Alan Grayson is running to win Marco Rubio's senate seat, and he's leading the polls by a significant amount.
And the Democratic Party establishment can't stand it!

A few days ago the NY Times ran a hit piece titled Alan Grayson’s Double Life: Congressman and Hedge Fund Manager.

The hedge fund manager boasted that he had traveled to “every country” in the world, studying overseas stock markets as he fine-tuned an investment strategy to capitalize on global companies’ suffering because of economic or political turmoil...
Interviews and the documents show that Mr. Grayson told potential investors in his hedge fund that they should contribute money to the fund to capitalize on the unrest he observed around the world, and to take particular advantage when there was “blood in the streets.”

It's backed up by emails of staffers urging Grayson to close the hedge fund.

It looks bad. It sounds bad. It's also complete and total bullshit!
Just a cursory look at those emails will give you an idea of how much horse shit this story is full of.
For example;

The reporters want to write this story badly it is pretty obvious. They are also never going to understand it all because they think they are on to something here.

Those are the words of the Grayson staffer that the NY Times thinks is "damning evidence".
So what is that that the reporters don't understand? I'll let a Wellstone staffer explain it.

I had to read the article five times before I could decipher that despite all the negative coloring, the article admits that Grayson designed the fund to encourage investment in Third World countries immediately after they've experienced traumatic circumstances. That Grayson started the fund when he was not serving in Congress; that when Grayson came back to Congress after starting the fund, he didn't solicit or receive new investors. That during the life of the fund, it held only two investors other than Grayson and his family fund, and now only Grayson and his family fund remain involved. That one investor who might have lost money in the fund appears to have been compensated for his loss, in full, by Grayson. That no evidence exists or is even suggested that Grayson allowed his fund to influence his positions, issues, or votes.
So, my point. The title, tone, and timing of this article succeeds more in being inflammatory than informative, and fails to present more than innuendo....This attack on Grayson should be as concerning to progressives as the mainstream Democrats' recent attacks on Bernie Sanders. Republicans tend to lionize their true believers; Democrats tend to pillory theirs.

So how does the Democratic establishment respond to a hit piece on one of their rising stars? A congressman known as the most effective member of the House? (Murphy, on the other hand, was ranked dead last.)
By throwing him under the bus the very next day.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, on Friday called for Representative Alan Grayson to drop his bid for the Senate, saying Mr. Grayson’s actions as a hedge fund manager “aren’t just disgraceful to the Democratic Party; they disgrace the halls of Congress.”
The move by Mr. Reid followed an article in The New York Times this week that detailed Mr. Grayson’s dual role as a lawmaker and a hedge fund manager, and the continuing ethics investigation into this unusual combination.
“Alan Grayson claims to be a progressive, but it seems like he has no moral compass,” Mr. Reid’s statement said. “These deeply troubling allegations should disqualify anyone from a seat in the U.S. Senate.”

Grayson was less than impressed. He responded in his typical fashion: "he is personally attacking the clear choice of Florida Democrats, making the party into a circular firing squad."
It isn't just Washington establishment Democrats. Florida establishment Democrats have lined up against Grayson by endorsing Patrick Murphy.

Who is Patrick Murphy? Until recently he was a Republican.
He's voted for the Keystone pipeline, the House Benghazi probe, Romney's 2008 campaign, cuts in Social Security and Medicare, and against regulating for-profit universities.
In other words, he falls into the same broad category as Alex Sink, Charlie Crist, and other colorless conservative Democrats that the Florida Democratic Party loves.

So what does Grayson stand for? Progressive issues. Economic stimulus, environmental protection, stopping the never-ending wars, health care reform, Grayson has a track record of sponsoring and passing bills in all these issues.
Grayson also filed an ethics complaint against McCarthy and Trey Gowdy the chairman over the Benghazi panel.
His personal story is even more impressive.

Mr. Grayson graduated from Harvard University while supporting himself as a janitor and night watchman. He went on to earn his master’s degree from Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and received his J.D. with honors from Harvard Law School. In the early 1990s, Mr. Grayson opened his own law firm, specializing in fraud cases aimed at Iraqi War Contractors.

So why do Democrats hate him so much? Is it because he can't win?

“Grayson is the Republican’s dream opponent,” says Coker. “Murphy would have a fighting chance.”

That must be it.
Except that in polls against likely Republicans Lopex-Cantera and DeSantis, Grayson comes out ahead. Sort of like how Sanders can't win, but leads the polls anyway.
So if it isn't electability, what is it?

“Make no mistake, Alan Grayson will do more damage to himself and to our Democratic Party as a whole than he could ever do to Patrick Murphy,” Celeste Bush said in an email. She feels so strongly about Grayson that in April she urged party leaders to de-certify the Democratic Progressive Caucus of Florida for promoting his entry into the Senate race.

Why does the democratic establishment hate Grayson? Because of his ideals and his willingness to speak truth to power. That's why.