Democrats Push Hackett Out Of Senate Race

The Democrats just don't get it.

Here's the backstory: Paul Hackett is a longtime Marine who decided to run for Congress in his native Ohio last year after returning from duty in Iraq. In that special election, he came very close to defeating 'Mean Jean' Schmidt in a highly Republican district. Many Democrats rallied around him after this. He decided to run again this year, this time for Mike DeWine's Senate seat. His candidacy was creating a good amount of buzz. Until today...

AP: Iraq Vet Abandons Ohio Political Bid

Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett, a Bush administration critic who had been recruited by top Democrats to run for U.S. Senate, said Tuesday he was reluctantly dropping his campaign and declared his political career over.

Hackett said he was pressured by party leaders to drop out of the Senate primary and run for the House against Republican Rep. Jean Schmidt instead...

At this time, Hackett says he won't go back to the congressional race and is done with politics all together. You can read his statement on this at Talking Points Memo. Hackett says key Democrats were concerned about his chances in this key election and decided to go for a safer candidate... meaning someone with a bigger campaign treasure chest. I understand that logic, but then why not just help Hackett raise more money? I think that this was a mistake. The Democrats just aren't seeing the bigger picture of the political landscape.

Americans are not just tired of corrupt Republicans, they are also tired of career politicians in general. They just feel detached from the whole system, which they see as having little or no connection to their own lives (this is, obviously, far from the truth). Outsider candidates like Hackett should've been put front-and-center by the Democrats as the new face of the party. They have no connections to lobbyists, no loyalty to corporations or thinktanks, and are not yet beholden to any special interests. As I mentioned in a post last Thursday, former Sen. Max Cleland is rallying with a band of veterans joining the congressional fight in races all over the nation. Candidates like this not only provide a fresh voice, but have strong credibility on national security. But the Democratic leadership (Dean, Reid, Pelosi) have made not mention of these "fighting Democrats" and their role in the '06 campaign, in the same way they are ignoring Rep. Murtha, the only Democrat to go public with a clear and workable opposition strategy for Iraq. Instead, the Democratic leadership insist on pushing their own, in-house candidates.

They think they can cruise to victory on anti-Republican sentiment alone, as was their essential strategy in the 2004 presidential election. And how'd that work out?

This should be an easy election for the Democrats to win; at very few points in recent history has the other party been so mired in scandals. And not just little ones either. Big scandals. Big, and important, scandals. The Democrats say they will be running as the party of change. That's certainly the right angle, but then they pull a move like this, casting aside a symbol of change for the 'safe' choice. Now is not the time to play it safe. That has never worked for them before. Now is the time to put all their chips on the table, lay out their agenda for the people to see, and go for broke. It worked for the Republicans in '94.

And, really, what do they have to lose?