Nation Editorial Dismissive of Hackett

An upcoming editorial in The Nation talks about different Iraq War stances as it relates to different races coming up in 2006. “The War and the Elections” mentions the Ohio Senate race:

In Ohio a leading backer of the Woolsey amendment, Representative Sherrod Brown, has entered the Senate primary race against Paul Hackett, the Iraq War veteran who was bluntly critical of Bush’s handling of the war during a losing race this past summer for an open House seat. In his House race Hackett surprised many fans of his anti-Bush remarks by opposing a timeline for withdrawal, and he has since disturbed war critics by dismissing the Congressional push for a timeline as “absolutely ludicrous.” There is no such ambiguity with Brown. He was an outspoken foe of the 2002 resolution authorizing Bush to use force in Iraq, and since the start of the war he has written House letters demanding answers from the Administration about the misuse of prewar intelligence, co-sponsored withdrawal resolutions and regularly read letters from antiwar constituents–particularly members of military families–into the Congressional Record.

They go on to act like there is no primary:

There will be plenty of twists and turns between now and November. But if Sherrod Brown wins in Ohio, where Republican Senator Mike DeWine is vulnerable, and Independent Representative Bernie Sanders wins Vermont’s open seat, as now seems likely, two of the House’s most articulate and savvy antiwar voices will be heard in the Senate.

It was probably their recent mandate that “The Nation will not support any candidate for national office who does not make a speedy end to the American war in Iraq a major issue in his or her campaign” that is behind this. I’m personally closer to Brown on this as I can’t really figure out where Hackett is at. I just wish more Dems would stand up and point out that purple fingers are NOT what we were sold…