Brian gets my vote.  I think he'd do a great job for the Commonwealth.

I wonder if he is aware of how much hostility that might generate from Obama supporters who have been distressed and more at how Jerome has treated Obama at mydd?

big fat ol' Obama button on his personal website (follow Lowell's link).  

I just went back to MYDD to check and the good news is that for all Armstrong's myopia about how over Clinton's campaign is (barring a catastrophe for Obama or a superdelegate subversion of the Dem electorate's will), he criticizes both Obama and Clinton supporters alike for pledging to either sit out the general election if their candidate isn't nominated, or, even worse, pledging to vote for McCain.  Moran's bigger concern is whether Armstrong will let his personal disappointment affect his work for Moran.  I'm sure based on his ultimate loyalty to the party, Armstrong will step up.

The co-author of Crashing the Gates backing a member of the DLC leadership for President comes off as completely two-faced from where I'm sitting. Also Mark Warner, who Jerome worked for, is a big fan of the 50 state strategy that the Clinton campaign has denounced in favor of a big-state strategy.

I have no problems with Clinton supporters generally -- she is a qualified candidate. But Armstrong has proven with his writing during this campaign season that he intensely dislikes Obama, to the point that it severely impairs his judgment. I have no interest in reading people that are not intellectually honest -- and unfortunately, Armstrong qualifies in that category in my mind now. Mydd is pretty much off my reading list because of this campaign.

I am open minded about Deeds vs. Moran -- I have absolutely no preference either way at this point. I do agree that the people that a candidate surrounds him/herself with is important. The question for Moran is, can a 'netroots coordinator' still be effective when he has pissed off a very large slice of the community he is supposed to be organizing. Seems unlikely to me. But I'll still decided between the two candidates on the merits.

that he is a classmate in the Political Leaders Program at Sorensen.

graduated from Sorensen as well, I believe.  

...of keeping the duct tape over brother Jim's mouth?

And she will make a superb addition to Brian's campaign.  As for Armstrong and others, the fact that Obama and Clinton supporters are already planning to work together for a Democratic victory in 2009, is a hopeful sign.  

If we aren't able to put a primary fight behind us, we would be well on our way to minority status at just the time when the electorate is becoming disillusioned with the failed Republican policies of endless war, no effective government policy, and the economic anarchy known as free markets.

I just took a big step towards Creigh.

Virginia is Obama country.  I'm not saying one shouldn't support Clinton, but Armstrong has been very irresponsible in the way he's gone about support Clinton, and there are hard feelings.

He will be a lightning rod for opposition.

if it were Armstrong running for governor, but it's Brian Moran.  You're really willing to base your decision about whom to support in a state-wide race on one campaign staffer  supporting a national candidate whom you oppose?  You're not even interested in who might be better equipped, better funded, and better organized to win the election, not to mention who would be best qualified to run the state?  I don't get that.  

Lightning rod, shmightning rod.  Someone's always pissing someone off in politics.  Maybe it's extremely important to someone who is really focused on Democratic party politics, but the vast majority of the voting public don't even know who Armstrong is and probably couldn't care less whom he supports in a national candidate.  All that's really going to matter is who puts forth the best plan for Virginia.  

But it shows questionable judgment, as though Moran doesn't understand certain dynamics in the blogosphere.

It's one thing to support Hillary Clinton with diginity and spirit, like Vivian Paige for instance.  But Armstrong's actions have arguably hurt the party and divided Democrats unnecessarily.

So, I suppose Moran's decision to choose Armstrong touches on a couple of issues or factors:

1) Picking a Hillary partisan in an overwhelmingly Obama state might not be the best online strategy.

2) After this primary, the party will need people who can be uniters.  Is Armstrong a good choice for such a role?  Has his past behavior been divisive?  If Hillary Clinton loses the nomination (as seems likely) will Armstrong be embittered?  Will it affect his outlook or effectiveness?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that anyone turn against Moran solely on the basis of this one decision.  This is just something else to consider, particularly if you are netroots savvy.

you see the irony in your use of the politics of division in order to promote unity?

And I ask the question as a Democrat who, at this point, is leaning towards Creigh.

I think that is something that the candidates will have to do, but I'm certainly not promoting it myself.  Not right now.

I personally think this primary has been so bitter that there will be scores to be settled.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is probably a little naive.

You can't support Moran because he has hired a consultant who, in your view, has caused division in the Democratic Party, which shows questionable judgment on Moran's part and a lack of understanding of the blogosphere.

You seem to be saying that candidates like Moran or Deeds will have to promote unity by appeasing individuals you see as representative of the dynamics of the blogosphere, presumably like yourself, who are not promoting unity, but rather will be seeking to "settle scores" once the nomination contest is complete.

That is some pretzel logic at work there, my friend.

whereas the perception of Armstrong is that obnoxious does not close to describing his actions

just sayin'

I tend to think that outright retribution will be limited to those who are perceived of as having gone too far.

Spruill and Reilly merely contribute to the "branding" of Moran.

Congressman Jim Moran is a major endorser of Barak Obama. Sounds like Brian's team is balanced.

And I don't think Creigh has expressed a preference.  I guess we'll just have to wait and see if there's any impact on the '09 race and if anyone tries to make anything of it.

who made me get off the Obama bandwagon.  You just can't have it both ways.

Either Obama truly is the candidate who supports unity and engenders hope or he is a divisive force who will tear apart the Democratic Party and hold grudges.

His speeches are certainly soaring and beautiful.  But then there are his supporters, like you, who want to carry grudges into the 22 Century.  

So, which Obama is it?

And why should it matter in a gubernatorial race a year after the presidential election?

she has explained her reasoning in detail, and it anything but fickle.

If she can hold Obama responsible for the actions of his supporters, then surely it makes sense to hold Clinton's supporters responsible for their own actions.

She extends vicarious liability, making Obama responsible for the actions of others.  I'd just like to see certain individuals held responsible for their own actions.

If that upsets AIAW, well, we'll just have to find a way to live with that.

Criticize away. AIAW doesn't need me to defend her reasoning. Heck, I need her help.

But insult is not argument.

and worse from Clinton partisans (excepting yourself and aznew and other people who believe in rational debate, of course).  I mean, this is the same weekend in which we heard Carville declare that Richardson is Judas (presumably to Hillary's Jesus) for opting to support Obama.  

I've been following this election closely and have to say I am shocked at the extent to which a lot of Clinton supporters will go to declare his unsuitability for the White House, and when he (or much more often his supporters) responds to the attacks they whirl around and say "see?  See what you made me do?"  Obama's in an untenable position.  If he responds to the attacks on him he's being divisive; if he doesn't respond to the attacks on him he's "admitting" their validity.  These attacks have been extended to his supporters.  Look at some of the posts from other Clinton supporters here.  Is the use of terms like "Obamabot" and "idolatry" unifying?  

And where exactly is Hillary's plan for unifying the Democrats, assuming she can, against all odds and the math, get the nomination?  She only talks about fighting, never about unifying.  She is constantly on the attack, which is one reason I can't support her.  She strikes me as a terrific trial lawyer - at least in terms of her ability to present her case and make her arguments and try to win others to her side - but seems not to understand at all that sometimes it's not about being a terrific trial lawyer, but about settling the case and achieving the ultimate objective.  Sometimes negotiation and a little give and take accomplish what the barracuda trial tactics can't.  She's so oriented toward combat and assertiveness and carrying her position that she ignores their impact.  It is not for no reason that Hillary is viewed as a divisive force.  It's not because people say bad things about her.  The fact is that when you're an ardent partisan and say "it's my way or he highway" you're going to be divisive, polarizing, and disliked.  Discrimination doesn't even have to enter into the equation.