Glenn Greenwald peered down from Mt. Beltway today to offer this lazy assessment of the Montana Democratic primary for the House, when identifying Franke Wilmer as a candidate to support:
Each faces a primary race, and none is the favored candidate of the Party apparatus or its leadership (those challengers favored by the Party machine are invariably corporatist types or poll-shaped, soul-less careerist politicians expected to be loyal Party foot soldiers if they win). For obvious reasons, none of these three candidates is going to receive any real support from the lobbyist and corporate class that typically finances these elections. But polling and other indicia demonstrate that victory for all three is realistic (though far from certain).
I’m not exactly sure how long Mr. Greenwald spent on Google before writing that nonsense about Ms. Wilmer’s opponents, but while he’s certainly right that she’s an independent, progressive candidate, he’s equally wrong about her opposition.
While I certainly have some reservations about Diane Smith’s candidacy, given her previous support for Republicans and her perspective that seems to put the interests of business ahead of workers, to suggest that any of the other Democratic candidates are “corporatist” or “careerist politicians” is not only a lazy characterization, but entirely dishonest.
Both Kim Gillan’s record and the list of people endorsing her make it clear that she’s absolutely on the right side of issues critical to Montana families. To suggest that Gillan, Dave Strohmaier, or Rob Stutz are somehow more interested in corporations than people or that they will put party politics ahead of doing what’s right for Montana families demonstrates a fundamental absence of knowledge about their records and values.
While it’s certainly nice to have the attention of nation’s political elite on the Montana House race, it would be even better if they knew something about it before writing. The candidates he attacked—and Ms. Wilmer—deserve better.