It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I'm not sure what the issue is here. The Democratic Party pressured a guy who was unlikely to win against the Repbulican challenger to step aside and let the Party's favoured candidate stand on a solid Democratic base.
Hackett wanted to fight to the finish. He raised nearly a half-million dollars in the last quarter of 2005, matching Brown’s fundraising. But Brown entered the Senate race with $2 million in the bank, a strategic cushion. Early polls show both Brown and Hackett running in a dead heat against DeWine. An internal poll done in February for the Hackett campaign that was obtained by the Cleveland Plain Dealer showed Brown leading Hackett by 20 points, but Hackett took the lead if voters simply heard both candidates' bios. The analysis concluded, “If Paul Hackett can raise the funds necessary to communicate his message to the voters of Ohio, he will present Sherrod Brown with a formidable challenge in May.”
Your first point that he is unlikely to win is debateable. Do you have data that supports that?
As to the related point about the standing on "a solid Democratic base", I thought attacking the President in vitriolic terms and with hyperbole strongly appealed to the democratic base.
Maybe I'm just too naive, but I sure wish there was a party that was more about leadership & sound government than political games.