I met him several times and I worked on his 2010 campaign. He is a genuine progressive who actually cares about people and wants corporate money out of politics.

I'm very happy with what I see on his website and the posts on his FB page, and was very happy to see him win the primary.

With Johnson retiring, seems like a higher likelihood that we'll actually get a good Rep here. That would be nice after years of John Shimkus.

That I've met and seen working tirelessly. So I get tired of the broad brush that the GOP and Dems are the same. People that say that ought to get out more. Looks like you have a chance to see things turn around there!

to bad we do not have a democratic candidate to run against kinzinger.

He is seen as a candidate that "can't win" in part because he ran against Johnson in the old GOP drawn district and lost, in part because he refuses PAC money, and in part because he is so Progressive. Even Durbin endorsed Gill's Primary opponent* this year, along with several party chairs from outside the old district. The support for Gill was VERY strong among the people that know him and those that have seen his previous campaigns.

David is not a party insider, nor does he appear to be beholding to anybody except the voters.


Laura




*The Primary opponent stood in front of the Champaign County Dems and pledged his support to David--said he'd decided not to run. Within a few days that same guy announced he'd decided to run. This is the same guy that says he's a "Pro Choice Catholic that always chooses life" when he was asked his position on womens' right to choose. This is the same guy that refuses to discuss gay marriage.

It is interesting to hear you say that. I have seen Durbin make some stunning errors in judgment that make me think he cares way more about insiderism than he should.

One thing was his support for releasing Governor Ryan from jail. He did back off that after people became very angry with him. He had gotten to know Ryan's wife when he worked on a committee with her. He felt Ryan's release would be compassionate for both of them, since she was dying.

He also meddled far too much in the 17th District Congressional primary. I know quite a few of the people involved. Since redistricting, some of those people used to be in the 16th District, where I am, but that has changed now. He supported Cheri Bustos, and made sure he threw his weight behind her so she got union endorsements and financial support that she would not have received without his urging (IMO). He didn't do this because she is a phenomenal politician, but because she is a family friend. George Gaulrapp would have been the better choice.

Also, Durbin's wife runs IWIL, a program that trains women to take on leadership roles. It is run through Illinois Democratic Women. One year they took over so much of the IDW convention that I swore I would never attend again. The whole convention was one big advertisement of Loretta Durbin's program. It was insulting.

We have someone in my county who is a graduate of that program. She is sloppy, lazy, and untruthful, but Durbin is very high on her and does not see it. Her "leadership" consists of being a queen bee, as in "Queen Bees and Wannabees," the book by Wiseman, about mean girls. This woman is in her fifties, but behaves just like the teenagers in the book. Durbin does not see it.

There are many, many good things about Durbin, and we need him in Washington. But I have seen another side.

I agree with you that he's been good for us in Washington, but for me there's almost a feeling of paranoia about calling Durbin out on some of this stuff. I know that there is a practical analysis that probably goes into the decision who to endorse and who not to. I "get" that we need electable candidates--why bother otherwise--ya know? What I am not getting, however, is how the decision is made about who to support.

My assumption here has always been that we are all Democrats with a certain amount of common ground. I know that this is about like herding cats, but IMO there are some hot button issues in every race that will mobilize the Dem base. Maybe I'm just naive, but I've always looked for candidates who agreed with me on those issues, or who at least didn't make me feel ashamed to have a yard sign.

In a Dem Primary, in a year when the GOP has been out there nationwide openly attacking women's issues, I freaking well EXPECT AND DEMAND that my party puts up candidates that will support women's rights to choice and all women's access to birth control. Ain't open for debate or discussion with me--you want my money or my help you damn well better be able to say you are pro-choice without stammering or shuffling like a guilty little kid. I watched Matt Goetten stammer and turn three shades of green when he tried to answer the question, "Do you support a woman's right to choice?" It made me feel ill.

Durbin endorsed the wrong guy. By itself, maybe if I hadn't seen it happen before, I might have just figured it was a fluke. WE have ALL seen it happen before, however, that Durbin goes into a Primary and tries to swing it for the "favored" one. We have all seen more than one race where a legitimate Progressive candidate gets passed over in favor of an "electable" candidate as defined by some elusive standard that nobody seems to be able to articulate. You can name several names on here from prior races where the power elite attempted to influence those primaries, and virtually EVERY time it was a more socially conservative Dem they chose to help. I find that more than disturbing.



Laura