Without pointing fingers - I like and respect both Brown and Hackett - I ask: What should we do now? After much discussion about this firestorm with smart people I trust and like, I understand and recognize that good people are angry for two reasons - one good, one misplaced. Some assume Sherrod Brown is a corporate GOP-lite wimp. I believe they will change their minds about this and support Brown once they know his record. That anger is misplaced. But people also resent the heavy-handed tactics employed to push Hackett out of the race. So do I, and for the same reasons our friends have mentioned.

We can and should endorse Brown for US Senate while denouncing the indefensible tactics. I suggest we stand up for Paul and demand an apology and a full accounting from the campaign "masterminds" responsible for this mess and a pledge that they will stop their meddling and manipulation. If this is what they consider helping, then this uproar and backlash clearly proves them wrong.

We should urge Rep. Brown to reach out to Major Hackett and hold a joint appearance as soon as possible to put this to rest. We should ask Paul to join with Sherrod to remember and rebuild their powerful partnership which nearly put Paul in the House last year. I hope they will combine efforts to defeat right winger DeWine in November. Maybe Paul can win a House seat. Maybe he will beat Voinovich in a few years. Either way, we should show the strong leadership our "leaders" too often lack and help Rep. Brown beat Sen. Mike DeWine.

Sherrod Brown is one of the most progressive members of Congress, a stalwart of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who leads to the left of Paul Hackett on many issues. Brown has already lined up support all over Ohio to run a winning campaign, and he's won state-wide in Ohio twice. Not that Paul Hackett is a bad guy or a poor candidate. He's articulate and outspoken - a true leader who can still run and win for Congress while Brown wins for Senate - both taking seats from incumbent right wing Republicans. That's the best outcome for progressives and it can still happen if key people put our national interest above emotions and ego.

Check Brown's voting ratings, record and positions, http://www.sherrodbrown.com/issues http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=H3141103 vs. DeWine's http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=CNIP0711 and note these highlighted ratings from key progressive and liberal groups:

Brown favored U.S. Public Interest Research Group priorities 90 percent of the time in 2005 and in 2004, 95 percent in 2003 and 100 percent in 2002. He supported Americans for Democratic Action priorities 95 percent in 2004, 2002 and 2001, and 100 percent in 2003. Brown voted for State PIRGs Working Together's positions 90 percent of the time in 2004 and 95 percent in 2003. He supported the National Committee for an Effective Congress 95 percent of the time in 2002 and 99 percent in 2001. He supported People for the American Way 94 percent from 2001-2002. That's a stellar progressive voting record which we need in the Senate.

Mike DeWine? Not so much. DeWine opposed the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association's most important positions every time from1995-2004, earning a 0 percent rating. Same for NARAL Pro-Choice America: 0 percent rating from 2000 to 2005. He never supported Planned Parenthood positions from 1996-2003, yet another 0 percent. He always supported the interests of the National Right to Life [sic] Committee - a 100 percent rating from 1999-2004.

DeWine is astonishingly regressive on issues of war and peace and a sustainable environment. He opposed the priorities of the Friends Committee on National Legislation in every 2004 vote for a 0 percent rating. Same for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation - 0 percent. The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) also rated DeWine at 0 percent, and so did Peace Action. From 2001 to 2004, DeWine opposed every priority listed by the Council for a Livable World - another 0 percent rating.