Sam has been in the race much longer than Drew Richardson and there are a lot of people that are emotionally invested in Sam and committed to him because he has been working hard for a while now.  That being said, just from what I saw and heard from both candidates in this interview, WOW, night and day.  

There is a composue, maturity, and knowledgability factor on issues that comes across to me when you compare both.  Taking into account the district and how it will play, I can see Drew Richardson doing much better against Goodlatte than Sam Rasoul.  Not saying that Drew will win, but in my assesment, he would do much better against Goodlatte than Sam.  If Richardson can put the money together, get his narative and message out effectively, I would say that he has a good chance to break 40%, even be between 41-45%.  

Now, I've only seen Richardson in this setting and on YouTube, but the Democrats need and adult running in the 6th Congressional District and Richarson definitly fits that requirement.  

We know you support Sam, kestrel.  The rhetoric isn't "chickenshit."

I was able to speak extensively with both candidates at convention.  Sam definitely seems more energetic and excited, but that alone won't win a race, especially against Goodlatte.  Sam asked me what was important to me, and I said "Winning."  He then asked me about the issues, and I said, "My issue is winning.  Bob Goodlatte is a dangerous idealogue, and has to go."

I think this debate proves that while Sam is not "literally" a child, his experience and his knowledge of the issues is substantially less than Richardson's.  That's why I'm supporting him, and that's why I'm countering your "1."  It was a fair assessment of a candidate, and you're letting your personal preferences get in the way.  You support Sam, good for you.  But don't go giving people 1s just because they bring up a valid point that you don't like: Sam comes off as young and lacking in life experience, while Drew does not.

Are you really going to take that route?  That's low, man.  If you have something, come on out and say it.  But don't start these rumor campaigns.  

Jesus, don't go Hillary Clinton on us.

"Sam Rasoul is a closet Republican....."
"Sam Rasoul is a child...."
Who's going Hillary Clinton?

I don't work for Drew's campaign.  I've never said he's a child or a Republican.  I've said I think Drew is more experienced and has a better resume.  I've never even written a post on the subject.  You're swinging at something that doesn't even exist, my friend.  All I've ever said is that I have serious doubts about Sam's ability to be competetive in November, which is a legitimate concern.

I don't represent the Richardson Campaign any more than you represent the Rasoul Campaign.  I hold you responsible for your own words, and I hope you're hold me responsible for mine.  I think any attacks on Sam based on his ideology or party identification are pointless.  I have never participated in those.  I just think Sam has less a chance of winning in November than Drew, and that Drew's resume is far more impressive, and that's all I've ever said on the subject.

I'd like to know what in my statement was "unproductive"?  Was it that I wasn't showering Sam with praise?  I've spoken to the guy many times, and I won't lie, I'm still skeptical.  I appreciate his intensity, but I just think Richardson is a better choice based on resume comparison.

smear campaigning via paid surrogates is quite another, and this raises ethical issues in my mind.
Decrying attacks on a Republican, while using surrogates to smear a Democrat?
Indefensible and hypocritical.

I'd be really interested in hearing the supporters of each candidate make the strongest case they can FOR their candidate (issues, electability, etc.).  After that's done, then I suppose you can go back to bashing each other. :)  (Better yet, how about going after Goodlatte?!?)

Why the hell would I take money from either side in this race?  I am not a surrogate for either side!  Have never received a dime.

I know that. I apologize if I gave you the impression that i was accusing you of that.
I was talking about Howell and Sharp.

I have neither echoed nor condoned their actions.  So why are my comments being labeled with ones?  I'm under the impression I'm bringing up legitmate concerns about a candidate's resume being too thin.

on that one, Dan.
I objected to the characterization of Sam as a child, and you "1"'ed me.
Now you now.

I thought you were unfairly going chspkheel.  I was criticizing what I thought was an unfair attack due to personal candidate preference.  He was contributing in a positive way.  I didn't take what he said about Sam as ageism, I took it as a metaphor: Sam just doesn't have the experience necessary for the job.  And I know that sounds awful "Clintonian", but I think that her argument falls flat: Obama has the resume and judgment.  Sam just appears to me to have a weak resume and little life experience that would make him the best guy to go after Goodlatte.  

I gave you a 1 because I feel you gave chspkheel a one for no other reason other than that he was criticizing your candidate.

I don't see their comments on this thread, do you?  They never posted anything here, and nobody has echoed their remarks.  So why are you bringing them up?

I'm not in this conversation, am I? Did I call your statement unproductive? I don't recall that I did. I don't see that I've been in this RK discussion at all.

But while I'm here, I happen to think everyone is entitled to his opinion. Mine is that the "Sam is unelectable" argument is silly. At least it is silly in comparing the two candidates for the nomination: One with charisma and energy, one without; One with a campaign, one without; One with endorsements and supporters; one without. One with specific ideas on more than one subject, one without. One with contacts throughout the part and district, one without. That's in the intra-party battle, but I don't see that Mr. Richardson would fare any better head-to-head against Goodlatte. So my opinion is that the electability issue weighs in Sam's favor, not Drew's. You're welcome to you're own analysis.

I've checked my first comment.  I want to know what I said that made you feel you had to give me a one.

You really care about ratings? Sheesh. Okay, I considered it less than productive because (a) you demonstrated poor judgment in ignoring the issues in favor of some superficial assessment of electability; (b) it is so unlikely that Drew can win the nomination that any criticism of Sam is unhelpful to the greater goal; and (c) you made it seem as if the discussion were about you and the silly ratings instead of the candidates. It all seemed a waste of bandwidth to me. And rather than waste more by responding, I thought a nice simple "1" was a more efficient way of expressing my opinion.  

Like I said in my opening sentence, there are a lot of people that are emotionally invested in Sam Rasoul.  You have proven that point.  Secondly, I have not spoken with Drew Richardson, but I have spoken with Sam.  We talked for a good hour way before he announced he was running.  While I am not questioning his energy or drive, I did make some suggestions to him to point him in the right direction, and it was very clear early on that he doesn't take direction very well.  So, I washed my hands of the whole thing.  

As far as how he has run his campaign to this point, there are some very obvious signs that internally and tactically, has proven the point that his campaign needs a strong hand to advise or guide.  But, it is up to the Candidate to make the choice/decision they are willing to take that kind of direction.  The signs, even before Drew Richardson got into the race, that Sam needs to listen:  1) Announced way too early  2) High campaign staff turnover, he's at least advertised three or four times for a Campaign Manager, 3) Not the amount of money he has raised, but how he has spent it.  4) Bridge Burning between old campaign staff and the Candidate.  Need I go on?  

Also, look at what I said in the first post.  I have only seen Drew Richardson speak in this YouTube interview and it is only a first impression, but he comes across as a much more knowledgable and credible candidate.  You can give me all the "1" ratings you want, it won't change a thing and I certainly won't be crying myself to sleep tonight because you gave me a "1".  

I like constructive, strong, contrasting debate/discussion that is productive.  Things getting taken out of context really bothers me.  That is why I think Lowell does a good job facilitating the discussions in a positive way.  But, every once in a while you get emotional response to a post.  I am sorry that DanG bore the brunt of my initial post.  Thank you to everyone who tried to keep this discussion going in the right direction.  

Sam does, in fact, have a lot of emotional support.  Not that it's totally a bad thing; Barack Obama has a ton of emotional support.  But sometime emotional support leads you to read what others say wrong and to react without think carefully.  That's all I was trying to point out.

Unfortunately, you'll have to follow the link to Star City Harbinger.  We posted our take on the Richardson-Rasoul debate.  Or, at least, the day after.  

Let us know what you think.

http://starcityharbinger.com/?...

Democrats '08

for politicians to declare themselves the winners of debates.  Yawwwwwwn.

Great blog.  But when you've decided to back a candidate like Byrne or Richardson, it seems that the collective progressive consciousness of NoVA seems to close its mind.

Being fully invested in the bureaucratic underclass of the DC area has prevented some of your readers from acknowledging the failures in character of the candidates you endorse.

Bloggers are alway welcome to become tools of the candidates with whom they are enamored.

However, on the instant point, Sam Rasoul didn't need to issue a press release highlighting his performance in the debate.

IMHO, why candidates like Senator Obama are so appealing is because they seldom blow their own horn.

Lowell, both the candidates you seem to be backing, Byrne and Richardson, have very little chance of breaking through in this primary season.  Leslie Bryne, no doubt, for her cantankerous past.  Richardson for the simple fact that no one of substance in the VA-6th Congressional District supports him.

Your readers can pretend that Mr. Richardson is the white knight of the VA-6th.

We understand the insurmountable battle to unseat Goodlatte perfectly.

What we aren't willing to do is participate in the Machiavellian political antics of a Leslie Byrne or a Drew Richardson.

One needs to stop and clearly consider the intentions behind Mr. Richardson's late entry in VA-6th Democratic nomination process.

Maybe your sense of smell has been hampered by your well-deserved success.

and not that I have anything substantive to add to the intra-party squabbles in the 6th or 11th, but this:

Bloggers are alway welcome to become tools of the candidates with whom they are enamored.

Was uncalled for and goes over the top, IMHO.

Calling someone a "tool" implies that they are not exercising independent thought.

Just sayin'.

Thanks for engaging.  However, again, no one has much of substance to say in opposition to our arguments and the points we raise.

If this is about ego, Anonymous Aznew, I do not think I want to play this game.

Sorry for offending you.

It is about rational argument rather than insult or insinuation.

In your post below, for example, you state:

I said, "bloggers are always welcome to become tools."  I'm certain I didn't mention any blogger specifically.

Well, no you didn't. But if you weren't referring to Lowell specifically, or RK in general, why make the point at all?

Or your reference to me as "Anonymous Aznew," to imply, well, what exactly does that suggest? I don't even know, as many people post here using screen names. I certainly do not actively hide my identity.

In any event, fear not Passive-aggressive Hank, as you did not offend me. And, yeah, Lowell can take care of himself, but I do care about the integrity of this blog.

Oh, and by the way, perhaps the issue is moot since Richardson withdrew, but could you please explain this argument you made:

But I have to politely disagree with you about your statement that you haven't endorsed anyone in the 6th.

Please don't be disingenuous.  I would have to search your archives, but from what I've read over the past few months, your stories (ergo RK) have definitely shown a preference for Leslie over Gerry.  You are free to take issue with my observations but I am not alone.

What would Lowell's backing of Byrne in the 11th have to do with whether he has endorsed anyone in the 6th. I miss the connection?

That was wayyy over the top, false, simply one of the strangest comments in a while on here -- and that's saying something!

I said, "bloggers are always welcome to become tools."  I'm certain I didn't mention any blogger specifically.

I don't have the context to address your claims about the outrageousness of suggesting that bloggers often allow their support for a candidate to cloud their judgment on Raising Kaine.  I didn't think questioning bias was out-of-bounds.  All apologies.

I've made some pointed statements about the rhetoric used by some Byrne surrogates in previous posts.  Perhaps you haven't read them.

Lowell, I'm sorry I raised your ire.  But I have to politely disagree with you about your statement that you haven't endorsed anyone in the 6th.

Please don't be disingenuous.  I would have to search your archives, but from what I've read over the past few months, your stories (ergo RK) have definitely shown a preference for Leslie over Gerry.  You are free to take issue with my observations but I am not alone.

As to the progressive consciousness of NoVA, I remember the warm reception I first received when I attempted to explain the fact that NLS posts slandering Senator Obama and seemed parallel to Leslie's past attacks on the character and person of folks like Mark Warner, and the marriage of Gerry and his wife of 30 years and Gerry's brief stint in seminary.  Birds of a feather.

This is relevant to the issue of the VA-6th campaign because the digs, the planted stories by surrogates of Drew Richardson like Rick Howell, the personal attacks against Sam Rasoul have the same M.O. as the NLS attacks on Obama/Connolly that you and others in the NoVA blogosphere refuse to publicly condemn.

You can write all the pieces you wish about ActBlue or BlueMajority and their endorsements of Leslie Slash-n-Byrne and you can spin your pieces against Gerry Connolly anyway you wish.  I understand, Richardson's campaign is starting to get on our nerves too.

But please don't pretend you don't support and haven't issued a de facto endorsement of Leslie Byrne.  Come on.

Anyway, my lunch break is over.  Back to work.

Thanks for the conversation.

That "collective consciousness" thing, if you want anymore explanation, please do hesitate to ask.

You can continue to try to paint me as a maker of outrageous statements and spin my words into personal insults.

Campaigns, and their surrogates, do that all the time.  We've all seen it before.

Peace.

Statement from Drew Richardson

"It has been my privilege to be a candidate for the office of U.S.
Congress and to seek the Democratic nomination for that office in our
district. Nevertheless, it has become obvious to me over the last many
weeks that my opponent has won the support of a majority of our
party's activists and perhaps had done so prior to my entry into the
race.

"If I were to continue with my campaign I have concluded, even if I
were to be successful, the win could badly divide our party. I
personally would be left with, at best, merely having won a
short-lived victory only to guarantee sure defeat for the party and
myself in November.

"For these reasons, as well as to allow my opponent to begin his
general election campaign a month or two earlier than he might
otherwise have done, I am suspending my campaign for the Democratic
nomination effective immediately.

"I congratulate the presumptive nominee, Mr. Rasoul, and wish him and
his supporters well and good luck over the coming months. Thanks to
those who have encouraged me to enter this race, to those who have
supported my efforts and particularly to my campaign staff.

"Finally, a special thank you to all of you for your past, present and
continued participation in the political process. "

Best Regards,

Drew C. Richardson

...I have to politely disagree with you about your statement that you haven't endorsed anyone in the 6th.

Please don't be disingenuous.  I would have to search your archives, but from what I've read over the past few months, your stories (ergo RK) have definitely shown a preference for Leslie over Gerry.

Point #1: I have NOT endorsed anyone in the 6th. Yeah, you go back and find something that shows that I did, have fun looking.

Point #2: What on earth does my clear -- and proud! -- endorsement of Leslie Byrne in the 11th CD have to do with the 6th CD?  And, pray tell, what's wrong with my endorsement of Leslie, as well as the support of the overwhelming majority of RK "front pagers?"  If you've got a problem with Leslie, or with RK's support for her, please feel free to explain.  If not, then stop making ridiculous, nonsensical claims on this blog.

And I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when you say things like Byrne has "very little chance of breaking through in this primary season" or "Bloggers are alway welcome to become tools of the candidates with whom they are enamored."  I am a "tool" of nobody, and if you really think that, you have no idea what you're talking about.

PS  Also, what's the bizarre reference to the "collective progressive consciousness of NoVA?"  Do you really think there IS such a thing? If so, what is it and where do you find it, I'm really curious now.  

Maybe one needs to consider Gerry Connolly's late entry into the 11th CD race, only after Tom Davis had decided to retire (Leslie had decided to run long before that).

Yes, RK tilts Byrne -- because RK tilts progressive, and Leslie Byrne has a record.

I can't recall Lowell or the RK editors making statements/endorsements one way or the other on the 6th CD race. If you're going to make such accusations, you should back them up.

Also, no one at RK is responsible for what Ben says or does not say on his blog. I, personally, will no longer visit NLS due to the nature of his commentary on Barack and the Presidential race. Due to this primary season, NLS and MyDD are just two of the blogs I no longer read.

The point here is, I think there is a much greater overlap on RK between pro-Barack/Leslie/Sam than anything you have associated in your mind with Leslie/Drew.

Now, it appears the point is moot and Sam will be the nominee.  

I apologize for getting cranky, but it is apparent that criticism is not en vogue at this site.

I suggested that (A) RK's posts regarding Richardson seem to be biased, so are ours (I that cause to take anonymous pot-shots at someone?.  If you wish to post anonymously, that is your business, but please do not disparage those of us who choose to walk in the light of day).  I also suggested that (B) despite Leslie's progressive record, no one has anything whatsoever to say about her conduct in this and past campaigns.  Frankly, as a lifelong, money-where-his-mouth is Democratic, civil rights attorney, former seminarian, and public school teacher, it is troubling.

Okay, okay, maybe you just don't get it.  That's cool.

But for the love of open discourse, please refrain from personal insults.  If you and others (and I'm speaking of Lowell, who I simply don't know personally, I'm looking only at text)can't hold a mirror to Leslie Byrne, I don't know what to tell you.

Soapbox moment:  Democrats,progressives in particular, continue to lose elections because they have ceded the character debate to religious conservatives.

Evangelical and spiritual Democrats need to continue to raise issues like the politics of personal destruction, racially-charged rhetoric, sloppy blog rolls that connect children to anti-Islamic, slanderous blogs, double-standards of political campaigning, drive-by anonymous blogging, and other questionable tactics that make certain portions of the progressive blogosphere seem ethically bankrupt.

Okay, so maybe you didn't endorse Mr. Richardson.  I misspoke.

There is my retraction.

You know in your hearts how Byrne operates.

Ron1, I'm glad to see that you've disavowed NLS.  Good for you.

RK continues to link Ben Tribbet regularly.  I'm glad to see that since we started posting our observations about NLS on Scrutiny Hooligans in Asheville, North Carolina, no accusations that Mr.Obama is a pot-smoking, radical Muslim and a stalker of white women have appeared on NLS.  We'd like to think we had something to do with that.  No matter if we didn't.

At least, like you Ron1, we can sleep well at night.

race. These comments by Hank Bostwick are utterly bizarre because they are 100% off base, totally untrue.  Then he comes on here and attacks NLS, attacks Leslie Byrne, etc., etc., but WE are the ones who are supposed to "settle down?"  Riiiiight.

First, I've admitted that perhaps your interview with Drew Richardson was not an endorsement and that I mis-wrote.

Second, I have had a running debate with NLS about his racially-charged style of snark and the Byrne campaign about its use of NLS to discredit Gerry Connolly.

Thirdly, I've indicated that you regularly link to NLS despite our suggestions that he represents the worst in intra-party bickering.

Fourth, I've raised the character issue numerous times.  I've cited instances when Leslie Byrne worked to undermine the campaign of Viola Baskerville, when she refered to Mark Warner as a "rat," lost her seat in the state legislature because she couldn't get along with her peers, etc.

Fifth, earlier today, when I linked a post referring to the problems we had with Drew Richardson using his own platform to declare victory in the debate against Rasoul.  You issued a blanket statement claiming that (yawnnnn) all politicians do it so just forget about it.  That's your opinion.  We expect a certain degree of honesty from folks we are attempting to understand.  I'm sure you do as well.

Sixth, a rehash of point one, in which I acknowledge that you have not, indeed, overtly taken sides in the 6th, and I have no reason to doubt you, as far as I know.

Seventh, I was asking all of us to settle down. Sorry if it didn't come across that way.  I enjoy reading your supportive comments of Senator Obama, your pieces on Dominion, etc.  When you speak on issues that are relevant to all Virginians, your voice is clear.  When you refuse to address basic criticisms of Leslie Byrne's credibility gap, her distaste for Mark Warner (I hope we can all change in our lives, I really do), you refuse to engage. To even say, "No, Leslie never said that, Hank, you are mistaken." A public apology would be nice, but I won't hold my breath.

Eighth, I've raised a valid point about character and ethics in political campaigns and our apparent failure to attract people of faith into the progressive-Democratic cause.  This apparently is not sexy enough either.

All this today, and it was just my lunch break.

File all of my observations today until the general title of HUBRIS--refusal to acknowledge that bloggers can go too far (unless, of course, that blogger is me suggesting bias), refusal to consider issues of character and spiritual appeal, refusal to even consider the fact that Richardson's declaration of victory was contrived, refusal to say anything except that I'm "wayyy over the top" and my comments are "utterly bizarre."

I'm sorry you find these observations to be off base.

I've tried to reach out off line and be neighborly.

I guess I just live in a parallel universe.  I won't bother you again.  Sorry to intrude.

Drew Richardson hasn't caused this much interest in Lynchburg. WHY??? Well, he was teaching a class the nightpur committee invited him so he sent Rick Howell to speak to our committee. The only people who have actually MET him are the members of the executive committee on a night Mr. Richardson could actually come to Lynchburg.

The reason people are backing Sam is because he SHOWS UP!!!! He may not be as sharp as Richardson or have the experience...BUT he has made the committment to actually attend meetings, answer questions, garner delegates and SHOW UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Both Drew and Sam should have started at a lower "pay grade" so to speak and work their way up politically BUT, oh well, here we are. One of them will win. Whoever it is I hope they SHOW UP in Rockbridge!

That pretty much sums it up. Sam shows up and does the work. And he's gotten better and better at it.

Because showing up to committee meetings is what makes somebody a good candidate.

Not to be but too sarcastic, but under this logic, Harris Miller should've been our nominee in 2006.  And we all know how that would've turned out: bad.  Just because a candidate is new to the Democratic Party, new to politics in general, and has a job (educating student, I might add) that makes it tough for him to show up to places at the drop of a hat, doesn't mean he's the worse candidate.  

This argument is the same that was used against Jim Webb, most notably by loud-and-proud Miller supporter Gerry Connolly.  And I just can't swallow it.  We shouldn't determine our candidates based on how often they visit committee meetings.  We should choose candidates based on who has the best shot at winning, and who would be a better congressman.  I believe Drew has a MUCH better shot at winning, and beleive his experiences would make him a much better Congressman.

That's part of it. Not just meetings, but events, parades, fairs, ribbon-cuttings -- whatever it takes to get out and LISTEN to what the people are saying.  

Please...can you people simply say why you support your candidate and leave it at that. My take (yes, I live in Botetourt County):

Neither fellow will probably win this time around. However, Sam Rasoul is an active Democrat. Dtrew Richardson is not even a member of the Augusta Democrsatic Committee. Why???

I want someone who is willing to run again and again, if necessary, to get rid of Goodlatte. Sam will do that. Will Richardson?

Someone answer for me this: Who exactly is Drew Richardson, when did he decide he was a Democrat, when did he decide he should be my congressman?

I wish everybody would just calm down. How do we expect to ever beat Gooflatte if we keep attacking each other.