enough with this Brown versus Hackett bullshit !!

[welshTerrier2]

as i'm not very familiar with either candidate, i'm not taking a position on the article below - just passing it on ... the full article is very long and very worth reading ...

but before we hear more of this debate, please address the points raised in the article ... if you have "arguments of substance" against Brown or if you believe he is not a genuine progressive, make your case ... if all you have to offer is "Hackett is cool", save it for an AOL chatroom ... it carries no weight here ... and if you want to elaborate on real issues and real reasons you support Hackett, i'm all ears ...

frankly, i like having solid candidates running against each other in the primaries ... it helps get out the Democratic message as long as the campaign doesn't get negative ... i understand Brown flip-flopped on deciding to run; that was unfortunate ... but there's plenty of time and plenty of room for more than one candidate to test the waters ...

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.

[AX10]

1. Paul Hackett or Sherrod Brown. Once the primary is over....

I will support the candidate, which ever one wins.

Should Paul Hackett get the nod, I will support his campaign for the US Senate 100%, WITHOUT question.
Should Sherrod Brown get the nod, I will support his campaign for the US Senate 100%, WITHOUT question.

[Chan790]

3. yup, same here.

The person I have an issue with though is Senator Chuck Schumer, who has been using his post as DSCC chair as if he believes that people must have his imprimatur to run for a Senate seat and that his "having spoken" on a given race should automatically make all other democratic primary candidates in that race drop out immediately to avoid costly primaries.

Well...Did he ever think that perhaps some Democrats or even a majority of Democrats in a given state, we'll say OH or PA to make things interesting, might disagree with his opinion and prefer to pick their own candidate for their Senate race?

[KnaveRupe]

4. Yep.

Why are progressives fighting each other over what should be a win-win situation?

Having either of these guys in the Senate is a plus. If these guys can run a clean, positive primary race, the Dems will be in a VERY strong position come November '06 WHICHEVER one wins.

[OzarkDem]

2. Good article

This has gone too far when Dems start attacking one of the most highly regarded, loyal Dem progressives in Congress. Enough already.

[brentspeak]

5. Brown has humiliated Hackett AND put him in an uncomfortable spot

And what did Hackett do to deserve it?

It's like a girl telling a guy that it's ok to announce to the whole world that they're 'boyfriend-girlfriend'. The guy does so, only for the girl to tell everybody the next day that "she's changed her mind".

Hackett is not going to back down and announce a run for a House seat now that he's gone in front of cameras to make a splashy announcement on a run for the Senate. That would be completely embarrassing. Which means that thanks to Brown's stupidity, they'll be two good Democrats running for one seat in Ohio rather than two good Democrats running for two separate seats in Ohio. D-U-M-B.

[1932]

7. Why are Hackett's feelings more important that OH getting a Dem Senator?

[John Q. Citizen]

6. The whole dynamic of the Hackett-Brown bruhaha is interesting

in a few aspects.

I think the initial shock of Brown changing his mind and running and the fact that it was reported that Schummer of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committe was trying to discourage Hackett from running was what set off the strong reaction. And understandably.

The real question is who of the two would run the strongest against DeWine? Hackett seems to have a strong swing vote charisma to him with independents and moderate Republicans able to vote for him as well as Democrats. Brown has an impressive and deeply consistent progressive voting record. He's also more experienced as a politician.

It wouldn't surprise me to see Brown win in the primary and then struggle against a Republican smear campaign in the general election. I'm not from Ohio, but I am from Montana, and here a home grown Hackett would stand a very good chance against our dark side Republican Burns.

[1932]

8. I suspect something like this happens 100 times every election year.

Somebody interesting gets the word from above that the party thinks that someone else might be a better candidate. The candidate who doesn't get the nod sucks it up and takes one for the team and doesn't complain in public about it.

That would annoy the hell out of me if good candidates were pushed aside for someone else by higher-ups...if the higher-ups were wrong and if the wrong issues were considered.

So the question here is, are they wrong about Hackett? My sneaking suspicion is that they're not wrong, especially juging from the enthusiasm for Brown that many OH DU'ers are displaying.

And it doesn't look like cronyism is the reason Brown is probably the favorite. He is a strong progressive who has a history of doing good work while building state-wide support.

[formernaderite]

9. thanks for posting this

"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."How weird is that?