However, there have been some dissonant chords here and there. The example that comes to mind: The Paul Hackett Affair.

I was bowled over when Markos mentioned Paul Hackett in his keynote speech at YKos as an example of the power of the “netroots” — not least because when Rahm Emanuel et al threw Hackett under the bus, Markos almost immediately declared that while he was loath to say it, Brown stood a far better chance at winning than did Hackett — mostly because Brown had the support of the powers that be in the Democratic Party.

Markos’s explanation for switching allegiances from Hackett to Brown seemed, frankly, a strange rationale, being that Hackett could have been the ultimate test case for the “Crashing the Gates” experiment. Still, it wasn’t altogether shocking that Markos decide to support Brown’s candidacy, given that his friend Jerome once consulted for Brown (just as it isn’t surprising that Markos now gives Mark warner the benefit of the doubt, given Jerome’s position with the Warner campaign; why people profess shock at this is beyond me – if one of my best friends worked for a pol, I’d be inclined to look with different eyes at said pol), especially once it was clear Hackett was to be thoroughly abandoned by the party “leadership.” But I’ll be clear: it was shocking. And, I still believe, the wrong decision. I read Crashing the Gates, you see. And abandoning Hackett, signing on with the candidate anointed by the DLC, seemed in complete contradiction to the ideas and ideals behind Markos’s book.

She’s absolutely right, which may be a first. But this isn’t news to anyone who’s been paying attention.

Pablo on July 8, 2006 at 8:04 PM