If Hackett wins the House Seat and Brown the Senate Seat...

[wyldwolf]

Will it all be good again?

[MADem]

1. Hackett said he ain't running--he said he wouldn't and released

a statement saying he was retiring from politics....at least that is what I heard today on the radio.

[pocket]

2. he isn't running for the house since he got shafted in the senate race

I don't blame him.

[Rick Myers]

3. He'll be on Big Ed in about a half hour!!!!

Paul Hackett, that is...

[LynneSin]

4. You think it would be

:eyes:

(but in my opinion that would really be good)

[SaveElmer]

5. It's bizarro DU World...

Complaining that the Democratic establishment is backing one of the most progressive candidates possible...

I guarantee you, if it was Lieberman, or Hillary's opponent they decided to back, there wouldn't be a peep from anyone here.

[TrueAmerican]

6. Progressive?

That describes Hackett. Progressive doesn't always mean the most liberal.

[wyldwolf]

7. so, what makes Hackett more progressive than Brown?

Honest question.

[SaveElmer]

11. I'm not sure that is possible...

But Brown has been endorsed by the PDA, as Will Pitt tried to make clear last night. There is no definition of "progressive" that does not apply to Brown. It just boggles my mind that the people on this board that have complained for 4 years that the Democratic establishment never gets behind true progressives, now can do nothing but whine when that actually happens!

[TrueAmerican]

12. Progressive

He's for democratic change from the status quo. He's for choice, unions, public education, the military, responsible gun ownership, equal rights, border protection, etc.

That's progressive.

[sui generis]

14. progressiveness is a straw man argument in this case

what's the real issue?

It's not how progressive they are, so why are we arguing the point? I liked Hackett for his fire and backbone. It was a visceral appeal. I liked him because he could speak with moral authority about military matters. I liked him because he didn't mince words.

There are people who are upset because as progressive as either candidate is, it's Hackett who got people OUTSIDE of Ohio to sit up and take notice. Whether you like it or not, whether you think he would have been strong in the primaries or not, that really does count for something in political reality.

[HuskerDU]

25. Too true. The last politician from Ohio who I had any interest in

was John Glenn. Hackett was a national guy. He was the kind of guy who red staters will listen to and take seriously.

If I were to examine the issues one by one, I would probably prefer Brown. But the potential good Hackett could've done on a national scale seems a real shame to waste.

[SaveElmer]

8. Browns bonafides as a progressive...

Are beyond reproach...and he has been endosed by the PDA. The man consistently voted against the IWR and the patriot act. Has high ratings from every progressive and liberal group in the U.S. Just the kind of person everyone here wishes would get pushed by the Democratic establishment. Now that he is, all we hear is whining.

[sui generis]

13. not bizarro world at all

people got excited by Dean for the same reasons and he wasn't the most "progressive" candidate by a long shot either.

It's not all political leaning OR charisma OR political courage OR senatorial decorum that count. It has to be a meaningful balance of all of those.

Quick someone take a poll - how many people on DU sent Hackett money vs. sent Brown money. Would probably be illuminating either way.

[CTLawGuy]

16. I think it's less about "progressiveness"

and more about freedom of choice in candidates.

We want the base to vote on who should be the candidate, we don't want the party bosses telling us who we have to vote for.

Many of us, including me, believe it is wrong for the party establishment to interfere in a primary.

[SaveElmer]

18. I hate to say this...

But Paul Hackett quit on his own. No one made him abandon his effort. The choice of a parties candidate is not a one man one vote process, and there is no constitutional guarantee of participation. Of course parties want participation, but party leaders have always, and will always have greater say. This has always been true. This is true at the state and national level. Look at the Minnesota DFL. They get together before the primary every election and endorse a candidate. Other states do the same. The endorsed candidate does not always get the nod. Paul Hackett could have stayed in the race. If he had the support from the grassroots as many here claimed they should be directing their wrath at Hackett and not the DSCC.

The DSCC is there to help get the strongest candidate elected to get our majority back. Brown was beating Hackett silly, and had 10 times the money. The DSCC felt he was the stronger candidate and backed him...that is their job.

[CTLawGuy]

26. yes, he did

but they should not have cajoled his donors or asked him to drop out.

This is a government for the people, of the people, by the people, not political consultants.

Parties serve us, the people who call ourselves members, and the party leaders should not interfere with who runs.

I'm sure Brown will be a fine candidate and Senator, but this interference only serves to strengthen those who say their vote/opinion doesn't matter in government.

Howard Dean got a groundswell of support in 2004 for 2 basic reasons:
1. his willingness to speak his mind
2. The amount of control he gave to the people who ran his campaign. He ran on $100 donations, and locally controlled meetups and field operations. No, he didn't win, but people felt like they mattered in politics again.

When people feel like they matter, they participate, when they participate, they vote, and when they vote, we win.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. Dean wasn't more liberal than Kerry but the establishment didn't want him

Hackett isn't any more liberal than Brown but the establishment still doesn't want him. You are right, DU unfortunatley too often sees things in black and white but I don't.

This isn't about liberal or conservative for me, this is about establishment and non-establishment.

[SaveElmer]

I have to disagree...

The DSCC first and foremost wants to win. They do not like being in the minority any more than we want them in the minority. Sherrod Brown was the more capable and experienced candidate. And he is one of the most progressive candidates the Democrats could have chosen to boot. If Paul Hackett had truly believed he had the support of the grassroots he should have stayed in the race. If he can't stand up to Reid and Schumer how was he goingto handle the Republican slime machine. The DSCC's job is to win seats. They backed the stronger horse IMO.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. Agree to disagree

I've said repeatedly all day that this has nothing to do with how tough Paul Hackett is. He didn't want to stay in the race because he didn't think that fighting with Reid, Schumer, and in turn Brown would have done any good for anyone. He is interested in telling the truth about Bush in the war and not interested in getting into the struggles within the democratic party. I hope that Brown wins in November and so does Hackett. If he doesn't, I will certainly be bringing this up.

[rockymountaindem]

24. It's about style over substance. Again.

A lot of DUers, including some I sometimes agree with, can't see the forest for the trees on this issue.

[wakeme2008]

9. He is NOT running for anything

oday 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
*************************************
:cry: :cry :cry:

[Catchawave]

10. I think Hackett should have run for the House seat initially....

...only because I would have loved to see him campaign against Schmidt with the "I told ya so" dance !

I just started a thread, my guy, David Ashe dropped out too :cry:

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=99548&ran=54367

(if you get a registration page, scroll down and click on "later")

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. I feel very odd being on your side on an issue Mr. Wyldwolf

but I think what your saying makes a lot of sense.

yes, it is true that Mr. Hackett got treated badly and there was poor communication between the Dem Leadership and the local Ohio activist. Thing were indeed muddled.

But, I still want to remind people that Sherrod Brown is supported by PDA (Progressive Democrats of America) and is a member of the Progressive Caucus with an overall VERY strong voting record all around.

Representative Brown is at least as liberal as Sen. Kennedy or Sen. Feingold

courtesy of vote smart - link:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=H3141103&type=category&category=Foreign%2BAid%2Band%2BPolicy%2BIssues&go.x=12&go.y=8


2006 In 2006 Citizens for Global Solutions gave Representative Brown a rating of A.

2005 In 2005 Citizens for Global Solutions gave Representative Brown a rating of A.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Council on American-Islamic Relations 100 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Peace Action 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Civil Liberties Union 84 percent in 2003-2004.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 96 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Arab American Institute 50 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Council of La Raza 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Human Rights Campaign 77 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 90 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the National Education Association 89 percent in 2003-2004.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Postal Workers Union 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2004.

2004 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers considered to be the most important in 2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 88 percent of the time.

2004 On the votes that the Service Employees International Union considered to be the most important in 2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Communications Workers of America 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 100 percent in 2003-2004.

2003-2004 On the votes that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers considered to be the most important in 2003-2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 95 percent in 2004.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2005.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2005.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2004.

2004 On the votes that the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance considered to be the most important in 2004, Representative Brown voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2004.

2003-2004 Representative Brown supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 94 percent in 2003-2004.

2004 In 2004 National Organization for Women endorsed Representative Brown.

2005 Representative Brown supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.

[roseBudd]

19. being progressive doesn't mean a hill of beans if you don't get elected.

What Hackett did in SW Ohio is prove he has mojo. Sherrod, what kind of nane is Sherrod anyway, will be portrayed as effete and effeminate. And there won't be a f*****g thhe can do about it.

[mdmc]

20. yes

but only for me (harm has been done - shitty politics - not smart)///

[OzarkDem]

21. Sure

that's the best possible scenario.

[Donna Zen]

22. Now let me think?

The Ohio voters are showing their displeasure with DeWine because they think he is not conservative enough. And somehow that translates into supporting a very liberal opponent, as opposed to a maverick Marine that might attract crossover votes.

I'm also hearing that mean Jean will be gone to be replaced by a much stronger gop candidate. There are flaws in this argument.