Isn't it interesting that we have to be SOLD Sherrod Brown...

[derby378]

...while Paul Hackett basically sold himself?

It's not just about issues - it's also about marketing, framing, and brand-name recognition.

Sherrod Brown may turn out to be a great Senator. But Paul Hackett had the vibe. And now he's been forced out.

[Norquist Nemesis]

1. What concerns me is the short-sightedness of the Party

They should have let the voters decide the primary, then put all of their guns, God, and gold behind the candidate...whoever that would have been. THAT would have been the most prudent way to run the campaign, not to mention managing their money. They chose instead to blow their wad on a primary.

[mattclearing]

5. I think they wanted both Brown AND Hackett.

But Hackett wouldn't back down from the Senate race to the House seat. Too bad.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. Yes, lets waste time and resources against ourselves, even though

one of our candidates stands no chance for victory and our ultimate opponent, whom is an incumbent in a GOP-leaning state, gets to walk through to September nearly unscathed amassing his already larger warchest. Fucking brilliant plan. How shortsighted we are to not want to do that. :eyes:

[Norquist Nemesis]

22. Well, in a "GOP-leaning state", who has the better chance

of winning...a Progressive Democrat or a Conservative Democrat? Bottom line is that Democrat is what both have in common. They should have let the Democratic voters decide then back the winner.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. LOL...

I'm not laughing at you at all on this one. I just find it funny that usually I'm the person who has to hammer it home to people that "true" liberals can't win in places like Nebraska and here I am being told that same thing.

The problem is Brown's victory was a foregone conclusion. There is no point in wasting resources only to find out exactly what we already know.

[RubyDuby in GA]

13. It's not just this race, but it seems every big national race lately...

Case in point: what fool in their right mind lets 10 candidates - 10 CANDIDATES!!!!!! - run for president. I guess the term 'free for all' never occurred to McAuliffe?!?!?!

And now, who left Reid in charge as Lord of the Senate? He can't put together a freaking filibuster, so what makes anyone think he can win the senate back?

Why do the damn establishment Dems have to fight Dean so hard on everything. I think this party is in much more capable hands with Dean than any of those sniveling assholes in the Senate.

[Skidmore]

17. This is a foreshadowing of the 08 election cycle

where we will be spoonfed our presidential candidate as well.

We need to stand up and make the party the people's again.

[lyonn]

24. Enough said Skidmore, thanks!

"Spoonfed"

[Atman]

2. I thought I read that Hackett was down several points in the polls

How is that "selling himself?" If that is true, it doesn't sound like a very good sales job. I think the Democratic Party is hoping for something a little bit more sure-thing, and it also wants Hackett in the Senate, where he can trounce Schmidt. Pretty fundamental strategizing, trying to maximize the seats gained in 2006.

[derby378]

6. I think he was down in the polls because "The Boys" wouldn't support him

At least, judging from Reid and Schumer, that's my take...

[wakeme2008]

9. In the BROWN PAID FOR POLLS

:grr:

[Guaranteed]

20. That's what self-proclaimed friends of Brown have been saying

around here.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Yes, it is interesting, because it speaks to the immense ignorance.

Sherrod Brown is an incredible candidate and a fantastic DEMOCRAT. He is one of the "true liberals" that so many people here have been dying to find, and yet the ignorance of this fact absolutely astounds me.

I weep for DU sometimes.

[wakeme2008]

10. And a true Flip Flopper

on the Senate run :grr:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. LOL, Good one Bush.

Yeah, that line was a doozy when Bush used it. Let's use it ourselves against our own people. Great fucking idea.

[liberal N proud]

4. I would say that. But then I live in Sherrods district.

I never heard once what Paul Hackett stood for. I know Sherrods record in the House.
I know that Sherrod worked hard to prevent bu$h from stealing Social Security

All I know about Hackett is that he was an Iraq war veteran.
Sorry, I can't buy that.

[dogday]

8. Here is some info on Paul Hackett

http://www.hackettforcongress.com/


You will find he stands with us on most issues, even supporting filibuster of Alito....

[LeftNYC]

12. From reading these posts, it seems to me that people who

can actually vote for Hackett i.e.Ohioans, have a different opinion, or no opinion of Hackett then the people outside the state who fell in love with him.

I am just going by DU reaction and what I've read so far. I just hope Brown can beat DeWine. If Mr. Ed were running, I would want him to dump DeWine...

[Armstead]

11. George Bush "had the vibe" too

George Bush got a lot of his support largely because he is a blunt talking alpha male.

The vibe is important, but we also gotta look at substance. And the substance of Brown's stance is much tougher than Hackett's fast tongue and war experience.

[jbonkowski]

14. Maybe he had the "vibe" here at DU...

But in Ohio, you know, where the voters are, Hackett was behind Brown by 20 points in the polls and way behind in financing. He was likely going to lose in the primary to Brown.

Unfortunately, Hackett said he wasn't going to run against Jean Schmidt again. He wants to keep his word, so he's out of this election.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if he has become disillusioned with the process for raising money for elections. I think there are a lot of intelligent people who would run for something if they didn't have to put up with raising money.

jim

[bigtree]

15. I think he's popular in Ohio

Paul is less known there, where, after all, the votes will come from.

[KharmaTrain]

18. Hackett Is An Internet Myth

I don't say this to flame, but to put things in a different perspective. For many out here, he was the first person we could "strike back" with following the 2004 elections. He said a lot of things many out here wanted to hear and the more he said it, the more they hit the Paypal button. For many, I suspect, this was the first time they become involved with a campaign...and the fact he came so close made the myth grow deeper.

People here are putting emotions and symbols ahead of a little due dilligence. This Hackett/Brown confrontation was coming to a head for a while and better it's sorted out this way than in a heated and even more divisive primary battle...all resources are needed to beat DeWine...and now find someone who will go after Witch Schmidt in OH-2.

I wish Mr. Hackett well and hope he reconsiders in the 2nd. However, the polls and the dollar figures were showing something different story than some here were led to believe.

I'd love to see a Progressive wave overtake this country...however one step at a time. The game here is to put the best people in position to challenge this regime as possible. Time to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

[xchrom]

21. the point is who decides who the best person to run is.

we all want the ''best'' person to run.

[KharmaTrain]

23. The District Knows

I see a bit of irony in this Brown/Hackett situation as it's the opposite of what's occured in Illinois' 6th District where Tammy Duckworth has been pushed ahead of Christine Cegalis....Duckworth is an Iraqi war vet, but Cegalis came close in the last election and already had an organization in place as well as solid Progressive credentials.

The problem with sitting hundreds or thousands of miles away from a district or state is that there are a lot of variables that go into running a successful campaign and many times it's the little things that make the biggest difference. That requires knowing the people, the issues and connecting with the two. It might not be in the way you or I would see it, but then we're seeing it from our own perspectives and it's easy to arm-chair quarterback on what's to be done. It's another thing to get out in the trenches and do it. Thus I admire those who do take the time and make the sacrafice to run for office and especially for those who do the "grunt" work. This is what will make the difference and we can ensure the "best" people not just run but win.

[lyonn]

26. Question, how did Hackett do as well as he did against

a repub. in a heavy republican district? It was even a national news event during election night. I don't know anything about Brown except some comments here that indicated he was "milk toast." Not that he wasn't a good Dem., only that he may not be able to defeat a repub. since he hadn't been that impressive in his previous elections.

If the polls are correct and that Hackett was way behind Brown, fine, but, if this is some bs poll and hype I have to wonder. I don't trust Washington. Two, 4 and 6 more years of Repub. rule is frightening. Brown, Hackett, hell, I don't care just so they are not repubs! Let's not run off legitimate candidates tho.

[KharmaTrain]

27. Close Don't Count

There were at least 100 other Democrats who came "close" in 2004...and a dozen who came close if not closer than Hackett.

Hackett also got a lot of outside support and turned what was a boring local race into a national mandate. He was fortunate to be the only race and gained a lot of publicity and money that way. However, after the election instead of leaving a campaign operation in place (as I had posted at the time that I hope he would) he closed shop and whatever organization he had working for him that almost pulled off a big upset are no longer working for him. Schmidt eventually won with a better local GOTV operation...something the netroots can't build or buy overnight.

Polls are a snapshot of what was, not of what is. It is best used to show you where you've been and how close you are to being on track which, if you have a solid game plan, is then adjusted...not the other way around. The Ohio polling hasn't been a secret. Mydd has been tracking this race for months and, while they were some of Hackett's biggest supporters (the VoteBlue movement came out of that), you're not seeing the outrage like you're seeing here. They know something that those who are caught up with the emotion on here seem not to be grasping.

Peace...

[lyonn]

30. You mentioned those caught up in the emotion on here

and you are so right. Many of us get emotional when we feel that the powerful in Washington are telling us what is right and who is wrong. We get emotional when we consider years more of republican control. We Dems are losing year after year. What is wrong with this picture? Someone or some organization is running us into the ground with their superior views.

We need more info as to what really happened. When a candidate knows that the political pacs/power base are running the show and that they have been told they are wasting their time and money when all that time and money should be spent on a "winning" candidate, you know as a candidate that you are swimming upstream. So, you quit. Just guessing of course.

[Adelante]

31. I've read that Hackett's OH-02 operation

was Brown's own organization lent to Hackett for that race. If this is the case, then Hackett couldn't have kept that operation in place, because those people work for Brown.

[MercutioATC]

28. And you've gleaned that insight from two states away?

I live in Ohio. Hackett was NOT an "internet myth".

However, your "money issue" is. Hackett, a rookie candidate, had raised almost as much money as Brown (a career politician). The reason Brown had more money on hand was his was chest.

Talk about "due diligence"...

:eyes:

[KharmaTrain]

29. Without The Internet Where Would Hackett Be?

Had he relied strictly on the fine folks and the existing Democratic Party in the district, do you think Hackett would have gotten 40% of the vote? Without the people who came in from two, three, ten states away and worked phones and raised money for him...do you think he would have come as close? It was the internet that build up the name of Paul Hackett and that he was the panacea for a lot of the frustrations many of us had following the 2004 elections. He came out against the war...which was something many of us hoped Kerry had the stones to do and didn't...but that wasn't what mattered the most in the 2nd district...it was organization and the Schmidt had it. Hackett had the full attention of activists and money from all over the country...he didn't have the same luxuary in this primary and it was showing. He didn't keep his netroots and organization in place following the election, thus he was back to where he started before all the internet attention came his way.

Somehow I don't see being a "carrer politician" as being such a bad thing...especially when that person is of the calibre of a Brown. Now if this had been Dennis Kucinch...who has a similar record and is a "career politician" like Brown, do you think there'd be the same outrage right now? I don't think so. It's all emotions and that was my point.

Again, I wish Hackett had decided to go for the 2nd...really get involved in the district...win the election, gain the experience and then use the many good ideas he has with that experience to make a difference.

Also, the reason Brown had more money on hand is he's established himself with many Democrats who have rewarded him for his Progressive and Liberal voting records. He's grown that "war chest" from years of working inside the system and persevering. He's also earned it from earning the trust and votes of people from his district and surely will do the same in others.

I still don't see the purpose of wasting both energy and resources in what was turning out to be a bitter primary battle that would be best used to beat DeWine and Schmidt.

BTW...now you wouldn't have an opinion about the Liebermann/Lemont race now would you?

Peace...

:hi:

[Burried News]

19. Nothing bothers both parties more than antiwar vets.