Sanders (4.00 / 1)

Eli Sanders isn't really an elitist.  He works at a city-level alternative weekly and is genuinely committed to good local journalism.

And in any case, the article you linked to only stated what was plainly obvious upon its publication: that despite all her efforts, Darcy wasn't really gaining on Reichert.

---

by: TValley @ Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 23:15:31 PM UTC

I had the same double take (0.00 / 0)

Eli Sanders... a liberal elite?  Huh!  News to me.

---

by: rustydude @ Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 23:34:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually (4.00 / 1)

Sanders posted the article despite the fact polling information was out there that contradicted much of what he was saying regarding Burner.

But Sanders probably didn't want to have to take that into account because it would have undermined the premise of the article.

On The Road To 2008: Commentary on issues as we countdown to the next opportunity to change the direction of America

---

by: Daniel K @ Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 23:51:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

False (0.00 / 0)

The DCCC poll that showed her leading hit the polls Oct. 14th:

http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

Sander's article was also published on the 14th:

http://www.thestranger.com/sea...

Which means that Eli Sanders submitted his article on the night of the 13th, when it was still empirically true that Burner was not leading.

---

by: TValley @ Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 19:28:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Amy Sullivan (4.00 / 1)

I followed a link to that Times article earlier today, but I hadn't noticed it was Amy Sullivan who wrote it.  I've always been a bit of an Amy Sullivan apologist, but those days are now over.  Sad.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 23:23:45 PM UTC

that's ok (4.00 / 1)

she's enough of an apologist for herself to cover it

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

---

by: tatere @ Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 23:47:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fervent religionists (0.00 / 0)

... of any sect are almost always going to be in conflict with progressive politics (see: Jim Wallis).  The question we have to ask ourselves is do we want to lead this movement without their direct support or compromise with these people.  Compromising with them means bending over backwards on their most shrill demands that the Progressive Movement or Democratic Party morph in regards to their pet policies.  They simply don't understand coalition politics like the Women's movement, Union movement, and Environmental movement have come to appreciate.

My advice is to cut them loose.

One thing I've come to appreciate by reading Nixonland is the Conservative Movement's action to eviscerate and kick out Liberal Republicans from the Republican Party.  It ended up making the Conservative Movement stronger, not weaker.

Moderate Democrats are okay and should have a place at the table (just as Moderate Republicans like Bob Dole and Howard Baker survived their party purging).  Conservative Democrats, on the other hand, should be encouraged to change their views or leave.

---

by: rustydude @ Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 23:47:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

thanks (0.00 / 0)

great to see Debbie Cook as part of the Better Democrats page.  Rohrabacher has been spending like mad since Oct. 1 to keep this seat, but he has no volunteer base.  Debbie is running a grassroots strategy to a T.  Jim Dean will be walking for her in the district this weekend.

We can do this one and it would be a stake through the heart of the GOP, behind the Orange curtain.

Insert shameless blog promotion here.

---

by: dday @ Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 01:30:50 AM UTC

I gave again... (4.00 / 1)

I gave to Darcy and Jim Martin. That's really the last I can afford this cycle. I told myself that the last time I donated a few weeks ago, but this time I mean it!

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 02:33:03 AM UTC

Why can't we have (0.00 / 0)

"Better, More Articulate Democrats?"

---

by: kanzeon @ Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 04:41:35 AM UTC