hey, bart.

we'd been reading plenty of this little battle, here in Ohio.
the treatment hackett got from the DNC is not cool -- no
question about it. he was essentially told to RUN for the
seat, then told "oh wait -- maybe next time..."

however, this is not, necessarily, a case of the Dems
shooting themselves in the foot and not fighting. this
really is a case of the Dems trying Very Hard to win in
Ohio. it's true that Hackett made some big noise when
he first stepped into the fray -- but he DID lose, and not
surprisingly, as he's Brand New at this.

so sure, i can see why the DNC might want to trot him
out there again in this fight for the Senate seat.

where things get messy, though, is when we (all of us)
start trying to GUESS at why this happened. sure, for
all of us who look to the DNC to finally "grow a pair" and
stand up for us, this looks like typical pink tutu behavior.
but the problem is, i'd read articles critical of Hackett
and his campaign (written by Dems and Lefties, btw)
months before he dropped out of the race...

the feelings of these writers/pundits was that, compared
to Sherrod Brown, Hackett came off as inexperienced
and worse, inexpert at the ISSUES. every one here
appreciates the "tough guy talk," but apparently, when
they actually debated, it became clear which guy in the
room really deserved the nomination: Sherrod Brown.

even that's not the Big Thing, though. we can debate all
day about whether his fiery personality and no-nonsense
approach to politics would have REALLY "energized the
democratic base" and won him the election, or whether
young people (who still TALK a lot more than they VOTE,
at least here in Ohio) would yell and make noise but not
show up to put the thing to rest.

no. the Big Thing is Money. the Big Thing is WINNING.

why, bart, do you keep hammering away in favor of Hilary
and Clark? do you really feel that there are NO better
democratic candidates out there? what you've said, over
and over, is that those candidates are the Best Candidates
that have the Best Chance of Winning. right?

As of February 2006, it's Hillary's race to lose.
Let's not hate her because she's the early front-runner.
 

THAT, right there, is what happened with Brown and Hackett.

Brown has a HUGE "war chest," and is known for his ability
to raise funds (not unlike Hilary). Meanwhile, Hackett has
not those same attributes. what the DNC foresaw was a big
fight in the primary -- a primary that would have been close,
and almost certainly would be won by Brown (it's true... i mean,
the idiots in this state elect Bob EFFING Taft TWICE, almost
on pure name recognition alone). meanwhile, both candidates
were going to come out of the primary BLOODY: less money
for fighting "the real enemy," and possibly too many issues
aired out for public viewing (and GOP bashing -- look at how
the GOP used debate among the Democratic primary candidates
against Kerry at every turn, ie, "even his own party says...").

so why engage in so costly a fight -- when "we" can definitely
WIN this one with Brown? (or so the feeling goes, anyhow)

finally, and this is, to me, the most disheartening aspect of this
whole mess, is Hackett's response to all this:

he's giving up.

i totally get that he wouldn't "go back on his word" and run for
the House (he apparently promised other DNC hopefuls that
he wouldn't spoil their run at the House) and i admire his integrity.
but in addition to that, he's announced that he's GIVING UP ON
POLITICS ALL TOGETHER.

this was the guy who was going to "fight for us"? the DNC is
being heralded as cowards -- saying they don't like a FIGHTER?
but as soon as things got ugly (and face it, in politics, things WILL
get ugly sooner or later) he cut and ran. now, i know for a fact
that this guy is NO coward. this guy has done some heroic things
for our country. this guy has said some heroic things about our
current government. this guy is the very antithesis of a coward.

but he MIGHT not be much of a politician. he MIGHT not have the
stomach for politics. and while that's ok to me, since i don't trust many
politicians, it's usually the politicians that WIN in politics.

it's disheartening, because as every day some yahoo brings
some new, narrow-minded or biggotted piece of legislation to
the Ohio congress, i wish and i pray that someone like Hackett
would come along and clean things up before i have to move
OUT of the state that's always been my home. but rather than
use his momentum to start locally and build the kind of career
that would get him SURELY elected (like the one Sherrod Brown
has built over the last several DECADES), he's opting out.

this is a complex and nasty situation -- but it's not a simple case
of cowardly democrats going for "business as usual." it's the
democrats using something called "political strategy." much as
we may not like it, it's worked for the GOP for a long time, yeah?

(i know this went really long, and thus may have hurt my chances
of making it to the page -- but that's ok. i thought you might want
to hear at least ONE democratic voice from Ohio on this.)

dang, man.
keep swinging that hammer.
~ dutchee in cleveland.