I care more about the direction of the country than Hackett's 'honor"

[Armstead]

I've listened to a couple of his recent interviews and I've gotta say that I am disappointed in the way he has handled this. He undercut Brown, stoked the anger of people against the Democratic Party -- or political apathy -- and probably added a few percentage points to Dewine's chances. He disparaged Brown's supposed lack of personal "honor" and made a big show about his own "honor."

I compare this to Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich, who were both considered outsider "maverick" candidates. They ran hard, they were certainly critical of "politics as usual." Kucinich, especially, kept on going, even after his loss was a foregone conclusion.

But when push came to shove and it was time to bow out, they did it gracefully. They didn't drag out the dirty laundry to get their final digs in at Kerry or tacitly endorse the idea of scuttling Kerry or the Democratic Party.

They acknoweldge that they lost, endorsed Kerry and campaigned hard for him. They emphasized the importance of supporting the democratic party. They kept up their fight for reform in different ways, but didn't say "It's all about me." Dean had a self-depricating sense of humor about it, and Kucinich re-emphasized his political principles.

I just hope Hackett goes out and aggressively campaigns for Brown.

[ClassWarrior]

1. It's about our VALUES, people, not our egos.

NGU.

[More Than A Feeling]

2. Its good for Hackett that he says he doesn't want to run again

perhaps someone with more knowledge can correct me if I am wrong, but I can't see how he hasn't just burned every bridge in politics behind him.

[DancingBear]

5. Ah, political bridges never burn

They just get singed a lot. :)

If Mean Jean wins again in OH-02 ( and by a larger margin than she did against Hackett), and if Brown loses, Schumer and Reid will coming CRAWLING to a certain ex-Iraq vet. What he tells them is anybody's guess. :)

Take that to the bank.

However, if a Dem takes OH-02, and if Brown wins, then Hackett is pretty much done for.

I'd put money on the former, sadly.

[Armstead]

9. That's true -- Look at George Bush Sr.

He and Reagan set fire to a lot of bridges during the primaries (Bush was the one who coined the term "Voodoo Economics" to describe right-wing supply-side economics).

Then they kissed and made up after it ws all over, and Bush became Veep.

[FreedomAngel82]

38. You think they're going to do that?

They'll find someone else.

[bluethruandthru]

3. I was really disappointed

listening to Ed Schultz's show the other day. He was foaming at the mouth that Hackett had been forced out of the race and 'swiftboated' by the democrats...especially Shumer and Reid. Now, I haven't followed this as closely as many others..and I'm sure it wasn't handled very well...but all I could think when I listened to Ed's rant against the Democratic Party was "here we go again....". We constantly find a way to turn on ourselves. The repubs have been so successful because they stick together.
I don't think we should stifle discussion and disagreements. That's one of many things that makes us a better party. However, we can really implode sometimes...and I know it hurts us at the polls.

[femrap]

44. Moderate, centrist Ed can wear on my progressive

nerves at times....I couldn't listen to him rant...he sounded like Rush.

Can't the Dems just have their fights behind closed doors...geez.

Look at the damn pugs....I know damn well many of them are sick over what is happening to their party. Yet they stick together like damn glue....but they may be doing so out fear of Rove's retribution. I imagine all Rove has to say is the words....'well stone.'

[formernaderite]

65. I initially held your opinion

but if this story of swiftboating him by the leadership is true....I will be fuming. The allegations are just too ugly, and from what it seems completly false. I don't listen to Ed...did he mention what the rumours were? I've heard some crap that he abused Iraqi's... seriously, if the dems were complicit in spreading that type of bullshit...it will seriously hurt them. If this is a bogus story, Hackett is just a whiner.

[still_one]

4. maybe the democratic party better start to learn that the PEOPLE

should choose who should be the candidate, and NOT some democratic leaders from another state

[Deep13]

6. Yes, but I welcome input from the experts.

"The people" do not necessarily understand the mechanics of the process and would ultimately regret a hasty choice in the primary. Kind of like they did in the presidential election. Besides, Brown was out-polling Hackett anyway. What the big wigs wanted to avoid was not a Hackett nomination (which was pretty unlikely anyway) but fratricide en route to the primary. The Rs are too well heeled for us to be burning up resources fighting each other.

This is a family squabble. The real fight is with DeWine who is pro-fundy, anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-poor, anti-middle class, anti-education, anti-environment, pro-secrecy and pro-corporate rule.

[More Than A Feeling]

8. If they wanted to avoid fratricide, they failed, big time.

Perhaps taking a different path, where Hackett actually loses on primary day (if that was his fate), would have kept him from blasting various members of the party, as he has.

[saracat]

Do not get me started. The Party big wigs do not necessarily "understand "

the people who vote. I am sick of this drivel that they have some sort of superior knowledge and yet keep losing races they should have won. It is months before the primary and Sherrod Brown was only outpolling Paul Hackett by 6 points. The issue was money. Brown had more of it. It is very simple. The Party always thinks money is all it takes. In this case, they were dead wrong. Hackett would have won because he would have gotten the Republican vote as well as the Dem. I like the idea of a progressive but a progressive is not going to win Ohio. And BTW, the very fact the part of the reason Hackett had less money was the calling of his donors and telling them to NOT contribute. The DSCC wanted that money for Brown.Brown is a quid pro quo. He has been in the game longer. They trust him to win. He has a track record. He started with a war chest.
The Senate race was okay for Hackett when they thought it wasn't viable. Situation changes and voila, Hackett must be disposed of. I am sick of the carnage of human emotions and loyalty means nothing. Hackett is right to speak out. He was LIED to. We all want Bush to admit to LYING and are against this sensless war, yet we advocate LYING and business as usual for our own party? And we are disgusted with Hackett maintaining his "honor" ? Some are angry that he won't break his word and LIE to the congressional candidates he gave a promise to? This is beyond belief.

[back2basics909]

11. We KNOW they do not understand..

.. they have a track record. But some progressive seem to be hoping that some day they will get better.

Just watch Hillary be the party choice in 2008.

[Deep13]

21. "they?" These are Senators who have won Senate seats...

...against actual Rs.

[saracat]

22. Ha! ha! ha !h a! Schumer? Of NY?

Like he has ever had any real competition. Reid had to fight I grant you. But please. I don't think they understand about the state of Ohio. Why not let the Ohioans make the call? They constantly screw us here in Az. Thry can't pick winners if their life depended on it. If the voters were let to decide we might have a chance.

[back2basics909]

35. Yeah and Rahm...

.. of Chicago. Tuff seats to win.. not.

Then look at the people they are backing. The choices are almost consistantly bad, and thats coming from people with local insite.

[Deep13]

20. I don't really care if they lied to Hackett.

If burning his house down would win our side the election, I would support it.

[saracat]

23. So how are you different from the GOP?

Isn't it a bit hypocrtical to condemn the Repukes for lying and applaud it in our own? I don't see where we will ever win that way.JMHO. I value honesty and loyalty. That is why I am a Dem. But maybe I should reconcider that.

[Catrina]

63. That is so sad to hear ~ if that's the general attitude of Democrats we

will never get decent politicians to even think of running. And if what I've seen going on on this board since the swift-boating of Hackett was revealed, is what the general population feels, then it explains why we have the Bush cabal in power. We do get the government we deserve ~

We going into an election year where we should win with honesty and integrity, considering the scandal ridden Republican party is even losing the support of its own base without any help from Democrats, and Democrats decide to 'burn down our own party members' houses' with dishonest whisper campaigns etc!! And we're doing this in order to stop corruption and smears etc??? The irony is stunning.

If only Democrats had 'burned down the houses' of Republicans!! How great would that have been? Instead, maybe because they just don't want to hurt the feelings of their rightwing counterparts, they have already started down the road of doing it to their own.

I don't know why I keep hoping 'we' are better than 'them'! Four years of watching Dems refuse to take on Republicans should have caused me to give up hope. I think it's finally happened ~ there's no way I could ever support Rovian tactics, especially if they are being used by Democrats against other Democrats ~

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. You know the big wigs keep loosing

yet they avoid the little ones from choosing their candidates... yes they won in 2000 and 2004 but they still choose to hide their heads... no problem with the electoral system, really, we will win in '06... well it looks to me that they do their best NOT to win...

Sorry, but I am so disappointed with the party at so many levels that I will support local candidates I like but not necessarily the party.

[Armstead]

7. Hackett could have continued his run

Hackett denied the people the chance to make the decision.

If he had won the nomination he would have had to face a lot dirtier sets of slings and arrows from the GOP.

He chose to bow out after being knicked by the much milder slings of certain Democrats.

Right or wrong, he decided not to keep up his fight through the primaries.

[johncoby2]

12. Bingo!

No one put a gun to his head. He quit all by himself.

He could have let the people decide who should run in for the seat, but instead he decided to cave in under pressure. If he caves under the Democrat leadership, then what else would he cave in to?

I agree, he should have left with class, or stayed and kissed some ass.

He did neither.

[karynnj]

14. That's a good point - the DSCC didn't support him,

But the DLC (and McCauliffle's DNC) certainly didn't support Dean or Kerry in say December 2003 - 1 to 2 months before the Iowa caucus. Dean turned to the web and raised money; Kerry mortgaged his home to get enough money to continue his NH and Iowa campaigns - neither quick because they weren't the choice of the inside the beltway party leaders.

Dean lost, but he he lost by votes - not pulling out because he was told to. Kerry won the nomination. Hackett could have stayed in OR left because he saw Brown was winning. He then could have run for the house seat. From his reaction, I wonder if all the attention given him during the special election (where people here even suggested he was Presidential material) went to his head and he felt entitled to support.

[FreedomAngel82]

39. Exactly

I admire someone who stays in and keeps fighting not just giving up and going home just because someone else tells them to. How would he handle Specter, Sessions, Hatch and other republican bigwigs in the senate if he can't even stand up to Reid and Schumer??

[saracat]

15. Exactly how do you KNOW 'Why"Hackett bowed out?

He hasn't really said, other than he was leaned on but how hasn't really been indicated. There is a lot more to this than we know. I personally don't believe that Hackett bailed because of some "mild slings" by certain Dems. That is not his personality. Something happened here and they are not telling us. The little people can't be allowed to know. I wonder what they really did to Hackett. It can't have been pretty.

[rexcat]

25. Good point...

"That is not his personality. Something happened here and they are not telling us." I agree with you on this one but I don't think we will ever know!

[Adelante]

33. He certainly has said

He's said two things:

1-He wants his private life more than he wants to be in politics

2-He couldn't raise the money it would take to run the race

These are the reasons he has given.

[FreedomAngel82]

40. So why didn't he tell them "hell no"?

HE's the one who killed his career. HE'S the only one who has control over his own life. It's just like when other Christian's I know say "oh the devil made me do it!" nonsense. It's just an excuse.

[femrap]

46. Maybe Hackett pulling out of the race was in fact

HIS JOB. I still don't rule out the fact that he was a 'pug plant.' He probably got paid a ton of money to do that. Do you realize that THE BIGGEST PUG FUNDRAISERS IN THE US (next to Orange County in CA) are Hackett's neighbors? Mercer Reynolds and Carl Linder. Indian Hill raises more $ for the pugs than anywhere except Orange County....!

Maybe Hackett's job was to simply to 'divide and conquer' the dems....he has succeeded beyond his, Merc's and Banana Boy's wildest dreams!!!

Follow the $.....

[saracat]

51. Wow! Remarks like that are why we don't get and keep

great candidates.

[back2basics909]

10. THANK YOU!

The big story has never been Hackett, it's Democratic subversion of primaries.

[Armstead]

13. It should be more open -- But it's always going to be politics

I hate the dominance of the Beltway Strategists, the DLC and all of the otehr barriers that have ben erected to close off politics from new ideas and fresh candidates and the truth in policies and messages. It needs a more direct pipeline between the grassroots and the halls of power.

I also think we need more people like Hackett who talk like real people, and who are not in the straightjacket of "pollspeak" and timid soundbites.

BUT at the same time, Politics is politics. It's not a sporting event, it's not group therapy, it's not American Idol. It's not a Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney movie "Hey kids, let's put on a show." That may be great for local and state politics. But high office is not the place for Amateur Hour.

Ideally, in my view, there should be a collaboration between the "professional poiliticians" and the rest of us. That means the peopel who have dedicated themselves to public service and professional politics listen and respond and work with the concerns of the grass roots. We tell them what we want done, they provide the expertise and resources to do it.

The system should also be open to those in the grassroots who want to dedicate more time by becoming candidates, like Hackett. BUT, that doesn't mean that people who enter should be exempt from the same things that peope in any field have to contend with. You don't start at the top. You work your way up. You build a track record. You learn how the process operates in the real world. etc.

It's the difference betweemn a Howard Dean -- who was an insurgent in some ways but had proven himself as Governor, or Kucinich, who also has a track record in the house and otehr positions in Ohio.

I don't know if that explains it well, but that's how I see it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. Yes, I liked Hackett, but some of his fans get a little silly at times

I briefly saw a thread proposing a Clark/Hackett ticket for 2008.

Now that's going off the deep end with the adoration. (Is Hackett even old enough to run on that ticket, never mind his complete lack of political or other leadership experience?)

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Yes he is old enough

read the US Constitution, he is over 35 years old... and as to political experience, he does have soem... politics in the service ain't pretty.

What this tells me is that we don't know half of what really went on, nor we will ever know it... but they do try to discourage new voices all the time.

[Armstead]

19. Cult of personality politics -- Not a good thing

I'm susceptable to that myself. I'm a big fan of certain pols, like Bernie Sanders, Wellstone and Kucinich.

But I think most of their appeal is what they stand for. They are (were) fighters, but most are rather unassuming -- although extremely admirable -- as individuals. Their appeal is a mix of personal integrity and what they stand for.

I still don't know exactly what Hackett stands for. Just what he's against.

[LittleClarkie]

60. It's always amazing to me that the difference between

criticism and bashing can often be as simple as whether or not someone likes the person being criticized or bashed. It shouldn't be such a subjective thing.

[DrGonzoLives]

67. You must be new here

Then again, based on your post count, you're probably not.

[LittleClarkie]

68. Election 2004 was my first real campaign

I'm still something of a political newbie.

Still an idealistic pup in that way.

[rexcat]

26. If you think the Hackett supporters are a little silly...

try discussing the issues with the Brown supporters. Talk about silly!

[rexcat]

24. And what makes you think that DeWine is going to win the primary?

The repukes here in Ohio don't like DeWine and there is a concerted effort to un-seat him. If this happens Brown has little chance of becoming our next Senator. The repuke attack machine is happy to see Hackett leave the scene. They think Brown is extremely vulnerable as a "liberal" Democrat who is out of touch with the average Ohioan. I hope I am wrong but look at the history of Ohio politics in the past 12-16 years. By the way, the repukes were really afraid of Hackett.

[Armstead]

27. Life is always a gamble

One thing about Brown is that he is an unapologetic liberal and progressive on economic issues. He's the type that if they try to make an issue of that, Brown will say "Damn right I'm a liberal. Bring it on, becausae liberalism is going to fight to save your jobs and help you out when you need it."

If the voters of Ohio ultimately decide they'd rather be stupid and would rather protect themselves from gay marriage than from the loss of their own jobs,it won't matter who the Democrats were to nominate.

[rexcat]

28. Having lived down in SW Ohio I am not...

familiar with Brown as are a lot of my neighbors. The swing voters in this state (especially down here) are moderate to conservative and voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. If Brown can't bring the independent voters over to his side there is no chance in hell he will be our next Senator. Brown is not going to have problems with the liberal Democrats in the southern part of the state but we are few in number compared to the right-wing nuts we have down here.

[Armstead]

30. As I said, it's always a gamble

The Democratic Partyt faces a much more basic choice than personalities. That is, are we going to have a clear agenda and fight to restore liberal and progressive policies to correct the excerssive of right-wing Corporate CONservatism? Or are we going to deny that, and go for more diversionary political sideshows?

Whether Brown makes it to the Senate will ultimnately depend on whether those independent moderate voters in Ohio you mentioned have enough sense to recognize what's good for their own self interest and what's best for the country. If they want to put their fingers in their ears and say "Nyah,nyah,nyah I can't hear you 'cause you're a liberal" and vote for more of the GOP trsavesty, then they are beyond help.

If they would have only chosen to vote for a Democrat because "He went to Iraq and blowed stuff up" and "he won't take my guns away," then the Democrats' gamble on Brown will have been lost.

What we really need to do, IMO, is not to lose the core of liberalism, but to sell it in a way that moderates and conservatives actually relate to/

Despite its image, for example, Vermont has a lot of hardscrabble rednecks and conservative businessmen.

Bernie Sanders is as liberal as they get -- beyond liberal to being an avowed socialist. And yet, he takes the state with huge margins.

Why? because he has managed to make Vermonters realize that labels matter less than having a scrapper who is fighting for the working and middle class. So, many Vermonters say "I don't always agree with him, but Bernie's my guy because he's on my side on the things that matter."

[rexcat]

34. It was not just personality with Hackett...

I liked what he had to say and how he said it. I think Hackett does not get enough credit for some of his liberal ideas. On the other hand he was not one dimensional, his ideas ranged into the moderate end of the spectrum. If you listened to the sound bites you would think that he was conservative but when you listened to him explain his ideas they really were not conservative. He is very good at framing issues. I think that is why he did better than expected in the special election last August against Schmidt the bitch.

[Armstead]

50. Maybe not with you, but a lot of it seems to be

I liked Hackett, and I enjoyed hearing a politician calling out the GOP like that. I like his populist fire. I'd like to see him stay in politics.

However, Brown has been dealing consistently with these issues for a long time. He knows eactly why things like NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO are directly connected to the problems faced by average Amricans (and peope in the developing world). He makes the connection between Wal-Martism and the eonomic problems that hit peope in a much bigger way that the opportunity to buy things cheap.

He wrestled with the intricacies of foreign policy to fight the drive to the Iraq War.

IMO on balance, if a chance for a clear progressive to take on the Repiglicans with the depth to counter their claims arises like this, that's better than trying to placate the right wing.

Bottom line, IMO, is that clear economic liberalism and progressivism should not be something we should hide or misrepresent to placate the bonehead right.

Just my opinion.

[brentspeak]

29. You mean to say that Schumer and Brown didn't factor into the equation...

...any angry remarks that Hackett was likely to say after he was lied to and stabbed in the back? Brown's partisans are acting surprised by what Hackett has said?

If that's the case, then Schumer and Brown aren't nearly as smart as some people would make them out to be, and we're all screwed.

[Armstead]

31. It sounds like they were heavy handed

I won't defend that.

But misleading and stabbing peopel in the back goes on all the time in politics. It's the nature of the beast. That's why thick hides are needed. Sad but true.

Maybe they underestimated Hackett's volatility. I dunno. Maybe they thought he would put the interests of winning back the Senate over his own ambitions. I dunno.

[bvar22]

48. Agree. "Party Machine Politicians" would NEVER...

...expect someone to be honest and transparent.

[Totally Committed]

32. "Handled"?

There is no way to "handle" the truth. And, if Hackett has been anything at all, like him or not, it's been a truth-teller. Truth-tellers don't "handle" the truth, they just tell it like it is. I agree this has been a problematic situation, but the ones "handling" the truth wrong are the Democrats who started that whispering campaign and effectively cut off his ability to raise money.

TC

[Javaman]

36. Remember Hackett was a rupuke long before he was a Dem...

old habits die hard.

[FreedomAngel82]

42. Just wondering

I've heard this too but was wondering if there was a source for that in case I need to prove it to someone. Do you have one?

[Javaman]

47. Two links...

first

http://made4theinternet.blogspot.com/2006/02/paul-hackett-former-republican.html

second

Carl Forti, communications director for the National Republican Campaign Committee said it played no role.

"Hackett never criticized President Bush or the war in his campaign in the district – just when he talked to the national media.” In fact, Forti states that Hackett ran as a Republican and used positive images of President Bush in his final round of TV ads.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/03/politics/main713695.shtml

[saracat]

52. First link proves nothing and the other means he ran "like" a Repug.

Appareantly there is NO evidence he was ever a registered Repug. He was probably an independent ergo could ask for either ballot!

[Javaman]

54. Granted but the second link clearly states he ran AS a repuke...

You know what, does it really matter anymore?

[saracat]

57. It means as If he were. And it is an RNC spokesmen. .

He obviously ran as A Dem.

[Javaman]

61. You know what? I really don't care anymore, he's out, brown's in. nt

[Kukesa]

49. So was VolcanoJen and you'd vote for her, wouldn't you?

Yep, she had an epiphany and saw the light! (This happened when she was in college; she belonged to the Young Repukes (ha!) when she was in high school.)


:silly:

[bvar22]

53. So was Senator Clinton....

...your point is?

[FreedomAngel82]

37. Good post

And think of if lots of good democrats just took their ball and went home afterwards? What if Cynthia McKinney did after her run in with Diebold? Or John Kerry after he went up against Nixon and lost his Congressional first run? If Hackett wanted to change DC and help this country he should've run for the House too and gone with Reid and Schumer's advise from the polls. But all in all your post is great. :)

[mzmolly]

41. I remember Dean's story on how bitter he felt momentarilly.

He said Gore put him in check by saying "this isn't about Howard Dean, it's about America." I've heard initially PH was "bitter" but he later has said essentially "that's politics."

[FreedomAngel82]

43. Right

[HootieMcBoob]

45. I gotta agree with you

And, I was a big supporter of Hackett. A big disappointment.

[radio4progressives]

55. Why should he campaign for anyone?

Doesn't Brown have enough support, isn't he already wildly popular, isn't that what the polls show?

I think Hackett gave up 11 months of his life and more in service to his country - If Brown is a better candidate than Hackett, well then Hackett better not taint Brown's chances with his appearances or efforts.. it's likely to hurt Brown's campaign.

(Hackett is too outspoken, and doesn't know his place)

[Armstead]

56. Often I agree with you, but not on this one

I think the opportunity to see a real progressive with a track record is more important than hurt feelings and disappointment.

It's going to be a squeaker of a race. If Hackett's supporters -- espeially the progressives ones -- can't appreciate the stakes, then we'll just have to agree to disagree on it.

[Cocoa]

58. I think Hackett will campaign aggressively for Brown

I think the divisiveness over Hackett has as little to do with Hackett himself as the divisiveness over Clark had to do with Clark himself. In both cases, I think people were using the candidate for their own divisive ends.

[Free the Press]

59. If he does that, then he will be a winner, after all.

[Armstead]

62. I agree with that

And, referring to my original post, it would be honorable.

[okieinpain]

64. I can't blame the guy for being pissed. you ask him to run because

your little punk ass friend is too frighten. then when things start to look good, here comes the little punk wanting to put his 2 cents in the ring. In my opinion they should have told brown, sorry to late wait till next time.

dems suck.

[Snivi Yllom]

66. but when the direction is smearing candidates

there is no honor in business as usual

[Armstead]

69. Any smears should be investigated

I do think that if there was a real smear campaign against Hackett, it should be fully investigated to see who did it.

If any bigwigs are behind it, they should be ostracized. But it's also possible that it was some overzealous low-level staffer, or even a GOP put up job.

I don't think people should jump to conclusions befopre the facts are know though.