Off Topic. Restrain me Kerrycrats! I am so disgusted and

[saracat]

horrified at what the DSCC has done I am going to have to tape my mouth and sit on my hands. I want to know what they threatened Paul Hackett with. This is awful. And It wasn't money or support. I looked at those financials. Brown and Hackett were neck and neck. And if it were really about Congress, Brown would have kept his promise and kept his house seat and NOT run for the Senate. The people of Ohio were completely disgarded in this decision. I am so saddened and angery that this has happened, and it isn't even my state! But I followed this campaign as a sign of hope, and now. My husband is announcing his candidacy today but is now dispirited.How can this be defended? I was told by my state party that they don't want "real ' candidates" because we can't win anyway. I didn't want to believe the national party thought that way as well but apparently so. Damn. Any thoughts?

Cincinnati, OH - Paul Hackett released the following statement today to his friends and supporters regarding his withdrawal from the campaign for U.S. Senate in Ohio.

Today I am announcing that I am withdrawing from the race for United States Senate. I made this decision reluctantly, only after repeated requests by party leaders, as well as behind the scenes machinations, that were intended to hurt my campaign.

But there was no quid pro quo. I will not be running in the Second Congressional District nor for any other elective office. This decision is final, and not subject to reconsideration.

I told the voters from the beginning that I am not a career politician and never aspired to be--that I was about leadership, service and commitment.

Similarly, I told party officials that I had given my word to other good Democrats, who will take the fight to the Second District, that I would not run. In reliance on my word they entered the race. I said it. I meant it. I stand by it. At the end of the day, my word is my bond and I will take it to my grave.

Thus ends my 11 month political career. Although it is an overused political clichй, I really will be spending more time with my family, something I wasn't able to do because my service to country in the political realm continued after my return from Iraq. Perhaps my wonderful wife Suzi said it best after we made this decision when she said "Honey, welcome home." I really did marry up.

To my friends and supporters, I pledge that I will continue to fight and to speak out on the issues I believe in. As long as I have the microphone, I will serve as your voice.

It is with my deepest respect and humility that I thank each and every one of you for the support you extended to our campaign to take back America, and personally to me and my family. Together we made a difference. We changed the debate on the Iraq War, we inspired countless veterans to continue their service by running for office as Democrats and we made people believe again. We must continue to believe.

Remember, we must retool our party. We must do more than simply aspire to deliver greatness; we must have the commitment and will to fight for what is great about our party and our country; Peace, prosperity and the freedoms that define our democracy.

Rock on.

Paul Hackett

[TayTay]

1. Oh dear. Ahm, I was not upset by this.

I thought that Paul Hackett was not a great candidate and I was hoping he would withdraw. National Dems frequently advise candidates on what their chances are and whether or not they should drop out. I thought Schumer and Reid did the right thing here.

Ahm, I gave Hackett money last year and again this Jan. But I looked deeply at him as a candidate and looked at Brown and told my husband I would not give Hackett any more money because I didn't think he was ready for prime time and would be a loss for the Dems.

I also think he could have blowed out gracefully instead of putting up such a fuss and taken on Mean Jean for that House seat. I had a Congressional candidate in Mass who ran 3 times before he got his seat and had a take-away from the Rethugs. I thought Hackett should have run for the House seat. It would have seasoned him for a run for the Senate when Voinovich comes up.

Sorry Saracet, I'm not with you on this one. I like Hackett, but I can see where he was not a good candidate. I am not sorry he bowed out. BTW, He could still run, he would just have to do so without backing.

[Mass]

2. Honestly I am split on this/

Clearly, it is too bad that Schumer and Reid put their hands in this. They should have let the primary go. Hopefully, it would have not become too dirty and the winner would have been known throughout the state.

This said, from what I know from Brown and Hackett, and though I dont know Ohio, I prefer Brown and did not like Hackett's sense of entitlement. As far as I understand, Hackett was largely beaten in statewide polls for the primary.

This said, Brown is a REAL candidate who has a chance to win and a LONGLIFE Democrat with a PROGESSIVE record. Why should he have not run? Hackett should have insisted for a primary if it is what he wanted.

[rockymountaindem]

3. I see it as a confluence of unfortunate events

Here's what I think happened...

First, Hackett ran in a special election, during a time when his race was the only House campaign in the country. That allowed him to garner a lot of attention nationwide, and when he nearly won in a heavily Republican district, people thought he could win statewide.

Simultaneously, Brown couldn't make up his mind about a Senate run. Finally he said no, and Hackett jumped in with a lot of supporters like you and me thinking that he couldn't possibly lose against a chump like DeWine. After that, the party started doing internal polls showing that Hackett wasn't so hot as everyone thought that he would be, so Brown gets in the race for some insurance.

Then the polls started showing that Brown was running away with the primary (which they did, see them posted in GD) and Hackett probably wasn't going to make it out of the primary. This meant that what we would have on our hands is a fight between two good Democrats, damaging both of them and consuming a lot of resources ($$$). At this point, two things happened:

The DSCC started asking Hackett's donors if they wouldn't prefer contributing to the candidate that would most likely win the primary (Brown). Hackett interpreted this as sabotage. Secondly, Emmanuel and the DCCC were still pressuring him to run again in OH-2, which is a race he could probably do better in the second time around. By the party's reasoning, we could avoid a destructive primary that was already a foregone conclusion, and get both Hackett and Brown seats in D.C. Hackett, however, interpreted this as yet more pressure *against* his Senate run instead of encouragement *for* a Congressional run.

Unfortunately, Hackett had put all his eggs in one basket by promising other Dems (who probably don't have as good a shot as he does) that he wouldn't run again in OH-2. This was Hackett's biggest mistake. He shouldn't have limited his options like that.

So, what was originally a good strategy by the party leadership to save resources and get a Democratic party two-fer backfired when Hackett decided he was being "pressured" and decided to quit entirely. If he wasn't willing to put up with a little party decisionmaking and pressure to be a team player, I don't know where he thought his political career was going to go.

Any way you cut it, it's a shame. However, I think what I just said makes a lot more sense than "those evil Beltway Dems are driving progressives out of the party", because Brown is quite the progressive. That line just doesn't fly with me. And if Hackett is such a super candidate, why was he trailing in the polls by 30 points? There's a real disconnect between the "Big Bad Reid/Schumer/Emmanuel" argument and the facts.

[TayTay]

4. This is an excellent analysis.

I think this is just how it went down. Very well put.

[whometense]

6. Very clear analysis.

I admit, I was not a big Hackett fan for this particular race. I also gave him money last year in the special election race, but honestly have not been that impressed with him when I've heard him interviewed.

He's struck me as well as "not ready for prime time" - and by that I mean as something of a hothead (an impression which his reaction today has reinforced) and as someone who doesn't consider fully the impact of his words before he says them.

I'm very disappointed he won't take on "Mean Jean" - I don't know the area, but she can't have done herself a lot of good with her maiden floor speech calling Murtha a coward. Maybe he could take her down.

[sandnsea]

12. Sounds right to me

And a Congressional seat isn't exactly chopped liver. How many Ohio Dems would be ecstatic to have the DCCC ready to step up to the plate and back their run?

The only thing I worry about, like I always do, is the "liberal label". They couldn't run that on Hackett as easily as they can Brown. I'd have been interested to see a race in a state like Ohio and see how that played out. Guess we'll have to look somewhere else for that now.

[ProSense]

5. If it's a popularity contest,

popular progressive gets my support over popular centrist. Hackett shouldn't have bowed to the pressure. Dean didn't bow to pressure in going after the DNC chair. Stand and fight (or run for Congress). What's with Hackett promising others he wouldn't run? Who are these others? Will they win? Does Hackett have a better chance to win than they do? If he's one of the strongest candidates in the state, he should go for it.

[TayTay]

7. I am also miffed at Hackett

for not endorsing Brown. I did not think Hackett came off well in this. I just don't.

[Mass]

8. I dont think he has been managing that well at all - He could have

come out as the good guy who does things for the good of his state and leverage some good will for some future race.

[WildEyedLiberal]

10. I agree with everyone here

Also, Hackett had some nasty views - read his comments on immigration sometime. He sounds like one of those Minuteman nutjobs. I know that a lot of Democrats in Ohio who had been energized by his campaign lost a lot of their respect for him after they heard his mostly center-right views in speeches he gave. I think Hackett managed to capture lightning in a bottle - largely because it was a special election and had the entirety of the nation's political focus - but it wasn't something he could sustain. He is quite conservative, and the best place for him would be in OH-2, a conservative House district. I'd MUCH rather have a strong pro-labor liberal Democrat like Brown in the Senate making policy. Basically, Hackett achieved cult status for calling Bush an SOB, which is always a bad reason to anoint a candidate.

I didn't know Hackett declined to endorse Brown. That's very juvenile and unproductive. This whole debacle has made me think less of him on the whole.

[sandnsea]

9. I'm disappointed

I don't know what happened. I don't have a problem with a primary based on principles, as long as it isn't one candidate running a Dem bash fest. I don't think Brown has a right to run on some sort of "paying your dues" concept either. It's too critical for that. At the same time, I think the "he said he wouldn't run" whine is a bit weak, as is stomping his feet and refusing to run for anything at all. If 3 people are considering the Congressional seat run, well then what the hell difference is one more. None. I would have liked to see them resolve this without the backstabbing or tempers.

Let me just say I expected a much more mature process at the highest levels of politics in this country. I imagine Paul Hackett is as shocked as anybody at how junior high it all really is, although like I said, he's acting a bit junior high himself. As I have on occasion. Isn't it stunning that the very lives of so many in the world really are dependent on people just as flawed as you and I?? Freaky scary.

I don't know Saracat, really don't. Do keep us informed on your husband's race though, and let us know how to help. I'll do whatever I can to try to get some good people into the process.

[TayTay]

11. I wish your husband well too Saracet

I just disagree on Paul Hackett. I think he made some big mistakes and I would prefer Brown in that Senate seat. But Hackett could have chosen differently and I would have made contributions to another House run, as would many other people.

[wisteria]

13. I too, agree with the majority here. I always thought he came

across as too angry and arrogant. I remember him saying that if he didn't make it to the Senate this time he was out of politics. That rubbed me the wrong way. In politics you have to pay your dues and sometimes you have to yield to party. You will not go anywhere without party support. It may well just be that he was hard to get along with and wasn't a team player. He had one idea how things should be run and the party had another and Hackett didn't want to compromise.His very statements indicate that he did not want to be part of the team unless the team saw it his way.

[Mass]

14. kos and Hackett - what an hypocrit.

I could not agree more with Eric at http://toughenough.org for this title:

http://toughenough.org/2006/02/kos-is-whore.html

Kos is a whore

This is a sad story but the oddest thing about it is that if you read Dailykos at all last year, it was a Hackett love fest and suddenly, the guy announces he's running for Senate in Ohio and low and behold, Kos is pumping up the candidacy of Sherod Brown. And now that Hackett has dropped out, what does Kos have to say?

To be clear -- Hackett didn't stand a chance. He had a tenth of Brown's money, and that was before party people allegedly tried to stop Hackett's donors from giving.

I see, a candidate with no money, like...say...Dean...isn't worthy of support. And why did Kos switch his support to Brown anyway?

I know Kos has an astounding number of readers - mostly people who get off at the sight of their byline, however briefly, appearing on the right hand side of the site when they post a journal entry. But if you think what you're reading on the front page from Kos and his ilk is well-informed and accurate you're wrong. Kos is often wrong and, even worse, hypocritical. Remember, this is the guy who trashed Kerry and pumped up Dean and his chances in Iowa right up until Dean finished a distant third and the whole lie came crashing down. Take what he says with a grain of salt and then some.

After I read the post, I went to dailykos to see what their last take on the issue is. Imagine my surprise when I saw that kos was now trying to push the story at his advantage by claiming to his advantage the force of the netroots.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/14/135136/871

Bowers takes a reasoned look at why so many people are furious at the Hackett withdrawal. If nothing else, perhaps it will send notice to the establishment that we're not ideologically hard-left. Otherwise, Brown would've been the consensus choice being more liberal than Hackett. Probably not, but whatever. As it was, while views on the best candidate might've been split, there's no doubt that Brown's support was very passive compared to Hackett's rabid supporters. More evidence for my theory that ideology isn't what really motivates netroot activists into action. It's things like straight-talking, partisanship, and fearlessness.

[WildEyedLiberal]

15. LOL

Best url ever: kos-is-whore.html

:rofl:

[ProSense]

16. Gary Hart weighs in

Gary Hart: Pressuring Paul Hackett To Abandon Campaign is Old Politics at its Worst Gary Hart
Tue Feb 14, 10:50 AM ET

Based on news reports alone and knowing nothing (thank goodness) about behind-the-scenes politics, the pressure brought on Paul Hackett, the bold Iraqi veteran, to abandon his campaign for the U.S. Senate from Ohio is deplorable.

This is simply old politics at its worst. There is a party which hand-picks its candidates, decides who can and cannot run, directs money to the favorite candidate, and dictate terms. Up till now, that party has been the Republican party.

Now, it seems, my Democratic party is once again imitating the Republican party in a desperate effort to regain power. With the McGovern democratic reforms in the early 1970s, political bosses were diminished and grassroots voters were elevated. The theme was, Let the people decide.

Telling Paul Hackett that he cannot run for the Senate, and purportedly calling contributers to dry up his funds, is the worse kind of old politics. It will drive voters away from the supposedly "open" party, the Democrats, and further add to public cynicism about how politics in America is played in the early 21st century.

Shame on us.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060214/cm_huffpost/015637

[saracat]

17. Thank you everyone for your thoughts. You have definately given me

some food for thought! I am glad I sat on my hands and vented here! But I still say the people should have decided, and in many instances, I can name several in Arizona, the party picked candidate has lost, and in Democratic Districts. They do not necessarily favor the best candidate.They have other reasons for selection and sometimes it is not only about "winning". Ah , well. We must perservere.

[wisteria]

18. Normally, I would agree with you, I am hoping that Hackett and to

some degree Casey in Pa are not going to become the norm.I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt in 2006, but I will be extremely disappointed if it continues this way. I am really beginning not to like Schumer at all. He has raised a lot of money for the Senate Democrats and apparently Reid, along with Schumer, feels that gives him the right to dictate along with Reid, the direction of the party and it's candidates.I am also beginning to think he is responsible in some ways for controlling how we are defining our message as a party.

[whometense]

19. Best of luck to your husband in his campaign.

I'm glad you posted your feelings today, because I've been thinking about this all day - and I see I'm not alone. You gave us a chance to discuss a very hot issue.

I was just listening to Ed Schultz in the car, and he is not happy about the way Hackett was treated in this case. I have to say a lot of what he was saying made sense - if you want to open up the party you can't throw away the brave souls who accept the invitation! On the other hand, I know so little about the mechanics of party politics that it's hard to grasp what really happened.

Here's what I think, and you more experienced people can step in and tell me where I go wrong.

I still stand by what I said before about not liking Hackett as a senate candidate - he's just too raw, too unpolished for my taste. But then again, why shouldn't he just be allowed to get beaten in a primary? Or win, of course, if that's what the people want. That's why primaries exist. But then, this is such a critical election, and I'm sure Schumer and Reid are desperate for a win in a place where one seems so possible. And they see Brown as the candidate most likely to get them there. Their tactics seem heavyhanded, but then again Hackett strikes me as over-the-top, so I'm not sure I totally buy into his complaints.

Now I've exposed my ignorance - and you can tell why I dont weigh in on this stuff more often. We're all so suspicious of each others' motives these days - another thank you to the Bush administration for upping the cynicism and distrust to stratospheric levels.

As a sort of aside, I do think if Hackett intends to pursue a political career he needs to learn to think before speaking and to get a thicker skin. He's got lot of people riled up, but in the end I'm not convinced he's done himself any big favors today.

[rox63]

20. A loss in the primary might have been good experience for Hackett

Hackett might have gained some valuable experience if he had been allowed to run in the primary, even if he lost. Although I prefer Brown's stands on the issues, the choice should have been left to the voters. And a fair-and-square loss might have done wonders for Hackett's political smarts. I'm convinced that JK's early political loss in 1972 made him a better politician when ran for office again later.

[ProSense]

21. That's why

Hackett should have stayed in the race, but I don't believe he's all that committed.

[TayTay]

22. You are not showing any ignorance

This is a very difficult topic. This is also one of the reasons 'why people hate politics.' (As an aside, I brought this up last August, cuz the writing was on the wall for this. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=38228&mesg_id=38228 Seriously, you could see this sort of thing coming down the pike for '06.)

This is hardball politics with a vengeance. Everyone wants the Democrats to 'get tough' and go out and pound the living crap out of the Rethugs. Okay, be careful what you wish for because that means people will get hurt and hurt badly. Sen. Kerry last year stated that his number one goal as a Senator this cycle was to prevent the Democrats from losing any more seats in the Senate. That was his number one goal. It's why he has been fund-raising for Casey in PA and Byrd in VA and so forth. The Democrats, for the sake of the country and the Party, must not fall below the numbers they have now.

So, what do you do to make sure that happens. Well, it will not be pretty. All the stuff I brought up last year has sort of come about. The Dems, under Schumer who breathes this stuff all day long I'm convinced, has 'gotten tough' and decided not to leave certain races to chance. The grassroots, which spends half it's time calling the DC Dems spineless is now very angry because it turns out they are not spineless and have made some unilateral and controversial moves. So, what does the grassroots want: open and free primaries where candidates can bash each other's brains in and possible weaken the eventual winner to the point where they can't recover in time for the general election or some back room maneuvers that might ensure a Dem victory and a much better and more Democratic Senate (and House.)

That is still an open question. And yes, you are not alone. Again, this is why people hate politics. These are very hard choices and challenge people at a fundamental level. So, what do you believe? What beliefs sustain you in the buffeting storms?

[jillan]

23. I am disgusted about this as well.

It's not about whether you like Hackett or not.

This is suppose to be a democracy, and if someone wants
to run for public office, they should be able to do it regardless.
It is not up to Schumer or Reid to put pressure on anyone.

Look at Nader. How many times do you think he was asked to
quit because he would take votes away from Kerry.

Personally, I think it would be a breath of fresh air to have someone
that is raw in the senate. I am sick of all of the bs that goes on in there.
It is all so predictable. Every vote, every speech, you know exactly what the
message is going to be depending upon who is at the podium. It would have been a welcomed change to have someone there that doesn't play the game. And to have someone who just might tell the truth about Iraq. Paul has some fire in his belly, and the dems need that. Other than Kennedy, Boxer and Kerry you don't really see much of that. It's all about playing the political game.

I think those of us that are on the left are fed up enough that we are ready for someone to come in and speak their mind, not because of party loyalty, but because it needs to be said. Example of that is Murtha. We need more Murtha's.

I haven't stopped thinking about this all day.
:grr:

[sandnsea]

25. It's the DSCC's job

It really is their job to figure out how to fund and win all the senate seats in the country. Brown has a bundle of money, if he doesn't have to use it in the primary, that's one less race the DSCC has to worry about money for in November. They weren't trying to silence Paul Hackett. He could run for the House, and still pull alot of interest in Ohio to the Democratic Party. I don't think Chuck Schumer understands what is needed to win in states like Ohio either, but I also don't think he was doing anything but trying to set up all our candidates to win in November.

[jillan]

24. Saracat -

http://www.hackettforohio.com/page/st/contact
:hi: