I'm dismayed that successful Democratic "insurgent" candidates who achieve without the help or support of the DC consultants, politicians and insiders suddenly start taking them into their campaigns and doing their bidding.

Ned Lamont's campaign for the Connecticut Senate seat was briliant before he took on a Hillary Clinton aide and other such DC riffraff, and now I'm worried the campaign will start to sink ina swamp of bad ideas.

If you as a candidate are doing something right, and both your ideas and your advisors ar proven winners, don't let yourself get bowled over when the "veteran" Bob Shrum knockoffs show up with their "expertise" (at triangulating, losing, etc.).

As far as Mcnerney goes, it's too bad what he did (filling out the questionnaire in the first place), and reeks to me of self-destruction. Maybe at heart, this guy doesn't want to win. Too bad, I was thinking about making a donation to his campaign because Pombo really has got to go.

Insurgencies need to be just that: locally driven and locally inspired. bob shrum has shown the ability to lose any race. He's versitile: he can lose from behind, or from the lead. DC consultants should be avoided like the nuclear clap.

Scientific American's Mind magazine has an interesting article on "Violent Pride." The premise is that violent criminals and narcissists see justification in over-the-top retaliation against those that threaten them or insult them. They suffer from unjustified high self-esteem.

Pombo somewhat fits the profile in that he goes out of his way to hurt his detractors (albeit through the legislative process). Having practiced mining law, he felt compelled last year to get back at those that had taken all the fun out of mining (all those rules about environmental impact studies, mine safety, site remediation, escrow accounts and liability-schmiabilty), by calling for a mirror-image version of 5th Amendment takings clause -- compelling the government to sell to mining companies millions of acres of government lands at "fair" prices as a way to encourage private ownership. The federal government owns too much land, you know.

Even with government of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation, here is a man who see his mission in life as playing the role of reverse Robin Hood. Pride goes before a fall, and it just could be Pombo's time.

That the Democrats can't oust the likes of Pombo in a central California district - or even make it a priority, for that matter - is a devastating indictiment against the entire political establishment. It shows that when it comes to defeating the far right, the Democratic party is not even remotely serious.

Then again, one supposes it is pretty hard for the Democratic party to run serious campaigns against even the most corrupt and dingy elements of the far right when it so consistently endeavors to run right wing campaigns itself.

The chance to run against Richard Pombo ought to be a dream come true for a competent opponent. The greatest difficulty should be deciding upon which issues to use against him. If Jerry McNerney and his staff can not take the initiative in this campaign, it is better that they lose. We do not need more amateurs in the D.C.

Politics is a high stakes game. Like any game, if you do not know the rules you are going to be outmaneuvered by those that do. If you do not take the time to study the rules, then you deserve the rewards of slovenly behavior.

Certainly it is not too late to turn around Mr. McNerney’s campaign, but who is going to do the driving?

I am so sick of the DCCC trying to replace passionate, local politicians with "electable" candidates. When McNerney won the primary, they decided that rather than support him, they'd put their money elsewhere. They chose to back Lieberman instead of Lamont (and they still won't publically disavow or condemn Lieberman's egomaniacal 3rd party run), and the forced Hackett to drop out in Ohio. We're sick to death of mealy-mouthed, pansy candidates who won't say and stand up for what they believe. We're choking on nuanced statements meant to offend the fewest potential voters. At least McNerney is willing to put his opinions down where people can see them.

How sad, awful, and pathetic that the political process is at the point where honestly answering a questionnaire about one's intended policies is, instead of being a requirement, dismissed as a 'booby trap' or 'self-destructive', even by a candidate's liberal supporters. God forbid anyone should clearly talk about actual issues. No, of course you can't expect to be able to talk about realistic solutions like SLIGHTLY raising taxes, when the very mention of the idea sends the mouth-breathers into a panicked frenzy. Instead, just keep assuring people that we can cut taxes to oblivion, eliminate the deficit, increase funding for education and crime spending, fund health and scientific research (unless of course it's not mentioned in the Bible), and still have enough left over to start a couple more wars! Of course, your opponent will say exactly the same thing (perhaps in a slightly different order), and then the campaign coverage can focus on things that are actually important, like how much time a candidate spends on their hair, or how cleverly they can coin and use catchphrases. Americans follow campaign news the same way they follow celebrity news. No real issues or strategies are ever discussed - instead, we elect people based on their personalities, and trust them to make whatever decisions they want afterward. If it were up to me, I would eliminate the entire bloated, disgusting, corruption-laden and money-wasting spectacle of the 'campaign process' and replace it with exactly what McNerney is being criticized for doing - a simple questionnaire requiring candidates to answer specific questions about their positions, without the option of pleasing everyone (example: "If you had to raise one of the following taxes..." or "I believe in the separation of church and state: A)yes B)no"). Of course, that would probably put a significant dent in the media establishment by eliminating our most popular instance of spectator sport/gossip journalism, but oh well, can't make an omelet...