Yesterday,
Paul Hackett followed his announcement with a
diary asking Kossacks for their ideas on what his message should be, open sourcing the message creation.
Today, Crooks and Liars is open sourcing an interview with Hackett, go submit you questions.
Instead of talking-at the netroots, Hackett has started a conversation.
Yet anytime it appears that the grassroots are breaking through, some people get worried and start the type of attacks and misrepresentations that the Democratic Establishment used to destroy Howard Dean.
Yet the netroots and blogosphere are far stronger than in late 2003 and early 2004, it won't be as easy for them to destroy Hackett. And judging by the amount of press Hackett is receiving, it appears he will have the largest megaphone of any candidate in 2006.
Before yesterday's discussion turned into personal attacks against individuals supporting Hackett, there was some actual talk about the issues. Which is good, because we have a unique opportunity with Paul Hackett to radically shift the power base away from Washington, DC. Hackett had a chance to talk about some issues, yet didn't have the time to answer all of the questions.
But he went on record with Salon and talked about many of the questions people had. The profile was titled, Reporting for duty. First of all gay rights, which you just don't see typical Democrats in red states talk about on the first day of campaigning:
Let's talk about the so-called moral values issues that you say spurred you to run for Congress last summer. You were upset about what you called Republican grandstanding on Terri Schiavo, abortion and gay marriage.
Why are these the No. 1 issues in the United States when we've got an economy which is in even more dire danger of reaching rock bottom than it was when I embarked on the congressional race? Frankly, these social issues are simple and straightforward. I'll be happy to take each one individually. Gay marriage and gay rights: I'm fond of saying, "Who cares?" The debate is about whether or not American men and women can walk into a courthouse and get equal treatment under the law regardless of their sexual preference. Anything less than that is un-American. [...]
You sound like someone who could be held up as a liberal champion. Still, your position on guns is probably upsetting to doctrinaire liberals. How do you reconcile your position on gay marriage and gun control?
I don't need Washington, D.C., or the government in my private life. Period. I don't need them to dictate to my wife the decisions she can make with a doctor. I don't need a Washington politician to tell my neighbors what they can do in the privacy of their bedroom. And I don't need Washington politicians to tell me what guns to keep in my gun safe.
Iraq is also a big question. For the life of me I can't understand why some Democrats are trying to tear down Paul Hackett on Iraq. He has more credibility on the issue than any other Democrat and his "chicken-hawk" quote was heard around the world. I mean, the guy volunteered for a war he opposed to try and make it work and now some hatchetmen are trying to hold it against him. Here's what he says:
You supported invading Afghanistan, but you've said you think we went to Iraq based on lies. You do agree with the president, however, in that you don't think we can "cut and run." What would you do differently in Iraq?
First of all, if this president wanted to succeed in Iraq, the first thing he would have done is listen to the generals in the very beginning when they said it would take more than 150,000 troops. General Shinseki said that and was summarily fired. That was before the invasion of Iraq.
But what would you do now?
If I were the president, I'd tell the military to figure out how we systematically and in organized fashion get our troops out of there, because the war's over. It's not going to get any better.
When you ran for Congress, you favored better training for Iraqi forces. Now you're saying we should get out?
There are two options: Increase troop strength or train the Iraqi military with a match of one American soldier for every Iraqi soldier. That's not going to happen. Everybody knows that, so if we're not going to train the Iraqi military, let's quit spending our money and spending our lives.
Here's the problem: We've been there two-plus years and there's nothing objective this country can point at and say, "This is what we've improved since we've been over there." The infrastructure is worse -- the electrical grid, the water grid, the sewage grid, the road system. All that infrastructure is worse today than when we got there two-plus years ago.
The Bush administration says there's progress.
Bullshit. I've been there. There's no success unless you call painting schools success. We've painted a lot of schools.
There were also (repeated) questions on the Drug War:
Obviously the drug war is not working. With many Republican and Democratic administrations their solution is to build more prisons and put more people in jail. I'm not comfortable saying legalize it, but I think there needs to be an honest discussion about providing money to educate people and to treat people who have an addiction. Many Americans ask why we have to get touchy-feely about this. Well, I'll tell you why: because we're spending billions and billions of dollars to warehouse people in jail, and that ain't workin'.
And energy (Hackett drives a hybrid):
First of all, leadership starts at the top. I couldn't help but smile when I saw President Bush, with this great anguish and difficulty, asking Americans [in the wake of Katrina] to consider conserving their energy consumption. Conservation is a part of the solution. Also, we need to spend the money to fund the research to come up with an alternative source of energy to fuel our cars and electrify our houses, and our industry. That can be done. I'm not a scientist, but I have confidence in the United States. We had the Manhattan Project and we put a man on the moon; I'm absolutely confident we can come up with a way to reduce and eventually eliminate our dependency on petrochemicals. But until that happens, we should be asking Americans to buy fuel-efficient vehicles. And we should be asking the American automobile industry to produce fuel-efficient vehicles.
Yes, Hackett is with us on the issues. But campaigns aren't just about issues, they are also about people. Before voters look at the issues, they make a primia facia determination of whether they respect the candidate. Hackett has earned that respect and instead of just talking at people can engage in conversation with Independents and even Republicans who normally wouldn't give a Democrat the time of day.
So stepping back from the issues, look at the meta-frame of Hackett's campaign:
Hackett's volunteering to fight in Iraq, landing him in perilous locations like Fallujah and Ramadi, no doubt also earned him respect -- as have his candid criticisms of a war increasingly unpopular with Americans.
But perhaps most important is how Hackett conveys the kind of straight-shooting image that Democrats have been struggling so mightily to regain. He doesn't hesitate to endorse same-sex marriage, decry right-wing religious zealotry or, as an NRA member, disagree with other liberals about gun control. In a wide-ranging interview, Hackett spoke with Salon about withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, rethinking the failed war on drugs, reviving the progressive side of the party, and more.
That is a message that we need to win in Ohio and nationwide in 2006. Straight talk, bold action.
There is a reason he gets cover-stories titled, The Democrat who fought.
And he is willing to embrace the netroots in his unique way. If you have more questions, give them to Crooks and Liars. If you have ideas, post on them so Hackett will see them.
And remember what Majikthise says:
The reason to support Hackett over Brown is simple--if Hackett wins (and he can win), the progressive blogosphere makes history. A small, widely-dispered network of highly motivated amateurs and semi-pros will have delivered a US Senate seat. Hackett's election would mark a radical power shift in American politics, even if the candidate is less radical than some of us would like.
The Democratic Party needs this power shift. We need this storyline. And we have a candidate willing to involve us all in the conversation of his candidacy.