Golly! Where to begin.

-Likely as not (and Bob can dispute this if he likes), he found one of my posts via technorati and then posted the Brown defense.

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm a regular reader of your site, and even a perfunctory glance at my home page should have indicated to you right away my Liberal bona fides. As for posting a "Brown defense," nothing could be further from the truth - the issue here is not about defending Brown, it's about the shrill volume of Hackett's defenders.

-The further smearing of Paul Hackett as being an ego-centric tantrum throwing child is nothing short of kicking a guy when he's already stepped down. Paul has already abandoned the field for Brown. What else do you all want?

Let's start with a few things in general. My comment was not a smear campaign against Major Hackett. I, too, was tremendously happy over his strong showing in November, and will be the first to agree that our Party needs more fresh, energetic, honest candidates to "tell it like it is."

No, my response is aimed more at "smearing" those who are crucifying the Democratic Party for "abandoning" the new poster boy for the party's future, without stopping to ask whether or not there may have been some logic to a plan that backed the more experienced Brown against DeWine, while simultaneously throwing full support and resources behind a Hackett campaign for the House. Where I live, two is still greater than one.

-He then entered the Senate race ONLY when no one else would, including Sherrod Brown, and after the Dem leadership begged him to run.

True that the Major announced his candidacy before Brown had made up his mind. Equally true that Hackett was approached by many in the Party at an early stage of the game. State Democrats approached many rising Progressive stars about their interest in running. My friend was one of them.

But when Brown did decide to run, it became immediately obvious to those within the Party that he would be, overall, the stronger, more experienced candidate to throw against DeWine, if for nothing else than his already strong level of support throughout the state. This would allow for Hackett to potentially revert to a House race in which he'd already A) become a known commodity, B) gained some political seasoning, and C) be in a position to be not just one, but one of two Democrats to go to Washington this November.

This seems to me to be smart strategy, for the overall good of the Party at large. Many of the things I'm reading paint this as a personal vendetta against a defenseless, independent, heroic voice by insidious, evil, old-school Party insiders huddling in dark, smoke-filled rooms. Things like your own interesting visual, "with a calculated slide-rule campaign sticking out of my ass."

-Allegations of "insider knowledge" and "I have it on good authority" have so far been unsubstantiated. The record of events is clear, and no amount of selective recall will change it.

Well, gee, I don't know. My authority is the Vice-Chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party. And this is not just some party hack who waltzed to that position through cronyism or nepotism or favoritism or whatever "ism" you can think of.

This is an individual who not only talks the talk, but walks the walk. A Democrat who was elected not once but twice to the office of Hamilton County Commissioner in Ohio's 2nd District - the first Dem to win that office in 37 years. In fact, in 2004 he received more actual votes than George Bush in the uber-conservative Southwest corner of the Buckeye State.

Obviously, this is an individual who knows how, as a Democrat, to connect with voters on all sides of the political fence. As I mentioned, he, too, was approached at an early date about running against DeWine. And he, too, has had the rug yanked out from under him by the Party in the past when broader strategy may have warranted it. "The difference," he told me Thursday, "is that I didn't quit."

-Your statement is a bit like Whittington apologizing to Cheney for being in the way of Cheney shotgun blast. As far as painting a picture? That is being done by the party. No me. Not Paul Hackett. And exactly what progressive cause do you speak of? What happened to Paul Hackett is not emblematic of any progressive cause to which I'm familiar.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you're getting at here. The only thing I can say is that the "Progressive cause" to which I'm referring is getting two well-qualified Liberals elected instead of one.

-And to argue that calling Bush a son of a bitch "cost him the race" is highly speculative. I've "heard" it argued that his refreshing candor was responsible for it even being close, and that "by all rights" he would have won easily had he received more support from the DCCC rather than primarily the netroots.

Again, I'm getting this information from a man of impeccable integrity and honesty who himself has had serious disagreements with Party leadership in the past. I've always gotten the straight dope from him on inside matters in Ohio politics - I see no reason why he'd begin obfuscating now.

As I said earlier, he's THERE in the 2nd District. And the Party apparatus threw everything including the kitchen sink behind Hackett's run in '05 - which was probably responsible for the majority of his surprisingly strong showing. And thanks again for the overly agressive "it's just more smear and frankly bullshit" comment.

-We have plenty of opportunistic "team players" in both the Democratic and Republican establishment. That's gotten us a long way hasn't it? To smear Hackett as opportunistic is laughable when the guy has only run in campaigns that no one else would enter.

How facile of you to add pejorative meaning to the comment I originally wrote. My use of the word "team" in no way implied that I think the Major should lose his style, his fire, his passion on the issues. It was meant to point out that Hackett, as a relative neophyte in the political game, could have taken that fire, that outspokenness (with a bit of self-control) and run where he could best help Dems to make inroads in Congress. And I certainly did not call him opportunistic. I simply stated what seems to be obvious - that Hackett determined for himself that it was "the Senate or bust," given that every candidate in the 2nd Congressional race would gladly step aside for Paul to run if he chose to do so.

-Please check out the poll numbers on the Brown "shoo-in".

Oops. That I never said. I wrote that Hackett would be a shoo-in against Schmidt. Exaggerated somewhat? Perhaps. But if your going to crucify me, please don't misquote me.

-Hackett's betrayal was an unwillingness to kiss the ring of the DCCC, and the DSCC. And being the honest, straight-on guy that he is, he told them to shove it.

You're entitled to your opinion, as is everyone. Well good for you, Paul! "He told them to shove it." Explain to me how that helps the Democrats to gain ground in Ohio, if Hackett has simply decided to go home? Is he the first to suffer disappointment on the political trail? Hardly - but at the first sign of adversity, he cites "promises" to the other 2nd District candidates (all of whom, again, think he'd be the better candidate if he wanted to) and gives up.

As for the "whisper campaign", it is truly disgusting. The lowest form of political chicanery. In fact, it has every characteristic of a Rove-invented bit of skulduggery. Why then do we automatically assume that it originated from our own party? You're right that it indicates that Hackett is a threat to the GOP. But then, invariably I come back to that "two vs. one" thing I mentioned before.

Overall, I'm disappointed that Hackett has chosen to stay home. I'm also disappointed in your mischaracterization of my position here. As I said, I'm a big fan of this site and your work. But you've essentially accused me of being a Rove apologist, which couldn't be more untrue.

It's also interesting to me that the private response you left on the original post differs in tone and respect from this front-page post, in which you've apparently chosen to expand the level of vitriol you feel I deserve. I can only hope you'll feature this reply as prominently.

Again, my overall point is that we'd be better served by trying to convince Major Hackett to reconsider a run in the 2nd District, instead of spending so much time and energy attacking the Democratic Party itself for its strategic decisions. We should be pouring our efforts into support for Sherrod Brown as well, instead of weakening him through innuendo and implication. I'm extremely sad that Hackett has dropped out. Let's work to convince him to change his mind, instead of undercutting the Progressive movement in Ohio by so blindly leaping to his defense.

And as for that "full-fledged fascist state" you're worried about? I, too, am terrified as each day that comes closer to being a reality. But if we continue beating up each other, or celebrating Pyrrhic victories instead of working together for change in Washington, that dictatorship becomes a probability instead of merely a nightmare. We're doing Rove's work for him - and I can almost hear him laughing now.

Bob P
www.thehueandcry.com

Grey,

Don't be shy, tell us how you really feel about it.

Screw doing the same old thing over and over, like that has been working for the last six years.

Yo Bob,

Exactly what do boots taste like?

Thanks for responding Bob.

I must admit that *some* of my response to you was an accumulation of frustration from fighting this over many blogs. I'm not going to take you point for point. I did that, you did that, let's call that even. I think you still mischaracterize the events. But readers can look at the sources of information and decide for themselves, whether it's my past links over time, or your reports from your high placed friend on the scene with his/her perspective.

There's one key point playing out in this situation I think you are missing, and is the crux of what I think is missing in the Democratic party. It's the process. How you do things matters as much as what you do. Your entire logic for the Hackett situation smacks of moving chess pieces for the maximal gain. I call that political calculation. I contend that it quite simply doesn't work in the current political environment. Using that very process sends a message to the voters ... our candidates are like boxes of soap (with about as much pizzazz) to be sold to you, the consumer. And while there is *some* truth in that, in the post 911 environment voters are perceiving more about candidates. They're looking for "strength", "character", "passion", and any number of other emotional meta-messages. Bush, like it or not, demonstrated that better than either Gore or Kerry and won. Bush's meta-message totally overrode the obvious policy and intellectual values of his challengers, no small feat! Schwartzenegger demonstrated that more than Gray Davis here in California. I contend that Hackett saying "shove it" to the Dems raises him in his approval ratings and further brightens any political future.

All the speculation about Hackett beating Schmidt or not, Brown vs. DeWine, it's all simply speculation and calculation. It's the Democrats desperate attempt to recreat the triangulation of the Clinton 90's, and a mis-reading of Clinton's success imo.

Your friend may be big in the Ohio Democratic party, which by reputation hasn't been too well organized, but it's the national leadership that appears to have been an important factor in this whole embroglio. The tactics of triangulating have stopped working, yet in Ohio we have the Dean/Kerry argument all over again in the form of Hackett/Brown. And unfortunately, I fear the same result.

Only time will tell. You may think the Democratic strategy will pay off. I don't think it will any more than it has in the last two elections. Democrats need some fundamental reform in how they approach the Republicans and elections. I fear they won't "get it" until this dynamic has passed and a new one is in operation.

Thank you for taking the time to post a thought provoking discussion. I think your comments and my responses pretty well encapsulate the split going on in the Democratic party right now. So readers, that's it in a nutshell, which (aside from my frustration) was the other reason for highlighting your post!

Oh. You are correct that my comment response is different from what I posted front page. Quite frankly the more I thought about it the angrier I got, so I added and added and added. That's the explanation for the diff.

The suggestion that Hackett should have run for the Congressional seat ignores one very important fact:

"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."—Paul Hackett
The entire letter he sent is here.

The whole Brown / Hackett mess reminds me of a woman coworker who commits to lunch with a fellow coworker... then cancels when her boyfriend is free for lunch after all. Hacket just seems to me to be a man of his word, highly unusual for a politician. As my post was titled, we lost a principled man.

Whether the Democrats win or the Republicans win is making less and less difference to me as I am seeing less and less difference between the two parties. The Republicans are pushing us toward fascism but the Democrats are allowing it.

Grey,

Thank you as well for making some excellent arguments. As a veteran Advertising guy, I can't help but agree with your disdain for the "packaging" of political candidates and politics in general. Your "chessboard" analogy is particularly acute, and on that point I'd concede that this situation is evidence that politics remains a dirty business.

I do still wonder, however, if Mr. Hackett's best and only choice was to quit politics altogether, especially since, unlike many aspiring politicians who've been strategically moved around that chessboard, he had an immediate opportunity to take that meta-message (another point well taken) to an equally important Congressional race.

Ordinarily, as a "screw the establishment" kind of guy, I'd be the first to applaud your contention that "Hackett saying 'shove it' to the Dems raises him in his approval ratings and further brightens any political future." Except that he's decided to leave politics - and I think those of us who were so excited by his style and passion should, in all fairness, be a little more critical in asking him why that's the best way to affect a needed change in our political system.

Again, thanks for a civil debate, and some indisputably smart points about "political calculation."

And Lynne, I must have been writing while you were posting. I do applaud the Major's statement that he stands by his "promise" to 2nd District Democratic candidates, and agree that that level of integrity is almost extinct in the political landscape.

Nevertheless, those other candidates have expressed their willingness to step aside and support Paul as the best candidate against Schmidt, even in light of his promise. If Mr. Hackett chooses to use that pledge as an explanation for his complete withdrawl, I certainly take him at his word and respect his choice. I only ask that he does so in a way that doesn't politically jeopardize the efforts of the Democratic candidates that have chosen to remain not only in the race, but in the Democratic Party as well.

Bob, whether we agree about what happened or not, there is one point we would agree on I think.

*IF* Hackett has fully retired, then he wasn't meant for politics as it's currently structured. And I can't blame him for that given how he was treated. Even if the other candidates would step aside for a race against Schmidt, the whole thing still stinks of cronyism and manipulation. If he's not suitable for that environment, it's better off for everyone he retired.

*IF* Hackett has pulled back and intends to run for something else, say governor, then the loss is less. Personally, as Digby pointed out, I think he's better suited for an executive branch position anyway.

I, personally am not happy with how the system is currently structured. I have to figure out a way to voice that. The party doesn't seem to listen to "feedback" except when accompanied with money or registration numbers. I intend to use both strategically to express my feelings. If enough people agree, it will have an impact. If not, the party will easily weather this and continue on and I'll stay on the fringe. I'm happier on the fringe than playing the game as currently structured.

Grey,

More interesting thoughts - and I do like the idea of Hackett as Governor!

You're certainly right that the political system needs a major overhaul. In fact, I've believed for some time that in far too many ways, the R's and D's are virtually indistinguishable, both in their deplorable "office politics" and their shared level of ineffectiveness. Personally, I think the moment is ripe for the development - and public acceptance - of a viable third party to give us some real choice at the voting booth.

Until that becomes a reality, though, we're stuck with the system as it is. I suppose that a majority of what I've said that comes across as "toeing the Party line" is really just a pragmatic opinion that we must do whatever we can within the system we've currently got to remove those in power in Washington.

And right now, for the very survival of our democracy, that means putting Democratic bodies in Congressional seats, pronto!

I don't disagree at all with your disdain for the machinations of both parties. My concern is that if we're too adamant about remaining on the "fringe" and "losing with dignity," instead of using the system (as admittedly bad as it is) to shift the balance of Congressional power, there'll be no democracy left at all.

All of which is to say that your idealism is right on the money. I just think we also need a dash of pragmatism in the short run, to stop the imperial Bush juggernaut from going any further.

Thanks again for all your thoughts.