> Ed Schultz, the lib Limbaugh (in style if not in
> numbers), wailed on his show today that Hackett
> was "swiftboated" by Dems who charged him with war
> crimes in Iraq. Is this true?
I don't know if it's true or not, but I have my doubts. Liberals are pretty dumb, especially when they think they're taking on "the party establishment" in the name of a candidate who is further to the right than the candidate favored by party regulars. These are the same people who favored Barbara Hafer over Bob Casey for the Senate seat in Pennsylvania, and now they're doing the same thing in Ohio even though Sherrod Brown should be the undisputed choice for progressives in the race.
Sherrod Brown is basically a leftist who happens to be a Democratic member of Congress. He is Dennis Kucinich without the Children of the Forest (and also, I would add, without Kucinich's previous fetus fetish). Paul Hackett is an "Iraq-war-was-a-mistake-but-now-we-have-to-finish-the-job" guy, and ran for Congress as such two years ago; Brown supports the Woolsey resolution and has opposed the war strongly from the beginning. The choice in this primary was clear-cut even before Hackett dropped out of the race. The Daily Kos blog was saying yesterday that the fact that the liberal bloggers -- what they pretentiously term "the netroots" -- got behind Hackett is proof that the liberal blogosphere is not part of the "hard left." On that, at least, they are quite correct. They spend a lot of time railing against "the party establishment" for ignoring the base and for favoring style over substance, and then they turn right around and do the same thing.
- - - - - - - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com
Tell no lies, claim no easy victories