How the Democrats stole Paul Hackett's campaign
By Thomas Lindaman
web posted February 27, 2006
It's often been said that politics is a blood sport, one in which you don't necessarily win because you're the best candidate, but more because you're the last one standing. Even within the two major political parties, the politics can get ugly.
And on that point, I'm sure I can get a hearty "Amen" from Major Paul Hackett. Hackett was one of the Democrat candidates running for the Senate in a bid to unseat Mike DeWine. Looking at his resume, one would see he brings a lot to the table that Democrats would be able to utilize. Iraq War veteran. Strong party support. Outspoken critic of the Iraq War. Young. Handsome. A common man appeal. This is the type of candidate Democrats at the grassroots level have been begging for to run against any Republican. And with the Democrats targeting DeWine as vulnerable, Hackett should have had an easy path to the nomination and, possibly, the Senate.
The operative word, however, is "should." Hackett is the latest victim of the internal party machinations that reward loyalty and cronyism.
The story begins several months ago when Hackett was thinking about running for public office. As a telegenic firebrand, he got the attention of Democratic Party leaders including Senator Charles Schumer and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Hailed as a "fighting Democrat," Hackett was what the party needed to have a shot at reclaiming one or both houses of Congress.
Enter Sherrod Brown. Brown, an Akron Democrat and party insider, announced he, too, was running for the nomination to take on DeWine. This posed an interesting question for the party leaders: do you go with the new guy who you've been pushing, or do you go with the party insider. As you might have expected, the party decided to back Brown. In an attempt to get Hackett to drop out, Reid called Hackett in October of last year, but Hackett refused. This kept the question on the table and in play.
Then, the party decided to start pulling the rug out from under Hackett's feet. The "fighting Democrat" won the hearts and dollars of Democrats, but not the love of party insiders who were concerned at whether he was Senate material.
From there, things would only get worse. In November, it was rumored that Hackett committed war crimes in Iraq and that there were photographs proving it. The photos allegedly showed Hackett mistreating bodies of dead Iraqis. This prompted another call from Reid to Hackett, asking if the photos were true. Hackett denied it and said it was another Marine unloading a sealed body bag from a truck.
But the damage had already taken its effect. Once the rumor got started, it seeped down to even Hackett's close supporters to the point that they even questioned him in private about the photos. But Hackett kept on, raising funds during a fundraising swing in California and New York in the hopes that he would be able to overcome and conquer. Before this swing, however, Democrats tried to undercut Hackett yet again, circulating an email suggesting donors shift their support from Hackett to Brown. The email came from the political action committee of another prominent Democrat, California Representative Henry Waxman. When asked about it, Waxman's chief of staff said it was only sent to a few people and "it probably came from a suggestion from the Sherrod Brown campaign."
But Waxman wasn't the only one. Schumer is rumored to have tried to further hinder Hackett's ability to raise funds. Political activist David Mixner, who was "a fanatically strong supporter" of Hackett by his own admission, received phone calls from Congressmen telling him not to support Hackett, politically or financially. Mixner said of the calls, "I don't think it's inappropriate to call me. What's inappropriate is that the people calling me were the same people who asked him to run, and now they wanted to push him out."
Shortly afterwards, Hackett decided to withdraw from the Senate race and said he would not seek public office anytime soon. He was urged to change races and join the race in Ohio's Second Congressional District against incumbent Republican Jean Schmidt, but he declined, citing a pledge he made to the candidates already in the race that he wouldn't run.
Regardless of what you think of Hackett's politics or his stance on the Iraq War, the man got sandbagged in what appears to be typical Democratic Party fashion, in my opinion. When I covered the 2004 Democratic Caucuses in Iowa, I heard a similar tale from a Democrat who was called by the precinct captain and urged to change her vote from Howard Dean to John Kerry. And I'm pretty sure she wasn't the only one who got that call. Now, this sort of distasteful backroom politics has claimed yet another victim.
But what Democrats don't realize is that this shouldn't have happened in the first place. Hackett had the goods and would have given DeWine a solid race. But we'll never know that because Brown's party loyalty was the deciding factor in who would run against DeWine. The old guard approach to candidates isn't working for Democrats these days. It's time for new blood, and Hackett was the very man to inject that new blood.
If the Democrats follow the strategy they used with Dean, Hackett will be offered a high-profile job to "make up" for the party screwing him over. I can only speculate as to what Hackett's response might be, but if I were him, I would tell them to stick it. The way I see it, the party owes Hackett a lot more than just a make-good job. What they did was reprehensible at best.
And from where I sit, Paul Hackett, the people of Ohio, and the Democratic Party faithful deserved a far better fate. 
Thomas Lindaman is a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets. He is also Publisher of CommonConservative.com.