Yes and no.

Comments on some of the latest fallout in the Brown/Hackett brouhaha in Ohio.

Check the yes box next to Kos' note on Jerome Armstrong's decision to suspend blogging while he's consulting for campaigns…

In fact, that Jerome works in campaigns would make him more qualified to write about campaigns. Nothing like doing to educate someone about the intricacies of any subject. So long as disclosure is made, people can decide how to gauge a particular bit of information. But this is politics, and it's a rough and tumble world, so perhaps it's inevitable.

It's a pity that the lefty blogosphere will lose one of it's brightest minds and leading voices for three years (Armstrong has clients signed through the '08 cycle). The potential for conflicts in a case like this are easily resolved through disclosure, and Jerome has been exemplary in that regard. Looks like we're dining on our young to me.

By the way, in case you weren't crystal clear (I, at least, wasn't) Kos leaves no doubt.

I don't consult. I don't want to consult. I hated consulting when I did it. Armstrong Zuniga, LLC, our joint consulting firm from last year, has been legally dissolved. It no longer exists.

Having taken Kos to task in the past for being, I thought, less than exemplary in disclosure of his consulting interests, I'm please by that news.

On the other hand, I have to dissent from Lindsay Beyerstein's latest on the Ohio Senate primary...

Progressive bloggers love Hackett because he is our partner in a radical plan to reshape political power in America. Politics makes strange bedfellows. But, when you get down to brass tacks, Hackett is an invaluable ally: he loves the blogosphere, understands how to harness the power of the blogosphere, and perhaps most importantly, he owes the blogosphere. Hackett is also the perfect R&D project for people who want to use netroots to execute the 50 state strategy.

At first glance, it's pretty hard to see this as anything but insulting to Paul Hackett. He's our partner, huh? Right. A partner we can use as an 'R&D project' because he owes us.

Uh huh.

And the point of the project?

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.

A chance to 'make history' by flexing our muscles. It's not so important that he agrees with us, as long as he remembers that he owes us, I suppose, but where's the radical change? Sounds to me like the goal is the creation of an old school political machine without the geographic constraints - big blog bosses replacing the big city bosses of old. Find a candidate, make him dependent and don't worry about what he believes as long as he does what he's told. Not exactly the way-new notion I was hoping for, I'm afraid.

In fact, blogs have the potential to influence the Ohio Senate race, and a lot of others, in a number of ways, including, of course, cash. If Hackett were to win the primary, though, victory in November will involve support from a wide array of sources - labor, teachers, trial lawyers, consultants of every kind, Party committees, etc., etc. - all with a potential claim on his loyalties. Maybe he'll love bloggers best. Don't bet on it.

Support Paul Hackett, if you will, because you think he'll be a great U.S. Senator. Not a project, not a plot. And if you want a revolt in American politics, start telling voters you can choose their representatives from your far-away computer screen.

They'll find it revolting, alright...