Wilson Sells Soul, (Almost) Erases Past

• They\'ve sent Wilson\'s site down teh memory hole -- now you get Cantwell\'s site.

• Geov, I couldn\'t agree with you more on Mark\'s vacillating over withdrawing from Iraq. That is why I am grateful to you for this article. He is trying to run from his record when 1) there was absolutely no reason to do so, and 2)it is patently dishonest I won\'t tolerate it. So far he has done a poor job of selling us on setting aside our differences and getting behind Cantwell. I see absolutely no reason to do so in the primary. What to do in November is a harder decision. By the way the cached page on Google may have a shelf life so you may want to save a copy if you haven\'t already done so.

• Respectively: 1) Most people don\'t vote based on a single issue. That\'s why Cantwell\'s numbers are high despite the fact that most Democrats have disagreed with her on the war, and that\'s part of why Wilson, Tran, and Dixon have all been electorally insignificant. (Their complete lack of resources doesn\'t help, either.) 2) I don\'t begrudge Wilson\'s withdrawing, or his endorsing Cantwell. Or even (though I find it curious) his decision to then urge Tran to withdraw and to work for Cantwell himself. I do think Wilson\'s insistence that there\'s no fundamental contradiction between his past calls for immediate withdrawal and his post-hiring invocation of the Bush \"Stand Up/Stand Down\" meme is both dishonest and a mistake. (And on KOMO today, he said that with the stand up/stand down quote he \"misspoke,\" though that\'s hardly an ambiguous quote.) He would have had far more credibility all the way around if he\'d simply said, look, I still think Maria is wrong on this, but it\'s more important that she beat McGavick. That\'s a position anti-war Democrats might not have agreed with, but would have understood. But his full-denial reversal instead both calls Wilson\'s credibility into question and makes him nearly useless in his new job reaching out to the peace and social justice communities. It comes off, fair or not, as though he\'ll say anythig for a buck. And it makes Maria look bad for hiring him, too; why is she spending the sort of campaign salary on him generally reserved for top staffers? Instead of a coup, this has become a negative story for Cantwell. So far her campaign hasn\'t done much of anything right; it\'s a big reason McGavick is making a race of it.

• Geov, It is grossly unfair to characterize Mark Wilson\'s withdrawal and subsequent employment on Cantwell\'s campaign as soul peddling. It blatantly overlooks the complex political dynamics driving this election cycle (Constitutional Crisis/virtually unfettered right wing agenda, one party rule, etc.) and/or dismisses Mark\'s motives as strictly self serving. Having volunteered for Mark and spending time conversing with him I do not accept this cynical premise. The purpose of running for office is to advance one\'s agenda by winning election. Failing victory one\'s best hope then becomes moving the other candidates (especially the likely eventual winner) toward one\'s own positions. The former fell off the table for Mark with the entry of a late-comer to the race. Incumbents, as you know, have a significant advantage historically as it is (unless said incumbent\'s name is Lieberman) so even if two challengers aren\'t running on virtually identical platforms (as they were in this case) they are likely to split the anti-incumbent vote and hand the race to the incumbent. That Mark is trying to salvage some fruit from 16 months of campaigning is not only a natural recourse but consistent with his pledge to support the party nominee which in all probability is Cantwell. I am as disappointed as any of Mark\'s supporters that he dropped out before the primary. I was particularly chagrined by his abrupt withdrawal knowing just hours before which a tabling event for his campaign took place which I had personally organized. Mark\'s efforts were not without mistakes but they were just as certainly not without honor which many are now too easily impugning because of the difficult decision he felt he had to make. Mark\'s failure to go the distance is regrettable but this 11/3 Democrat is nonetheless grateful to Mark for putting himself on the line to give voice for and hope to many progressive voters. Furthermore I do not think anyone should begrudge Mark for wanting to put food on the table for his family while he tries to effect change from the inside and save Cantwell\'s campaign from herself. I sympathize with those who feel betrayed but it is important to recognize the circumstances which have brought about this development. I am, however, alarmed by the disappearance of the \"Compare\" page on his otherwise intact campaign website. It is symptomatic of the stifling of dissent that is all too pervasive in the party and I hope Mark understands that no purpose is served in running away from the issues that defined his campaign and his supporters\' continued alienation from Cantwell. As such many of us are not ready to heed Mark\'s call for unity with Cantwell until she shows some responsiveness if not an outright shift on several critical issues.

• I get a feeling that this so-called ?split among the Democrats? is largely a fiction perpetuated by (1) a small vocal minority of anti-war Democrats, (2) the press, and perhaps (3) some Wingnut hopefuls. Do the poll numbers actually back up the anecdotal evidence? Look at the breakdown of Cantwell\'s support by ideology in the latest <a>SurveyUSA poll</a>. <b>Cantwell\'s approval among self-identified liberals is identical to Patty Murray\'s at 64%</b>. Cantwell\'s approval is 3% lower than Murray\'s among moderates but is 3% higher among conservatives. So...be careful about reading too much into the machinations of a small vocal minority. The numbers don\'t really support the \"split\" theory.

TotalComments: 5