I Will Hold My Nose and Vote for Daniello
I have a distinct lack of enthusiasm for both candidates for leadership of the Delaware Democratic party. However, I am going to vote for John Daniello.
I agree with the major criticisms of Daniello. I think the lack of attention to the U.S. House race is a tragedy. I think he is part of the old school party apparatus, and probably is not very appreciative of the netroots. I also echo the criticism of using state party money to intervene in the primary.
I do wish that a third candidate would come forward. I think there is a lot of renewal that needs to happen within the party, despite its successes. We need to kill off the Delaware Way for good. Will I be upset if McGlinchey wins? Not really, I just don’t feel strongly enough about either candidate. I realize that state party chair is a thankless position, a lot of work for no pay, so I salute anyone who is willing to take the job.
This post represents my own personal opinion of the leadership race, and not Delaware Liberal. Everyone should feel free to vote his/her conscience.
Comment by MJ on 15 May 2009 at 10:42 am:
Many of us down here in the 14th are going to be doing the same.
Comment by PBaumbach on 15 May 2009 at 11:43 am:
I wish I knew Brian enough to see if I am merely very naive, but I currently take him at his word that his union’s past support of Oberle would have no impact on his full support, if elected state party chair, in getting a Dem to win Oberle’s spot in Dover.
Will he be looking for a labor-supporting Dem to run? Certainly! This issue doesn’t concern me much about Brian.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 15 May 2009 at 11:46 am:
The thing that concerns me more, PB, is his falsely claiming support from people who are not supporting him. I think he may be parsing words (using supporters of his National Councilman run and then attributing them to support for party chair), so I worry despite his saying that he would support a Dem in the 24th that he may not give it his whole endorsement.
Comment by PBaumbach on 15 May 2009 at 11:56 am:
Can Brian’s possible future lukewarm support (as state party chair) for a Dem in the 24th be more worrisome than Daniello’s active search (as state party chair) for a candidate to run against Kowalko?
Comment by John Kowalko on 15 May 2009 at 12:06 pm:
If Brian McGlinchey says he will support a Dem in the 24th (as the party chair) he will support that Dem without reservation and without a litmus test and with enthusiasm. I know Brian and I know him through encounters we’ve had regarding labor/working class issues that I stood opposite his point and he has always, always understood that the issues are debatable on their merits and respected that. He has never faltered in his support for me regardless of my stances and decisions. He supports “PROGRESSIVE” DEMOCRATS and working class people, (those who comprise and ARE the Democratic party), consistently and without reservation and if you need me to confirm to any of you personally feel free to call me.
Thank you,
John Kowalko
Comment by Nancy Willing on 15 May 2009 at 12:20 pm:
ALRIIIIGHT, the mis-informers have taken UI into their space ship and morphed her views.
There are not 8 individuals who changed their story. I just found out the identity of the person who did change and she is NOT SUPPORTING either candidate..rather late for that.
She did give Brian her nod and then decided to go neutral after the fact…nice way to put herself out on an indefensible limb.
UI, I would HOPE that you will wait for the two to speak tomorrow before you decide. To act on rumor and heresay put forth here by Daniello’s crowd is just wrong. Go and ask questions and get the facts on your own steam. Or not.
And it is about time for Kowalko to speak up!!!!
Comment by Nancy Willing on 15 May 2009 at 12:23 pm:
Paul, I didn’t realize that Daniello went against Kowalko…A TRUE PROGRESSIVE…what more do you people need?
The comfort of the old and familiar? A pillow?
I’ve never been to the convention, is the election secret or open?
Comment by liberalgeek on 15 May 2009 at 12:26 pm:
Nancy – Any response to the suggestion that John Atkins did not endorse for either of the two positions yet was listed?
Also, UI knows that BMcG has misrepresented endorsements. I can vouch for at least one, first-hand.
Comment by El Somnambulo on 15 May 2009 at 12:34 pm:
Nancy Willing wrote:
“ALRIIIIGHT, the mis-informers have taken UI into their space ship and morphed her views.”
Because, of course, she can’t think for herself.
And, you can talk about rumor and hearsay all you want. But campaign finance reports don’t lie. And the fact that McGlinchey was deeply involved with the Working Families Party and promoted the endorsement of the Rethuglican candidates referenced ad nauseum here is fact, not rumor and hearsay. Unfortunately, the party McGlinchey seeks to lead is neither the Rethugs nor the Working Families Party.
To support him would be to take it on faith that he no longer would play the kind of political games he’s played the last two cycles.
And that’s important, because WITHOUT THOSE POLITICAL GAMES, the Democrats could have won the House of Representatives in 2006, and would not have had to wait until 2008.
For the life of him, ‘bulo cannot see how someone who helped keep the D’s out of the majority should be rewarded by naming him state chair.
He just wishes that the chairmanship did not come down to which labor faction is stronger.
Comment by Nancy Willing on 15 May 2009 at 12:43 pm:
LG, I believe your example is mine too.
Do you think we should trust JA??
Comment by Nancy Willing on 15 May 2009 at 12:44 pm:
Thinking for herself that she believes heresay…hmmm.
Comment by PI on 15 May 2009 at 12:46 pm:
So much of what is being shoveled out by the McGlinchey faction is pure horsepoop. Brian says he wouldn’t have used Party money for that (Markell/Carney)primary…but he did use union money and volunteers for Carney.
As a matter of fact, one of the WF volunteers on primary day spit on a Markell volunteer and taunted her.
Any of you who can overlook the fact that McGlinchey is saying all the things he knows you want to hear, fine. Cast your vote for McGlinchey. But be sure you do so with the realization that you’re turning back the hands of time to some very unattractive campaign methods.
I’m voting for John tomorrow. What happened last year is water under the bridge and has, in and of itself, brought a valuable lesson to party leadership. I would expect a rule change to come out of all of this once the dust settles if Daniello is re-elected. But, I am not sure what to expect if Brian wins because his past actions do not support his promises.
Comment by liberalgeek on 15 May 2009 at 12:47 pm:
Nope, not the same one. Way more reliable. I cannot reveal more without compromise.
But imagine if Daniello had told me that YOU were supporting him.
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 15 May 2009 at 1:04 pm:
This semi-endorsement comes of my own free conscience. One nice thing about not living here that long – I don’t owe anybody anything. Neither Daniello nor McGlinchey has done favors for me, and neither have hindered me in any way. I will, of course, be willing to listen to what both men say. I do think it is reprehensible that the party openly tried to challenge Rep. Kowalko. Like PI, I hope that Daniello has learned a lesson. If not, he’ll be another obstacle to go around. Unfortunately, there are two candidates to choose from – Daniello and McGlinchey – and both have their issues.
Comment by What I Know on 15 May 2009 at 2:01 pm:
Daniello spent DEM money in the Dem Primary against Markell and his access to Markell will not be like it was with Minner. Daniello made a bet in the Primary and lost. I would find it hard to believe Markell will easily forgive Daniello for this blunder. Daniello’s future effectiveness due to his shenanagins in the primary is highly doubtful. Daniello won’t get my vote.
Comment by cassandra_m on 15 May 2009 at 2:13 pm:
McGlinchey pretty much has the same problem, you know.
Comment by jason330 on 15 May 2009 at 2:25 pm:
WIK backs into the point that Gov Markell seems to have passed on this chance to put his stamp on the party.
Why? That is a story I’d like read somewhere.
Comment by Rebuild the Delaware GOP on 15 May 2009 at 2:27 pm:
Simple, Markell does not need the party. The almost 4,000 republicans who crossed over got him elected not the Dem Party.
Mike Protack
Comment by Unstable Isotope on 15 May 2009 at 2:31 pm:
It’s not true that Markell hasn’t put his mark on the party. The new Executive Director worked for Markell, and other Markell staffers have taken over paid party positions. What I heard was that Markell looked around and didn’t find anyone who was really interested in the position. I assume Daniello and Markell came to some kind of understanding, as well. State party chair seems like a pretty thankless position anyway, I can see why not everyone wants to jump on board.
Comment by Donsquishydishimaharishi on 15 May 2009 at 4:21 pm:
honest question,
How many grains of salt do you guys take what NWilling says? Because, all the bad mouthing you do Nancy, and the over the top way you defend certain people as well as the little outing comments you have made make it difficult for me to believe what you say.
I’m wondering who else feels the same.
Comment by Nancy Willing on 15 May 2009 at 5:16 pm:
Should I answer in the third person? nawww.
I may just have to pick a fight with you, DV and I’ve only scrapped three times in my life: once with a slutty bitch in a charter boat captain’s trailer at Bower’s Beach; once with a female security guard at the Spectrum and once with my old man.
I know that you have some story about outing that you hold onto for dear life that has never been satisfactorily explained to me, but beyond that, where’s the beef?
/snark
Comment by liberalgeek on 15 May 2009 at 5:17 pm:
For some reason, I want to hear all three of those stories…