Monday, February 06, 2006

 

I WAS going to make it a light post

But thanks to Truth and Justice for leaving me a great segue for a Monday morning post. And to think I was just going to rip on Google Analytics for not getting their act together with my weekend data. In case you don't want to scroll down to the comment itself:
Ah yes...'bumbling' Coleen with national recognition, can be counted on to address issues and isn't Democratic lite or a Kelly support...you're correct we do have a choice... thanks for pointing out the obvious.
1. National name recognition does not matter unless the candidate can effectively utilize national
fundraising and activist networks. Coleen Rowley has not demonstrated this ability.
2. Which issues has Coleen Rowley addressed, other than national security and ethical
decision-making?
3. Who cares if a candidate "will address issues" if they can't get themselves elected?

Let's get one thing straight - I would much rather have a Democrat in the 2nd CD seat rather than John Kline. But Ms. Rowley is not a good candidate. She does not demonstrate effective control in public speech, she does not exert control over her message (or perhaps too much, either way, it's bad) or over her campaign staff. "I was a post-9/11 whistleblower" is simply not enough to get elected to Congress. This is one case where an insurgent, activist-based campaign is a very bad thing - when the candidate is running on name recognition alone, and once the campaign gets off the ground, the cracks start to show. Not good.

Speaking of those Google things - let's see some ad clicks, huh? A guy's gotta eat.

Comments:
----------------------------------------------
Blogger David Bailey said:
To the extent that it matters, I would respond to your points with:

1) To my knowledge, Coleen has managed little fundraising support out of district (she was featured as one of Russ Feingold's 'Progressive Patriots', though). However, in the 3rd quarter of 2005, her fundraising ranked 8th nationally among Democrats challenging an incumbent. As of year's end, she'd raised more than 5x what Teresa Daly had raised by the end of 2003. I think that's not too shabby, and the fact that most of it was in-district is a positive sign of support.

2) I just looked at her blog, and in addition to national security and ethical decision making, she also has positions on Iraq, energy independence, health insurance, civil rights, preventing unplanned pregnancies and continued funding for public broadcasting and the arts.

3) This can be a self-fulfilling argument. If enough people decide not to support her because she's supposedly unelectable . . . .

As far as campaigning professionalism goes, it seems to me that Rowley is ahead of Kline, at any rate. His campaign site is pathetic and his congressional site isn't much better. And he just sent an email to his consituents calling John Boehner "a breath of fresh air to a body in need of reform" (see my comments on this).

But in my mind, this is all just an interesting mind exercise. I'm not supporting Coleen Rowley because of the strengths or weaknesses of her campaign; I'm supporting her because I believe she'll do the best job for the district and the country once she's elected. And I'm working to make that happen.

If her campaign seems unprofessional to you, it's probably because she's an FBI lawyer who's never run for public office before. If you think you can make a difference to the campaign, I know she'd love to have your help. You've acknowledged you'd rather see Kline out of office; if you see weaknesses in Coleen's campaign, how about pitching in to help make the campaign stronger?
 
----------------------------------------------
Blogger spines-r-us said:
For the record, Sharon Marko did not support Randy Kelly. Marko showed up on a list of supporters without her knowledge or permission. As soon as Marko found out about it, she demanded that her name be removed from the list. She made it quite clear that she was not supporting Kelly. She also made it quite clear to Eileen Weber what had happened, but Eileen insists on using misleading information to smear Marko.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Google
Web
MNCR