

    •  You should post this as a diary. (6+ / 0-)

      It might not gain much traction with the herd, but your insights are valuable nonetheless.

      Oba-MA bumaye! Oba-MA bumaye!

      by fou on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 01:14:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MRA NY

        But I will decline.

        This would pop on to the diary list and disappear just as quickly, riddled with HR's and scorn. I don't have a lot of time to spend here, and I don't know that it would be a good use of it to go there.

        I am confident that if what I write is of some use, the right folks will find it and get what they need out of it. I'm glad you found it useful. I hope Adam Green at least reads it. After all, it is simply another perspective and nothing more.

    •  Did you forget Arlen Specter? (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DaleA, 3goldens, rhetoricus, m00finsan, Vtdblue

      He got his ass kicked period. Yeah, we lost this one against Blanche but I didnt see you here the day after Arlen got his ass whooped spewing all that bullshit. Where were you?

      •  Actually, I was here... (5+ / 0-)

        "...spewing all this bullshit".

        And have been for months. Feel free to puruse through my comments history if you really want to.

        I had no intention to debate this with anyone, as it's perspective and opinion, but your comment, as usual, warrants a response.

        You are completely missing the point if you are drawing ANY parallels between Pennsylvania and what is being discussed here. First, Pennsylvania is demographically much more progressive and liberal than Arkansas. It sits in a region of the country that is more aligned politically with DKos than Arkansas. It polled very favorably for the public option and a number of other policies that we support, where Arkansas did not. It featured a former Republican who ran for his life to the Democratic party versus a progressive candidate who was far more popular with established Democrats, whereas Lincoln's favorabilities with Ark. Dems were within 5 points of Halter's. And most of all, that race was NEVER touted as an epicenter for political retribution against a "bad Dem" the way the Arkansas race was. Since those are virtually all of my points, I see no parallels, other than there was a primary, and we wanted one side to beat the other.

        More importantly, though, you can keep bringing your street fight "us versus you all" bravado to the table all you want. You can villainize anybody who dares argue points contrary to yours, and spew your curse filled rants all you want. I've seen you on many threads all over the place lately with your constant anti-Lincoln, anti-establishment rhetoric, and I hope you are having fun. But this isn't about you and me, and it isn't about winning and losing. This is about the future of ideals, and the next steps in framing the outcomes of some very, very critical issues and challenges facing us. We can attack everything we see on here with a blakc and white, no exceptions lens if we seek self-satisfaction and a means to feel tough and principled, and if that floats your boat, by all means have at it. But it in no way connects you in any way with what really will move the needle and determine anything, and in my opinion, that's wasted breath. YMMV. But in the end, it defintely does damn well matter for my kids and for all future generations that the tools and vehicles and agents for future decisions don't lose the war to win a battle here or there. That our donations and contributions of time and energy, and political leverage aren't being pissed into the five winds simply to assuage ourselves when our feelings get hurt. That we aren't petitioning Congress for one thing today, then calling back for another tomorrow, then deciding at the 11th hour that something is better than nothing so we'd better get back on the phones and lobby against our former positions as happened on here in the HCR debate. That is called mental masturbation - a complete waste of time - and counterproductive in the political circles where real laws get made, and our futures get shaped.

        You hate that us "politicos" end up being all that's relevant in the end? Good. Change the f&cking system. But until you do, and it is, the sooner you realize that real actions do have real consequences, and that this isn't just some silly teenage game of "I'm tougher than you", it would serve us all to expect organizations such as the PCCC, the DCC, FDL, Kos and the like to sharpen the political pencil a little bit and not go chasing after emotions and revenge at every turn.

    •  Very thoughtful comment (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      grrr, bnasley, AmericanIdeal, EdgedInBlue

      And I believe you've identified the cause of much of the anger and frustration; which are, I think, often attempts to change the system as much as the faces of the people working within the system.

      It's a nasty business. It should be purer and more equitable. It needs to be fixed. But it is truly a science, and until there is substantial and radical reform of the whole process, in the end, no matter how much we hate it, those who employ the best and soundest strategies win and get the agendas done, and those who can't get past their own frustrations and anger lose, and continue to be disappointed.

      Legalism: strict conformity to the letter of the law rather than its spirit

      by Catte Nappe on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 01:25:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  you seek perfection in a situation where (6+ / 0-)

      perfection has never and will never exist.

      A great deal of our success has to to with process, in that
      a) other DINOs better be prepared to defend their DINOsaur-like behavior.
      b) Other progressives are more likely to stand up, knowing that for once, there is an organization with like minded ideas and goals.
      c) having an organization, instead of a few, often contradictory voices, automatically gives people a seat at the table. If the WH or others continue to ignore it, they risk a lot more than we do.
      d) Having an organization, with some successes, makes fundraising even more successful in the future. Hard to sow seeds on barren ground. This makes our soil far more fertile.
      e) experience will only grow, and more experience will only create more successes. Period.

      What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

      by agnostic on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 01:31:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Unfortunately. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        agnostic

        The ordinary Bob (I never use Joe after that mo-ron in 2008 gave all Joes a bad name...) who does not hang out on here much and only uses the MSM for input on politics sees nothing of the sort. The meme out there today and for the forseeable future is that this was a head scratcher from the beginning, and that this was a BLOW for progressives, not a victorious warning shot of sorts.

        Wins create momentum. Close calls scare no one. And believe me, there are more than a few challengers for 2012 out there TODAY who are shaking their head and wondering how they would get the job done if this netroots/labor/anti-incumbent formula couldn't get it done in Arkansas. I can tell you first hand that your point a) is not settling in within political circles today, unfortunately.

        I am only the messenger. And of course more than a few will go Bohemian Joe on me for this, and that's fine. It is disappointing to many that poured themselves into this and rooted for Halter to make things "right" in Arkansas. I wish he'd won. But it is absolutely important that while the netroots are looking for saviors and "better Dems" to lift their spirits, that a good dose of progressives are keeping their eyes on the tactics, the data, and the bigger prize. Our candidate in Maine NEEDS this kind of focus. Our candidate in Illinois should be getting this kind of attention. Our infrastructure in NC should be getting funded daily for the upcoming race and beyond. And we'd better damn well bring the same kind of vitriol and spite to bear in CT, where Joe Lieberman truly IS violating the wishes and priorities of HIS OWN CONSTITUENTS daily, and plays games with their vote regularly.

        I don't seek perfection at all. I fear many on here do, ironically. Blanche Lincoln, while no favorite of mine, voted pretty well in line with the polled preferences of HER CONSTITUENTS, which are not us, and are not the same as the broader national view in many cases. If anything, I seem to be willing and able to accept imperfection in our Senators much better than those who attack me on here, and maybe that ius something we all should step back and think about a bit...

        •  Time and timing, (0+ / 0-)

          ah, what a combination.

          Would you admit that, apart from the Green Party, there has been no substantive, liberal/progressive/labor movement that had any real impact? Even the Greens tend to be ignored, rather than respected.

          We are talking baby steps here, and you expect immediate results, otherwise what we are doing is inappropriate?

          I don't agree with that logic in the least. When an extremely small group of very bright people decided to throw off the yokes of Britain, I suspect that a polling organization would have made the odds of winning, 30-70 against. A fledgling group of non military people, standing up to the greatest navy, the biggest army, the best supplied, the best trained, and the most obedient fighters seen on this planet?
          (insert an image of US surveillance drones, attacking and killing the 1,274th #3 man in Al Qaida here) They beat the odds, but it took some time.

          We are beating the odds, and for once, we have a discernible plan and organization.

          As for what you hear first hand, may I suggest that their views and insights would improve with time? Most do. They may still be too smug and excited about winning this skirmish, not realizing that their gloating fucks their future each and every moment.

          One last point. You describe yourself as a messenger. Therefore, you are not an actor, not a mover, a shaker, a cog in the progressive wheel. I suggest that until you start lifting your own load, criticism of a very close loss is rather, ahem, . . . . how do I say this politely? Had you done your share, we probably would have won this one.

          What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

          by agnostic on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 03:03:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Don't go there. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            citizen k, MRA NY

            Weak, and again missing the point.

            I was there in Massachusetts - on the ground - were you?

            I spend nearly 40 hours a week working with political organizations on the ground - calling, canvassing, developing tools and tactics. I didn't spend any of my time here because, as I've said and is my point, I was busy working with folks in NC that desperately need help. And in Maine. And in MN here where I live to get rid of that blight Michelle Bachmann. And as much as I hate her, even I would admit that is wasted time, as she will likely win in a walk. So, no, I'm not even immune to giving in to my feelings once in a while.

            You are comletely missing the point, and that is fine. You are entitled to your opinions and views. My point simply is that imagine what that small band of folks could do if it were using the same fortitude, the same will, the same steadfastness in purpose, but allowing themselves to target it it more precisely, to prioritize it better, to accomplish more with less because there is less waste - in terms of money, time and effort. I would imagine even you would have to admit that in all liklihood much of what helped that small band of men get to the 30% and not bog down in the 70% was that they employed brilliant tactical strategy and outmaneuvered the enemy, no? I'll throw you an Alamo and a Waterloo if you just think it boils down to spirit, righteousness and guts.

            I expected this. And frankly, on here, I'd rather see the spirit and the fight. But within the PCCC, within the SEIU, within the WH, and within the war rooms of progressive activist organizations, I'd like to hope and we all better damn well expect that the tactics and strategies very much ARE getting poured over as they were by our top generals in the 18th century, and directed in a better fashion than our adversaries on the Right. Otherwise, we'll all look back sadly on this period and shake our heads at the injustice of how noble our causes were yet how tragically they were never advanced.

          •  if the "progressives" had managed the Revolution (0+ / 0-)

            The minutemen all would have died trying to go toe-to-toe with the British army - to make a point.

            •  that's just plain wrong. (0+ / 0-)

              We were blessed with the most progressive thinkers and writers of that generation. To create, imagine, put into words, and turn into a movement their liberal, freedom based goals, wow. They were the most progressive of anyone in our history, FDR not withstanding.

              Being progressive, they threw away the british rules of war, and managed to beat a superior force, creating new approaches that fit the moment, not some rule book.

              If anything, our revolutionaries, and their military leaders, were the most progressive folks our country has ever experienced.

              What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

              by agnostic on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 04:57:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  I appreciate (5+ / 0-)

      your very thoughtful comment. I will also say that taking a chance to get rid of Lincoln was worth it to me.

      I could have let the health care reform fight go, but she is also pushing for reduced estate tax (! - hardly an important part of Arkansas agenda!) and has been labeled the first member of the "dirty dozen" by the League of Conservation Voters due to her environmental stance.

      I suspect she will torpedo her support of finance reform now that she won the primary.

      She harms the democratic brand tremendously.

      support progressives - support Democracy For America run by Howard Dean. NO more $ to DSCC/DCC

      by grrr on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 01:43:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I never debated that, and wouldn't... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        citizen k, grrr, MRA NY, EdgedInBlue

        But losing seats to the GOP in states like Maine, and New Hampshire, and Connecticut (yes Lieberman, you are a GOP'er in my book) and Iowa and Ohio and Massachusetts and Washington Illinois and Nevada - all places that voted for Dems and Obama in 2008 - would cause infinitely MORE harm to the "brand" than anything Lincoln does or does not do, from a state that overwhelmingly supported McCain in 2008.

        That is the ballgame here. And in the end, if you take care of your own business, and your numbers in Congress begin to mirror the proportion of Americans who support the Dems versus the GOP, then those numbers, more than anything else the PCCC or anyone can do, marginalize and "get in line" the Lincolns of the world. If Dems held 64 seats in the Senate, Lieberman and Lincoln and Nelson all have MUCH less room to obfuscate and irritate than with 55. That is the basic math those who win and get it done operate by - why do we refuse to?

        Thank you for your kind response. I appreciate your comment as well.

        •  I guess (0+ / 0-)

          I am willing to keep sending $ to progressives. I just am no longer willing to send any money at all to the DSCC or DCCC.

          If someone has the choice of money to a vaguely decent dem over a republican in a blue/purple state vs primarying a DINO, then donate to the dem over a republican instead of to the primary.

          But if it's a choice between primarying a really horrible DINO like Lincoln vs money to the DSCC/DCCC, send money to the primary. The money I sent Halter was money I once would have given the DSCC/DCCC. no more.

          support progressives - support Democracy For America run by Howard Dean. NO more $ to DSCC/DCC

          by grrr on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 04:17:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Funny but that sounds JUST like Rahm E. before (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Betty Pinson

      Howard Dean's 50-state strategy helped push the Democrats to unimagined (by you or Rahm) heights in '06 and '08.  Pretty Beltway Establishment in your thinking, in my view.

      And if the PCCC is going to be an influencial and meaningful voice and agent for change for progressives everywhere, it must act with forethought and reason, political savvy and laser precision. It can't settle for "close was pretty damn good", for in this case, it wasn't - Lincoln was an incumbent in a difficult year with poor overall favorability ratings and still won. It must see the whole picture, and resist the temptation to please Kos, to placate the most liberal among us, and serve the national interest by trying to alter regional and state politics on the fly.

      People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people. -- "V for Vendetta"

      by Vtdblue on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 02:11:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's a false parallel, IMHO (5+ / 0-)

        This has nothing to do with Rahm Emanuel or his viewpoints, which I disagree with generally.

        I would never espouse giving up on the 50 state strategy, and I stated above that there is nothing wrong with finding and propelling the Halters of the world into races. My point focused solely on the tactics used, and the context built up around, this particular race, making it, somehow, a litmus test for the broader progressive message.

        For pulling in labor in grand fashion to a state that is by and large non-labor, and is home to Wal-Mart - notorious enemy #1 to the organized labor movement.

        For neglecting other pressing priorities elsewhere to prove a point here, in the conservative south of all places. Doesn't it strike you as odd that you accuse my view of running contrary to the Dean strategy, yet it is I who is condemning putting so much focus here at the expense of other higher probability fruit elsewhere?

        For proclaiming long before votes were counted that Arkansas would be a proving ground for evidence that "bad Dems" (definition please? do we really think there is one consensus definition of what that is? Hell, FDL wanted to primary Bernie Sanders at one point!) would be hunted down and eliminated, all while internal polls and data showed that there was virtually NO chance that would happen here.

        Funny, it sounds not at all like Rahm E. who would have us believe often that progressive strongholds and the base can just be taken for granted while the middle and right must be courted, when I am arguing that the PCCC set out to lynch a conservadem in Arkansas while the base and core of the potential for progressive gains in blue states was receiving no such attention.

        No, Vtdblue, it is nothing as you say, which is proving my point that too often, when we hear or see something that we don't like, we'll fly off the handle to respond in a way that makes us feel better without looking at what we are saying and how/if it connects to realities.  

        •  Here's the basic calculus: A handful of Dem flips (0+ / 0-)

          among House seats are worth far less than getting rid of one Repug-lite vote in the Senate, given the razor-thin margins on important issues of the day. It was worth the gamble, given Lincoln's persistent obstruction of key progressive legislation, and the fact that if she were out of the way and Halter were to win, it would have been as good as upsetting an incumbent Republican.  The Senate is, as you know, the chief problem this session.  

          Now, granted, by next session, we're likely to be in even more paralysis, given probable Dem losses...

          People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people. -- "V for Vendetta"

          by Vtdblue on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 11:36:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Just to add to American Dream's response to you (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        citizen k

        which is right on, it's clear your kneejerk reaction is to once again put everything in terms of an intraparty struggle.  The fifty state strategy can't be applied to a primary race, except to make them something other than appealing to people outside of the state who won't be voting.  

        Is the video camera the only device that worked?

        by Inland on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 03:05:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm sorry you didn't understand the analogy (0+ / 0-)

          but I was referring to the classic push by people in the Dem establishment to underplay, via a false and short-sighted "realism," the potential for electing either more Dems -- during Rahm's cynical, anti-50-state opposition, or better Dems, as is the case here.  

          It's called an analogy for a reason.

          People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people. -- "V for Vendetta"

          by Vtdblue on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 03:14:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  the endless focus on Rahm Emanuel obscures (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        EdgedInBlue

        He's not a boogeyman or an all powerful Illuminati.

        I'll tell you who is the boogeyman and the all powerful conspirator: the media that urges a view of politics as driven by personality, as if it were some telenovela.

        •  Chief of Staff is very powerful position in any (0+ / 0-)

          White House, and Rahm is a very aggressive figure in any context.  It's not only personality, though that plays into it, but it's the fact that Rahm clearly has his hand in a lot of the intrigue, and the disdain that's being directed at progressives.  Not "all" powerful... just VERY.

          People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people. -- "V for Vendetta"

          by Vtdblue on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 11:31:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The people on here (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      citizen k

      Dont have ears for listening or eyes for seeing. they are deafened, and blinded by there anger.

      Which has grown into malice and has turned into extreme dissappointment because of this loss.

      So, I told you so. Leaves a little sting. But you are speaking some truth.

      And the Truth hurts but as huey said,

      " Pain is the cracking of the shell that encloses your understanding. Its bitter potion your inner physcians uses to heal its sick self. So, heed the physcian, and drink his remedy in silence and tranquility"

      "The peace sign is just the middle and trigger finger"- Lil Wayne

      by itsnotmyfault on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 03:37:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think you're a little out of touch (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wom Bat

      Opposition to Lincoln was about much more than her vote on the PO or health care reform.  If you don't understand that, I'm not going to waste your time or mine trying to explain it.

      "Private health insurers always manage to stay one step ahead of the sheriff." Sen. Sherrod Brown

      by Betty Pinson on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 04:21:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Dems who opposed PO are not mainly Southern (0+ / 0-)

      http://www.southernstudies.org/...

      Senate Dems against public option come from states with near-monopoly insurance markets
      small_Sen Blanche Lincoln(2).jpgAs followers of the health reform debate know, today the Senate Finance Committee voted down 15 to 8 a measure to include a public insurance option to the Senate bill.

      Bookmark and Share

      All 10 Republican members of the committee voted against the amendment, introduced by Sen. "Jay" Rockefeller (D-WV), which includes what advocates call a "robust public option."

      Five Democrats also voted "nay": Max Bacus of Montana, Tom Carper of Delaware, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Bill Nelson of Florida.

      Yet these Democrats represent states that may be most in need of a public insurance choice to compete with private plans. Four out of five of the Democrats who voted "no" on Rockefeller's amendment come from states where one insurance company controls 42% or more of the market -- a level of market dominance that the Department of Justice legally defines as "highly concentrated."

      Here are how these senators' states rate for insurance market concentration:

      STATE -- % OF MARKET CONTROLLED BY BIGGEST COMPANY*

      NORTH DAKOTA -- 89% controlled by Noridian/Blue Cross Blue Shield ND
      ARKANSAS -- 75% of health insurance market controlled by Blue Cross Blue Shield AR
      MONTANA -- 75% controlled by Blue Cross Blue Shield MT
      DELAWARE -- 42% controlled by CareFirst/Blue Cross Blue Shield
      FLORIDA -- 30% controlled by Blue Cross Blue Shield FL

      Only one of the Democrats -- Sen. Bill Nelson from Florida -- comes from a state without a "highly concentrated" health insurance market, although it's notable that the state's top two insurers (BCBS and Aetna) together control 45% of the market.

      Nation-wide, 94% of insurance markets are near-monopolies -- and as Facing South reported earlier, the metro area with the worst concentration in the country (Texarkana, 97%) falls in the district of fierce public option opponent and Blue Dog Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR).

      Just posting because it's important to keep these facts in mind.

  •  Why Were So Many Convinced That Halter Was (0+ / 0-)

    going to win?

    It seemed as if it was a forgone conclusion according to most media.

    Was this a case of counting chickens before they hatch?

    It makes me question the validity of thinking that the teabagger candidates will be turned down by the american public in the general election.

    The teabaggers could very well be the future of America.

    I hope not.

    But could we be underestimating them?

  •  Whether you (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boadicea, kerplunk, agnostic, bnasley

    believe this or not-it was a great night for progressuves!

    With all the power of the Democratic party itself behind her-we nearly unseated an encumbent!

    We nearly toppled a "party-line-corporatist-establishment-democrat."

    It was the shot heard around DNC headquarters.

    We sent em' their wake-up call-and it was loud and clear.

    Make no mistake: they came within a hair's breadth from losing to us-and they know it!

    Progressives-organized labor-activists-grass roots supporters-we moved a mountain!

    This truly counted-and it counted BIG.

    Take a bow-people!

    Take a bow!

    "Republicans keep saying they want their country back. I want my country forward."-Bill Maher

    by lyvwyr101 on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 01:17:05 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for this very important diary, A.G. n/t (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens, agnostic, bnasley, m00finsan
  •  EXACTLY! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boadicea, looty, bnasley, m00finsan

    Rome wasn't burned in a day. Oh wait, wrong meta-4.

    OK, the whirled trade center did not collapse in a  . . .  that's wrong, too.

    Actually, I view the results so far as superb. We have numbers, we have assets, and for the first time in my memory, we have organization, communication, and a will to succeed. Some of each were missing in battles past.

    If you seriously think about it, forcing a runoff, then coming within a few thousand to take down a sitting senator, even a senator from Wallmart, that is one hell of an accomplishment.

    Even better, the DC based democratic bloatway, upon consideration, thought, and licking their wounds, will realize that they need us far more than we need them.

    Frankly, what does it matter if we have a DLC tool like Blanched voting against us, or whether the GOP installed another robot to do the same? OK, on some issues it might be worse, but on the other hand, people are even more sick and tired of the GOP than others.

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 01:24:06 PM PDT

  •  Umm No. There is no prize (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bigchin, m00finsan, fasteddie9318

    for finishing second in politics. Progressive groups and labor spend 10 million dollars and couldn't defeat an unpopular senator from Arkansas in a race where only about 255k people turned out to vote. I get it that you've to claim victory in order to fundraise for future races but truth is that it was a bad loss.

    •  That's true if all you value is politics (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bnasley, Fiona West

      Some of us care about the soul and direction of the party, and we made a very smug corporatists and her supporters very afraid of us.

      If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

      by rhetoricus on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 01:35:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not really. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bigchin, fasteddie9318

        Victory over Lieberman in the primaries was a much bigger victory than this scare of Lincoln and it didn't exactly put fear of God in US senators. If anything, Clinton and Obama get to tell Democratic senators that they saved Lincoln which makes establishment even stronger.

        •  We haven't begun to fight these guys (0+ / 0-)

          We won with Sestak. But we can't classify all attempts at pushing back against the corporatists "failures" because not every single one is not an out-and-out win. This was a David/Goliath situation, and we're building an army for the next fight. Lincoln had to spend a lot of resources to fight us.

          If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

          by rhetoricus on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 02:44:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  If you're going to primary incumbents, in order (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bnasley, Wom Bat

      to get better Democrats, then you're going to lose fairly often. But the victories will be important ones.

    •  "Insurgencies win wars, not battles." n/t (0+ / 0-)

      I don't know what's gonna happen, man, but I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames. -Jim Morrison "All Hail The American Night"

      by James Kresnik on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 06:15:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  limbaugh/hannity did more than clinton (4+ / 0-)

    good work all around adam, thanks.

    but i really think progressives need to start taking the local right wing radio stations seriously.

    how many votes did lincoln get that were anti union? the limbaughs and hannitys have been bashing unions for 20 years with a complete free speech free ride.

    an ark resident told me the radio was very anti halter. i'm just guessing but i suspect the local blowhards worked this angle.

    the corporatists are going to be able to keep getting made to order constituencies for whatever issues the radio can sell for their GOP and blue dogs or at least keep them in races when there should be no contest.

    the biggest advantage the corporatists have is that giant UNCONTESTED soapbox. if the unions had picketed those stations to straighten the story and defend halter i suspect there would have been a different outcome.

    the biggest political mistake in decades continues to be the left's continued struggle for progress while being beaten continuously  by rove and co's invisible political 2x4 as if the talk radio monopoly and its unique ability for coordinated uncontested repetition didn't exist.

    analyzing losses as if it didn't exist continues to be a huge mistake. the 'pundits will say clinton did it but the local radio stations, merely because they get a free speech free ride so their work goes unnoticed is the big problem.

    the radio monopoly is where the groundwork is done. and those stations in CA are going to have a great time with those open primaries they were so important in passing if progressives don't quit turning the dial.

    Progressives will lose all major messaging battles until they picket the limbaugh/hannity megastations and boycott those stations' local sponsors.

    by certainot on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 01:30:54 PM PDT

    •  I agree that talk radio is an important tool of (4+ / 0-)

      the right, and basically uncontested. But picketing local stations seems like a very weak response to me.

      The problem is that the strong response would be to develop a network of liberal/progressive talk radio stations with a strong attractive array of music, talk, local interest shows, etc. That takes a lot of money as well as research, recruiting talkshow hosts, etc. Very big project. I don't know how the netroots can contribute to it. But I agree that we're seriously disadvantaged by not having more or a presence on radio.

      •  i disagree, picketing is the american way (0+ / 0-)

        to deal with this- rpogressives are allowing their causes and candidates to be trashed all day, distorted and lied  about, and their candidates threatened.

        the left is allowing the right to set up soapboxes on every block in the country and essentially call out mothers whores and our fathers thieves.

        picketing those stations and calling their local sponsors to ask them why they sponsor global warming denial and racism and sexism is also free speech and the proper response to this.

        because most of the right talkers never take real calls that is the only response left.

        global warming won't wait for a progressive equivalent to fight through the monopoly the right enjoys in radio.

        once the media sees protesting it won't be able to keep repeating the prechewed talking points without second thought. communities will respond. when local sponsors pull out the stations will have to start thinking about providing balance.

        Progressives will lose all major messaging battles until they picket the limbaugh/hannity megastations and boycott those stations' local sponsors.

        by certainot on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 06:39:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Targetting sponsors might be effective, (0+ / 0-)

          especially is combined with an ad/pr campaign that could at least get local media to notice the protests.

          I don't think picketting means a thing in this context. Radio consumers don't need to cross or even see a picket line to get the product they want, and the media that ignored hundreds of thousands protesting the Iraq war certainly isn't going to give much play to smaller protests at radio stations. It will in no way prevent the media from regurgitating right wing talking points.

          This is a big issue, and I know you've been talking about it for a while. But I don't think you've solved it any more than anyone else, unfortunately.

          •  the 350ppm protests are an example (0+ / 0-)

            i went with 400 others to our state capitol and got NO media coverage - meanwhile the giant  local rw radio station was making fun of global warming believers and rationalizing the coal industry position. all day/week/year long- to a much bigger audience.

            if 10 of us had gone to the local mega limbaugh station we would have been noticed.

            the right wing radio station is the power center of corporate america- they can't do shit without it-  and if liberals started figuring it that way the right would have to deal with the truth.

            Progressives will lose all major messaging battles until they picket the limbaugh/hannity megastations and boycott those stations' local sponsors.

            by certainot on Thu Jun 10, 2010 at 09:40:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Will/Should Halter endorse Lincoln? /nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drache
    •  Nope. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      m00finsan, fasteddie9318, pistolSO

      Not this time.

      If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

      by rhetoricus on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 01:36:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  In my opinion, no (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ivan, m00finsan, fasteddie9318, pistolSO

      We have to start setting up the "us and them" in the Democratic party.  

      It's painfully obvious the current crop of DLC/blue dogs/corporatists/triangulators in the White House and Congress have a very different idea of what it means to be a Democrat than many rank and file Democrats.  

      The DLC/blue dogs/corporatists/triangulators had their chance and they've shown nothing but contempt for labor, liberals, pro-choice women, etc.  

      It's time to draw a line in the sand.  

      •  in my opinion yes. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ThAnswr

        is Lincoln better then Boozman?

        yes, but just barely, in that she keeps Dick Durbin
        in the majority whips office.

        we primaried her ass,  i'm unhappy she won,
        but lick your wounds, work on the best campaigns
        we have and keep prepping to make her irrelevant.

        George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

        by nathguy on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 02:18:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, I will not support someone ........ (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          codairem, James Kresnik

          .... who does not represent me.  

          We have to stop being enablers and buying into the idea of "we're bad, but they're worse".  

          That is not the way to move the country forward.  

          They are worse, but we can't let that blind us to the fact that far too many Democrats aren't worth squat.

          No, let the chips fall where they may.  

      •  I see you have failed to learn from history nt (0+ / 0-)
        •  Here's what you should have learned from history (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens, James Kresnik

          When you reward bad behavior it continues.  

          Now explain to me why anyone should vote for anyone who does not represent them?  Explain to me why you seem to think any party or politician is entitled to anyone's vote?  

          Btw, if you have a concern that many liberals will not vote the way you're hoping, take your concerns to the White House.  You're asking the wrong questions of the wrong people.  

          •  what people choose to do, people choose to do (0+ / 0-)

            but if people really walk away cause  they lost that's childish. Politics is a contact sport, some of the candidates I wanted to get to the general made it, some not. But I will still support a democratic nominee that at worst will vote with us 60-80% of the time vs a republican that will vote with us maybe 5% of the time (and I wouldn't hold my breathe on that).

            This isn't about entitlement, we already proved that when we came within 2% of unseating an incumbent with the full backing of the establishment.

      •  So you've decided to go the "PUMA" route? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Inland, wisny

        As in "Party Unity My Ass"?  That's exactly the mindset that you're embracing.  Hillary sucked it up and supported Obama.  A small minority of her followers got sick in the head and formed the "PUMA" thing.  Halter can decide to follow Hillary's example or the PUMAs' example.  You've made your decision on which example to follow.  And your decision is no surprise, given your track record.  I'll bet that Halter is a bit brighter than you, though.   And I'll bet that his decision is a bit more relevant than yours.

        P.S.

        1. your "us vs them" construction is based on pure bullshit.  
        1. The Arkansas voters are "rank-and-file" Democrats who made their decision.  So you reject the decision made by rank-and-file democrats, those you claim to champion (what a joke).
        1. Halter's no progressive.  Had he got into office, I'm quite certain that within a year you'd have been tearing him new one.
        •  Is Escamillo esperanto for .......... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens, PhilJD

          ........ I'm an obnoxious moron?  

          FYI, I own my vote.  I will use it as I see fit.  I will not vote for someone who does not represent me.  

          Why the hell is that such as controversy for someone like you?  

          •  You and every republican. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Escamillo, wisny

            I don't know why you expect praise and pets for declaring you have no intention of supporting the democratic party.  There are lots of republicans and greens but they, at least, have the grace to find their own website and not lecture democcrats for being democrats and then use it as proof of PURITY.

            Is the video camera the only device that worked?

            by Inland on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 03:57:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh now I'm a Republican. LOL (0+ / 0-)

              You're a real fucking hoot.  

              Not that it's any of your business, but I've been a member of the Democratic since 1972.  I've never seen a sorrier bunch of Democrats than I do today.  I support the traditional Democratic party that supported labor, workers rights, retiree's rights, women's privacy, etc.  

              No matter how you want to peddle the BS, Obama is not the party.  He's a politician who happened to run as a Democrat.  He no more owns my vote than George McGovern did in 1972.  McGovern earned my vote.  

              Obama and his White House seem to be intent on throwing it away with their pettiness and insults.  

              Ever hear of "don't bite the hand that feeds you"?  Obama is in office because of liberals like me and labor unions like the AFL-CIO.  Kiss us goodbye and Obama can kiss goodbye his presidency with November losses in Congress and reelection in 2012.

              Regardless, why is it people like you seem to find it so threatening when people like me state our Constitutional right to own our votes?  Why is that?  Or do you think you own someone's vote?  

              Btw, as to this website's mission:  The mission is to elect better Democrats and not just any Democrat.  

              When you own and pay for this site, feel free to it run anyway you choose.  Until that time, you're just another guest schmoozing free on Markos's nickel.  

              I don't know why you expect praise and pets for declaring you have no intention of supporting the democratic party.

              Stuff your praise and keep your "pets" to yourself.  I don't know where your hands have been.  

              •  Actually, I said worse than a republican. (0+ / 0-)

                Like a republican, you won't support democratic nominees.  But republicans don't think that they can hang out on a democratic website and pretend that they are better democrats than anyone else.

                Regardless, why is it people like you seem to find it so threatening when people like me state our Constitutional right to own our votes

                It's not considered threatening.  That would be giving you credit for being important.  It's considered banal truisms with added juvenile footstomping and insufferable self righteousness.  It's so NOT a threat that it's not even worth pretending like you aren't a twit and putting up with your idiocy.

                Is the video camera the only device that worked?

                by Inland on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 05:55:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  So you supported McGovern. Who gives a shit? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Inland

                I don't care what your political history is.  I do know your behaviour on this site, and therefore know that you hate the Democratic party.  You said it yourself in this diary, with your "Amen" response to someone damning the party because he/she's mad that Arkansas Democrats voted against his candidate.  So please.  "Oh, I supported McGovern" - big whoop.  That's probably the last time a "true progressive" up to your standards won the presidential nomination.  So I assume that you've been the angry person you are since 1972, since that's the last time your crowd called the shots in the party.  It's been slim pickings ever since for true progressives:

                Teddy lost to Carter.
                Hart/Jackson lost to Mondale.
                Jackson lost to Dukakis.
                Harkin/Tsongas/Brown lost to Clinton
                Bradley lost to Gore
                Edwards/Kucinich/Gravel lost to Obama

                OK, so you lost all of those contests.  My win-loss record isn't much better: my candidate of choice lost all but two of the above contests.  Because I normally backed the more progressive candidate, and they normally lose.  But I understand that that's the historical pattern, and therefore I understand that "progressives" aren't the "base".  You don't understand that.  You refuse to understand it.  You feel that you're entitled to get your way, even over the voters themselves (such as in Arkansas).

                The reason that so-called "true progressives" never win the Democratic presidential nominaion is that you are not "the base".  Yes, you have the power to throw temper tantrums and elect republicans (I assume you voted for Nader), but that doesn't make you the base, in fact it proves that you are NOT the base.  Your crowd is the least reliable group of Democratic voters there is.  And you call yourselves "the base".  What a fucking joke.

                •  It's the entitlement. (0+ / 0-)

                  "The base" is to leftists what "real americans" are to teabaggers: a minority who think they have a claim that's superior to the majorities.

                  That's why your correspondent talks about who's she's voted for: she thinks it makes the case for her being being superior.  If her candidate wins the primary, everyone supports that candidate because she's the base, and if her candidate loses, she stomps off because she's the base.  

                  Is the video camera the only device that worked?

                  by Inland on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 07:07:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  You seem to know so much about my ............ (0+ / 0-)

                  ....... standards since I wouldn't recognize you if I fucking tripped over you.  

                  But, just for the shits and giggles, I supported Carter in 1980, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Clinton in 1992, Gore in 2000, and Obama after Kucinich dropped out of the race.  

                  In the interest of full disclosure, my husband supported Tsongas in 1992.  He actually did recognize the better man.  

                  And, no, I didn't vote for Nader.  I voted for Gore.

                  So, you're wrong about it all.  

                  What a fucking joke.

                  You sure are.  

                  •  So what the fuck are so pissed off about? (0+ / 0-)

                    You almost always picked the winner, and almost never picked the "progressive".  Hell, I've a much more progressive history than you.  You almost always picked centrists and even DLC'ers, while I almost always picked progressives.  And therefore you won all your primaries, while I lost almost all of mine.  Yet you're the one that's pissed off and hates the party.  LOL  

                    OK, I throw out my previous analisys of your anger, and provide two alternatives:

                    Hypothesis 1:
                    Your history shows you to be a centrist, moderate, moderate liberal, and DLC'er.  A center-left person, generally.  But your embracing of Kucinich indicates a drastic shift to the extreme left.  That tells me you had what you feel is an "epiphany".  You've been shown the light after all these years.  You're a new convert to the extreme left.  Its well known that new converts to anything are generally more zealous than long time members whose zealotry (though not necessarily their dedication) has worn off over time.  So you're this new zealous convert to your ideology, and you have a resultant tendency to show anger at those not of your ideology.  In particular, you feel holier-than-thou over those whom you left, the center-leftists.  You look down on them as unenlightened.  You used to be one of them, so you know them, know that they're still wallowing in ignorance, and therefore hold them in contempt.  Have I hit close to the mark?

                    Hypothesis 2 (much more banal):
                    After supporting centrist after centrist, including two DLC'ers, you veered to the extreme left with Kucinich.  This is the first time in your life that your candidate of choice (Kucinich) didn't win the primary.  (You "supported" Obama merely as preferable to Hillary and the phony-baloney Edwards, after your first choice flamed out.) So this is the first time in your life that you are part of a crowd that does not call the shots in the party.  And you ain't used to that, so it pisses you off.  And you strike out in anger every chance you get.  

                    Well, did you not understand that by leaving the center left for the far left that you were joining a crowd that does not call the shots?  That you were leaving the "base" for a more "progressive" crowd dedicated to pushing the Overton Window to the left?  A crowd that is rarely satisfied with any legislation or government action because such government action is made within the Overton Window (by definition), a window that your current crowd is outside of by necessity in order to be able to push it in a particular direction?

                    So you used to be a centrist, part of the base, part of the crowd that won primaries, and controlled the party.  You left that crowd for a different, less powerful segment of the party, and you miss the power.  

                    Well get the over it.  I've been to the left of the base my whole life.  You don't see me whining about it.

                    I think hypothesis #1 is closer to the truth, but whatever the truth is, I'll have to file this into the memory bank: "ThAnswr, true progressive champion, is actually a lifetime centrist.  Hell, even was a DLC'er for crying out loud.  Too funny."

                •  I forgot: Dean lost to Kerry (0+ / 0-)

                  I skipped over the 2004 primaries, but even that year merely enforces my point that progressives have lost every democratic presidential nomination contest since at least 1976 when Carter won.  And I don't know if Carter was the "progressive" of that contest, I suspect not, being a southern governor, which brings progressives last win to 1972.  And their candidate got crushed in the general.

        •  Btw, genius, keep kicking the very people (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PhilJD

          who voted for Obama in the nuts.  Keep insulting labor and liberals.  If it wasn't for labor or liberals, Obama wouldn't be president.  Those are the facts.

          Obama needs our votes if he hopes to win reelection.  Insulting us isn't the way to get those votes.

          As one labor leader said today:  We are not an ATM for the Democratic party.  

          And our votes are our own and no one has to explain to you why they vote the way they do.  

          •  Thanks for your CONCERN. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Escamillo

            I guess we'll have to do without your support for Obama, which doesn't exist, if it means having to pet and praise you for not supporting democrats.

            Is the video camera the only device that worked?

            by Inland on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 03:57:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You must have missed it. (0+ / 0-)

              Stuff your praise and keep your "pets" to yourself.  I don't know where your hands have been.  

              •  You must be kidding. (0+ / 0-)

                You really think anyone can read your posts as anything except a sad call for praise for your outstanding Purity?  Something other than an announcement of your rigteousness?

                Seriously, you announce that you voted for Obama as if that gives you license and means that everyone has to kiss your PUMA ass while you shit on democrats, candidates and rank and file alike.

                No thanks.  Nobody cares about your "support" because your idea of "support" blows.

                Is the video camera the only device that worked?

                by Inland on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 06:04:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Buddy, I got news for you: I already assume you (0+ / 0-)

            won't support Obama in 2012, so your threat means nothing to me.  I've written your vote off as a lost cause, so don't expect me to grovel to get your vote.  I don't play that.

      •  Wasn't there a primary? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Escamillo, wisny

        We have to start setting up the "us and them" in the Democratic party.

        But we had that.  The "us vs. them" was the primary, and then some candidate wins, and then....if it's a party....that person is everyone's nominee.

        Otherwise, it's not us vs them, it's democrats vs PUMAS and greens who aren't democrats.

        Is the video camera the only device that worked?

        by Inland on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 03:54:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly what happened after Lamont (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Kresnik

          beat Lieberman, after all. The national party was solidly united behind him.

          Oh wait.

          When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

          by PhilJD on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 04:50:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Selective memory is always the best kind. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PhilJD

            My best guess tells me a small shiver is running through the Democratic establishment over losing labor and liberals.  

            Good luck with that scenario in November and 2012.  

            OTOH, maybe they really are so clueless as to believe you don't have to worry about it.  

            Hmmm, it's a puzzlement.  

          •  Hello? The party supported Lamont after the (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Inland

            primary.  WTF are you talking about?

            Hey, you support whomever you want.  Support the GOP guy for Arkansas Senate because you're pissed that Lincoln was chosen by the rank-and-file Democrats to represent them in the race.  Nobody's stopping you.  Afte all, after their chosen candidate lost a primary battle, PUMAs supported the opposition party and/or sat on their hands, so there's precedent.  It's not like you're breakind any new ground here.

          •  Lamont has no complaints. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Escamillo

            He doesn't think it's right to drop the official nominee and doesn't think the party abandoned him.  But I guess he's just another one of those democrats who it's cool to take a dump on, because that's what we mean by More and Better Democrats.

            Is the video camera the only device that worked?

            by Inland on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 05:58:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Of course. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      drache, Escamillo

      Unlike a not particularly respected blogger who can sit back and know that nobody cares who she endorses, Halter's failure to endorse may have consequences in the election and would only show that he would rather have republicans win if it's not him.

      Is the video camera the only device that worked?

      by Inland on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 03:08:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Of course he will. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Kresnik

      He needs to continue to be part of the 'Democratic machine'. I'm not going to rend garments if he campaigns his heart out for her.

      Meanwhile, it will be a cold day in hell before the 'machine' gets one more dime from me. {and I did donate hundreds before, so it's not an idle threat)

      I will continue to support candidates I choose directly. I don't need the DLC, with it's various orifices to piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

      BP's song of the moment. "Breaking Up"- Sedaka. Unlikely encore? "JailHouse rock".

      by shpilk on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 04:12:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Either way, (0+ / 0-)

        I don't see the necessity in blindly supporting the party establishment and get tainted with Goldman Sach's, BOA  and BP's unelectable stench in the process. Swing voters aren't nearly as impressed with hippie punchers when they don't have jobs and their benefits are being cut.

        I don't know what's gonna happen, man, but I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames. -Jim Morrison "All Hail The American Night"

        by James Kresnik on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 06:23:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Late surge for Lincoln (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Bohemian Rebel, Escamillo

    I'm sure the chick vote came in for her.
    Just like Hillary in New Hampshire.

    If all theses pundits had not predicted Halter, he might have polled it off.  A slight backlash against labor.

    •  I'm sure the the voter suppression ala Garland (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      codairem

      helped too. Going from 40 polling sites to 2 was pretty blatant. I wouldn't be surprised to hear of more shenanigans elsewhere that were done smarter and not noticed as much. It also wouldn't surprise me to find out that this sort of thing is being done all the time by both parties.

      And when we ask you why, you raise your sticks and cry and we fall.

      by Ninbyo on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 03:21:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks Adam, Stephanie, and all the group (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bnasley, Betty Pinson, m00finsan

    at PCCC.  You guys did a great job and I'm very proud to be a part of this movement.  Keep up the good work.

    You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy, but you cannot have both. ~ Louis Brandeis

    by 3goldens on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 01:36:58 PM PDT

  •  Progressives got their asses kicked... (5+ / 0-)

    again, and probably illegally, by shenanigans that ought to not be happening in a democracy.

  •  The DNC asked me for money today (6+ / 0-)

    I told them no.  I cited Lincoln-Halter as the reason.

    I said I want real democrats, not incumbents, and I was tired of that money going to people like Lincoln, Spector and Lie-berman.

    I told them I will self direct my donations to real progressives.

    America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. -- Abraham Lincoln

    by dad2jac on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 01:55:54 PM PDT

  •  Rahm's Going Need AstroGlide Next Year (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nathguy, Betty Pinson

    ...Because his shenanigans are likely to give the GOP subpoena power, and they'll be climbing up Rahm's ass.

    There won;t be much sympathy for him either.

  •  Wrong. There is no place for the left in (4+ / 0-)

    Democratic Party politics anymore and I will not waste my time or money supporting a party that does not include a truly progressive agenda.  

    No more.  

    Forget it.

    Fuck the lesser of two evils bullshit.  I'll exercise my right to not vote for the LIE of "centrism" when it comes out of the mouths of assholes like Lincoln and Emanuel.  It's cover for the party transformation into an ersatz GOP and I'll have NONE of that.

    "History is a tragedy, not a melodrama." - I.F.Stone

    by bigchin on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 02:07:01 PM PDT

  •  How? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    codairem

    The corporate Democrats got what they wanted; it took them a little more time and effort, but so what? Their pal got renominated so that she can lose in the fall to a Republican, which is what all these guys are anymore anyway.

    The White House was feeling its oats so much last night that it took the opportunity to spit in organized labor's eye for no discernible reason other than the cheap thrill. And all organized labor can say in response is, "yeah, well, we won't support Lincoln in the fall!" which they weren't going to do anyway, and which doesn't matter because she's DOA regardless.

    As long as progressives keep supporting a party that views them as alternately a piggy bank and something that you scrape off of the bottom of your shoe, there will be no power in the progressive movement. As happy as I was to see Sestak beat Specter, the replacement of a former Republican with a slightly left of center Democrat (who very well may lose, at which point the DLC and co. can chirp about how Specter would have won if the DFHs would've left him alone) is hardly the dawn of a new era where progressives are taken seriously.

    A former greenskeeper, now, about to become the Masters champion. It looks like a mirac... It's in the hole! It's in the hole! It's in the hole!

    by fasteddie9318 on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 02:15:45 PM PDT

  •  now if we could find a way to flush away our (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens, m00finsan, fasteddie9318

    party leaders we might win a few more races.

    What do we want??? Equal rights! When do we want them??? Now!

    by tnichlsn on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 02:17:15 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for your tireless efforts (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens, Amber6541, m00finsan

    and hard work, Adam.  This should be a serious wake up call to the corporate tools in the Democratic Party.  The American people are not exactly in love with corporations given what Goldman Sachs, Wall St. and now BP has done to our society.  Anti-corporate fervor can be found on both the right and the left.

    If Blanche Lincoln wants to win over Halter's voters she had better have a serious with herself and stop putting corporate interests over those she is supposed to represent.  I mean, what is the difference between Lincoln  and the Republican running if both side with corporations over the people?

  •  Keep primarying Senators (10+ / 0-)

    Win some, lose some.  

    But every time you primary a Senator, and make them earn their place in the Democratic party, you make them that much less willing to take their position of privelege for granted.

    Make them work for it.

    In the sea, Biscayne, there prinks
    The young emerald evening star,
    Good light for drunkards, poets, widows,
    And ladies soon to be married.

    by looty on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 02:23:55 PM PDT

  •  Despite Halter's loss....Progressives proved..... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    agnostic, chicating, codairem

    that it is indeed possible to run a candidate left of a conservative Democrat and perform well.

    This race will change the entire equation of how Democrats approach campaigns and governing in Southern states.

    Conservadems and Blue Dogs should not be so paranoid about siding with popular mainstream progressive causes.

    "The IQ and the life expectancy of the average American recently passed each other in opposite directions"

    by progresso on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 02:24:16 PM PDT

  •  Halter lost (0+ / 0-)

    I donate a ton of money to progressive candidates and they all seem to lose. What good does it do? What good??!?!!!!

    I am done and going back to only supporting socialists and communist candidates.

  •  Can we start (6+ / 0-)

    calling ourselves liberals again?

    It really sticks in my craw that we let those bastards make us surrender that name.

    I will never call myself a progressive.

    I'm liberal till I die.

  •  Can Conway get the same support Halter did? (4+ / 0-)

    Everyone here loves to hate on Rand Paul, which is great. But we also need to chalk up Jack Conway, and get netroots support all over to his campaign. He'll need every dollar he can get so Ayn Paul doesn't get elected to the US Senate. If the teabaggers have legitimate representation in the senate, I believe that could be a fatal blow to social services, education, public health and not to mention democracy as we know it.

    My consolations go to Halter. But let's pick ourselves up and gin up some serious dough for Jack Conway. Who's with me?

    "God made us number one 'cause he loves us the best. Well maybe he should go bless someone else for awhile, give us a rest." -Ben Folds

    by Free Chicken and Beer on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 02:52:38 PM PDT

  •  NEVER GIVE UP THE FIGHT!!!!!!!!!!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    codairem, wisny

    Congratulations on a job VERY WELL DONE!!!

    Never walk into a public restroom while breathing through your mouth.

    by quityurkidding on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 02:58:51 PM PDT

  •  Without progresives Blanche looses big time (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens, ThAnswr

    I wont shed a tear.

    •  Without progressives, Obama loses big time. (0+ / 0-)

      And if Obama loses labor along with progressives, better start that White House packing now.  

      •  Which is all you're about. LOL (0+ / 0-)

        You respond to wood kwatch's comment about Lincoln, by going back to Obama.  It's always about Obama with you.  LOL

        The thing is, if Obama isn't reelected, he goes home to a good life.  He won't be much affected by the Romney/Palin administration.  

        And here's your worst nightmare: Obama might not even run for reelection!  So that your thirst for revenge by seeing him defeated would go unsatiated.

  •  Just sit out the race in Arkansas (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens

    Progressives need to sit it out and let Blanche be Blanche, and see how her corpratist stand makes out against the right winger

  •  In fact even those who supported her (4+ / 0-)

    Are now abandoning Blanche

    from huffpo......

    As Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) pivots from her surprise primary victory on Tuesday night to her general election run against Rep. John Boozman (R-Ark), she finds herself deserted both by traditional allies and outside groups that helped her win the nomination.

    The pro-business organization Americans for Job Security played an influential role in helping Lincoln beat her challenger, Bill Halter,
    But with Halter now out, the group is poised to stop its engagement. AJS President Stephen DeMaura wouldn't completely rule out running ads in a Lincoln-Boozman election. But in an interview with the Huffington Post, he said it was "probably likely" that they wouldn't run ads.

    •  Of course, they are only backing the corporate (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shpilk, defluxion10, James Kresnik

      candidate. Hedging their bets.

      And when we ask you why, you raise your sticks and cry and we fall.

      by Ninbyo on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 03:24:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bingo .. Halter was the threat. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        3goldens, James Kresnik

        Given the choice between Boozman and Lincoln, they'll take Boozman. They don't even need lobbyists to their bidding, because Mitch McConnell and the filthy Repugs do trhe dirty work for them, at 'bulk rates'.

        Blanche simply is too "high maintenance".

        Why pay top dollar for the prostitute, when you can get it for discount rate with a Pug?

        BP's song of the moment. "Breaking Up"- Sedaka. Unlikely encore? "JailHouse rock".

        by shpilk on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 04:04:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The biggest threat to corporate political power (7+ / 0-)

    is for voters to make embarrassing/humiliating examples of their stooges. It would harder for corporate political forces to recruit new stooges if their stooges were subject to embarrassing/humiliating electoral defeats. That kind of embarrassment would make it harder for corporate stooges to ever go back into the private sector (without being the butt of every joke).
    This is why the entire "democratic" establishment, a sitting US president, a former US president from Lincoln’s own state, state "democratic" party officials who used voter suppression tactics (closing 40 of 42 polling places in Halter’s strongest district etc.) to try and avoid an embarrassing/humiliating incident for one of their corporate stooges (Lincoln). It took a chunk out of her. Her republican opponent will be happy to remind Arkansas voters how she barely won a democratic primary in her own state after being their senator for 11 years.
    This is also why the WH is gloating about labor "flushing 10 million dollars down the toilet", which is really corporations gloating because they defeated organized labor (i.e. the interests of the working class). The corporate political power structure does not want us trying to make examples out of their stooges. This is precisely the reason we need to take every opportunity to make embarrassing/humiliating examples out of corporate stooges. This is the biggest threat to corporate political power.

  •  We're going to keep "wasting" our money. (4+ / 0-)

    That should be the message back to Rahm, uh, I mean "Anonymous White House Source."  

    But Rahm's point was well taken.  Since we don't have a hair's breadth chance to keep the Arkansas senate seat Democratic, why waste money on Blanche Lincoln at all?  Actually, think of how many millions were wasted by the DC inside crowd protecting Blanche's right to lose badly in November.  I wonder how many millions they wasted and will waste?  And won't they come begging to us for more?

    If I'm going to side with losers, I'd rather side with losers that don't want to stick it to me every chance they get.

    •  Absolutely Correct (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dumbo, James Kresnik

      The Lincoln primary challenge is exactly how political power is created.  You either give something that the Corporate Democratic leaders want, (and thus have power to get what you want).  You also create power by hurting the Corporate branch of the Democratic party - make them pay a price for blocking the Progressive agenda.

      Supporting the Obama presidential campaign was an example of the former.  Primarying Lincoln an example of the latter.

      The correct path is continue to challenge the blue dogs.  At some point the corporate democratic leaders will understand they have to accommodate Progressive views, not spend money to neutralize them.

  •  We've got to stay on message, and (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens, Betty Pinson, ThAnswr

    supporting Blanche is NOT part of it.

    Period.

    DNC, DSCC, DCCC - not getting a dime of my money, until they change. And I don't mean some ad campaign with the word 'CHANGE!' in it, I mean REAL change.

    So it will probably be NEVER.

    BP's song of the moment. "Breaking Up"- Sedaka. Unlikely encore? "JailHouse rock".

    by shpilk on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 04:07:10 PM PDT

    •  If you want to see change (0+ / 0-)

      DNC, DSCC, DCCC - not getting a dime of my money, until they change. And I don't mean some ad campaign with the word 'CHANGE!' in it, I mean REAL change.

      So it will probably be NEVER.

      If you want to see real change, it's the only way.  

  •  I think the progressive (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ActivistGuy, MKSinSA

    movement needs to be about more than elections, but about institutions and associations.  The real problem is that we do not have sufficient power to make politicians work for us.

    Denial is complicity.

    by Publius2008 on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 04:09:45 PM PDT

    •  Absolutely (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Publius2008

      the most important thing is building independent bases of power, and means of influence outside the narrow confines of electoral politics.  There's a reason the social democratic left is an enduring power in Europe, and it goes back to the decades of institution-building the parties of the Second International did in the years from 1880-1914.  American progressives need to replicate the vast deep web of institutions, almost an organic community, that was built then and remains a century later the base of social democratic influence in Europe.

      We who have been nothing shall be all. This is the final struggle. ~E. Pottier

      by ActivistGuy on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 05:34:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  That Garland County debacle just smells of (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TracieLynn, 3goldens, ThAnswr

    corruption, I don't care what they say.

    ~we study the old to understand the new~from one thing know ten thousand~to see things truly one must see what is in the light and what lies hidden in shadow~

    by ArthurPoet on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 04:33:35 PM PDT

  •  really? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pengiep, MKSinSA

    Does anyone really believe the majority of people in this country really want progressives in office or any progressive programs at all? Looks to me as if the country is moving hard right - re: Tea Party movement.

    Hope I am wrong, but I am a realist. Any move to the the true utopia we all want (socialism/communism) is not coming for a while.

    •  Not really (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TracieLynn, James Kresnik

      They represent the die hard 20%.

      And the fact that they are driving the rest of the party is kind of disturbing to most of America.

      There is no moderate right anymore. Most of them are now Democrats. Blue dog democrats, DINOs, you name it.

      Because the right is increasingly revealing itself as, well, squirrel bait.

      "...Demoralization caused by vast unemployment is our greatest extravagance. Morally, it is the greatest menace to our social order." FDR

      by wrights on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 05:52:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The problem is (0+ / 0-)

      that there is no one out there selling the progressive side of issues.

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - 9th Amendment

      by TracieLynn on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 05:56:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Outside the news rooms (0+ / 0-)

      the Tea Party movement only represents a fraction of the national electorate and they have little support outside racialist strongholds in the Deep South and Midwest.

      I don't know what's gonna happen, man, but I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames. -Jim Morrison "All Hail The American Night"

      by James Kresnik on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 06:51:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  What does this say... (0+ / 0-)

    about the whole narrative of it being an "anti-incumbent, anti-establishment" year?  If so, wouldn't that have made Lincoln even more toxic to the primary voters?  Wouldn't Obama's and Clinton's support have backfired then?

    Also, from what has been said about this race, it looks like the black community in Arkansas backed Lincoln by a significant margin.  Since I hardly believe the black community in Arkansas wants a corporatist representing them, or has their needs in mind, what is the PCCC planning to do in terms of outreach to minority communities in Arkansas and other states for the future?

  •  Did OFA go out (0+ / 0-)

    and work for Lincoln?

  •  Perhaps (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    James Kresnik

    But be prepared to be bombarded with attacks, of both the vociferous and the mocking sort, alternatively demonizing and ridiculing  "the progressive movement" for this attempt, and the fact that Lincoln survived.  You'll be told louder than ever that you are weak, stupid, hopeless, and helpless, and that you deserve no representation nor any visible participation in the political process, except, of course, to send money now.  Any institutional structures that emerge from your efforts will be under relentless attack, prepare to be Swift-Boated, and prepare for the fact that while the visible face of the Swift-Boating may be off-the-shelf right wing goons, scratch the surfaceand you'll find establishment Dems pulling the strings and paying the bills.

    We who have been nothing shall be all. This is the final struggle. ~E. Pottier

    by ActivistGuy on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 05:28:05 PM PDT

  •  No, you lost power and money. Don't ask for more (0+ / 0-)

    of either.  If you think you gained power you are a fool. Not even a decently good try at making a  face saving PR gambit like this. You should just apologise instead.

    One of the ancient laws of strategy is:  Never do your enemy a small hurt.  Kill him or leave him alone.  because the powerful react like wounded animals.  And you're not up to the match.

    Sorry.  Lincoln and Lieberman are jackasses, no doubt about it.  But in attacking Lieberman you just pissed him off.  He won on his own and retaliated against the left by killing the public option and sabotaging DADT repeal by caving to the WH.  Thanks so much.  But you didn't gain power;  Lincoln and Lieberman did.

    Congratulations, big success.  So, what are we going to lose now?  Another Republican from the south is not going to be good.  And if Lincoln wins, will she do a Lieberman and sabotage important Progressive legislation in addition to and quite aside from her normal conservative instincts?  

    Progressives should stop trying to eat Democrats.  It's self defeating.  

    Honey attracts more flies than acid. Progressives  and the unions lost.  She won.  Have the manly courage to kiss and make up with Lincoln, cut a deal for support on progressive legislation and push like hell to get her re-elected.  Do it NOW, climb down off your high horse NOW.  Don't let this fester.  Take care of this right away. We could even lose the Senate over this, because none of us knows what will happen in the next few months.  How could you and the unions put that at risk?  That's just ego and arrogance.

    And it’s more than $10 Mil that we’ll lose.  Bunch of dumb amateurs have screwed over all of us rank and file progressives.  Shame on you.

    And no, now she will back down on derivatives reform as she once again tacks right.  You’ve gained nothing.  Halter a better candidate in the general?  Not so fast.  The same polls showing him winning in the general also had him winning the primary, by several points.  It’s BS.

    And btw, we succeeded in PA against an 80 year old turncoat with brain cancer.  Big Woop.

    •  If your core assumption was 100% correct (0+ / 0-)

      every insurgency, guerrilla war, resistance movement, protest movement, and most revolutions ever fought would have been crushing failures from the outset.

      The Blue Dogs and their DLC allies can be as vindictive as they, but just like the French learned in Algeria, that will backfire and they will lose public support and the war.

      The Blue Dogs and all incumbents alike are under the gun from within and without. It would be highly advisable for them to work with their base.

      I don't know what's gonna happen, man, but I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames. -Jim Morrison "All Hail The American Night"

      by James Kresnik on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 06:49:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Spare us (0+ / 0-)

      One of the ancient laws of strategy is:  Never do your enemy a small hurt.  Kill him or leave him alone.  because the powerful react like wounded animals.

      Here's another nugget of facile wisdom for you:

      If it bleeds, we can kill it.
      Arnold Schwartznegger as Dutch in the film  Predator

      "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

      by Subterranean on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 08:30:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Lincoln (0+ / 0-)

    Someone should ask the Wall(of China)Mart Senator if she thinks the election would have turned out differently if the state had not closed 40 of 42 polling places.  How can you gloat about fixing an election?

    there is never time to do it right, but always time to do it over -6.88/-4.31

    by DeadB0y on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 05:45:58 PM PDT

  •  Another flesh wound. (0+ / 0-)

    It's time to put the black knight out of its misery.  

    "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

    by Subterranean on Wed Jun 09, 2010 at 08:19:22 PM PDT

Meteor Blades, N in Seattle, Thumb, JekyllnHyde, Alumbrados, Ed in Montana, Davinci, Angie in WA State, Doug in SF, boydog, precinct1233, Terri, tmo, From the choir, LeislerNYC, copymark, SarahLee, texaseditor, cali, Better Days, glitterscale, Linda Wood, jbilger, Randomfactor, artr2, TrueBlueMajority, Unstable Isotope, PeterHug, juls, tnichlsn, bosdcla14, KansasNate, Coldblue Steele, LynChi, Andrew C White, Pondite, Hesiod, Jim in Chicago, hyperstation, eeff, KevinBondelli, autoegocrat, Sandy on Signal, WI Deadhead, EVale, dinazina, regis, Heart of the Rockies, Dumbo, DanD, Zinman, 88kathy, TracieLynn, EricS, Einsteinia, Silverleaf, nyceve, lpackard, DaleA, Agathena, CoolOnion, bluesteel, boadicea, buckeyekarl, Jeffersonian, mkfarkus, Aquarius40, roses, sngmama, oceanview, VA Gal, wader, Eric Blair, psnyder, hangingchad, TexDem, Dallasdoc, DeadB0y, missliberties, pat bunny, alivingston, TiaRachel, crackpot, Nemagaiq, Steven Payne, defluxion10, puffin6092, rlharry, eodell, Pohjola, dkmich, JayDean, Marianne Benz, lyvwyr101, howardpark, Armand451, sawgrass727, Gowrie Gal, averageyoungman, greenskeeper, joanneleon, la motocycliste, Recovering Southern Baptist, 3goldens, PBen, Superpole, Flint, willibro, panicbean, YucatanMan, Laurence Lewis, FutureNow, ratzo, cfk, Pam from Calif, LABobsterofAnaheim, jcitybone, Taylorbad, markdd, antiapollon, Isara, deep, AnotherMassachusettsLiberal, WisePiper, Pluto, benny05, Rogneid, KLincoln, bookwoman, peacestpete, Nolan, xanthippe2, xaxnar, begone, SSMir, SoulCatcher, tarheelblue, jsamuel, Brave Sir Robin, edwardssl, BlueInARedState, Themistoclea, mSnook, tbetz, greenearth, Hobbitfoot, blueoasis, TalkieToaster, merrinc, MJ via Chicago, Francine Shacter, gooderservice, Libby Shaw, NearlyNormal, el cid, Pilgrim X, Charles Chamberlain, PhilW, Jay D, markthshark, andrewj54, AntKat, BentLiberal, tegrat, nathguy, lightfoot, bluicebank, asilomar, Ken in MN, Cottagerose, possum, Dartagnan, moosely2006, Alfonso Nevarez, Outrider, Sydserious, yowsta, Jimdotz, ezdidit, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, dclawyer06, Nick Lento, Unbozo, bnasley, jayden, jedennis, Sarahkatheryn, cyncynical, millwood, Rumarhazzit, JML9999, keikekaze, Michael Whitney, oxon, TomP, michaelroston, jwinIL14, Blue Boy Red State, JayC, mconvente, lisastar, ScottyUrb, Cordwainer, dadadata, ColorOfChange, monkeybrainpolitics, rssrai, icebergslim, pickandshovel, Jeff Y, noddem, Gemina13, Matt Browner Hamlin, Ruff Limblog, Jacques, o the umanity, pentacon, James Kresnik, dan667, Stephanie Taylor, allie123, tristan57, Mike Taylor, ZhenRen, LaFeminista, clent, 1BQ, multilee, Rhysling, cybrestrike, UkieOli, ARS, greengemini, Discipline28, ellieelliott, carolyn urban, Nebraskablue, Sarge in Seattle, janmtairy, Partisan Progressive, sweeper, jae1227, shopkeeper, Daily Activist, dRefractor, DHinIA, TheOpinionGuy, borndem, jazzence, Corneliusmingus, Shelley99, synductive99, Kiku, Muzikal203, ArthurPoet, Nonconformist, zenmasterjack, futureliveshere, loveendures, deviant24x, George Pirpiris, Larsstephens, bronxcharlie, smileycreek, seesmithrun, methinshaw, confitesprit, MariaWr, KroneckerD, Tx LIberal, p gorden lippy, roadbear, Crabby Abbey, atxcats, 2questions, Eddie L, Klaus, elginblt, ypsiCPA, ItsSimpleSimon, scarlet slipper, kalika, Funkygal, Betty Pinson, Maverick80229, elengul, eclecta, quityurkidding, science nerd, BrowniesAreGood, The Bohemian Rebel, MidwestTreeHugger, heart of a quince, ems97007, Meggie, wildlife advocate, anyname, La Gitane, BlueJessamine, m00finsan, Situational Lefty, Sand Hill Crane, mrsgoo, DruidQueen, me llamo sebas, LSmith, MRA NY, EdgedInBlue, TrahmalG, Wom Bat, bloomin, Deva Royal, blue aardvark, innereye, kareylou, Sunspots, StepLeftStepForward, ChiTownDenny, ParkRanger, PrometheusUnbound, Colin Curtis, Rejoinder, sprogga, James Robinson, ridemybike, Akprincessa, pistolSO, We Won, Natasha Patel, Bensonola, Zurvan, DarkWater

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site