What is it with Ed? He keeps sticking the knife into Sestak and Wagner. Does he just hate people who served in uniform?

Dear Joe Sestak-
What would happen if YOU had stood up to the Bush Administration on the Iraq War funding without timetables and accountability? What if you voted against Cheney’s abuses handling secret documents when he claimed to be a 4th branch of government? What if you voted against Telecom immunity and warrantless wiretaps?

What if YOU hadn’t been part of the “establishment” trying to crown Hillary in 2007, and instead supported the county council candidates in your own district?

When you ran in 2006, Weldon was a crazy right-wing neocon, and a dead-cat would have made a better representative. You were a longshot but you got the full backing of local Dems AND GOT THE FIELD CLEARED FOR YOU BY RENDELL.

When 2007 came around, you made the political calculation that the Dems could lose. Your campaign told candidates that you couldn’t afford to take a risk on them until 2009 after you were better established and reelected. You couldn’t stand up the Delco GOP to help Democrats break a 30-year hold of 5-0 Republican control.

Leadership isn’t about barking orders, ranting like a maniac, and slave-driving interns. It’s about doing the right thing for others, not just yourself.

Obama and Rendell won because they are REAL leaders, not pretend ones.

You want to show some selfless leadership? Give back the extra $3 million you collected for your 2008 election that you never spent on TV and radio. We need that money to elect your replacement.

We didn’t demand “more” from you, but rather the barel minimum, which you couldn’t muster.

Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

There is a real division in the Democratic party between the corporatists and the progressives. Only a corporatist could endorse Specter who was a lapdog for Reagan, Bush and Bush and who personally took credit for killing Clinton health care. Progressives will choose Sestak.

@Obamarox I strongly disagree and resent the implications of your comments. Specter was hardly a lapdog and your false dichotomy is exactly the kind of thing Bush said: You’re either with us or against us. Furthermore, progressives and corporatists aren’t even mutually exclusive – you have both fascist corporatism and progressive corporatism. I’m guessing you mean the former or you simply don’t understand corporatism, and I’d suggest exercising more judiciousness in labeling your peers.

“The Sestak advantage

By Salena Zito, TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, July 19, 2009

The Keystone State is always key to politics, the only big state in the Northeast that is at all competitive presidentially.

In 2010, Pennsylvania will have hot races for governor and the U.S. Senate, too. Add the seat left by Republican U.S. Rep. Jim Gerlach in the Southeast — a close race that will have tons of money from both parties — and you have Pennsylvania once again at the epicenter of national politics.

Right now, the state’s biggest buzz is the “Joe-mentum” radiating from the declared but unfiled U.S. Senate candidacy of Rep. Joe Sestak, a Delaware County Democrat who is taking on the 28-year incumbent and newly-declared Democrat, Arlen Specter.

When Specter switched parties this spring, he bargained for (and got) the field cleared by President Barack Obama and Gov. Ed Rendell, first with their endorsements and then with their mandates that party members follow suit.

What they did not count on was the tenacity, persistence and appeal of Sestak, who refused to clear a path for Specter, or the tepid response from committee members and party chairs to the long-time Republican Specter.

“Leadership can only make endorsements, and while it is good to know where they stand, that does not mean we have to fall in line,” says Jim Burn, the Democrats’ Allegheny County chairman.

Villanova University’s Lara Brown strongly believes Sestak can beat Specter in the primary. “The only caveat is that he needs to continue raising substantial sums of money, so that he can buy the advertising time.”

That cash also will allow him to do other marketing, such as mail pieces and maybe billboards, to help him become better known outside of Philly and her suburbs.

Sestak has significant structural advantages that likely were part of his decision-making.

First, Pennsylvania has a closed primary. This is incredibly important, because liberal Republicans (and Republican-leaning independents registered with the GOP) may have been inclined to stick with Specter but cannot vote for him against Sestak — unless they change their party registration.

While some may do so, it is doubtful enough will to change the outcome. Most will want to remain registered Republican to vote in the party’s gubernatorial and Senate primaries.

Unlike last year’s presidential primary, when some party-switching occurred, a few exciting races will be on the GOP side next year, Brown says. Besides, few Republicans will feel that committed to Specter, who abandoned their party and was disloyal on numerous votes before that.

Second, this is a midterm election — incredibly important because of who generally turns out. Those voters are different than ones who turn out in a presidential year; typically, it is smaller, more partisan and more politically engaged electorate.

“This helps Sestak tremendously,” Brown notes. “Essentially, the primary electorate will be made up of loyal Democrats who have most likely voted five times against Specter in general-election contests since 1980. Why in the world would they want to vote for Specter now?”

Specter has a tougher case to make to these folks. It boils down to, “Forget all of our electoral history and vote for me because Rendell and Obama like me.”

Sestak’s argument is more straightforward and more appealing: “I’m the best Democrat in this primary, so vote for me.”

He also is a good fit for the state. He’s a moderate Democrat with a military background. He has a large family that can act as surrogates around the state and help create “personal” connections. And he has a national profile, having served as a national security adviser in Clinton’s administration — which will help him raise money in places such as New York and California.

As for his “netroots,” Markos Moulitsas, publisher and editor of the Daily Kos, assures that plenty of money will flow to Sestak once he files.

Should Sestak win both the primary and the general election, he will not owe his seat to the party leadership, allowing him to buck that leadership (if he wants to) on Senate votes.

“That would put him in a great position to be able to craft a legacy that is independent of his party,” notes Brown.

That’s an advantage for Pennsylvanians, enabling him to better represent the state’s interests than most senators who make it to Congress.”

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/zito/s_634280.html?source=rss&feed=7

Gregory and Obamarox

While I find that the overuse of the word “corporatists” is unhelpful in that its meaning has become blurred (and obviously offensive to Gregory), I think Obamarox described well the division of Democratic activists in PA. To pretend otherwise would be ignoring reality. Just watch where the progressives go (toward Sestak) and where the more conservative party establishment types go (toward Specter).

Surely, we can support different candidates in the primary without it becoming bitter and personal. That is, unless the candidates themselves set such a tone. That’s another thing to watch for: who slings the first and most frequent and dirtest mud?

A good example of what we don’t want in a candidate and his suppoters is David, who incessantly makes personal attacks, uses unsupported inuendo, and has a closed mind. We can do better than that. Yes we can.

Lee -
True. Though I am getting annoyed at the constant indignation from either candidate when he is attacked. The “how dare you attack this particular aspect of my record!” response is getting old. If you talk/talked about it in public, its fair game for criticism! (For instance being former GOP, or having been in the Navy – fair game!)

And both are guilty of that.

Lee-
The “personal” attacks I make on Sestak’s integrity (or rather lack there of) are based upon the actions and broken promises he’s made to local Dems and to the voters in general in his campaign promises. His public statements are filled with hypocrisy, contradictions and misrepresentations of his and Specter’s records.

His mistreatment of his staffers is well documented in published reports (and I’ve talked to plenty of former workers with consistently bad experiences there, and even seen some of it first hand). This also in line with Sestak’s removal from Deep Blue for a “poor command climate”. Sestak BRAGS about how he works his staffers 12-14 hours a day, 7-days a week. He just doesn’t “get” the difference between military and civilian work environments.

Sestak runs around questioning Specter’s commitment to the party and he even claims that Obama “really” prefers him over Specter, and yet acts like it’s outrageous to question his own motivations. He keeps changing his story about why he’s running, how he’s deciding, and when he’s going to announce.

Sestak’s best chance is slinking by on his image, before people notice the lack of substance.