It's rather disturbing to see the total absence of an endorsement of you-know-who in this concession speech. In fact, there's an not-so-oblique parting shot instead. The team is more important than your personal feelings are, Mr. Hackett.

 Oh Mr. Hackett. I am so very sorry about this. I don't live in Ohio, but I was so happy that someone of your caliber was running. You sir, are an honorable man. Perhaps politics is just not for people like you.

I'll be writing the "democrats" to let them know just what I think of this bit of duopoly styled ignorance. They've been so out of touch with their base--the real people hwere in America--that I suppose it's no surprise they'd do something this stupid.

Thank you for your service to your Country. I don't blame you at all for droopping out. You have gone above and beyond. 

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

Lighten up JP.  The "Team" just pulled the rug out from under him. 

This is disappointing, but I wish you well in private life, and hope that you might come out of pretirement for some future race.

What team? The one that has let us down over and over? As for me: no Hackett, no vote. Brown's a hack without the guts to confront power. At least DeWine has broken with Bush on a few substantial issues. I've never voted for a republican for nat'l office, and I probably won't start with Bush in office. But i will not vote for Brown. The so-called team insists on playing the second-string quarterback, but I don't have to play along.

Mr. Hackett,

There is no retooling of the Democratic Party necessary. It needs to be junked.

Mr Hackett:

I hope this is not a decision you will regret for the rest of your life. Why not use the media to notify your donors that despite what the Dem leaders said, you are running and still need their donations? These are the types of challenges you will be facing in public office. Practice makes perfect.

You need to remain on the course that is best.

I was sad to hear this too, like many others here.  I don't know much about Brown except he's a party regular.  I hope Schumer -- who was behind this -- hasn't got so clubby that he doesn't know a winner when he sees one.

Dear Mr. Hackett:

I am extremely saddened by the news today that you are withdrawing. I am a 47 year-old mother who lives in St. Louis, MO. I have seen you speak on various tv programs, and I was so excited to see a brave man who was not afraid to speak the truth about the horrible and scary direction our country has been heading in the past 6 years.

I was very excited that you were running for Congress. It gave me hope that there would be a momentum of other candidates with integrity that would fight for the people.

I am an Indpependent also, because I am so sick of both of our political parties. I was hoping that the Democrats would change, but it now scares me to see that maybe they have not learned their lessons yet.

For all of us who feel we have no voice in our government anymore and fear for our children's future, I plead that you reconsider running for Congress at another time. We desperately need brave, committed leaders who have integrity and speak the truth!

Good luck with whatever direction you take -- for I am sure you will do great things. I only hope it will be for our country or our communities. Please don't give up.

Sincerely,

Another Suzi that sees your great potential!

Shouldnt, to be fair, you have let the voters decide your political future?

Unless you are withdrawing for your own lack of interest, the whole point of elections is to let the voters decide who they want in office, not to let backroom deals and party leaders decide.

This is upsetting to me, because it is sharply illustrative of the current electoral failure of our system.  Where our votes only counts in so much as we are voting for a peselected candidacy that has little to do with our general wishes.

This is unfortunate news to hear, Paul.  I wish you would have reconsidered. 

ARE THOSE PARTY LEADERS IN OHIO NUTS?  Paul Hackets showing in the last election should have been proof he was the best man to lead the ticket for the next race.  How will we ever get congress back if we insist on self-destructing?

Billy Strain

Kennesaw Georgia

 What garbage! Is this the latest talking point from GOPUSA? Give me a break.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

this whining is silly.  politics is tough business and anyone running for office ought to be prepared for bare knucles brawling.  i would have expected hackett to be able to handle that.  the strategic thing *WOULD* have been for paul to run again for the 2nd and win *AND* support brown's bid for the senate.  instead he's taking his ball and going home. 

I don't see how a primary could have hurt things. -cscs

Well, technically there are times when a party will field a candidate who does well in a primary but is certain to lose in the real election. Not sure if that was the case here, maybe there is some polling data? I think more information is needed before people rush to judgement.

Again, i think we should be trying to figure out if this was a sensible party decision or not, rather than going into "I hate the party" mode. It seems people are rendering judgement before knowing the facts.

As far as people who say if that they won't vote if a particular candidate doesn't run... geeze, talk about failing the IQ test called life. Why don't they just try stomping and crying as part of the "strategy."
 

Maybe it was a terrible choice for Hackett not to run, maybe it was absolutly the most sensible thing to do and may win an election, with real results down the line like saving lives in Iraq, or billions in spending, or a medicare reform package, etc. I think TPM readers would be wiser to look at what candidate OHIO wants, that most closely matches a progressive agenda, than to pick a candidate we like and just assume Ohio will vote for him/her.

You had me until "rock on"

As a voter from your same district, I would urge you to run for governor. Ohio's become a pigsty of corruption and it's time to shovel out the muck.  No national democratic candidate has a chance unless Ohio is cleaned up.

This is exactly what's wrong with the democratic party - the message trickles down when it should be just the opposite - local - regional - national.  We once were the party of the rising tide, now we wait for the stream to trickle down from the mountain.

I think TPM readers would be wiser to look at what candidate OHIO wants

That's the thing. It seems like Schumer and Reid made the decision for Ohio. 

Dissent Protects Democracy

Paul, you seem like a standup guy to me, willing to be honorable and take the heat for your views. Personally I salute you.  I think this lack of support by the DNC to be a sad case of preassigned slotting of candidates, which totally undermines the nominating process.  I hope you will stay active and try again.  Your voice needs to be heard.  The constituents of Ohio, and citizens of our country need men like yourself in order to stand up to the corruption of government.  All I can say is damn, another good man screwed..... sad day indeed....

Paul, as both a fan and a prior contributor I wish to say that although I disagree with what the Dem Party leaders have done here I do think that you should remain active in the Party and consider future office. Personally I would like to see you run against mean jean the traitor machine this fall, but understand that you made a committment, something that many in our party apparently do not put much value in or on. Best of luck to you. But please, stay involved.

How embarrassing for us that this is the first comment. 

Hackett was used and discarded by the Democratic party leadership.  And you want to poke him with a stick until he starts behaving like an ordinary politician?

That's the thing. It seems like Schumer and Reid made the decision for Ohio.

That's totally silly. Did you even think about that comment? Or is this just another "more liberal than thou" moment to get all whiney?

A party leader's job is to pick people who will best represent coalitions. IF they're not doing that, and if Hackett was a winner, then show me the evidence of that and I'll support his bitching. But SO FAR I don't see any evidence of that from Hackett, I just see someone taking it personally and refusing to endorse the (by all appearences) stronger candidate, which shows lack of character.

In this case, I think Hackett was given a platform here on TPMC and was popular here, which is great and all. But apparently he wasn't doing great (AFAICT) in Ohio and would just have hurt the Democratic party there.

The personality cult tone of some posts here are from people who apparently have no grasp of how democracy works. We can't all have our personal favorite win. Democracy is compromise by definition.

There are limited resources and limited voter attention. Not every candidate can be supported, and people should grow up and accept the fact thier personal favorite isn't always the best coalition builder.

Again, if anyone has evidence Hackett was the strongest candidate, then by all means share it. But the "he was my favorite, wah wah" comments really are lame.

 Mr. Hackett,

I started reading the news on Google News and saw the headline that you were dropping out of the senate race.  My first reaction was anger - extreme anger at the Democratic Party leadership for once again refusing to accept a good candidate.  I immediately came here to see what you would say to us, and I am still angry at the Democratic Party.  But, I still admire you very much.  I'm very sorry you had to withdraw your candidacy, and I hope you will consider running again in 2008 - for the House, at least.  My best wishes go to you.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Yes, Mr. Hackett.  How about a hearty, "Thank you, sir!  May I have another.?"

Mr. Newman,

As a featured contributor to this site, what does it say about the value of your contributions when your comments get rated 1.25 by readers?

You are the problem with the party. 

Smart career politicians don't run when the odds are impossible, and for good reason, because people aren't always rational and no matter how well intentioned, a reputation for losing sticks to people.

Also, there is nothing wrong with career politicians. They tend to be the most effective at governing, coalition building, and winning elections, because they make compromises. Immature people disparage politicians for compromise, but that's really what democracy is all about. Obviously people disagree on a lot of things, and obviously not everyone can win, so obviously democracy=compromise. It’s pretty simple, and always amazes me some people can’t seem to remember that basic concept.

Bush is a great example of non-compromise, and anybody who thinks a pendulum that swings hard left and then hard right every 4 years is a good thing.... 

Also, being realistic, it's not as though Ohio is suddenly more winnable because of Hackett. It's due to Republican scandals and other events totally outside his realm. Just because some people here may know and like Hackett doesn't mean Ohioans generally do. Now that Ohio is challengeable and even winnable, it makes sense to run the strongest candidate, and if that’s not Hackett, which by all appearances is the case, then it makes perfect sense for Hackett to step aside and show some character. Considering he’s a soldier, he should know you always pick the best person for the job; and that winning this election will have real implications for many things, including other soldiers in Iraq.

So, kudos to Hackett for keeping hope alive and doing what he did during the times when things looked bleak and he ran anyways, no matter the odds, no matter whether he’d win or not. He gets points for determination. I think he could have stepped down gracefully, and a lot of people including party democrats would owe him a debt.

But it's unfortunate that he chooses to go out with sour grapes, no matter how personally disappointed he may feel. He says he never intended to become a career politician, well he sure sounds unhappy for someone who didn’t intend on making a career out of it. Also, assuming he would have kept his pledge to not become a career politician and would step down later (which would be a first) does it make sense to run a one-termer and be more vulnerable to a GOP candidate again so soon in an important swing state? I don’t think so.

He uses words like "service" and so I hope he can take a deep breath, look at the big picture, and remember it's about service and ultimately seeing the strongest candidate, not about whatever ambitions he may have had personally.

This is AWFUL!! Yes Hackett appears thin-skinned, yeah Brown's people were in charge of his previous campaign, but he was a marqee outsider dem and watching our leadership bungle this only confirms my view that the beltway Dem establishment is clueless. 

Mr. Hackett,  You still have a month and a half until April Fools.  No one is going to get this joke on Valentines Day!

Cheney shoots his hunting partner, Dem's shoot themselves in the foot.

Paul Hackett was the first Iraq war veteran to run for Congress. Whether he could win the primary or not, he was a huge asset to the Democratic party that bean-counting bossess have uselessly squandered.

Compare how Dem bosses treat an outsider who breaks party stereotypes to how Republicans have treated Lynn Swann in PA.

The GOP knows they have a problem convincing voters they aren't racist, so they aggressively recruit candidates like Swann, Steele, and Blackwell (Swann even supported Dem candidates in the past). The Dem's know they have a problem convincing voters they are strong on national security and they backstab an articulate, credible veteran like Hackett.

When will the Dem bosses get a clue?

 At least Cheney has the courtesy to shoot you in the face, rather than stab you in the back.

~~~~~~~
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain

I'm unaware of the answer to this question: did Hackett have a strong chance to win? It seems that's the main question. If not, then he would just be dividing Democratic votes, which is I'm assuming the main calculus behind this.

Rasmussen Reports, January 7, 2006:
(excerpted)
Ohio Senator Mike DeWine has eked out a narrow lead over both potential Democratic opponents in his re-election effort, but the race remains hotly competitive.
The Republican incumbent enjoys an edge of 43% to 39% over Cincinnati-area lawyer Paul Hackett, and 45% to 40% over Congressman Sherrod Brown. Rasmussen Reports polling in mid-November and early December showed DeWine neck and neck with both contenders. Hackett then led DeWine by a single percentage point, while Brown trailed him by just two. The margin of sampling error in each of the polls is +/- 4.5 points.
Brown and Hackett appeal to many of the same constituencies, and especially those who think the President is doing a poor job in Iraq. In prospective contests with DeWine, Brown wins the support of 77% of those who believe President Bush is doing a poor job waging the war; Hackett wins 78%.
Hackett has had to cope with on-again, off-again support from Democratic party leaders. Brown had initially decided to abstain from a Senate run but then threw his hat in the ring after all.

Akron Beacon-Journal, February 1, 2006:
(excerpted)
U.S. Sen. Mike DeWine is outpacing both of the Democrats vying for his seat. DeWine raised $978,505 from Oct. 1 through Dec. 31; some came from a $1,000-a-head fundraiser with Vice President Dick Cheney in December.
U.S. Rep. Sherrod Brown of Avon, one of the Democrats in the race, brought in $496,882 in the three-month period; his rival in the May primary, Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran from suburban Cincinnati, raised $465,779.
DeWine reported $4.3 million on hand at the end of the year. Brown had $2.37 million, and Hackett had slightly less than $230,000.

In other words, Hackett was a credible threat to DeWine with or without support from Ohio's Democratic establishment; but as opposition from DeWine and Brown converged against Hackett, Hackett faced an uphill struggle to maintain momentum, build a war chest.

Mr. Hackett. Thank you sincerely for your service to the country, both in the military and in pursuit of public office.

 I was happy to support you in your Congressional run.  I am sorry to see that the Senate run did not meet with establishment support . Unfortunately, as long as money runs politics, whoever can control the money will control the candidates. If we had public financing, you wouldn't have to listen to Kingmakers. You would be able to keep runnning as long as you wished.

 I do hope that you'll continue to stay involved in the Democratic party. We need people like you. Even if this campaign run didn't end the way we wished, your voice is one that the Democrats want to hear. And if you participate in the party, you will help take it over and change it into something better, just as Howard Dean is making the DNC better.

Finally,  I urge you to consider supporting Ned Lamont, another outsider candidate who is trying to primary against Lieberman in Connecticut. A victory for Lamont would help show the "establishment" that they can't dictate who runs or who wins.

Again, my thanks to you.

In other words, Hackett was a credible threat to DeWine with or without support from Ohio's Democratic establishment - mu tau.

.... ?

Ah, I don't know how on earth you read that conclusion out of what you just posted. Seems to have some glaring omissions.

First off, Sherrod Brown and Hackett are about equal after having Brown not campaign at all. I could be wrong but that tells me Sherrod Brown can probably pick up some points without breaking a sweat and is the stronger candidate. Now if there is data saying Hackett had unique inroads and advantages and would have had been the better candidate, then I'd agree he should have run. But I really don't see that, nor do I see any poltical coalition sensibilities from his supporters which is also a bad sign, as it sounds more like a personality cult than a serious campaign to win.

In Hackett see an unknown that basically got the Democratic party vote as the only Democrat running in highly partisan times. In Brown I see someone who will get the same partisan plsit, but may also draw more votes from name recognition, has mroe expereince, and who will probably run a stronger campaign. Also, Hackett was a terrible fundraiser which is an unfortunate reality of politics as they stand.

Secondly, Hackett has had Sherrod Brown's and the Democrats's support. Yes, it's true that they havn't gone full throttle, but that's because they were't sure if Ohio was contestable until all these scandals and such broke, so it didn't make sense to waste scarce resources.

It's reasonable to assume from here on out that either candidate will benefit from  additional party backing. However, either candiate still has an uphill battle, so you need to pick the stronger candidate. If the Democratic candidate were a sho-in, then fine, we could all argue about which candiate was our personal favorite. But considering how tight it'll be, we need a colaition builder with name recognition, who can fund raise, and who will bring in loyal & grassroots votes.

It's just sad IMO that people can't seem to grasp politcal realities.  People need to stop whining about the party and grow up. The party isn't perfect, but it mostly does what it has to do. Too many liberals and radicals have zero concept of compromise, and just love to play "more liberal than thou" which does nobody any good except the GOP.

There is this thing called primaries...

Ahh, yes, nothing like a little knowledge.

Primaries do have an effect on perceptions of candidates in the long term though, and can be exploited by the opposition. Sometimes primaries can be helpful in vetting and strengthing a candidate, but given the particulars of this race I don't see how a continued Hackett campaign would have helped anything except the GOP.

Strongly contested primaries between candidates who can afford to  divide resources and beat each other up are mostly a luxury of parties with a lot of resources to go around or a strong chance of winning. When strapped for cash and when coming from behind, parties need to put all they have behind one person.

By definition, having less support means one's coalition isn't inclusive of enough people. No matter how much a small group likes you, they con only vote for you once. The candidate of the weaker party needs to be focused on coalition building, not on devisive policitcs. I mean, come on, that should be obvious to anyone bothering to think it through.

In other words, Hackett was a credible threat to DeWine with or without support from Ohio's Democratic establishment - mu tau.

Ah, I don't know how on earth you read that conclusion out of what you just posted.


Let's see.


Rasmussen reports Hackett "neck and neck" with or leading DeWine in "mid-November" and "early December." Rasmussen also notes "Hackett has had to cope with on-again, off-again support from Democratic party leaders." Was Hackett a "credible threat to DeWine with or without support from Ohio's Democratic establishment" Clearly.


As to your ambitious leap from "I'm unaware of the answer to this question: did Hackett have a strong chance to win?" to "It's just sad IMO that people can't seem to grasp politcal realities", may we suggest a mirror, less sloth, less reflex, less bloviation, more reason, sentience and intelligence?

Also, any close reading of Hackett's position on Schmidt's seat would suggest less some thin-skinned divider than an individual faithfully adhering to his word:

Hackett: "I will not be running in the Second Congressional District nor for any other elective office. This decision is final, and not subject to reconsideration...I told party officials that I had given my word to other good Democrats, who will take the fight to the Second District, that I would not run. In reliance on my word they entered the race. I said it. I meant it."

That's childish. The FACT is the Democratic party is backing Sherrod Brown, who is just as popular as Hackett, maybe slightly more so, and that's without even having begun campaigning yet.

People who are claiming this is some sort of betrayal... that's just childish whining thier persoanl fav wasn't chosen, and another who is just as popular and perhaps the stronger candidate ws chosen.

It's pretty pathetic that some of the regulars here who hang out on poltical forum all the time have such a tenuous grasp of politics and how democracy works. 

I don't see the sour grapes.  Just a difference in reading the piece

Did you read it? It's pretty obviously sour grapes, from the very first sentance of opinion after he states the fact he's withdrawing. He also doesn't even endorse the running Democrat or mention him. How can that be interpreted as anything but sour grapes? I really have difficulty respecting people who can read whatever they want to see without any objectivity.

Also, your premise the Democratic party is duty bound to back every candidate, is pretty goofy. Hackett can still run if he wants to, just without Democratic party support because they don't think he's the stronger candidate. Brown is just as popular as Hackett, and that's without even campaigning. That's a FACT. So to claim this is some totally irrational betrayal of Hackett, that is just axe-grindingly dumb.

The FACT is the Democratic party is going to put thier limited resources behind whoever they think is the strongest candidate, and for rational reasosns they think that's Sherrod Brown, who is a very popular candidate with a lot of name recognition. So claiming the party isn't supporting the people, that is just totally retarded.

I had no stake in the Hackett/Brown race, and am trying to look at this practically and objectivly as to who is the better candidate, becasue winning does matter. The winner will cast deciding votes in budgets, on war powers, or even possibly impeachemtn. It matters a hell of a lot whether the Dems or the GOP win.

I see a lot of kvetching from Hackett fanbois. I've yet to read a single rational argument as to why Hackett was the stronger candidate.

If people want to know who to blame for Democratic losses, that sort of whiney kvetching and totally irrational politics deserves plenty. When people get realistic and get smart, then we'll be running the country and able to start progress again.

So long as people keep up this whiny attitude, which extends to a lot of issues, we'll keep failing to assemble a majority coalition, and keep losing while we watch the country veer off track.

You bet the team is more important.  That team is the Democratic Party, which, make no mistake, is the only vehicle for progressive change in this country.

What an embarrassing temper tantrum from Paul Hackett.  Oh, and you want to know something interesting?  Sherrod Brown is the more progressive candidate.  Yeah.  Brown.  More liberal. 

The goal is to 1) win elections and 2) make the Congress more liberal, folks.  Brown is a better option for both.  Of course, people who are more interested in self-validation might feel otherwise.

Did the DNC threaten to kill the donor's children?  This excuse that the establishment scared off his funders just reflects that the funders weren't that committed.   Real insurgents have to develop their own fundraising base and usually do. 

Again no one in the establishment wanted Barak Obama or Paul Wellstone to win their primaries but they found the money to make their campaigns work. 

In an ideal race the candidates would all be wonderfuly progressive and rather than voting "against" someone, it would be a vote "for" someone. In the current political climate it's just unfortunate that it instead seems to be a waste of resources and time when there's a dearth of both at what seems like the 11th hour of our democracy. This is a bad time to split hairs or to hang out dirty laundry.
 
I, too, urge Paul Hackett to reconsider, if not for this race, then for future races. Thicker skin is required in the current political climate. It is frustrating that the top of the party seems out of touch with the bottom and it's all about big money. Unless we can ever remove the emphasis on big money, the system will continue to be co-opted away from substance and issues.

NickDoe,

 While I think you have a decent point, your are hammering on it to the point of negating it.  Yes, the party needs to give careful thought to what candidate it backs in a Senate race, particularly one against a vulnerable-but-not-dead incumbent in a bellweather state.

On the other hand, it's clear that Paul Hackett's direct manner and unflinching stance really resonated with core (activist) Democrats nationwide, and that's not altogether unimportant.  Can't fight any battles without footsoldiers.  Folks here are also correct in asserting the Dems are really wanting for that kind of piss and vinegar on the large stage.  Frankly, in Carville & Greenberg's surveys, that's what seems to weigh on the Dems the most - no sense of strong leadership and uncompromising commitment to anything.  That may be amateur-hour politics, but it resonates with a lot of voters.  You might also want to take a look back at Mr. Brown's visit here - it left me and others pretty underwhelmed with the strength of his message and/or his ability to deliver it, so it's not like he's got everything Hackett does and more.

 
At a guess, Paul Hackett's eschewing of the typical concession statement is less a reflection of embitterment and more his being a bit of a loose cannon.  I mean the guy's just coming down from the dream that he was going to put together a Senate campaign from some sticks and stones and a few embers of a small-district Congressional race, and that dream has been cut short very suddenly.  It may be live by the sword die by the sword, but getting the sword always sucks.