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.