« Tuesday Open Thread | Main | More on CD-7 »



I think this is good for Polsfut. This splits the establishment vote up between Lamm and Perlmutter.


Money -- talk is cheap --
It is pay to play time -- whomever amongst the candidates is unable to raise at least $90,000 by the end of May might as well get out -- If Eddie P raises $100,000 plus and Peggy does not match Emily's list will bid her a fine Sayonara. Polsfut has never shown he can raise money either for himself, for the Dem Party or for Wes Clark but maybe he can -- Joanna Conti needs to dip into her hubby's cookie jar while he is not looking as there is no way she can raise it -- other big question who will Mike Feeley write a check to?

Phoenix Rising

This is definitely not good news for Joanna Conti. With two women in the race, Emily's List will stay out until after only 1 woman remains (they'll make commitments behind the scenes, but no public endorsements until there's only 1 woman in the race...). It's bad news for Conti, and she'll have additional trouble getting people to commit with both Perlmutter and Lamm in the race. Conti surely knows this and was probably hoping her early jump would discourage Lamm from running; don't know where she goes now that Peggy's officially in. For those who think Emily's List will back out of this race totally though, think again.

With both Ed and Peggy in the race, Jim Polsfut is going to have cashflow issues, I think. Lamm and Perlmutter are both obvious targets for each other, but in this early stage, it's the money-raising that's going to dominate discussion; stuck in a race with these two, I don't see where Polsfut is going to get massive cash.

I'd say we officially have enough Dems in the Sea (D-7)...

general chase

peggy lamm can't get the nomination. why? she supported Bill Owens in the Governor's race in 2002, democrats won't like that and

her sexual relationship with ken chlouber while she was in the legislature. democrats wont like that either.

She can't get the nomination, no matter how much money she can get from Rutt Bridges.


Ching! Vladimir is right. Watch the Feeley money.

Gold Dome

Hey General that was a tough shot! You would have to dismise half of us at the capitol if the criteria is you have not had relations with Clouber. He is a great guy and is able to bridge over to union members (remember they endorsed him in the 1 CD election in 2002) I think Clouber could really help Lamm he is energetic and fun. Are they still dating?


Let's look at the district.

Almost 60% of the Democratic primary voters in this district are women. Almost all of the legislators elected in the district are women. Education is the top issue and she is a former teacher, head of CCHE, and took CU to task on the scandal. She can beat a lawyer, an accountant and a former Republican for this nomination.

If she can get $100k in the first report and that's all she needs to stay in with EMILY's list. It'll be less than Ed (he's had more time), but I'm guessing it will be competitive. EMILY's list will endorse a viable woman over an unviable woman. They have done so several times in the past with other races. They're all about winning.

If Bob stays, the rest of the field will spook (after the CU commission, I'm guessing Peggy doesn't spook easily) and she'll beat Bob Beauprez because this district is begging to elect a pro-choice Democratic woman with a background in education who will hold the line on Social Security.


That's if Bob stays ... and he isn't. There is more information out there on Peggy Lamm that I'm sure will come out in this election. Ed. P. will surely bring out the dirt on her.


Ed, I doubt that Perlmutter will bring up dirt on Lamm. Perlmutter is a "clean campaigner" and that is just not his style.

As far as the other info, it may come out, but I doubt that Perlmutter or his campaign will be the source. Remember, he is going through a divorce himself, so there may be skelatons there too...


Good point Coloradodem. It'll be an interesting race nonetheless.



We finally agree.

Roger D

Peggy Lamm has a bigger problem than the 'dirt' being cited (though support for a Republican Governor candidate - particularly Bill Owens and his stance on Choice), and that is that there is a strong reservoir of distaste for the Lamm name. The fact that the anger is the result of the actions and words of Dick Lamm, won't make any difference. Dottie Lamm paid the price in her Senate run. She could never bring key voter groups necessary for a Dem win in Colorado into her camp because of the Lamm name. Among Adams County Democrats (particularly hispanics) Peggy Lamm is a non-starter.

Alvin Weinschienk

Peggy Lamm -- the latest in a band of losers -- Dottie Lamm -- Gail Schoetller --
and now Peggy Lamm -- they all support each other -- and they all lose --
yet Republican women run and women. I loathe Musgrave but she is a tough woman and knows how to win -- Gail Norton the same way and when she lost had the good grace to campaign hard for her victor and was rewarded later with a cabinet job.
By contrast Dottie Gail and Beth are still whining. The Reps have strong women we have whiners with no ideas -- what did Peggy do in the Legislature other than date Chlouber -- name one bill of note? The Lamms do carry a grudge -- Dottie, Peggy (I know an in law) and Dickie still blame and correctly so Josie Heath for splitting the liberal vote in 92 and allowing Campbell to win the Dem primary. How does the little whiners respond? By supporting Bill Owens over Rollie Heath -- compare that with how hard Norton campaigned for Allard despite a nasty primary fight. We need strong tough women candidates and not any more of these whiney losers -- no one not even Rutt Bridges will tell you with a straight face that come January 2007 that they actually think that Lamm will be in Congress --

Daniel DiRito

I find it interesting that the first thing people do when someone announces they are running for office is to drag out the negative personal information. If the litmus test for being an effective public servant is dependent upon the presence of any personal miscues, we will have to search long and hard for any acceptable candidates.

Perhaps its time for a reality check. It's been shown that approximately fifty (50%) of all marriages end in divorce. I'm certain that behind this statistic is a plethora of negative personal behavior. That said, it seems to me that we would do better to find common ground and reasoned understanding with each others shortcomings instead of succumbing to aspersions and mudslinging. Perhaps politics has become a reflection of peoples inability to accept the complexities and challenges of all relationships. That's unfortunate.

I understand that politics has become ugly and mean spirited. I just don't condone or accept that it has to be that way. Let me make a telling observation that seems to be ignored. People routinely espouse the praises of our capitalist society and yet its successes result from individuals that are every bit as "flawed" as those we seek to condemn in politics. It seems hypocritical that negative personal behavior is often selectively ignored when one seeks to achieve monetary success. Ironically, a divorced entrepeneur who had numerous affairs is honored by the Chamber of Commerce or the local Business Journal until he or she announces an interest in politics. Suddenly, the standard of measure becomes a new selective morality.

I'm not sure why this phenomena exists but the hypocrisy is abundant. Personally, when I see such contradictions, I tend to conclude that few people really live their beliefs. Rather their beliefs are made to fit their goals at any given moment. At the same time I appreciate and understand individuals who act consistently across the board even if I don't agree with their positions. If you are an ardent capitalist who believes success can and should be measured accordingly, so be it. If you are an ardent moralist who believes success can and should be measured accordingly, so be it. If you pick and choose between the two based upon what serves your interests or satisfies your bias at any given moment, I am repulsed and compelled to say so.

The bottom line is that good people make mistakes but that doesn't make them a bad business person or a bad public servant and more importantly it doesn't make them a bad person. It makes them human. Like it or not, our politicians are human and it appears we often lose sight of this reality. Perhaps when we accept this truth we can once again focus on what is truly important...can they do the job well?

It seems to me that what the public should be looking for and demanding from its politicians is good public service. Unfortunately, the selection process has deterioriated into nothing more than a game of smoke and mirror manipulations. Sadly, both the politicos and the public are to blame and that ultimately brings each of us back to personal responsibility and integrity.

I may be naive but given all we hear about patriotism, wouldn't it be appropriate for each of us to have the interest of the city, state, or country at heart? All too often personal reward or self interest seems to override any underlying concern for what might be best for the city, state, or country. We're all Americans before we are Democrats, Republicans, or politicians and hence that is where our responsibility should rest.

Finally, it becomes a question of who pays the price for these contradictions and this hypocrisy. It's the children. We send them to school where they engage in a system of clear rules and objectives. They are taught the merits of being measured fairly and rewarded accordingly. They also engage in activities like sports that clearly spell out the benefits of teamwork and fair play. Then we send them into the world where bias, self interest, and dishonesty carry the day. So much for family values!

I've seen remarks on this site that downplay the impact of the negative and immature banter that is displayed by many commenting at this site. I appreciate wit and humor but I would ask those who cross the line to take a moment and think about the contradictory message children receive when they witness adults engaging in such personal attacks on someone elses son or daughter. If we value what we are teaching children in our schools, shouldn't our actions be reinforcing those principles?

This country is currently trying to bring civility to Iraq and Afghanistan. This country is also engaged in abundant dialogue about religion, values, and morality. The Right feels oppressed by the secular Left. The Left feels imposed upon by the religious Right. Civility is absent on both sides. Perhaps it's time each individual live up to some of the rhetoric.


My preference for the 7th would be Senator Sue Windels. I know that she will not run and would guess that she is supporting Perlmutter.

But Alvin, regarding your comments about strong women candidates, you would not find a stronger candidate than Windels--male or female.


Daniel, excellent points! I would point out that the best argument I have heard against Lamm so far is that she supported Owens' reelection. If that is the case, there is no way I could support her in a primary. That shows a serious lack of judgement on her part as far as I am concerned.

executive summary

Daniel Doreto shorten it up man, this is a blog where executive summary rules, if you want to pitch you book on "we all suck.. so lower the bar" take it to EBAY. The fact is Purlmutter will get blasted for personal and business ethics, Lamm will get blasted for the same, Polsfut no one will pay attention to. Can we amend the draft Hick for Governor to Draft Hickenlooper for the 7th heck he could stay living in LODO it didn't hurt Beauprez to not live in the district. All said in under 100 words!

Daniel DiRito

Executive Summary, I appreciate you kept it short on words...and on substance. You rule!


You know you've gone to far when you pull out, "it's for the children." Dude - I agree with you... but without Sally Struthers it's a hard sell.


Who is bringing up a divorce as an issue?
Hey that is one of the few things Peggy Lamm has ever gotten right -- came out of the divorce with a pocket full of change.
By the way has anyone ever read the stuff she has written for Rutt and the Bighorn Crew. Sophomoric would be a charitable description. This is not a qualified candidate for public office -- but I guess Rutt Bridges considers her his intellectual savant -- God save our State



Are you a child? Nah, wouldn't be fair to children to assume that. Sounds like you're just another self absorbed adult....hmmm, perhaps we should invoke Joan Crawford's name and legacy?


You all are shocking. A qualified, competent, and extremely politically savvy woman has announced her candidacy and the discussion centers around - what?

Issues don't seem to mean much in this blog, but they still mean something to most voters.

Most voters don't care about her divorce or really anything other than whether she can improve education, create jobs, and lower the cost of health care.

THAT'S what really matters, folks, and Peggy Lamm is the woman to do it.


ColoBLT makes a helluva point and I want to congratulate him as should we all. I am sure that in his next posting he will
1. Cite chapter and verse great legislation proffered by Ms. Lamm when she had a chance to do so
2. Set forth innovative studies on public policy that she authored while at Big Horn
Take your time



As I stated above, if Ms. Lamm did, in fact, endorse Bill Owens in his last election run then she does not appear to me to be the person who can, in your words, "improve education, create jobs, and lower the cost of health care". She missed an opportunity in the last election to support those issues and she elected not to.


Busy year for the Lamm extended family --
Dick is running for Sierra Club President again with the backing of his White Supremacist strange bedfellows. At least he is not challenging Perot this year. Peggy will run for Congress. Dottie will run around and do voice overs as she did for Howard Gelt and probably realize that no one knows who she is and those that do hate Dottie's smarmy arrogance. What does this crew have in commong? All named Lamm and have not won an election since 1986 and won't be winning another one anytime soon either. Extend that to the candidates they have worked so hard to elect -- gotta love a feminist pro education liberal like Lamm backing Owens to settle a score with Josie Heath dating back to 1992 -- would call that a cat fight but that would be sexist.

The comments to this entry are closed.