I don't understand why everyone was urging Hackett to leave the race...

[V. Kid]

Maybe I just don't get it, but what's that all about?

Okay, so Sherrod Brown is a progressive icon, and strong candidate. And perhaps they didn't want two strong candidates running against each other. But now it looks like Hackett won't run for anything. And it really looks like the establishment was out to Dean-ify him. But don't the Democrats need him?

I mean for crying out loud they're not the incumbent party, in any significant sense, so any screw ups should be painted on the Republicans thus meaning the Democrats should significantly win. As we know though, for all intents and purposes the Republicans have control over all three levers of goverment. And even though polls show that they're vulnerable, they've been vulnerable before and the Democrats wern't able to close the deal.

So because they don't seem willing or able to fight, and since they haven't succeded in finessing themselves into office so far with professional candidates, and since he is a fire brand, wouldn't it have made sense in having someone like him run for them?

I mean people everywhere seem annoyed by politicians, and don't seem to really trust them, so wouldn't an anti-politician like Hackett be the panacea to solve this? After all for Democrats, if they ran more people like Hackett and appealed to blue collar, 'Regan Democrats' who've abandoned them, or people who simply don't vote anymore, wouldn't that mean they'd win more?

Don't they like winning?

Or do they just not like doing things that make sense? I mean I've observed this so often, that it's just hard to follow politics in the 'States, its too depressing, Ohio being a good micro-level example of this, but I'm just totally perplexed by this.

[rucky]

1. No room for commoners in The House of Lords

god forbid voters decide they want some plain-spoken yahoo in the Senate.

I was for Brown, btw, (still am) but I'm pissed as hell about this anti-Democratic move.

[libhill]

2. I agree -

I'm confused by it myself. This guy is a real fire eater and that's what we need, someone who has the nuts to take Repuke tactics and throw them right back in their face. Isn't Hackett the guy who called Rush a drug addicted asshole? And refused to apologize for calling the Republican party "dominated by religious nuts"? If we don't break away from this Mr. Nice Guy / let's play fair / don't offend anyone bullshit, we'll never win another election. It's over.

[wakeme2008]

3. Well Swiftboater Waxman

for one does not care what he does as long as his friend in the House Brown gets to run and lose to a dirty repug.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

4. Primaries are bruising events

& very expensive. I guess the thinking is that the winner (either Hackett or Brown) would come out with a depleted war chest & probably some scars leaving him weakened to fight in the general election. Brown has the name, the resources, the people in place. Let him coast to the nomination & then take on DeWine.

just my opinion.

[V. Kid]

5. That's pragmatic, and all well and good, but I'd be worried as to...

...whether or not Brown would be as blunt about DeWine, the Bush Administration, and the Republican establishment as he needs to be. Clearly not as much as Hackett, that's not necessarily a problem. But still, he can't finesse his way into office. I mean sure, there's the whole question about voting machines anyways, so maybe any Democrat could still do everything right, and get screwed, but still, if he concentrates more on "positioning" himself ala the DLC types mostly with rhetoric, and mis-guided votes and statements to make himself look "moderate", without actually you know, positing himself by coming across, as strong and trustworthy, via his actions -- thus allowing the Republicans to portray him as a weak hypocrite -- he could end up being just another liberal on the scrap heap. Especially if he doesn't properly defend himself during the campaign. Which would be a pity.

I must admit to only having a passing knowledge of Brown, so I'm not quite sure what his style is like, so I have to ask, is he a fighter? Will he defend himself.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

6. Brown was the darling of the liberal set until Hackett showed

up. He's also a I-don't-know-how-many-term State Rep. He's got everything he needs including a huge war chest to take on DeWine, but not if he's left bruised & bloody after a primary fight. Brown also lent his people to Hackett when Hackett took on schmidt-the-nut.

I'm left, left of center. I'm also pragmatic.

[V. Kid]

7. Pragmatism is great, I am too..I'm just worried whether or not he'll...

...fight relatively well. You know when his back is against the wall. Also do you, or anyone else, know how liberal his district is? Would they elect any democrat, or is he so great that he just keeps smacking Republicans around?

I know people where saying how Kerry was a strong, liberal, candidate, but in the run up to the time that he ran for President he decided to "moderate" his positions on a few issues, ie: the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, and then didn't have as strong a plank to stand on. And was able to be attacked with things like "I voted for it, before I voted against it", which while nuanced, and we know what it means, was easily taken out of context. And was made all the more difficult to defend, considering his position on the issue. He could attack the "conduct" of the war, but never attacked the war itself, he could attack the spirit of the Patriot Act, but he voted for it anyways, and since he didn't want to say "I was wrong", he couldn't really attack it in a consice way.

Do you know what I'm getting at? Would this be a problem with Brown? Cause I don't know how it could be one with Hackett, who doesn't really have any previous experience.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

8. Your best bet would be to go to the Ohio forum & poke around

in there. I'm betting you'll get sixteen different answers for each question. :rofl:

Brown might not play well out of Cincy, but he's got way more name recognition than Hackett. Remember, Hackett was running for the US House, not statewide. It could be argued that a lot of voters outside that district have never heard of him. Hackett also may have been the darling of the blogs, but that & 4 bucks will get you an overpriced cup of coffee. Brown has been in some office for 25 years? Something like that. Also, IIRC, Brown was Secy of State for at least one term.

Everything is a crap shoot. Activists will scream that their candidate & only their candidate can win.

[V. Kid]

9. Thanks for answering though...

...I thought I'd try this out in the more sedate "Democrats" forum, well removed from Ohio, but I'll take your advice. And I was hoping to avoid some of the un-nessecarily strident, and paritsan-like pro-x candidate ("mine is a saviour") points of view, sans thought.