Democratic Party spurns US Senate candidate who almost won in 2010

[Purveyor]

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Democrat Joe Sestak came tantalizingly close to winning a seat in the U.S. Senate six years ago and is hoping Tuesday to secure a rematch, but the party establishment wants nothing to do with him, pouring millions into the campaign of his chief rival.

The former two-term congressman and retired Navy rear admiral is wearing his outsider status as a badge of honor as he seeks the nomination to take on Republican Sen. Pat Toomey this fall in a race that could tilt control of the Senate.

He has said that he is fighting "for the soul of the Democratic Party," and that political party leaders "aren't in it for people any longer, they're in it for power and themselves."

"I'm not a politician," he said when the candidates were asked at a Friday debate if they would represent a break with the status quo. "Four-and-a-half million dollars — half of it by my own Democratic Party — has been put in against me," he said.

--CLIP
Sestak's frosty relationship with party leaders dates to 2009 when he was recruited to challenge then-Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, then was asked to step aside when Specter switched parties to the delight of Democratic Party leaders. But Sestak refused to drop out — even after former President Bill Clinton was recruited to dangle a government job offer in front of him.

MORE...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/party-spurns-us-senate-candidate-almost-won-2010-142505635.html?nhp=1

[apcalc]

1. I'm mulling this race over in my head

I really like both candidates...voted Sestak last time against Toomey...

[oldandhappy]

3. how is the polling?

I don't know anything about it except this post. Good luck, smile.

[oldandhappy]

2. yea, well done Dems, eating your own.

I have become so frustrated with the party manipulations. gag.

[tymorial]

5. This nt

[INdemo]

6. So when the Hillary fans talk about raising money for the "down ballot"

this is what they obviously want as does DWS..money to stop real Democrats from securing a primary win..
Hillary is a corporatist and obviously they (DWS) doesn't want real Democrats that will disagree with her Republican policies.

So is DWS hoping for a Chief of staff..it would appear that way..

That would be chief of staff of the Hillary foundation.

[MADem]

8. NOOOOOOO, not at all.....down ballot Dems are the ones who WIN THE PRIMARY.

The primary candidates battle it out, and the winner--the candidate on the ballot for the GENERAL contest-- gets that down-ballot money.

smh.

It's not that complicated.

[oldandhappy]

12. yes thus is the primary --

"Four-and-a-half million dollars — half of it by my own Democratic Party — has been put in against me,

[MADem]

16. Senate Campaign Committees can and do pick favorites to support--that has nothing to do w/the

DNC, though.

Stop convoluting--it splashes back on YOU.

[Jim Beard]

20. If they act in the name of the Democrat party, they are damn sure responsible to me

but that's the way Democrats are and thats the way they are treating the first Democratic President by leaving the republican Hamilton on the $100 bill.

[MADem]

27. DEMOCRAT Party? REALLY??? DEMOCRAT????

You need to go back to your lessons--that comment doesn't serve you well at all.

Thanks for letting us know, though. Even if inadvertently.


It's the DEMOCRATIC Party, and they have nothing to do with individual Senate or House Congressional Campaign Committees--they're not the same thing at all.

The DNC is separate from these entities.


The HCCC and SCCC put their PAC cash, that their individual members raise using their own networks and resources, in a fund, and they make the call as to where it goes. This is why Jon Tester told, for example, the very wealthy Alan Grayson that the Senate fund wouldn't be backing him--because the people who collected the money don't WANT him in their club. It's their prerogative.

The DNC doesn't work that way though--they support the candidates, in accordance with a formula that includes how likely they are to win and how much cash they need, in the GENERAL election. NOT the primaries.

And your Hamilton comment? L-frickin-O-L!!!! You mad that the racist Jackson is being tossed to the back of the twenty, is that it? There's no context in which that uninformed comment makes any sense at all.

Everyone LOVES Hamilton--trying to associate him with the Republicans of today is an utter failure and a disgrace, especially since there was NO REPUBLICAN PARTY back then. Hamilton was a FEDERALIST, which is more in line with Democratic values and roles of government than the States Rights/Tea Party assholishness of today's GOP.

smh.

You don't know your history at all, do you?

[pangaia]

36. DEMOCRAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!! DE-MO-CRAT !!

Dee Eee Mmmmm Ooohh CRcrcrcr Aaaaaa TTTTtttttt

Don't blow a gut, there.

DEMOCRAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!


eeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[Jim Beard]

43. Wasn't Andrew Jackson a Democrat and not a Democratic ? I think the Party is Democratic

the person is DEMOCRAT

[pangaia]

45. Oh ! Really? Oh. Thanks.

Now I can get back to Hamlet.

[MADem]

51. He was a racist and you used the DEMOCRAT word with PARTY--stop trying to back away from

your own comments that anyone can read here.

[MADem]

49. I won't blow a gut--but that's a tell. nt

[OregonBlue]

64. I agree MADem. That was my reaction too. Hmmm.

[Loki]

71. They slip and it becomes so obvious.

It been used as an epithet against our party by non-Democrats for a long time.

[Roland99]

66. Just another Hillary apologist

and a DNC apologist and a DWS apologist and...

[pangaia]

72. Yes, correct.

I rarely reply to such stuff.. But this time I thought I would.. tease a little.

As if I don't know the history of 'democrat' vs 'democratic.'

Ah well.
I'm off to Seoul Wed to hear two violin concerts.. and EAT !!!!!!!!!!

[ReRe]

37. He meant the $10 bill

And I've studied some history, independently, and what I came away with on Alexander Hamilton was that he was more of a Torry after the American Revolution. And the only reason George Washington chose him for the Treasury Secretary was because he was a good leader at his side during the war. Sadly, Hamilton turned out more like a Torry after being appointed Treasury Sec. I'll never forget how disappointed I was to learn this. It was like we fought and won the Revolutionary War, and then adopted Torry ideals all over again. So no, everyone does NOT love Hamilton.

And "Federalism"? If Federalism is so damn wonderful, why are our elections so effed up?
How come the state gov'ts all over this country go around Roe v Wade to negate a woman's right to choose by enacting all kinds of laws to make it nearly impossible for her to do so? I concur with you that the GOP has really effed this country up with their "states right's" arguments. But since as far back as c. 1992, the Democratic Party more or less goes along with the GOP on many issues, since, it was decided by some big thinker that the Democratic Party would never be elected again if we didn't become more like the GOP. The Democratic Party took a right turn.

[Jim Beard]

39. Thank you ReRe

that is what I was talking about, Thank you for the comment that didn't have assumed racial undertones as those above.

[MADem]

50. Well, it's Tory, not Torry--and he was a Federalist.

smh.

Our "elections are so effed up" because they are NOT managed at the federal level--each election is managed by each state--states rights, get it? You know, that swell concept that Sanders prefers? Time after time he has cited just that as a reason for his votes.

[ReRe]

55. Don't knit-pick my spelling...

... this isn't the NYTs. You knew what I meant. What do I need to do, have an editor check everything before I press "Post?"

OK, so let's back up. On the difference between the words Federalism and Federalist. Federalism would be the belief/ideology of a strong central government, and Federalist would be one espousing that belief/ideology (an advocate of Federalism.)

So when "state's rights" is mentioned, you think of Bernie Sanders. How so? Name all those times. (You said "time and time after time.&quot The only matter that he might possibly have used it (in my mind) was surrounding the gun control issue. When I hear those two words (state's rights) I think John C. Calhoun for SC, or any number of Republican elected officials from the Red States.

And yes, I believe that the USG needs to fix the election system once and for all. Don't you agree that there are too many shenanigans going on during each and every election now?

[MADem]

56. Alexander Hamilton was NEVER a Tory--and I will "nitpick your spelling" because it's

critical to the conversation. It's a word that is BASIC to the conversation.

Tories supported the Crown, they were Loyalists. Hamilton was not a Loyalist. He defended them on occasion in his capacity as a lawyer, but that was about the law, not his personal political beliefs.

Maybe this will help you understand the nuance:

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/biographies/alexander-hamilton/atty-alexander-hamilton-esq.php


A quick google re BS will bring you all the examples you seek, but here are a few to get you started:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html

Sanders is not quite the gay rights visionary his defenders would like us to believe. Sanders did oppose DOMA—but purely on states’ rights grounds.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm

Sanders voted against the pro-gun-control Brady Bill, writing that he believes states, not the federal government, can handle waiting periods for handguns. In 1994, he voted yes on an assault weapons ban. He has voted to ban some lawsuits against gun manufacturers and for the Manchin-Toomey legislation expanding federal background checks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-nra-helped-put-bernie-sanders-in-congress/2015/07/19/ed1be26c-2bfe-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html

After he was elected, Sanders stuck to the assurances he had given gun rights groups. In 1991, he voted against a measure that would have required a seven-day waiting period to buy a gun. In 1993, Sanders voted against a broader version of the bill — named for James Brady, the White House press secretary who was shot in the 1981 attempt on President Ronald Reagan’s life — that became law.

That bill set up the national background check system in place today. But Sanders objected because it also included a provision for a temporary waiting period, said Weaver, his longtime aide.

“He had been explicit with people that he would not support a federal mandatory waiting period,” Weaver said. “And he kept his word.”

[ReRe]

57. We definitely learned out of different history books.

I will come back to this tomorrow and take your lessons.

But in the first sentence you intimated that colonists who were for the crown were loyalists. I thought the colonists who were loyal to America were the loyalists, and the colonists who were loyal to the Crown were Tories??? What the...

Will talk to you tomorrow.

[MADem]

58. No, the ones on our side were the REVOLUTIONARIES. The Loyalists were the Tories, they

escaped to Canada when the war was lost, many of them--it's a big piece of Canadian history, those loyalists--they were given chunks of Canadian land as compensation for their losses in the Colonies and for their "loyalty" to the British crown.

Our team, from the perspective of the people who owned the joint (and those who were "loyal" to them), were the "bad guys," -- we 'revolted' against the owners, threw their tea into the harbor, got pissed when they tried to tax us without giving us any representation in Parliament, and eventually we tossed them out on their ears, and took over the place.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/loyalists/

As American rebels fought for independence from Britain, Loyalists supported the "mother country" for different reasons. Many felt a personal loyalty to the Crown, or were afraid that revolution would bring chaos to America. Many agreed with the rebels’ view that America had suffered wrongs at the hands of Britain, but believed the solution could be worked out within the British Empire.
Others saw themselves as weak or threatened within American society and in need of an outside defender. These included linguistic and religious minorities, recent immigrants not fully integrated into American society, as well as Black and Aboriginal people. Others were simply attracted by free land and provisions.
Sympathy for the Crown was a dangerous sentiment; those who defied the revolutionary forces could find themselves without civil rights, subject to mob violence, or flung into prison. Loyalist property was vandalized and often confiscated.
During the Revolution more than 19,000 Loyalists served Britain in specially created provincial militia corps, accompanied by several thousand Aboriginal allies. Others spent the war in such strongholds as New York City and Boston, or in refugee camps such as those at Sorel and Machiche, Québec. Between 80,000 and 100,000 eventually fled, about half of them to Canada.
Who Were They?
The vast majority of Loyalists were neither well-to-do nor particularly high in social rank; most were farmers, labourers, tradespeople and their families. They were of varied cultural backgrounds, and many were recent immigrants. White Loyalists brought large numbers of slaves with them. Until 1834, slavery was legal in all British North American colonies but Upper Canada, where the institution was being phased out....

[pangaia]

63. "Tory not TORRY."

What would the world ever do without you keeping an eye on things?

[MADem]

69. I come from a place where ignorance is not something to be lauded.

I won't change to suit those who think otherwise....

[pangaia]

73. So who is ignorant? Me?

[MADem]

74. You're being unnecessarily personal. In a rather goading and baiting fashion, too.

Not sure why you're doing that, but I notice. And I will point it out, so there's no mistaking my meaning to anyone else reading along.

If something isn't right, I like to know what's correct, and what isn't. I know that many people agree with me on this score--there's nothing "honorable" in getting it wrong.

"I" come from a place where ignorance is not lauded.

Unless you are me--and I am quite certain that's not the case--I was talking about myself.

[Jim Beard]

41. What I really want to know is how much time do you spend figuring budgets

hiring election workers which is not easy for some. I doubt you have done that, I figure all you can do is insult a 69 year man who has said that all his life. Tell me what you have done?

I have had to try to get people to vote in a very guns and god county full of Hispanics that don't really give a damn. I was in the Lubbock, Texas Democrat party office two years ago talking to my FELLOW COUNTY CHAIR when we had to close the door because the 2 of Turn Texas Blue people were trying to get people to vote for a REPUBLICAN. Really! He always ran as a republican but voted Democrat but the guy was in his late 80's and was in a runoff he was sure to lose, and did. They were wasting their time.

The only year I got money for my county was was 8 years ago when I got a check to help a little over $3.00.

I am going to resign from my position and let you take it over and turn this county that votes 20% DEMOCRAT. I will say it any fucking way I please.

So will you take my place and turn it around?

Even the two Hispanic office holders have to call and haul their voters to the election and they are in a heavy DEMOCRAT precint.

I know you are smart, I'll bet you could berate those Hispanics who would would not even vote for another Hispanic like they did 2 years ago. Heavy Hispanic district yet they did not even show up but the minority whites did. BTW< its tough to reach many because of cell phones.

So MADem, you can come down here to Texas and use your expertese to turn my County Blue. If you treat them like you did me, you may not go home.

BTW, I am on this list...........Texas Democrat County Chairs

[MADem]

52. I could "berate Hispanics" in Spanish with considerable fluency....but maybe your problem

is that you're berating them in the first place?

That list of yours says "Texas DemcratS" -- Not Texas Democrat County Chairs. Again--from YOUR LINK:

County Party & Chairs

Much of the work of the Texas Democratic Party is conducted by our County Chairs and County Parties. From running the primaries and organizing the precinct and county/senate district conventions to turning out Democratic voters in the general election, strong County Chairs and County Parties are crucial to our efforts.

DEMOCRATIC Party--not "Democrat Party."

[Jim Beard]

46. Say MAdem

tell me what is at the header of this political Party website. Betcha can't guess.....

It SAYS DEMOCRATS

GONG!!! WRONG AGAIN

[MADem]

47. Sorry, FAIL. It says TEXAS DEMOCRATS at your link--not Texas Democrat Party.

"Democrat Party" is what REPUBLICANS call us.

If you don't want to sound like a stranger, don't use that term.


FIRST LINE of your source:

Much of the work of the Texas Democratic Party is conducted by our County Chairs and County Parties

[Jim Beard]

42. You are not a very pleasant person.

[MADem]

48. Right back atcha! nt

[Dustlawyer]

24. I want anyone the DNC doesn't want except a Republican. DWS will even support a Republican

over a Democrat. Why did Obama make her the head of the DNC again?

[Volaris]

34. The statement of your second sentence answers the question of the third.

[truebrit71]

62. Indeed.

[Scootaloo]

54. That's their excuse for the clinton's campaign slush fund

Big, huge, bundled donations pout into the Clinton Victory Fund, which is directly controlled by the campaign. Those bundled donations are intended (on paper) to be donations to the campaign, the DNC, and all fifty state parties. In reality, that's a CYA - the reality is that these funds stay where they're deposited - the clinton campaign chest - and are doled out by spoonfuls as the campaign sees fit, where it sees fit, if at all. There's no useful oversight there, because as both parties do this and benefit from it, there is no momentum.

Well. Almost none.

[Betty Karlson]

70. And you are far from being the only one.

The establishment is all about manipulation, none of that representation stuff.

[glowing]

4. This is our Democratic Party? Sad state.. I don't think the DNC

should be picking anyone in primaries! They need to wait on support until it's all clear for the race against the opposition party.

This establishment cherry picking the corporate friendlies is why people are leaving the party. or why people don't bother to vote... They don't have a candidate that they feel represent anything of value to them.

[oldandhappy]

15. cherry picking -- you nailed it

[djean111]

7. And this is exactly why all of that sneering and condescending advice on how we liberals should

just start electing liberals locally, and then they will advance is such utter and complete bullshit - DWS decides who the DNC will back, and she loves her some DINOs and recent Republicans and Third Way stooges.

[jwirr]

10. And she controls the local party - we cannot change from

the top unless we change at the bottom also. Remember the 33 state deal. If we had controlled them they would have said NO.

[djean111]

11. Oh, I live in Florida. Debbie DINO absolutely controls the local party.

Revolting. And will cause a revolt.

[oldandhappy]

14. Get out there and join the revolt!!

[jwirr]

17. That is good. I thought you were talking about across the

country.

[oldandhappy]

13. yep!!

[blue neen]

19. The ads being run in PA against Sestak at this time are being paid for by the DSCC, not the DNC.

Nonetheless, it stinks, but lets blame it on the people who actually made this poor decision.

[djean111]

22. I am speaking in general. Here in Florida, DWS has such an influence that the progressive caucus

at the state level was threatened with de-certification, or something like that, if they persisted in backing Grayson instead of Murphy (DINO-FL). They persisted, but I bet there will be blow-back. Debbie will actually let a Republican run uncontested, rather than back a liberal. And campaigns for GOP cronies - because they have such good working relationships - instead of "fellow" Democrats.

Third Way rebuilding the Democratic Party - that New Democrat Coalition is advised by the Third Way, and they are so happy to eschew ideology and work with the GOP. I need something that is like what the Democratic Party used to be like. Hope I find it!

[MADem]

28. Jon Tester told Grayson MONTHS (a year) AGO that they wouldn't back him-DWS had NOTHING to do w/it.

It's embarrassing when people blame her for EVERYTHING. Tester basically told Grayson to stuff it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/alan-grayson-erupts-as-senate-bid-looms-117925

[dreamnightwind]

53. We'll have to build it

"I need something that is like what the Democratic Party used to be like. Hope I find it!"

We'll have to build it, inside or outside the party, whatever it takes. There are enough of us now they can't just tell us we have nowhere else to go. Not sure what will happen after this primary, but if Hillary wins, the left isn't going to just go away and hang their triangulated heads anymore. Thanks for your post.

[mopinko]

68. "the obey rule."

tho he was a great liberal in many ways wis rep david obey is credited locally w "the obey rule"- no sacrificial lambs. the party does not back a dem in a majority thug district, because they will lose, and then it will be hard to "work with" the thug that inevitably gets elected.

kelly westlund put up a good fight for obey's now gerrymandered district. she was attacked incessantly because "the whole dem establishment, including obama and pelosi" were behind her. except that nobody was behind her. the dccc would do nothing for her if she didnt hire their pick for her campaign manager. iow- shape her campaign, issues, stands, the way they wanted them.
she told them to pound sand and got not one penny.

[lakeguy]

9. this is a perfect example of what is wrong with politics today

candidate x changes team name to D and now we should support x even though candidate y actually represents the values of the majority.

go team!

[silvershadow]

18. Debbie strikes again? nt

[meow2u3]

21. The DSCC might as well say, "Re-elect Toomey"

Their actions, as well as those of DWS, are sending Pennsylvanians that message, so why don't they come out and say that?

meow2u3 to DNC: Pennsylvania Democratic voters want Sestak, so quit sabotaging a sure Democratic pickup.

[HereSince1628]

23. this is the stuff that makes 3rd wayers want to throttle the internet

[starroute]

25. I'm voting for Fetterman, though he has no chance

I was prepared to root for Sestak as my second choice until I watched a couple of debates. The man was total word salad. He'd start a sentence, add clause after clause, wander in all directions, and finally trail off without ever finishing his original thought. I have no idea what his problem is, but I was left with a very bad feeling about him.

[spinbaby]

26. Me, too

I think he's going to do surprisingly well.

[rpannier]

35. My relatives in PA are split between Fetterman and Sestak

Most are backing Fetterman which I think is good

[Cosmocat]

61. Ive seen sestak like that

I think he starts to get overwhelmex a bit mentally when he has been campaigning hard for a period of time.

[malokvale77]

29. I'm really starting to hate...

the New Democratic Party. They stand for nothing anymore.

Evil without the conviction. How inspiring is that.

[cantbeserious]

31. "Evil Without The Conviction" - Ruthless Without A Spine - Love It

eom

[malokvale77]

32. You're welcome

And thank you.

[gordyfl]

30. Is there any wonder why

so many voters remain Independent?

[pangaia]

33. Ah, the Clintons.. Why they just seem to pop up everywhere.

[Hortensis]

59. Maybe they don't. Some people have an obsessive

problem with them and just keep "popping" their name up. Peculiarly, an entire story can literally be subjugated to finding a Clinton name in it.

In this case, neither Clinton is on the DSCC or has been a player in creating this situation. If you read more about it you'd now know that this personality-conflict situation has been building for some years -- between other people and this difficult candidate.

Hillary has become involved now because she is running for president and thus, as she is supposed to be, trying to get downticket people elected, especially to the Senate.

(Btw, Bernie was supposed to be helping too, but has not been. Were he were the one we needed him to be, his name would be "popping" up here instead.)

[brooklynite]

38. DSCC was prepared to work with him last year...

I had direct talks with DSCC leadership about his race, and they had made their peace with him. But with DSCC support come the assumption that 1) you'll hire competent, professional staff (in the past, Sestak has hired family members) and 2) you'll coordinate your campaign with other State races. Sestak has refused to do either.

[yurbud]

40. DLCers would rather lose than have someone who isn't a

Corporate tool win.

[Odin2005]

44. More proof the Democratic Party has been taken over by Republicans.

The old "moderate" Wall Street big city Republicans took over the Democratic Party in he 90s because they did not like the religious loonies in the GOP. The Clintons were the puppets they used to take over.

[Scuba]

60. The Democratic Party leadership has no room in their big tent for liberals/progressives.

Nope, recently former Republicans like Charlie Christ are fabulous, but not anyone to the left of Nixon.

[KPN]

65. Sestak's a party insider hack.

He';s just favored less than Katie McGinty. The real story in this is thew 3rd Dem in the race, John Fetterman -- the only real deal progressive Democrat among the three, and the Party is screwing him big time.

The Party shouldn't be funding primary candidates when you think about it -- unless you think its a good idea for State Party leadership to control the outcome of State primaries for Congressional positions, i.e., the people can't be trusted to elect what is in their best interests on their own.

Here's an article on John Fetterman that appeared in Huff Post today:

[link:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-fetterman-senate-candidate-bernie-sanders-dreams_us_571bcd0ae4b0d0042da977d1|

[PADemD]

75. Link?

[KPN]

77. Here’s The Candidate Who Could Help Bernie Sanders’ Dreams Come True

The hulking, big-hearted mayor of Braddock, Pennsylvania, is not especially welcome in Washington, D.C.

It’s not that the 46-year-old, 6-foot-8 John Fetterman can’t get a meeting with the power brokers in the nation’s capital. But the one he got last year with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee showed that the antipathy is at least somewhat mutual. Fetterman is ... the sort of outsider whose ideas about inequality and belief in the need for fundamental change have long alarmed cautious, triangulation-prone party leaders who now worry that Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is making overly bold promises that he can’t possibly deliver. But Fetterman is also exactly the sort of candidate who, if he can win, would give Sanders a better chance of passing things like a $15 minimum wage, universal health care and free public college. And right now, not only are Democratic Party leaders not helping, they’re standing in the way.

But it’s entirely possible that in shunning Fetterman, they’ve missed a chance to embrace a candidate who better reflects the disruptive mood of 2016 and the anti-establishment fervor that’s propelled the unlikely presidential bids of both Trump and the 74-year-old democratic socialist, Sanders.

McGinty, 52, and Sestak, a 64-year-old former admiral, embody the old Democratic Party that has left younger voters and many others cold, in Fetterman’s view.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-fetterman-senate-candidate-bernie-sanders-dreams_us_571bcd0ae4b0d0042da977d1

[Plucketeer]

67. OBillary's third term

defined here: "party leaders "aren't in it for people any longer, they're in it for power and themselves."

[PADemD]

76. Democratic voters stayed home in 2010.

That's why Corbett and Toomey won. If there had been a better turnout, Joe Sestak probably would have won.

I don't know why the Democratic Party thought we would have welcomed Arlen Spector. He was always thought of as a Republican.

So far, I have met only one person who is voting for McGinty, the rest for Sestak. The Party will just have to cope with our selection.

I met Joe Sestak on election eve in 2010 and was impressed that he was visiting every local campaign office to thank the volunteers.