David Goodman, author of the recent Mother Jones covers story on Hackett, has an update on TomPaine.com. In it he’s got a lot of nice things to say about Hackett. There is one paragraph that I want to talk about:

The Brown-Hackett face-off has sparked a furious and often personal debate among liberal bloggers about which candidate is more deserving of backing. The argument goes that Brown, a veteran progressive legislator (he was a leader in the unsuccessful fight against CAFTA earlier this year), has a proven liberal voting record and as such should be rewarded with dollars and votes. Hackett supporters counter that their guy is a progressive populist who appeals beyond the Democratic base and win in places like conservative southern Ohio—and thus take the state. The two sides are relentlessly slinging mud at each other, eagerly misquoting and misrepresenting the other’s candidate in a time-honored ritual of liberal self-immolation. The result is that at best, the netroots will divide its support between the candidates during the primary. That may give an initial edge to Brown, who has $2 million in his campaign war chest. But Hackett relishes the fight as an outsider and underdog, and has parlayed this before to overcome long odds.


I, for one, am deliberately avoiding attacking Sherrod Brown. I don’t feel that there is ever a need to misquote or misrepresent. I honestly don’t see the need to attack Brown at all. However, when someone misquotes and misrepresents I make my presence felt. My problem is with them, not with Sherrod Brown. Now who knows what will happen with he steps into the ring… but for now there’s no point.

If you want to know why I support Paul Hackett, listen to Paul Hackett. Either you get it or you don’t, and if you don’t, I can’t help you.