David Sirota's doing it again (email me if you need a link, I refuse to publicize it).

I can't believe it. Before I "retort", here's what he's saying:

Yes, you read that correctly. A week after Hackett got out of the race, Hackett's campaign - now in the process of closing down - leaked all of its "opposition research" on Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) to the Toledo Blade - opposition research that regurgitates the same Karl-Rove-esque "weak on national security" lies that have eroded Democrats' image over the years.

Let's take a look at Sirota's charge, which is being made btw AFTER Hackett left the race and Sirota's candidate, Brown, won.

First off, Paul Hackett didn't release anything. The report says "Hackett's campaign" (whoever that is) supposedily released material negative toward Brown. Sirota' veracity on such matters is not usually good, and in this case he tries to hang Hackett with a whole lot of assumptions. The report does not name the source. Would it surprise you if we found out it was Rove?

But let's assume someone in Hackett's campaign released some consultants report in defense of Hackett's point that he would have been a stronger candidate. Does anyone really think Karl Rove isn't apprised of Brown's voting record? Could there really be anything in this story that won't be used by Republicans? And indeed, isn't it exactly what the Republicans will do? As I've been saying over and over and over, Brown's voting record is hardly a secret and will be hung around his neck at the earliest opportunity, and frequently thereafter.

Here are the key grafs from the Toledo Blade story:

Congressman and U.S. Senate candidate Sherrod Brown voted to cut intelligence funding more than a dozen times before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a record that Paul Hackett's campaign advisers called proof that Mr. Brown could not win in November.

A consultant hired by Mr. Hackett, Mr. Brown's onetime Democratic opponent for Senate, estimated the funding cuts would have totaled billions of dollars if enacted. None were. The consultant called Mr. Brown's votes on those proposals and a dozen more recent national security issues "toxic in today's political environment," according to campaign research documents obtained by The Blade.

So? There's no news here, or surprises. Sirota makes it sound like Hackett took a knife to Brown. BTW, where's the outrage from Sirota when the "whisper campaign" was implemented against Brown?

But here's the key point I really want to make. Paul Hackett left the race some time ago, last week. Yet, at ever turn througout the blogosphere it seems like "Brown supporters" continue to poke at the open wound of Hackett's knifing. This is now the second time David Sirota has used his megaphone to throw gas on a fire after he won!

Excuse me. But if Dems who back Brown really wanted to heal the wounds, or at least calm the flames, wouldn't they just shut up about the whole issue? Personally, I feel like a wounded political animal that keeps getting prodded with a stick.

To Brown Supporters:

You won. Hackett's out. Use some effective political strategy here. I know it's hard to do and doesn't come naturally, but give it a try. When you win, you become magnanimous and you let the issue drop! You don't take the bait to argue. You don't publicize Toledo Blade articles designed to fan the flames and increase circulation. You shut up, enjoy you "victory" and move on to the next fight. Leave the whining to we losers. We'll stop whining eventually (although this whiner won't forget).

Unless you prod me with a stick one ... more ... time.