Comments: Happy Valentine's Day...
I'm sure Sherrod will still be looking for interns. It's not like Cincy won't be a pivotal area.
Posted by Nathan Kilbert at February 14, 2006 12:35 PM
I was extremely disappointed to see this yesterday. I jumped on Hackett's bus early on -- I made calls for him during the special election in OH-2 and almost drove down from Chi-town to Cinci to work his campaign. (In fact, had I found one more Illinoisan crazy enough to join me, I would have.)
Problem is, he was always better suited to be a congressional candidate than a senate candidate. It's OK to be a bit of a loose cannon (which he is) while running for congress but it's a lot harder to pull that off running for senate. He was having a difficult time fundraising. Remember, first time around the netroots funded him almost entirely, pumping in something on the order of 300 plus in the last week of his campaign. As much as they would like to believe it, the netroots are not a sufficient money making machine (yet). A viable candidate still needs an extremely strong fundraising component outside of the internet. (Not to mention an extremely strong everything else outside of the internet.) Hackett didn't have that because he hadn't been in the public sphere long enough.
Now it sounds like I'm down on Hackett. I am. Sure, it was inappropriate for Schumer and co. to push him into the senate race only to push him out a couple months later. But this is politics, that happens all the time! He could see the numbers - he saw he was being badly outfundraised by Brown. Further, let's not forget, they weren't pushing him out of politics -- Rahm Emanual was trying to recruit him for a congressional race! (And given Rahm's history of pushing people out of congressional seats, that's an honor for Hackett. More on this in a later post.)
I'm disappointed with Hackett's whine-y, child-ish "I'm going to quit for ever and ever" declaration. I wanted to support him for Congress. I still think he'd be an excellent congressman. And I don't think his party gave up on him -- he gave up on his party.
(PS - Dara, congratulations on an excellent first blog post! ;))
Posted by Kevin Bock at February 14, 2006 12:50 PM
I suppose I should save this for your "later post," Kevin, but I wanted to point out that when we can make statements like "Given Rahm's history of pushing people out of congressional seats...", ironically or not, there is something wrong with the Democratic machine.
I'll admit, I think Hackett was ridiculously sulky. But in order to be a party boss you have to understand the personalities you're dealing with. We're echoing the reaction that I'm seeing on Kos (which admittedly is as far as I go into the blogosphere as yet), which is regret with resignation. There's a strong air of "It's a shame he was so unreasonable," but no "Oh my gosh since when was he so unreasonable??" If the bloggers know he's a hothead, chances are the Schumer corps do as well, and should probably strategize accordingly.
P.S. Is there any established evidence that they called donors? I see that as a potential camel-back straw, but I don't want to go spreading it around until I hear for certain it's true...
Posted by Dara Lind at February 14, 2006 02:48 PM
Dara's point about "the machine" brings up what I think is the real danger in this. It's not that we're losing Hackett as a senatorial candidate - although I agree with Kevin that he would have been good to have going for the House - but the larger danger is that the circumstances surrounding Hackett's exit and the spin he himself put on it could generate more widespread dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party of Ohio. Given that all but maybe 10% of the state right now seems to be alienated from the Republicans in the midst of massive corruption scandals plaguing Republican officeholders there, we could be blowing a major opportunity if we're seen as similarly shady.
Posted by Brendan Gants at February 14, 2006 04:28 PM