Who knows...maybe Kucinich surged in the district because of it...we'd never know.

An endorsement of Kucinich in some ways was not a bad move since it was a solid position against the Iraq War...a position that has proven correct. I never was enamored of Kucinich, but the fact he has been one of the most consistent voices against a war that was about as stupid, immoral and illegal as you can get means endorsing him was a reasonable statement when facing someone who so solidly supported Bush's Quagmire.

Point is, those who have been fighting against Fossella ALL ALONG are teaming up. Of course Recchia's people will minimize the endorsement...it's all they can do. But support within the district is as important as ability to raise money from outside the district. Had Recchia been able to get the Barbaro endorsement it would have been a sign that his outsider status was not so important. As it is, though, he still has to battle against that outsider image. His only weapon is money. Didn't work for David Yassky's run for Congress where more thab $1 million couldn't counter the perception (right or wrong) that he was an outsider. Insider endorsements would help. The fact that Barbaro is opting for Harrison, particularly given the rumors (unsubstatiated as far as I am aware) about Recchia being less than a loyal supporter of Barbaro in 2004 and certainly doing little in 2004 or 2006 to unseat Fossella, looks bad for Recchia. Is it a fatal blow? Of course not. But it is one piece of the game that Recchia needed to counter the carpetbagger image people have of him.

So Barbaro endorsed Kucinich. Better than Vito Lopez endorsing Al D'Amato. Some would say better than those who endorsed a Green, Mattera, for Brooklyn BP. To me, endorsement of someone who lost is not a black mark as long as there was a good reason for that endorsement. I see a good reason (though I did not go that way) for endorsing Kucinich, and I saw a good reason for endorsing Mattera against Angry Clown Markowitz. Endorsements like that of D'Amato, on the other hand, seem unjustified given how much better Chuck Schumer is than D'Amato. It isn't win or lose...it's the reason behind the endorsement that matters to me.

So what if Frank Barbaro supported Kucinich in the primary. He actively supported Kerry in the general election and, since I worked on the Barbaro campaign, I know that we were giving out both signs to all who asked. When we worked the 3rd Avenue Street Festival, we had both Kerry and Barbaro signs, literature and other items at the booth. What the heck does it matter who Barbaro supported in a primary? Many supported Dean and the others running and then became Kerry supporters when he won the primaries.

This endorsement is fantastic for Steve. You would be surprised at how many people still hold Frank in the highest regard (people both in Brooklyn and Staten Island)and will pay more attention to his endorsement than to the one Vito Lopez gives Dominic Recchia

"if" is a big word, "if" harrison can raise a few hundred thousand? highly unlikely. take a look at his recent filing. not a lot of new donors uncovered. same family and friends. the first half of the year should have been most productive for him. he could have used the rhetoric of his "great" showing against fossella, he didn't. if you look at the results for each year since 2000, vito is losing a steady 2-3 points each cycle, facing the same underfunded opponent scenarios. so if harrison is the nominee this year, he will get 46-47 and vito will still win.

As far as I can tell Recchia never delivered any votes in the district either, at least not for Barbaro in 2004 or Harrison in 2006. That's one reason I started so skeptical of him. He never showed he had any pull in the past. Was he holding back, in which case I would consider him a louse for refusing to do his part, or did he try hard and fail to deliver?

I can't speak for troops on the ground. I know many Barbaro people were at the forefront of Harrison's 2006 campaign but I don't know if that is a guarantee of their favoring Harrison over Recchia this time. The Barbaro endorsement will, at least, cement those people's support.

I believe Barbaro had considerably more money than Harrison and didn't do quite as well. Which suggests that had Harrison had the same amount as Barbaro had, Fossella might have been toppled.

And one question no one has yet answered for me: if Recchia is such a great fundraiser, why didn't he throw that fundraising muscle behind Harrison in 2006 or Barbaro in 2004? Again, did he choose not to deliver or did he try hard and fail to deliver? Either way it is discouraging. And people seem to avoid the question.

as far as i know, harrison never asked anyone to help him raise money. first rule in fundraising, learn to make the hard ask. no one volunteers to bundle on their own. mole,if you ever run for office you will find these things out.

What about in 2004 for Barbaro? There are several bottom lines here:

1.) Harrison didn't raise much money last time. But he also got little help. Both are negatives, one for Harrison and one for the rest of us Dems.

2.) Harrison did better than any Dem has done for 30 years running for that seat DESPITE the money issue. That is a HUGE positive.

3.) Recchia has no record of doing ANYTHING within the bulk of the district (including for Barbaro OR Harrison) and seems to be trying to buy his way in like David Yassky tried doing in NY-11. Yassky learned that it takes more than money to win in a district you have only tenuous connections to. Even if Recchia wins the primary, I am sure he will learn in the general how hard it is to buy your way into a district.

No one has presented me with any evidence that voters in the district will have any interest in Recchia in the general election. My prediction is if Recchia wins the nomination he will spend a lot more money to do about the same or slighly worse than Harrison did in 2006. By comparison, if Harrison wins I predict he will be able to BUILD on what he started in 2006, something that has won us districts around the country from Dave Loebsack in Iowa to Nick Lampson in Texas and many other districts around the nation. Many were were accused of being unable to raise money and failing too often to be viable...now they are Congressmen. If I want to learn from the past I would say people trying to buy their way into a district do poorly while those who are accused of running too many times with a poor ability to raise money turn out in the long run to be able to win in tough districts. Loebsack and Lamspon fit the pattern of Harrison, and won after several tries. Recchia fits the pattern of Yassky, who didn't win despite raising a record amount of money.

But so is name recognition. Buying your way into the district will NOT bring you from 47 to 51. Particularly if you have barely paid attention to the district before. It just doesn't work.

I certainly don't want to discount the importance of money in an election. But since that is ALL anyone can give me as a reason to support Recchia, a THEORETICAL for now ability to raise gobs of money, and there is NO other indication he is viable, I stick with the guy who has a record in the district. I honestly think that is the way to go and if WE can help raise the cash for Harrison, we can win the district. If we start from scratch with someone the district has no clue about, how can we possibly do even as well as Barbaro?