i don't think kos is a viable candidate to lead the progressive charge to "crash the gates." at least he's not acting like one.
and i think that pennacchio is a lot more viable than casey, assuming pennacchio gets the democratic nomination. no one is enthusiastic about casey. at the last philly drinking liberally there was a debate whether real liberals should vote for santorum if casey gets the nomination. it wasn't a joke, and it really wasn't clear whether most of the people in the conversation would bite the bullet and vote for casey in the end. the idea was that it's better to have santorum than another lieberman. santorum, at least, is honest about what he is. if those kind of conversations are happening already at DL, casey is in real big trouble.
pennacchio's fundraising is low because he is the only candidate who won't accept PAC money. i have no idea why this makes him "not viable" in the eyes of markos and matt stoller. i thought the whole point of the actblue campaign was to effectuate grassroots fundraising and encourage candidates who were not beholden to rich special interests. besides, markos and matt know that whoever gets the nomination to unseat santorum is gonna get a huge influx of money. pennacchio's fundraising woes are relevant to his primary challenge, not the general election.
i'm obviously biased, i've already endorsed pennacchio, and i wrote that even before casey's utter lack of political judgment was put on display for anyone to see.
it's ironic that someone who worked for the dean campaign is championing the usual insider lines about viability in this case.
