Every time I look at the Sherrod Brown ad on the left sie of the page

[smoogatz]

I think about DU being complicit in the screwing of Paul Hackett by the Dem powers-that-be, and it makes my gorge rise. I'm not suggesting DU should reject the Brown ad (God knows we need the revenue), or even that Brown wouldn't make a perfectly acceptable senator and an excellent replacement for DeWine. Still, as a rabid Hackett supporter, it bugs me. Am I the only one?

[LynneSin]

1. I feel the same way but here's a point well made by Skinner

Brown's people paid for the ad on DU which helps keep this website alive and active. If Hackett's folks want to buy an add they would also carry it on the website.

The DU admins did; however, change the wording from "Support our Sponsers" to "Paid Advertisement"

[Divernan]

12. I don't like that $$$$$ & not words are used to sway DUers.

It's great to accept ads to help defray the costs of DU. But in this instance, basically it is allowing the candidate with more bucks an advantage on DU. I thought the prime importance of bloggers in today's political world was that it leveled the playing field between the big bucks Republicans and other candidates. We know that the Rs have succeeded in buying elections by spending vast amounts on 15 second TV/radio ads. I don't know what DU is charging per day for their ads, but whoever purchases the space is getting tremendous exposure to tens of thousands of politically active Dems.

There were some meaningful and substantive discussions earlier on DU about the problems of having two good candidates interested in the same Senate seat. Now we have a one-sided ad in our faces EVERY time we log on. And yes, many DUers are politically sophisticated enough to base their choice between the 2 candidates on their platforms, records, etc., but there are also those, including many who are not registered, but just browse DU who will interpret the ad as DU's support for Brown, and may not realize that the target of this ad is not Senator Dewine, but Hackett. It's tried and true marketing wisdom that these little ads, constantly repeated, sway people. Clearly, that's what Brown's ad is designed to do.

Brown, as a long time political figure operating from a safe seat in Ohio, doubtless has a much larger campaign fund than Hackett. It's easy to say, "Hackett can buy space too." But that begs the question that there is doubtless a large differential in available funds. By the way, did Brown give any of that campaign fund to the Hackett campaign for the House seat? I hope so, because that's the excuse that politicians in safe seats give for their continuous fund-raising - that is, that they can pass that money along to fellow Dems (or Rs, as the case may be) who are in more contested races.

When it comes to primaries in the Democratic party, I don't like to see DU for sale to the wealthier candidate. There's no equal time provision. I think this is not a good precedent for DU.

[Dhalgren]

2. No, you're not the only one...

[IndianaGreen]

3. You know that Hackett does not support US withdrawal from Iraq

Here is David Sirota's fine article about the current problems in the Left, among them the current flap in the Hacket v. Brown race.

Published on Monday, October 17, 2005 by In These Times
Partisan Way Syndrome: The Left Falls Victim to a Debilitating Affliction
by David Sirota

What's troubling is that this kind of delirium is most commonly found on the Internet blogs, supposedly the progressive ideological bastion, but increasingly a place only of traditional partisan prioritization. Case in point was the recent brouhaha over Ohio's upcoming 2006 U.S. Senate race. Iraq War veteran Paul Hackett, who had recently lost a high-profile House race, decided to run for the Senate after Rep. Sherrod Brown earlier said he would not. Brown, however, reversed himself just as Hackett was preparing to announce his intention to run.

The situation was inarguably awkward. But what followed was illustrative of the delirium plaguing the progressive base.

Within hours of Brown's announcement, "progressive" Internet blogs lit up with intense criticism of Brown. And let's be clear - Brown's move was tactically clumsy. But the attacks went well beyond criticism of his decision to be a candidate to the core of who he is, showing that the supposedly "ideological" base is, in part, anything but. In many parts of the base, there is no ideology at all.

How does the Brown-Hackett controversy show us this? Because nobody - not even the critics - disputes that Brown has been one of the most effective, successful, team playing, outspoken and articulate heroes for the progressive ideological movement in Congress for more than a decade, while Hackett has no voting record on any issue at all. Even on his signature issue, Iraq, Hackett never supported withdrawing troops. An activist base motivated by ideology would have rejoiced that one of their ideological brethren, Brown, was running for higher office, especially against someone with so little record. Remember the 2002 Pennsylvania Republican primary? The right-wing's ideological base cheered when archconservative Pat Toomey decided to challenge moderate Sen. Arlen Specter.

Instead, parts of the progressive base did the opposite, attacking the ideological champion; calling him "untrustworthy" for his tactical decision despite his years of steadfast trustworthiness casting the tough progressive votes; and venerating the other candidate with no ideology or voting record to speak of but whose "profile" they liked. Even Mother Jones magazine published an article on its Web site lamenting the fact that Brown's candidacy meant Democrats were supposedly "shooting down" Hackett. The magazine, one of the supposed progressive ideological lions, then pumped up Hackett attacking Brown as a "very liberal Democrat" - as if its base readership should think that was a strike against him.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1017-24.htm

[jonnyblitz]

10. throw a uniform on a DEM candidate and DUers go ga ga

they think by trying to "out military" the republicans we will have a sure win for whatever reason. Look at how "intense" Clark supporters are.

[Divernan]

16. IG, would you please provide a cite to Hackett saying that?

I waded through the very lengthy article you cited, and didn't come across that information. but it was sooooo long, I may have missed it. The reason I ask is that i recall seeing cites earlier within the last week on DU quoting Hackett as calling for a withdrawal from Iraq. However, I didn't save those. If you have something to the contrary, I definitely want to read it.

[SteppingRazor]

4. Like I commeneted yesterday...

I'm for Hackett running against DeWine in 06 and Brown going against Voinovich in '08.

That said, these are paid advertisements, not the opinions of this site or its admins.

[smoogatz]

27. I think you make a good point here.

One way or another, it seems like a waste of a good candidate. Maybe that's why the whole situation bugs me.

[zbdent]

5. From that picture, I think that Brown should do a "David Letterman"

impression - and do a "Top Ten Reasons Why Ohio Is Worse Off Under Republicans" commercial . . .

[welshTerrier2]

6. please read this ... the author strongly disagrees with you

this is an excerpt from a very interesting editorial by David Sirota ... as i'm not very familiar with either candidate, i'm not taking a position on what he wrote - just passing it on ... the full article is very long and very worth reading ...

source: http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2354/

What's troubling is that this kind of delirium is most commonly found on the Internet blogs, supposedly the progressive ideological bastion, but increasingly a place only of traditional partisan prioritization. Case in point was the recent brouhaha over Ohio's upcoming 2006 U.S. Senate race. Iraq War veteran Paul Hackett, who had recently lost a high-profile House race, decided to run for the Senate after Rep. Sherrod Brown earlier said he would not. Brown, however, reversed himself just as Hackett was preparing to announce his intention to run.

The situation was inarguably awkward. But what followed was illustrative of the delirium plaguing the progressive base.

Within hours of Brown's announcement, "progressive" Internet blogs lit up with intense criticism of Brown. And let's be clear - Brown's move was tactically clumsy. But the attacks went well beyond criticism of his decision to be a candidate to the core of who he is, showing that the supposedly "ideological" base is, in part, anything but. In many parts of the base, there is no ideology at all.

How does the Brown-Hackett controversy show us this? Because nobody - not even the critics - disputes that Brown has been one of the most effective, successful, team playing, outspoken and articulate heroes for the progressive ideological movement in Congress for more than a decade, while Hackett has no voting record on any issue at all. Even on his signature issue, Iraq, Hackett never supported withdrawing troops. An activist base motivated by ideology would have rejoiced that one of their ideological brethren, Brown, was running for higher office, especially against someone with so little record. Remember the 2002 Pennsylvania Republican primary? The right-wing's ideological base cheered when archconservative Pat Toomey decided to challenge moderate Sen. Arlen Specter.

Instead, parts of the progressive base did the opposite, attacking the ideological champion; calling him "untrustworthy" for his tactical decision despite his years of steadfast trustworthiness casting the tough progressive votes; and venerating the other candidate with no ideology or voting record to speak of but whose "profile" they liked. Even Mother Jones magazine published an article on its Web site lamenting the fact that Brown's candidacy meant Democrats were supposedly "shooting down" Hackett. The magazine, one of the supposed progressive ideological lions, then pumped up Hackett attacking Brown as a "very liberal Democrat" - as if its base readership should think that was a strike against him.

[1932]

20. Interesting article. Everyone posting here should read it.

I think Hackett's supporters are convinced he can win because of his military experience and aren't concerned with his position on the issues.

If Hackett were polliing 60:40 against DeWine and Brown were polling 40:60 against DeWine and I couldn't envision a situation where those numbers would go the other direction by election day, I might listen to those supporters

But I'd still care a great deal about what these guys stood for.

I want the most progressive candidate with a chance of winning to be on the ticket, and if Brown has a track record for being very progressive and Hackett has none, I'm leaning towards Brown.

Furthermore, in that situation, I'm really going to want a primary so that I can hear what Hacket stands for.

[asthmaticeog]

29. Every one of the non-Ohioans in the DU Hackett brigades should read that.

I'm getting so sick of this shit... Brown would make an EXCELLENT left wing Senator. Hackett has zero legislative experience and we know squat about him.

And I wonder if many of the Hackett fans (notice I don't say "supporters") aren't the same folks who raised Brown on a pedastal many moons ago when he verbally pimp-smacked Colin Powell in open session of Congress. How quickly DU forgets...

[MrBenchley]

7. "the screwing of Paul Hackett by the Dem powers-that-be"???

Say what?

Hackett is a prima donna who doesn't want to face anyone in a primary, and is kicking up a fuss that he hasn't been anointed as candidate by party bosses. He hasn't been screwed in any way, shape or form by anyone.

Let Hackett buy a fucking ad too if he wants.

[smoogatz]

9. That may be so, but Hackett makes a reasonable case

his strong run in this year's special election should buy him some cred, seems to me. Anyway, I'm not saying Brown shouldn't run--by all accounts he's a good guy, and he's pretty much a lock to beat DeWine. Hackett's rough as a cob in comparison, but Hackett's a truth-teller, and I think we could use a few like him in the Senate. What I like about him is that he's absolutely fearless about directly confronting Bush. No mealy-mouthing, no parsing, no legalisms. Bush is a son-of-a-bitch, plain and simple. I think that's a message the voters can appreciate.

[NWHarkness]

11. Then let him make his case to the people

That's what primaries are for. And, of course, the same applies to Brown.

[MrBenchley]

13. A reasonable case for what?

If he wants to run, let him run.

[MaineDem]

8. Doesn't bother me at all

I agree that Brown's announcement may have been a bit awkward but he might be the better candidate. (I don't know enough yet.) But Brown's ad is helping DU and us to post here so I don't have any problem with it. (Other than my overall dislike of ads.)

[1932]

14. Is there any precendent for people getting so angry about

Democrats running in a primary?

It's not like Brown announced he was going to run as an independent in the general election.

This is the PRIMARY race!

[nashville_brook]

15. nope, not the only one

[ABaker]

17. It bugs me, too

DU should not accept ads from ANY candidate. It compromises our independence and credibilty in the progressive community.

[1932]

22. On the other hand, it allows candidates to reach committed progressives

where they're spending their time, and it gives DU financial resources to do better work.

[ABaker]

23. With respect,

DU could solicit ads from organizations and businesses that support the progressive agenda. There are plenty of those around.

[1932]

25. Brown IS progressive (Hackett criticized him for being VERY LIBERAL)

source: http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2354 /

What's troubling is that this kind of delirium is most commonly found on the Internet blogs, supposedly the progressive ideological bastion, but increasingly a place only of traditional partisan prioritization. Case in point was the recent brouhaha over Ohio's upcoming 2006 U.S. Senate race. Iraq War veteran Paul Hackett, who had recently lost a high-profile House race, decided to run for the Senate after Rep. Sherrod Brown earlier said he would not. Brown, however, reversed himself just as Hackett was preparing to announce his intention to run.

The situation was inarguably awkward. But what followed was illustrative of the delirium plaguing the progressive base.

Within hours of Brown's announcement, "progressive" Internet blogs lit up with intense criticism of Brown. And let's be clear - Brown's move was tactically clumsy. But the attacks went well beyond criticism of his decision to be a candidate to the core of who he is, showing that the supposedly "ideological" base is, in part, anything but. In many parts of the base, there is no ideology at all.

How does the Brown-Hackett controversy show us this? Because nobody - not even the critics - disputes that Brown has been one of the most effective, successful, team playing, outspoken and articulate heroes for the progressive ideological movement in Congress for more than a decade, while Hackett has no voting record on any issue at all. Even on his signature issue, Iraq, Hackett never supported withdrawing troops. An activist base motivated by ideology would have rejoiced that one of their ideological brethren, Brown, was running for higher office, especially against someone with so little record. Remember the 2002 Pennsylvania Republican primary? The right-wing's ideological base cheered when archconservative Pat Toomey decided to challenge moderate Sen. Arlen Specter.

Instead, parts of the progressive base did the opposite, attacking the ideological champion; calling him "untrustworthy" for his tactical decision despite his years of steadfast trustworthiness casting the tough progressive votes; and venerating the other candidate with no ideology or voting record to speak of but whose "profile" they liked. Even Mother Jones magazine published an article on its Web site lamenting the fact that Brown's candidacy meant Democrats were supposedly "shooting down" Hackett. The magazine, one of the supposed progressive ideological lions, then pumped up Hackett attacking Brown as a "very liberal Democrat" - as if its base readership should think that was a strike against him.

[jonnyblitz]

30. I wish people would get past swooning over Hackett's uniform

and actually take a look at where he stands on the issues.

[1932]

32. Seriously.

Do Republicans do this?

If a Republican candidate was a nurse or a teacher or a firefighter, do Republicans suddely go doe-eyed and not care where the person stands on the issues?

[Ian David]

18. Why not pay for Hackett to have an ad on DU, too? n/t

[Czolgosz]

19. Not the only one.

[shance]

21. The only complaint I would make is why not more diversity instead of

white conservative males running and consistentlly being the individuals who are supported financially to run for every position? Neither of these two individuals are by any means "liberal" or shall I say truly evolved? How much do they know about womens' issues and African American issues, and issues of other cultures and diverse individuals who are not Anglo?

Where are the African-Americans, Hispanics, Middle-Easterners, and women running in this primary as well?


That would be a race I could be more interested in. Why are we not encouraging more people to run in primaries?

I guess I have a few complaints.

I think more variety and diversity is really vital these days, especially now. And not just those women and men who will tow the white privileged, patriarchal line that supports their power and not anyone elses.

Seems to me it has been the imbalanced power of largely white privileged males that has gotten this country into quite a mess.

With that said, to me there is no doubt that any one group of any culture, race, gender or race when they rule the roost, so to speak, creates a one sided, imbalanced, now chaotic existence. The balance that is very necessary in fair, rational leadership is avoided by those craving power and force, instead of more harmonic existing and a more Democratic system. This could happen with any group that craves too much power and force and not enough good will toward all men. A highly lop sided biased representation in our government does not appreciate and represent the diversity that is so abundant and what is so valuable and unique about this country and this planet.

[brindis_desala]

33. You have put your finger on precisely why the Democrats

became the minority party. If you haven't yet read Liberty Under Siege by Walter Karp. It explains much of the disarray, disloyalty and myopia exhibited in the party and on this board.

[OzarkDem]

34. Sherrod is very liberal

Please do your homework before you make such sweeping generalizations.

He's also not wealthy. He's an ideal Dem candidate.

I'll agree the Ohio Dems have done a really poor job of supporting women candidates - its definitely a white and black man's world in this state party.

[JugDack]

35. Good point!

We've allowed the lock-step right and their MSM buddies to define Dems as "self-destructing" and "chaotic" because we don't all sing exactly the same tune. But our diversity is actually a strength, and we should proudly proclaim it as such!

I agree with you. There should be LOTS more primaries, giving people lots of choices on who to select, and not just the ones the party powers decide we should have.

[JI7]

24. well, that's a bit disturbing.

[Adelante]

26. I'm for Hackett

But I don't agree with you. Brown bought an ad. Hackett can buy an ad, too. DU is not endorsing anybody in what is going to be a primary race. Some DUers like Hackett, as I do, and others like Brown. Again, DU is not taking sides, they are taking money for a service. I don't get the problem with this.

[frogmarch]

28. I doubt that ads for either man

would be a deciding factor in which one wins. If Democratic political ads help DU, I'm all for them.

When Hackett was a special guest on Maher's show some time back, he said point-blank that he was for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

[ABaker]

31. see post #17 n/t

[Adelante]

37. You don't own DU

You don't get to make DU ad policy. You don't get to censor DU content, whether it's ads or anything else. Neither do I.

[nickshepDEM]

36. Im with ya'. H A C K E T T

Maybe I should just go on an all out Hackett spamming fest?