I don't mean to rant about Paul Hackett, but...

[derby378]

Here we are, right at the beginning of primary season, and an Iraq veteran turned Democratic candidate has been forced out of the running to replace Mike DeWine in the US Senate. He's bitter, and so are a lot of Democrats in Ohio and across America, especially since political maneuvering behind the scenes resulted in his poll numbers dropping to the point that when Harry Reid and Charles Schumer held a "come to Jesus" meeting with him, that was the last straw.

So Hackett is out, and Sherrod Brown is in, complete with an endorsement from PDA. And Daily Kos is threatening to implode over Markos' own statements on the whole matter. And a lot of folks on DU (including me) are mad at the DLC, with whom Schumer works very closely although he is not a member. And why shouldn't we be? Al From torpedoed Howard Dean's 2004 bid because Dean wouldn't kiss From's ring. Then the DLC started attacking Michael Moore. And it's left us wondering who's really calling the shots in 2006.

Here in Texas, we've got this woman named Barbara Ann Radnofsky who's challenging Kay Bailey Hutchison for her Senate seat. As far back as June of last year, she managed to get volunteers to show up at political events like DemocracyFest down in Austin, raising funds and handing out bumper stickers. I've only seen her once, myself, at a DSCC fundraiser in Dallas last autumn. She's been too busy wearing the leather off of her shoes running around Texas, drumming up support and inspiring more volunteers. So where are her challengers? Good question. Two Democrats, Darrel Reece Hunter and Gene Kelly, are challenging her in the primaries. But I haven't seen or heard from either of them, and Kelly doesn't even have a website last time I checked. So, in Radnofsky's case, her victory in the Texas primaries next month is all but assured. The reason is simple - she got out there or sent out volunteers in her place to tell people about who Barbara Ann is, what she stands for, what she can offer Texas, and how to rewrite that Beach Boys song into a campaign ditty.

And as you know, Texas is a huge state. And unbelievably hot in the summer. It ain't the same as campaigning in Rhode Island.

So what does all this have to do with Paul Hackett's campaign up in Ohio? Everything. Down here in Texas, we still have a choice. If we like what Barbara Ann Radnofsky has to say, we'll vote for her. If not, we'll vote for Darrel Reece Hunter or Gene Kelly. Until last night, Ohio Democrats also had a choice. "Do we vote for Sherrod Brown or Paul Hackett?" "Well, shucky-darn, I have to think about that. Maybe I should read up on what both of them stand for." "Says here that Hackett is against the ban on assault weapons, but I like what Brown says about Social Security." As long as Ohio Democrats were talking about the upcoming race, all was well.

And besides, who do you think is challenging Kay Bailey Hutchison in the Texas Republican primary? Not a soul. Even with Hutchison's disdain for the military, not one Texas Republican will rise up to challenge her. So the rank-and-file Texas GOP voter is stuck with her. And as far as he's concerned, that might be just fine and dandy with him.

But not Democrats. We're supposed to be the party of the big tent and even bigger ideas. We don't march in lock-step and obey our party leaders without question. Hell, we're proud of our "herding cats" reputation most of the time. When I showed up at the precinct convention in 2004, the convention chair just assumed that everyone was going to caucus for John Kerry. But I opened my mouth and said, "I'm caucusing for Dean." And I don't regret it one bit.

I thought it was great for Cindy Sheehan to consider a run against Dianne Feinstein for her Senate seat. I'm not happy that Barbara Boxer helped talk her out of running, but Boxer's a good woman and I think she meant well, and Sheehan's decision to drop out may be for the best. But it still took a choice away from California Democratic voters. I've always felt that "stirring the pot" helps keep the political mix fresh.

So what effect will Hackett's departure have on other Iraq vets running for office in 2006? I can't answer that. And was it wise for him to just drop out of politics altogether this season? I can't answer that one, either.

But as someone else on DU has pointed out, politics is about survival. And you can't survive if you're stabbed in the back and left to bleed to death. Just ask Howard Dean. At least he got the Chair of the DNC as a consolation prize. But how many times do you think he asked himself, "How would I have handled the response to Katrina if I was the one in the White House? I didn't suck that bad when I was governor of Vermont. Maybe I could have made a difference on the Gulf Coast."

In politics, there are three types of people: those that make things happen, those that let things happen, and those who ask "what happened?" Dean and Hackett were Democratic candidates who knew how to make things happen. In contrast, Clarence Thomas is someone who lets things happen, and George W. Bush often lapses into "What happened" mode. And Sherrod Brown? In the eyes of many Americans, he remains an unknown quantity. We'll be watching his campaign very carefully to see if his unopposed run against DeWine is worth the price we paid.

This is supposed to be our party, our candidates, our decision. And that's how I intend to treat the primaries and the November elections.

Because we have a nation to take back. And a pitiful excuse of a President to impeach.

Thank you, and good night.

[Algorem]

1. He quit.

[derby378]

2. He was "fired."

When party operatives pressure your donors not to send you any more money, that's not what I would call quitting.

[Algorem]

3. He quit.

[derby378]

4. You can say that if you want...

But Al Gore "quit," too, back in 2000. And boy, is our nation having big fun now.

Gore won in 2000, by the way.

[Algorem]

12. He quit becauseas he just told Ed Schultz, "it was the right thing to do."

[lonestarnot]

7. Sabotaged

[Catrina]

73. Funny how all those who are opposed to Hackett are using the same

smear words used by rightwingers when they attempt to attack Democratic veterans.

These are a few I've seen on DU of all places since this whole dabacle began:

He 'quit' which is meant to portray him as a 'quitter'.
He 'cut and ran' ~ well we all know where we first heard that rightwing talking point used against another Democratic veteran.

So, are Democrats joining the right now in their attacks on veterans who dare to run for office? I wonder what all the other veterans (about 56, now 55 the last I heard) are thinking, watching these attacks by supposed progressives, (supposedly the good guys) on a fellow veteran who has never given anyone any reason to use such smears against him.

I would have been interested in a reasonable argument as to why Brown might be a better choice, (although I would still object to the tactics used). But all I've seen are attacks with nothing of substance to convince me that Reid and Schumer may have been right about Brown ~ except for one or two posts.

That's too bad because I thought we were better than 'them'! More willing to discuss the issues, rather than attempt to destroy the good name of decent people who wanted to serve their country. Using righwing tactics never caused any true democrat change their minds. It won't do so now, it will only increase the disgust that is already out there. That's why I'm puzzled by the use of such tactics.

Paul Hackett is no quitter, he is an American who shares with true Democrats, and other Americans, a real fear for what is happening to this country, and he stepped forward to try to do something about it ~ for that he is being smeared, not by the right, but this time by some who claim to be democrats ~ it is truly a sad statement about what this party is becoming ~

[Algorem]

75. Yeah,your right,the word quit is a Republican word,it says so in all the

dictionaries,good catch,stayin'on your toes.

[mod mom]

20. I agree. There were rumors that the ODP was going to enforse Brown b4 the

primaries. They cut off his money supply. They went so far as to tell big donors NOT to contribute to Hackett (Hackett was on Ed Shultz and said he saw the emails) This is a BIG BLACK EYE to the Dems. Shame on them!

[WCGreen]

55. The ODP hasn't even established a screening committee.....

They were not going to endorse before the filing deadline....

They announced several weeks ago that the screening would take place this Saturday.....

[Buck Rabbit]

45. How do you pressure "grassroots" contributors?

If Hackett had a true grass roots campaign the party is powerless to stop him.

Tom Potter was elected mayor of Portland decisively. He was out spent 20 to 1 by a fairly popular sitting commisioner. His secret?
1) Don't quit.
2) Don't quit.

[lonestarnot]

6. Sabotaged

[robbedvoter]

14. yeah, like Al Gore "quit" in 2003....

[Jon8503]

5. As for myself, I am currently registered as a democrat but I am

going to change to Independent. I have been getting angrier for sometime now about the DLC. Have already quit sending any money to them and now only to individual candidates.

[lonestarnot]

8. Sabotaged

[derby378]

15. I have a better idea...

Rather than desert the party, become the party. At least consider running for precinct chair, which is what I'm doing.

I'm so sick of what party bigwigs are doing to the rest of us that I'm no longer going to be someone who lets things happen. We're going to take over the Democratic Party, precinct by precinct, county by county, state by state, until the DLC finds themselves on the outside looking in.

And we'll be having a big party celebrating the sending of a Democrat to the White House.

[Jon8503]

69. Ya I know and you are right but actually I am turning more independent

anyway. My leanings will always be towards the dems between the two parties. I do try to be more active on the local scale. Thanks for the reply & good idea.

[RazzleDazzle]

58. I rather doubt you were sending money to the DLC

The DLC is the Democratic Leadership Committee -- a self-appointed influence-peddling think tank which thinks it has the right and even the responsiblity to determine what happens within the party. It DOES NOT.

In contrast, the DNC -- Democratic National Committee -- is the official Dmocratic Party organization, just as the RNC is the official Republican party national organization. I know of nothing among Republicans equivalent to the DLC.

The DLC doesn't even want your money, really. They get funding from corporations (and some far, far right organizations like The Bradlye Foundation, the Koch family, etc.), all of which is a lot less trouble than counting $50 here and $10 there and keeping track of those for federal reporting purposes.

Howard Dean is the chairman of the DNC. He's doing the best work of trying to build the party from the ground up. Here's his statement on what happend to Hackett:


As you know, Iraq veteran Paul Hackett left the race for U.S. Senate in Ohio today. In his campaigns, Paul had the courage to stand up and speak out for what he believes in. That is how Democrats will win elections and take this country back for the people who built it. Our country and our party are better off when people like Paul step up and run for office, up and down the ballot, in every election. I also want you to know that it is the policy of the Democratic National Committee not to intervene in contested primaries. We need more people running for office at every level, gaining experience and bringing new voices into our party. I want to thank Paul Hackett for inspiring so many people to be part of the political process, including many of the "Fighting Dems" running for office across the country. Keep up the fight, Howard

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/02/about_paul_hack.php?comments=1#comments

[Jon8503]

70. No Razzle U are right, it was the DNC, my error for not proofreading,

However, as I stated and more correctly for you this time, I will not be sending any money to the DNC. Thanks for catching that again.

[lonestarnot]

9. Waiting for him to come on AAR.

[sproutster]

10. I've read all of the rants and discussion over this

I'm upset, and I am ... at a loss.

Mr. Bush's administration and the republicans make me physically ill, and I am seriously terrified for the future.

My nuclear bomb nightmares are back.

I was inspired by Hackett. I love "I said what I meant, and I meant what I said" in your face truth.

I am not inspired by many these days, my list is short.

Gore (please run!!) Murtha and Hackett are my top three. I want someone strong, truthful and willing to stand up for what they believe in. Someone who gives others strength when it's sorely lacking.

I wrote Hackett.

Ever wonder why these guys are not running? What is the man behind the curtains doing? And why?

[WilliamPitt]

11. Disagree

1. Party leadership is integral in choosing candidates, where they will run and where the money goes. That has been the deal for 200 years. Like it or lump it, but that is the way it has always been on both sides of the aisle. Your idea that "the people" should choose is valid, but does not jibe with political reality. The people get to choose after the party leadership, which has a much better idea of the lay of the land and a better idea of resources to be allocated, etc, takes a look at that what and the where and the how. If you don't like this reality, stay away from politics, because it has always been this way and will always be this way.

2. Stabbed in the back? He had 1/10th of the money Brown had. There was no way he would have survived a primary with Brown, and if he had, he'd have been flat broke. DeWine wins in a walk.

As for that goodbye letter he wrote, it turned my stomach a little bit. Politics is rough, Mr. Hackett. Bring a helmet. This take-my-ball-and-go-home crap makes me more than a little relieved he is out of the race. If I get flamed for that, so be it.

That having been said, derby378, good post. I disagree, but it was well-argued.

[LynneSin]

16. Thank you

I tried but I'm not as good with words and a little to blunt to the point!

[derby378]

22. Thanks

And I will say I think Hackett could have handled his exit a little better. I would absolutely love to see him take on Jean "Player Hater" Schmidt once again for that seat in Congress. But it ain't gonna happen now.

I thank Hackett for helping inspire me and for sticking in there as long as he did. But now I've got to get off my own ass and do what I can to turn Congress blue in November.

[Debi]

27. Nice post WillPitt

But I do want to make a small point, sometimes the Party Leadership is wrong.

Sometimes what knowledge or lay of the land in Washington D.C, isn't the same as what's within the local party or a specific state.

Maybe the Hackett decision was a good one (based on quarterly fund raising), but the Party has been known, in other states, to make mistakes.

Sometimes the Party puts the person in place that would work better with the Party Establishment, and damn what the people may thing or want.

[LSK]

28. hey Will, do you have a link to that goodbye letter?

[WilliamPitt]

29. Look around GD

It has been posted a dozen times today.

[LSK]

31. ok

Just got time to get into GD now, thanks.

[Hobarticus]

32. Thanks, WillPitt

Well-said, well-spoken...

[brentspeak]

34. "He had 1/10th of the money Brown had..."

This is the middle of Febuary. When is the primary, again?

Democrats from all around the country donated millions to Paul Hackett in just a few weeks right before the special election day against Jean Schmidt. Many of the same Democrats -- like myself -- were going to donate again. So, you're wrong -- he would have had enough money.

Speaking for myself: I didn't want Ohio to have a Democratic primary between Hackett and Brown. I would have preferred that Brown did the honorable thing and simply run for re-election in his own district. Why? Because he was the moron who declined to run for the Senate in the first place, when everyone was waiting for a decision from him. Hackett would have run against Schmidt a second time if Brown had declared his candidacy for the Senate the very first time.

And I love Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer's basic message to Hackett: "Switch to the House race, even though you gave your word to the other Democratic primary candidates that it was their's to fight over. Hey, we stab your back, you stab their backs...everything works out in the end. Badda-bing, badda-boom, Paulie baby. C'mon,
be with us on this one. You don't mess with us, Paulie baby, know what I mean?"

[LynneSin]

35. Brown kept declining because he thought Hackett was going to run

and when Hackett kept playing cat & mouse with the party and the press, Brown jumped in the race.

Don't blame Brown for that one.

[brentspeak]

36. Uh, no

Brown declined, Hackett declared, Brown changed his mind. In that order.

[MercutioATC]

37. Thank you! I'm getting sick of the lies about this.

You have it exactly right. Hackett on 10/3/05 and Brown on 10/6/05.

[sui generis]

63. I hate use of the word "lies"

there may be misinformation spread by word of mouth, but "lies" is not the same thing, since that implies a completely different sort of intent.

It's also probably the single most vulgar thing you can say to or about a fellow DU'er.

[MercutioATC]

64. I'm calling the rhetoric a lie...

...not calling anybody a liar (well, except for a few Brown supporters here who continue to spout this stuff even after they've been shown that the facts don't support it).

[sui generis]

65. yeah, cultural difference I suppose.

A lie requires intent, so rhetoric can't really be a "lie" unless there was an actor who fashioned it that way.

Anyway, not scolding - just sharing my thoughts on a personal peeve. Mercutio you wouldn't believe how many times I've been called a "liar" by people here merely for my opinion so I'm probably over sensitive.

:hi:

[MercutioATC]

66. I think our definitions agree.

It's a "lie", IMO, because it's being intentionally spread by people who have repeatedly been shown that it's a falsehood.

I'd never call somebody a liar just because they disagreed with me.

:hi:

[OhioBlue]

39. that's ridiculous

Brown said he was NOT going to run. Hackett was then lobbied to run and agreed. Only after that did Brown announce he would run. Your facts are wrong.

And.... Brown declining because he thought Hackett was going to run is ridiculous! At the time, Hackett was running in the 2nd... Brown was on the fence then and Hackett was never even mentioned for running for Senate at that time.

[Leopolds Ghost]

49. "Your idea that 'the people' should choose is valid, but not jibe reality"

You could say the same about America in general. :eyes:

[RazzleDazzle]

59. Maybe it's time to change that "reality"

(on both counts)

[eridani]

60. A real grassroots candidate could have trumped that, however.

Wellstone did, with 17,000 volunteers who were natives of Minnesota. Closer to home, Adam Smith (WA-09), by no means a progressive, used shoe leather to overcome the complete lack of backing by the state party. He still does a lot of his own canvassing, and actually listens to all constituents. Progressives effectively lobbied him to change his vote and vote against the Bankruptcy Bill. So what I'm talking about here is ORGANIZATION, not whether you are centrist or left. The only way you can get by without the national party organization is if you have your own.

The critical factor that no one except Kos seems to have noticed is that Hackett's entire campaign last year was run by employees of Sherrod Brown. Here's a clue--nationwide netroots supplements, but it does not substitute for local grassroots. With no ground game, Hackett is out of it, period. If he actually had a local grassroots campaign he could tell the national Dems to stuff it, but he doesn't.

[Catrina]

74. And in this case the party leadership did approach Hackett and we the

people agreed with their choice, until they flip-flopped ~ a flip-flopper should not be in a postition of leadership, especially when making decisions with the serious implications this one has.

There is simply no excuse that has yet been offered as to why they did not go and talk to Hackett before sneaking behind his back, and his supporters across the country. That is cowardly, and what I have come to expect from the rightwing. Now I will be on the lookout for it on the left ~ as if we didn't have enough to be looking over our shoulders about!

It doesn't matter what you think of Hackett. The damage has been done and a large portion of the Democratic base will not be convinced by your attacking Hackett and demeaning his attempt to explain his reasons for leaving the race, to his constituents. It only inflames the situation more.

I for one, was very impressed with his statement. It showed he had honor and integrity. And like many Americans, I think for myself, and will never be influenced by so-called 'leaders'. It is insulting to the American people to try to interpret for them, what they should read into Hackett's statement.

His statement was clear enough for those of us who still think there should be integrity in the party we support and won't buy into the 'everyone does it in politics' excuse which is being used as a reason to defend the actions of the 'leadership'.

In fact, it was Paul Hackett's reaction to what he found out that makes him even more appealing. He apparently isn't jaded by the political process, as so many here seem to be, to the extent that he views these tactics as par for the course. That is a refreshing attribute in a political candidate ~ and so-called Democrats who can't see why that is appealing, are apparently too removed from real people to understand.

[sui generis]

13. Exactly what I'm thinking

There is fault line even among progressives; and that fault line is one that distrusts "grass roots" candidates in favor of ones that our beloved "leadership" hands to us and tells us to vote for.

Personally, I've decided to vote for the candidate who supports my issues. If Hackett, or somebody like Hackett can do that better as an independent or without the sanction of the democratic party, then that's who gets my vote.

I will NOT take the DLC candidate this time. If we can't capitalize on our strengths and the candidates that move us personally for whatever reason, then we're not a party this time around. If the DLC is SO FAR OUT OF TOUCH that they believe I'll give their candidate money, effort or my vote after they do this a dozen more times and then tell us we're voting for Hillary or worse, Lieberman just cause I'm a democrat, they may as well plan their concession speech right now.

If I wanted a republican in office I'd just directly vote for one. Why settle for Lite when you can have the real deal?

So, no, I despise the way this went down. Hackett was able to move people, to get them to respond. That's priceless. If I want another uninspired mush mouth senator representing my issues, I'd as soon vote for a jar of applesauce this time around.

[LynneSin]

17. Who's the DLC candidate you're talking about

Because it's been clearly documented many times over that Sherrod Brown is one of the most liberal democrats in the house, probably a house version of Russ Feingold/Paul Wellstone

[sui generis]

24. was speaking hypothetically

I've moved on already. I'm still just uncomfortable as hell about this - looking in MY crystal ball this time.

It's one thing to recognize he was underfunded and underappreciated and wouldn't have had a chance at a run through the primaries, but that's because he was positioned that way to begin with and kept there. What bothers me is that he wasn't left there to help develop issues, that he wasn't incorporated in a way that capitalized on his grassroots appeal.

There may have been bathwater here, as Will Pitt pointed out in more words, but I think we pitched out the baby with it.

[LynneSin]

25. But he was, the DCCC chair desperately wanted him

even up until the moment that Paul quit.

And there is alot of other candidates out there underfunded and underappreciated - what kind of message does this give with Paul just quitting.

[sui generis]

33. why did he "quit"?

Very few people in politics are "fired". They resign or withdraw. His decision was the culmination of a lot of factors, and possibly even some private family issues. Sometimes external "factors" are handed to you with the explicit expectation that you should fall on your sword for the better of the many.

Anyway, Lynne, I really have moved on. I just don't like what happened - even if it was necessary for reasons beyond my limited vision.

I do believe that when he has had some "away" time he'll be back with a more sophisticated campaign and a stronger base, I hope. At the very least he had some fire that I hope some tactician will have studied well enough to incorporate into some of the more vanilla presentations we're left with.

[femrap]

48. Why are so many DUers refusing to look at Sherrod's record?

As a pro-choice woman, I was not going to take a chance on Hackett....Sherrod has a 100% rating from NARAL. Hackett used to be a registered republican. Maybe some of the DU males don't care that much about women having freedom to control their bodies and futures....but I do.

And Brown is further from being a DLC candidate than Hackett....!

The comparison to Wellstone is a good one for Brown.

[sui generis]

62. gosh I wouldn't know now

now that someone else made up my mind for me by talking him out of the race.

That's the point. We're just being told who to vote for, and allowed to decide for ourselves.

Of course I'm for choice, and truth to tell the REAL issue is not choice. The REAL issue that nobody is admitting is that Hackett made a strong political statement on civil marriage for all Americans, something Brown has NOT done in any memorable way that I'm aware of.

Anyway, the fact is that in this political system if Hackett could not overcome the issues that were holding him back, including political machinations, then he wasn't ready to be a senator. Yet.

[Jacobin]

18. Its how you have a 'pretend' opposition party

Works very well for the criminals who run this country.

One must have a 'cute' cuddly, fuzzy, silly opponent, or you don't have a 'democracy'

:mad:

[tsuki]

19. This was an incredibly stupid thing for the Democratic Party to

do. In a primary, Brown would have won, or Hackett would have won. Now, Brown is going to be facing both Hackett and DeWhine in the general election. Brown will be on the defensive. He will have to defend Schumer and Reid interfering in Ohio. He will have to defend the phone calls to cut funds to Hackett. Don't ever think that the Republicans won't make it an issue.

The Democratic Party is still angry about the grassroots rebellion and the election of Dean as chair to THEIR party. They need to get out of the beltway and start listening.

[Algorem]

21. Hackett Poll Vs Brown

Hackett Poll Vs Brown
http://www.cleveland.com/weblogs/openers/index.ssf?/mtlogs/cleve_openers/archives/2006_02.html#112922

Hackett Poll Vs Brown
Before he decided to drop out of the race for the U.S. Senate, Paul Hackett's campaign got the results of an internal poll showing some bad numbers and some good numbers. The bad numbers showed his Democratic primary opponent, Rep. Sherrod Brown, with an early lead in the race. The good numbers showed Brown could be vulnerable to a challenge from the Iraq war veteran.
The Plain Dealer has obtained a memo summarizing the poll results:
http://www.cleveland.com/open/wide/index.ssf?/open/wide/hackettpoll.html

- Elizabeth Auster

[MercutioATC]

38. Gee, that would seem to be a name-recognition thing, wouldn't it?

Brown's a career politician in Ohio. Hackett's been involved for less than a year. Might Hackett's recognition have increased if he would have been allowed to run for the next 10 months?

:eyes:

[Algorem]

40. He didn't allow himself to run any longer-"the right thing to do"

[Algorem]

42. on Ed Schultz today it was obvious he's toned it down ,which probably

means he is gonna be doing the Congressional run,I bet

[obnoxiousdrunk]

68. What was the

whisper campaign that Ed and Hackett were talking about ? Just heard the last part.

[Algorem]

72. I guess they're trying to say Democrats were spreading rumors that Hack-

ett is a war criminal.I don't believe that was actually happening.I think Hackett may have been believing cetain lying bloggers in Ohio.

[MercutioATC]

43. Yeah, we all know where you stand on this.

His statement today was a great "don't make waves" speech (and I think that he believes in the teamwork aspect of it, too).

However, there's no doubt that he was pushed out. Spin it all you like, that's the fact. Dem "leadership" screwed him from the beginning by asking him to run and then pulling support when Brown changed his mind.

[Algorem]

44. Yeah,we all know where you stand on this.

He quit.No gun to his head.

[MercutioATC]

46. You're beginning to sound like Charlie Brown's teacher...

Waahh wahhhh wa wah wahhh....

How many rookie candidates who are ASKED to run by party leadership would stand a chance in hell if the party then abandoned them and backed a career politician as their primary opponent?

Hackett made the decision to withdraw AFTER the party stabbed him in the back.

[Algorem]

50. if anyone's wah-ing it's Hackett and people like you,on and on and on

who you all gonna blame when you fuck up in the 2nd?

[MercutioATC]

51. When WHO fucks up in the 2nd? Hackett's not running there.

Who are YOU gonna blame when Brown loses Ohio?

[Algorem]

52. Bullshit.Watch.

[MercutioATC]

53. And who are you going to blame? You didn't answer...

What makes ou think that Brown can win without crossover votes? Do you really think he'll get them?

[Algorem]

56. Won't need to blame.If Brown did,he'd blame himself,not 'whispers' he

heard or some fake e-mails some pathetic asshole showed him.

[MercutioATC]

57. We'll talk on November 8th. I hope I'm wrong.

[madame defarge]

23. Per Hackett on Ed Schultz show today...

Here's a paraphrase of what he said:

It was the right thing to do to withdraw and that he didn't have the millions necessary for the March primary. In order to do justice to the cause, he just didn't have the money to get it done in the next six weeks and that Brown's war chest would have allowed Brown to shape the battlefield, he says. He is not bitter why is Ed? He's not going to run for Congress b/c he gave his word to the other candidates. He is not bitter why should we or Ed Schultz be.

Let's move on; let's get some good Democrats elected, says Hackett. His goal is as a team player to defeat Mike DeWine for the good of the country.

[sui generis]

26. and that right there is why he appeals to me

He has honor and a sense of duty, and still believes in the process. I sure hope he's not out of politics for good - it would be our loss.

[derby378]

30. Agreed

Let's hope he comes back for another run in 2008.

[understandinglife]

54. Agreed.

Peace.

[Kurovski]

41. 5,000 recommendations for you just as soon as I can hack the vote.

I'm just so fucking heartsick of--and insulted by-- having our choices made for us, or stolen from us.

They're a bunch of fuckers. 96% of Republican politicians and maybe 60% of Dem politicians are lousy, stinking fuckers.

Fuckers or idiots, that's the choice.

[slor]

47. Thanks for posting n/t

[autorank]

61. Well said. KOS imploding? Wow!

:evilgrin:

[drbtg1]

67. Has anyone heard from Schumer?

Maybe he needs to come out of his bunker and, "I'm sorry that I'm supporting Brown instead has cause this controversy, but this is an incredibly important time and we need the candidate for the position who is most likely to get elected." And then see if the people Mr. Hackett made promises to not run for the house will release him, very publically, from the promises so that Mr. Hackett can destroy Schmidt's political career.

Or he can stay in the bunker. Pols seem to like it there lately.

[yodermon]

71. Didn't you get the memo?

The DLC has decided that there will no longer be any Democratic Primaries.
http://markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/2005_08_07_markcrispinmiller_archive.html

I was at a private house party on August 2nd in Georgia with Senators Reid, Schumer and Pryor.

And the grand DLC plan is simple for 2006 - no DEM primaries. They plan to choose the DLC candidate and force all others out of the race. Just like they did in PA with Casey.

The exact Schumer (DSCC Chair) quote is:
"We are no longer letting Democrats get in a circle and shoot each other. We are going to intervene if any one Democrat attacks another. We are doing that in states where there are primaries. ......this always happens in the primaries, people throw up the cards and see where they land. No more. We're finding the best candidates in every one of the seats where republicans are vunerable. "

So, bye bye primaries, folks. The good DLC will be choosing our candidates from here on out.

Yep. I trust the DLC to choose our candidates, don't you? Their strategies have had smashing success for the White House in the '90s after all. As for Congress, the 94, 96, 98, 00, 02, and 04 elections were all just flukes. Trust 'em!