Digby has a great post up that, again, summarizes some of her past points about the tribalism and dynamics of the new politics.
I can't add much to what Digby says other than to say that it's exactly why Paul Hackett mattered so much. He mattered not because of his policies which were fairly conservative, or even his "star status" which can always be troublesome in a politician. No, he mattered because he's one of the few candidates in the Democratic party that
"gets it". And when we have a candidate that seems to
"get it", they get hacketted.