Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Dems stumble in Ohio

If you want to win an election, particularly a Congressional election or bigger, the first and most important thing to do is make sure you are on the ballot. Well, an Ohio Democratic candidate made the mistake of not getting enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. According to The Hill News
Top Democrats are furious with state Sen. Charlie Wilson (D-Ohio), who failed last week to get 50 valid signatures to qualify for a ballot spot in a Democratic congressional primary.

"Rahm is pissed off, as well as he should be," a top Democratic official said, referring to Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC).

"If you can’t do petitions, how can you do anything?" the official added. "It was totally misplayed. Charlie appears to be in over his head, and [Democrats are] pushing him to get professional help" from strategists in Washington who can raise money nationwide.

Another Democratic aide added, "Prior to having this problem, he was too confident. Now he has a healthier attitude about the race. He should be scared. He did not get on the ballot."


Roll Call (subscription req.) reports:
An embarrassing last-minute filing snafu in a must-win Ohio open-seat House race has led to a round of behind-the-scenes finger-pointing in Democratic circles, as party leaders sought to assess blame for state Sen. Charlie Wilson’s (D) failure to qualify for the primary ballot in the 6th district.

As Wilson announced Friday that he will pursue a write-in campaign to win the Democratic nomination, it was clear that some in the party were looking to Bob Doyle, Wilson’s fundraising consultant who was believed to hold great sway over the campaign, to shoulder at least some of the responsibility for the major setback.

"I think in any screw-up like this one, you first look to the campaign manager and then you look to the consultant," said one Democratic operative.
If the problem were simply with one candidate, one could dismiss the problem, but apparently Democrats in the key battleground of Ohio are reeling from mismanagement and in-fighting. Paul Hackett, an Iraqi war veteran who was the darling of the Democratic establishment in a 2005 Special election, won by Republican Jean Schmidt, dropped out of the Senate Primary and spent several days in various appearances railing against national Democratic leaders and strategists:
Emanuel made several last-ditch attempts to help Hackett gracefully bow out of his race for the Senate and run for the House. But after several phone conversations, Hackett stopped returning calls from Democratic strategists, Democratic sources said.

Hackett then leaked his exit to The New York Times to embarrass Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee (DSCC). Hackett spent the next 48 hours on television cable TV and radio railing against congressional Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Emanuel, Brown and Schumer.

Hackett alleged on MSNBC’s "Hardball" that Brown spread rumors that, as a Marine Corps officer in Iraq, Hackett had committed war crimes.

Speaking to local Democrats last week in Ohio, Hackett took a dig at Emanuel. "We want to keep all his minions in Washington, D.C. We want his money. We don’t want his help," Hackett said.
Source: The Hill News
Organization is what wins campaigns and apparently the Democrats don't have much of one on the ground in Ohio.

What is troubling is the complete ineptitude of state and national democrats in dealing with the Brown/Hackett race. In an effort to clear the field, the Democrats choose Sherrod Brown, an able enough guy, but an establishment candidate over a person the party so enthusiastically supported before. Such treatment surely has Hackett irritated and rightfully so.

In short the desire to win at all costs has probably cost Democrats candidates across the country as they try to avoid primaries. Thus, the whole concept of democracy and election by the people is truncated. We as voters no longer have a choice, but are presented choices by the party, who is more interested in winning than fielding good candidates, tested in political battles, and presenting more moderate voices.

No comments: