The Nation Weighs In on Ohio Senate Primary
Crossing Over -It's not just an
obscure Van Halen
song anymore
After BSB (Buckeye State Blog) and Plunderbund got exposure on CNN and the Other Paper, The Nation comments on the "hero of the blogosphere" versus Rahm Emanuel's candidate. John Nichols writes in The Nation (March 13), that Sherrod Brown "is the favorite of the grassroots labor, civil rights and antiwar voters whose votes are definitional in a primary and whose energy will be essential in November."
Leaving aside the word "definitional," because I think language should be fluid and who am I to throw thesauruses, how well acquainted is Nichols with the Ohio grassroots? While there may be a clamor on Kos to back Brown, I haven't seen anything online locally about how fired-up Ohioans are.
Nichols argues that it is okay that the DSCC and DCCC interfered this time, because for once they backed the more progressive candidate. I'm sure Nichols knows all about ends and means. That's what drew a lot of people to Hackett, actually. Yes, he's not as progressive as Brown, but people had confidence that Hackett would say and mean what it took to win. We were willing to tolerate some of Hackett's more centrist positions for that.
Those positions drew a lot of Reagan Democrats to Hackett. Nichols claims that Hackett wasn't viable, because he hadn't made enough inroads through NEO, Brown's backyard. No offense to our liberal brethren up north, but it's going to take a lot more than turning out the Cleveland vote to get a Democratic Senator. Even the ODP has admitted that strategy is not enough. Unfortunately, we no longer have an alternative.
posted by grandpaboy @ 9:43:00 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
The Nation has been spewing garbage on this for some time. Seems their progressive champion (nothing wrong with that mind you) has really clouded their vision and ability to look at this race with an objective eye.
They are the ones, remember, that touted the bogus "Hackett internal poll" that showed he would get crushed...leaving out the follow-up part where Paul pulled ahead with his message.
I almost think at times The Nation would rather see progressives lose so they could sell more paper magazines with all the hand wringing that would ensue.
This is DrDem,
Isn't it interesting that the SAME author who wrote an article that Hackett left the race because of bad poll numbers is now writing a bogus article that it is OKAY FOR THE DCSS AND DCCC to interfere with a primary when it is the voters who should decide.
Also, isn't it interesting that Sherrod Brown and David Sirota have been focusing on that article saying the reason Hackett left is for the poll numbers.
Does Nichols, Sirota, and Brown all work together or something?
superb take GB.
Whomever the Senate candidate would have been, NEO would have supported hands down. That's just what we do up here.
The DSCC/DCCC would have done themselves a favor by working for points south of Mansfield and supporting a candidate who could win there, rather than rolling the dice, which is what they've done.
I really have no idea - but it would seem to me as a NEO-er, that to an undecided/independent voter in lets say, the 2nd District, Brown may appear like one of those chardonnay-sippin' Ivy League elitist progressives.
Is there anything he could do to change that image now?
Post a Comment
<< Home