I’ve been following the blog debate between supporters of Sherrod Brown and Paul Hackett with a great deal of interest lately, because I think it illustrates one of the ways that the Democratic Party is willing to tear itself apart when it smells victory. The louder voices on the left seem to be calling for Hackett’s withdrawal, because they see Brown as a better candidate. They are also critical of Hackett, because an advisor suggested Hackett’s campaign would be negative.
In context of these comments, the Akron Beacon-Journal posted an interesting article on Thursday, suggesting that bloggers are leading the attack for Brown. A quick look suggests that might be the case:
Matt, over at Left in the West writes:
Let me spell this out again, when Paul Hackett realized he would have a primary, he issued the signal to his team to rip Sherrod Brown apart. And so his staff and his supporters decided to destroy a good progressive Democrat who has spent his time in Washington, DC standing up repeatedly for working families…If he came to the party planning to haul it into the mud, he better not bitch about getting a little crap on his uniform.
But what is more troubling – a candidate that changed their mind about running for office, or a candidate who hasn’t talked straight about their own position on Iraq?
That’s right – in the fulminating over Hackett as the supposedly populist champion of anti-war sentiment, it seems many have forgotten that Hackett continues to change his position on the Iraq War whenever it appears politically opportune.
The Cincinati Black Blog calls Hackett a crybaby:
Hackett is a crybaby who had his shot to go to Washington and blew it. In the process, he pissed a lot of people like me off because he showed his willingness to sit silently as people (his opponents) were being mistreated. That’s why I think Hackett is a greedy, selfish, coward.
Democracy Guy attacks Hackett and Bob Brigham.
I always love it when some guy from San Francisco, writing from a decidedly un-swing state for the increasingly moronic Swing State Project, decides it’s time to urinate all over Ohio’s politics…Bobby supports Paul Hackett for US Senate. Bobby’s a self appointed grand poobah of the liberal blogosphere. Put those two things together, and you get Bobby’s unified theory of life, i.e., anyone who doesn’t support Hackett must be a traitorous egomaniac, including Ted Strickland, who is running for governor in the Democratic primary, and who has been in Congress with Sherrod Brown for years. I’ve never met Bobby, I don’t know if he’s ever set foot in Ohio, but read the comments in Bobby’s post…he is immediately and almost universally derided for it.
I think it’s definitely time for Brown supporters to step back. Thus far, I’ve seem a lot more negativity from them than from the Hackett campaign.
Related Posts:Sat, Oct 22, 2005
[...] There is a time for fierce primaries. From what I can tell, both Sherrod Brown and Paul Hackett are men of their word who would make great U.S. Senators. I prefer one to the other. Like David Sirota writes if my preference angers you greatly, maybe you shouldn’t read my site. And as Don Pogreba at Intelligent Discontent argues perhaps it is high time Sherrod and Paul sit down together and agree to run this on the up-and-up. [link] [...]
Michigan Blog - Democracy for Metro Detroit (Feed) Minnesota Minnesota Blog - Broken Nails (Feed) Mississippi Missouri Blog - Fired Up Missouri (Feed) Montana Montana Blog - Left in the West (Feed)Montana Blog - Intelligent Discontent (Feed) Montana Blog - 4n20 Blackbirds (Feed) News - Billings Gazette State News (Feed) Candidate Blog - MT-Sen: Jon Tester (Feed) Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire News - Boston Globe New Hampshire News (Feed)
Bad Behavior has blocked 890 access attempts in the last 7 days.
October 22nd, 2005 at 1:49 pm
Don, no one asked me to post what I did. I did that on my own. I have had virtually no contact with the Brown campaign.
Meanwhile, Hackett has surrogates describing Brown as a liar.
As for a Hackett aide “suggesting” the campaign would be negative, that’s not true. He guaranteed it would be nasty.
That’s a significant difference.
October 22nd, 2005 at 1:55 pm
Matt:
Good points. I didn’t mean to imply that you, or anyone had been contacted/directed by the Brown campaign. Apologies if I made it seem that way.
The Democratic Party: Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory.
I’d like to see these two sit down and act in the interests of Ohio and the nation. It doesn’t look too promising that will happen, though.
December 17th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
best weight loss pills
May 4th, 2006 at 10:53 am
wowo excellent article keep it up
November 7th, 2006 at 2:23 am
good one