DEMOCRAT HOUSE LEADERS SIGNAL THEIR ELECTORAL PRIORITIES FOR 'O8

The DCCC and Democratic House bigwigs are looking at dozens of Republican-held seats where Democratic challengers have a shot to replace rubber stamp Republican incumbents. You already know which candidates Blue America has endorsed so far. We ask each candidate a series of questions before we decide whether or not to endorse them. We try to make sure that if our candidates win they intend to go to Congress committed to protecting women's right to choice, committed to protecting the equal rights of minorities-- and we ask about gays, probably the minority most targeted for hatred and discrimination by the far right these days-- committed to figuring out how to end the occupation of Iraq (for real), and committed to taking bribes out of the electoral system.

The DCCC, on the other hand, has two criterion: they want candidates with an ability to raise a great deal of money and they want a candidate committed to voting for a Democratic House leadership. They don't care if their candidates are racist, anti-choice, homophobic, corrupt, pro-war or even if they vote with Republicans most of the time. You think I'm kidding? Look at the voting record of "Democrat" Gene Taylor, the most reactionary of any Democrat in Congress.

This week the top Democrat leaders in the House, including DCCC chair Chris Van Hollen and Speaker Pelosi signaled who their early favorites are. I'm assuming they're looking at electability more than anything else. They have power based on how many Democrats are elected, regardless of how those Democrats vote on issues. They picked six candidates so far, both progressives and reactionaries: Linda Stender running against Mike Ferguson (NJ); Larry Kissell running against Robin Hayes (NC); Dan Maffei running against James Walsh (NY); state Rep. Steve Driehaus, who is running against Steve Chabot (OH); state Sen. John Boccieri, running against Ralph Regula (OH); and former Kansas City Mayor Kay Barnes, who is challenging Sam Graves (MO).

Some of the Democratic leaders, Hoyer, Clyburn and Emanuel, only donated to a few of the candidates. I suspect these clowns are more enthusiastic about conservatives like Barnes and Driehaus than the independent-minded grassroots progressives like Linda Stender.

According to Mark Wegner at CongressDaily "Early leadership donations, even when made from their personal committees, have the dual effect of promoting the party's most promising candidates and discouraging potential challengers in the party primary. On C-SPAN's Newsmakers, which aired Sunday, Van Hollen reiterated the DCCC's reluctance to get involved in primaries, but he said the committee works to field strong challengers. 'There could be cases where, certainly before people get into the primary, we might encourage somebody to try and work it out, and we may have a preference,' Van Hollen said. 'But when it comes right down to it, if everybody files, we sort of let the candidates go.' The policy could come into play in the case of Kissell, who faces possible Democratic primary opposition from state Rep. Rick Glazier. 'When it comes to official sorts of endorsements, we do not get involved in the primaries,' Van Hollen said. 'But where you have a candidate like Larry Kissell, who is the only declared candidate out in front, we're certainly doing everything we can to support Larry.'"

Van Hollen danced around an important and pointed question about incumbents facing primaries from antiwar candidates. In blue districts represented by pro-war and pro-corporate Democrats-- like Al Wynn (MD-04), John Barrow (GA-12), Dave Scott (GA-13), Jim Cooper (TN-05), Dan Lipinski (IL-03), Jerry Costello (IL-12), Marion Berry (AR-01), etc-- the only opportunity to hold representatives accountable is through primaries. But what Van Hollen said was, "The question for anyone challenging a Democratic member of Congress in the primary on the war is really saying ... 'What would you do differently?'" I'd like to introduce CVH to Donna Edwards and Mark Pera for starters.