Democrat Phil Kellam's challenge to incumbent Republican Rep. Thelma Drake has been rated close from the beginning, with analysts putting the race as either "leans slightly Republican" or "tossup." Lately, more have moved it into the latter category with the fallout from the Foley scandal, which Kellam has been playing to the hilt, as David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times notes:

As the details were emerging last Tuesday, for example, Phil Kellam, the Democrat challenging Drake, called on her to demand Hastert's immediate resignation. In a statement, Kellam said the House Republican leaders' "lack of attention" was "perhaps more shocking" than what Foley himself had done.

Drew Lankford, a spokesman for Kellam, said that the attacks on Drake had "painted her into a corner" because she was unwilling to denounce Hastert. Drake has said she will wait for a more thorough investigation into what Hastert knew.

Read the whole article, which concentrates on the Foley scandal's effects on religious conservative voters, at the link above.

Hmmm, Mr. Kellam, "lack of attention" is "more shocking" than the bad behavior itself? That's a pretty high standard you're setting there, pal.

Once so high that you can't seem to meet it yourself, according to this press release from the Drake campaign:

Democrat Phil Kellam has accepted $7,500 from Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) despite the fact that Hoyer voted against censuring a member of Congress for actually having sex with a 17-year-old page. Congress to censure Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Massachusetts) on July 20, 1983, with Hoyer voting "nay." The revelation of Kellam's financial dependence on Hoyer comes as Kellam attempts to capitalize on former Congressman Mark Foley's resignation amid a scandal involving sexually graphic Instant Messages.

"Phil Kellam is attempting to capitalize politically on a very serious situation that placed young pages at risk," said Tim Murtaugh, Drake's campaign manager. "You'd think that if he were consistent, he would also return the money to Steny Hoyer, who actually voted against censure for a member who had sex with an underage page."

The rest is at the link above. Seems Kellam exhibits his own "lack of attention" when there is money involved. Hat-tip to Insider of Hampton Roads Politics for pointing to both the story and the Drake statement. He is clearly paying closer attention than Kellam, and adds his own suggestion:

Normally, I would simply say that Kellam should simply return the money, but since Kellam's standard he holds for others, calling for resignations for what Kellam called a "lack of attention," Kellam should practice what he preaches.

The Studds story isn't new. Hoyer's vote opposing his censure isn't new. Kellam obviously had a "lack of attention" to where his money was coming from, and if Congressmen being sexually involved with pages is something Kellam so passionately opposes, why did Phil have such a "lack of attention" about it when it came to accepting Hoyer's money?

And should Kellam's own "lack of attention" cause him to resign as well?

Practice what you preach.

Amen, Brother Insider! The whole post is at the link above.

As if that weren't enough, now Kellam's denials of knowledge of and coordination with MoveOn.org are being disproven by his own public office emails, obtained by FOIA requests. Read about the GOP's complaint to the FEC at the preceding link from the Drake campaign.

Hey- maybe Kellam didn't KNOW he was a member of MoveOn.org! He just wasn't paying attention when he joined . . . or when he received their regular emails on his taxpayer-funded office computer. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Heh.