|
I really like Hackett. I don't know much about Brown. But I think everybody is making this out to be something far more dramatic than it should be.
The blogosphere is divided over this, and it's not surprising. There are two types of candidates who the blogosphere attracts: Democrats who stand up for themselves and tell it like it is, and candidates with strong, progressive values. Hackett tells it like it is, and Brown has strong, progressive values. I see a lot of mischaracterization going on here. Brown is far from a DLC centrist. I'd rather vote for Hackett myself, but I don't even live in Ohio. But I don't think Sherrod Brown is a bad candidate, either. Brown clearly has more experience, and running a statewide race for part of the federal government is a big task. Even though I like Hackett, I still have this feeling that he is out of his league running for Senate.
I am sure this situation could have been handled far more professionally by the Democratic leadership. It's a tragedy the way it all went down. But in the end, they are always going to go for the surest bet. As much as I like Hackett, I believe Brown is the surest bet. DeWine has a lot of money in the bank, and despite being down in the polls, he will be a tough opponent. A Democratic win in Ohio is far from guaranteed.
Hackett is a military man. He should understand that you have to do your time before you get promoted through the ranks. The Democratic establishment will support whoever the strongest, most experienced candidate is at the time. Brown, despite how he entered the race, is the more established candidate. Hackett could really help out his party by running again in Ohio-02. Schmidt is beatable by one man: Paul Hackett. And the House is probably more important to retake than the Senate (and more probable, too). Hackett could be the difference maker. He narrowly lost when Bush and the Republicans were seen as far more favorable than they are seen right now. And Schmidt made those "coward" comments about Murtha. I think Hackett could capitalize on that and the looming Republican scandals.
Instead of running against each other, Democrats should run against Republicans. That is why this whole episode bothers me. Now Democrats are divided over this when they shouldn't be. Everyone shares the blame for this: the Democratic establishment handled it poorly, Sherrod Brown flip-flopped over entering the race, and Hackett is making angry statements about being "betrayed". It would better serve Democrats if Hackett looked at this realistically. The establishment should apologize to Hackett privately, but tell him his help is still needed. It's not the end of the world. It was a little f'ed up, but that happens in politics. Paul is needed on the House of Representatives front. And yes, he does have the establishment's support in that race. Because there is no better man for it than Paul Hackett.
|