Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab Us In The Front

In the Lieberman-Lamont fight, there has been a fair amount of handwringing over why Lamont isn't blowing Joe out of the water.  Why, if Joe lost to Lamont, isn't he losing in the general?  Why did Lamont let Joe get away?  Well there are a number of reasons, but among the most prominent is the total abandonment of Lamont by the party establishment.  And let's be very clear - this is not Lamont that they are abandoning, it's the party primary voters that they are abandoning.

Whether it was a standing ovation at a caucus meeting when Joe got back to the Senate after his primary loss, or Obama refusing to come to Connecticut or criticize Joe in any way, or Bill Clinton praising Lieberman on Larry King, or Harry Reid promising Lieberman seniority, or Chuck Schumer refusing to get involved and practically being forced to not back Lieberman after the primary, or insiders telling Lamont's campaign that they would talk Joe out of the race if Lamont didn't go on the attack, it's very clear that the Democratic Party leadership is rotten to the core.  With the exception of John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy, and Wes Clark, no high profile Democrats have been there for Lamont. (John Edwards is a bit more complicated, but the jury's still out.)

Here's the latest on Lieberman bragging about the seniority he'll have if he wins reelection.  Make no mistake, these DC Democrats are only our temporary allies.  They have total contempt for the rules of the party, and they cheered Joe after he faced us in the primary.  It is no longer reasonable for them to call for party unity, because they no longer have any legitimate claim to call themselves leaders of the party.  They may be leaders for the next few decades simply due to inertia, but it's very clear that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are liars who think nothing of insulting Democratic primary voters who play by the rules.  

The American people know this.  They know that Democratic Senators are moral lepers, weaklings, and that is the only reason we aren't further ahead when the Republicans screw everything up.  The Democratic Senate leaders will sell us out at every opportunity, be it torture, Iraq, Alito, Lieberman, the Bankruptcy Bill, or stopping war with Iran.  They aren't poll-driven, they aren't fear-driven, and they aren't driven by strategic differences.  They are simply driven to beat us down, their voters, by any means necessary.  That's why they cheered Joe.

It's sad.  Lamont can win this, and we're all doing our best to make that happen.  But the important story here is not that the country supports the war, it doesn't.  Lieberman is running on an antiwar platform, promising to bring the troops home in a transparently dishonest pander to the left.  The important story here is that the DC Senate Democrats and DC lobbyists are not on our side.  They have their own side, a side that is out of touch, immoral, and dishonest.

We can win this fight, as the polls are tightening.  But it would be a whole lot easier without that knife in our back.

Tags: Alan Schlesinger, Bill Clinton, Connecticut, CT-Sen, Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont (all tags)

Comments

130 Comments

Re: Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab Us In T

No matter what the outcome of the race is, I am eagerly anticipating what Tim has to say about this. It sounds like he has a lot of good material on who's been helping out and who hasn't.

But hopefully, the Lamont team can pull this race out.

by PsiFighter37 2006-10-29 02:19PM | 0 recs
Obama

Why is Obama singled out?

While I hope that Lamont wins, I think it's much more important that progressives focus on winning the 2006 election. This primary was a vicotry, but let's not get carried away.

by ben waxman 2006-10-29 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

Yes Stoller, I too would like to know... In fact, I would like to see in print where Obama promised to come to CT and campaign for Lamont.  He has publicly supported Lamont, but just because he supports Lamont publicly does not mean he has to bad mouth Lieberman.  He did contribute money to Lamont's campaign, although it was not a large amount I'll grant you... I have not seen anything on him donating or campaigning for Lieberman.  
I will also bet that the majority are staying out of this race 1) due to their prior relationship with Joe and 2) that Senate leadership has requested trying not to piss joe off in case he decides to caucus with the GOP.  As Chris said, winning the House and Senate is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING.  While I would rather get rid of Joe, if having him is the only way to win the Senate, then he is welcomed back... until 2012.  

But please if you can provide written proof on where Obama has lied about CT, I would love to see.  Until then, I have to chalk it up to your irrational dislike of the man.  

by yitbos96bb 2006-10-29 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

'cause he's the rock star du jour. If you're gonna take advantage of all that buzz and publicity, you have to take the crunchy with the smooth, as the man said.

Also, it's hardly fair to say that Obama is "singled out" in a post that takes both Clintons, Harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer to task, repeatedly.

I myself am a bit bewildered by the notion that Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy are not "high profile Democrats" (ahem), but I agree with the substance of the post 100%.

I am an angry Democrat.

by BlueinColorado 2006-10-29 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

Obama is a waste.  As an ally, a candidate, a sitting Senator, and most certainly as a President.  He is all talk and no walk.  Matt is right.  The Democrats really do suck when it comes to who and what this party is suppose to be.  

by dkmich 2006-10-29 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama
I think you're last line says it all.
It wouldn't be a Stoller post if the obligatory Obama diss wasn't at least considered.
by v2aggie2 2006-10-29 08:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama
Because Obama has become another triangulating weakling in the Democratic congress. Kerry-although driven by guilt-is at least doing the right thing. Thankfully i'll never have to vote for somebody who voted to go to war in Iraq.
by Bobby McGee 2006-10-29 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama

Do a search on our past comments on Obama. It will give you the entire story on Obama. He sent that email only because he did not want to piss off anyone.

by Pravin 2006-10-29 04:04PM | 0 recs
And he sent it to about 250 people. . .

what a puss.

by Pachacutec 2006-10-29 06:19PM | 0 recs
Connecticut for the Election

I'm definitely going back up to Connecticut to volunteer for Ned if they have a program to coordinate accommodations again like they did for the primary.

After everything is over, does anyone know a good way to get back to public transit (preferably the Metro North) from Meriden? After the primary I hooked a ride to the party at HQ without a plan for getting back, and happened to luck out running into a DFA friend who drove up, but I'm not counting on getting lucky again. If all else fails I could just head back home on the train after the polls close, but IMO there's nothing better after a weekend of electioneering than a victory fueled booze fest in a hotel conference room.

by loyalson 2006-10-29 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Connecticut for the Election

Amtrak has a stop in Meriden.  Several trains a day, that will take you to New Haven, NYC......

by 1970cs 2006-10-29 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Connecticut for the Election

You know, I didn't even think of checking Amtrak. Thanks!

by loyalson 2006-10-29 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Connecticut for the Election

Hey Matt,

I bet your friend Chris Bowers feels like an idiot for gushing about the "Big Dawg" Bill Clinton a few months ago because they had a 20 minute conversation.

When are you people going to learn that this is what Clinton does. He praises you to your face and makes it seem like he's one of us and then he plots to screw you over behind your back.

I hope we figure out who the real enemy is when we really begin focusing on the 2008 election (which I suspect will begin in - say, 11 days).

by JackBourassa 2006-10-29 03:46PM | 0 recs
To be fair to them...........

If polls show Lamont  is winning or has an even chance I think they would support Lamont.

I think they are being realistic now--because they know they have to get Lieberman to caucus with them.

by jasmine 2006-10-29 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: To be fair to them...........

Nope...

Look at all the Republican money flowing into this campaign.  Do you think they are doing that just for sport?

If Joe wins, he's going to stab us in the front... yet again.  He's a serial front-stabber.

by Dumbo 2006-10-29 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: To be fair to them...........

Yes but I meant The Dem leadership.  I can understand now why they dont want to cross Lieberman because they need him to work with them.

Lamont missed his chance.  His first order after winning was to consolidate his win and ride on his momentum and not change tactics--but he opened the door for Lieberman.  

I really wished Lamont would win--because it means accountability for leaders who lost touch.  A Lamont win would also prove that the old tiring Washington consultants need to retire and that the new people Lamont employed are the new way to go.

by jasmine 2006-10-29 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: To be fair to them...........

there are two logical, strategic reasons for Republicans to support Liberman:

(1) they know Schlesinger doesn't stand a chance, and they know Liberman would be marginally better than Lamont even if Liberman caucuses with Dems

(2) they know that LIBERMAN'S BECOME A WEDGE ISSUE IN THE DEMOCRATIC BASE. on the one hand, Dem leadership is doing what it can to get control of the Senate, which means, logically, hedging on the CT race. on the other, the Netroots badly want to see their main candidate of 2006 win the general. so the GOP absolutely wants to encourage this division.

you guys have to stop talking like the Dem leadership is just out to get you, you're beginning to sound like the GOP base.

by Chris G 2006-10-29 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: To be fair to them...........

I have been wondering why Schlesinger is not polling higher.  I wrote a couple of diaries about this in the past.  According to my calculus, if Schlesinger is able to carry around 20% of the vote, Lamont will have an easy coast to victory.  

I cant believe that so close to the election, the GOP candidate can't break 10% in any poll... even while he shares the ticket with a popular GOP Governor who is trouncing the Dem candidate in the Gov's race.  Former GOP senate candidate sacrificial lambs were always able to pull 30% from Lieberman.  Where has that 30% gone to?  

Schlesinger has been successful marginalized as a goofball candidate.  This would have been pretty easy to do even if the state party had not abandoned him.  But without support, and smart GOP money going to Lieberman, this guy is running like a loopy third-party candidate.  

Second, more moderate republicans are easy to put into Lieberman's column.  High information GOP party apparaticks are going to Lieberman for precisely the reasons identified by Chris.. Schlesinger is a guaranteed loser, and Lieberman's presence is fucking bad for the Democrats.

Joe has also been somewhat successful in re-writing history.  Per his new ads.. he was always against the war.  

I still gotta believe that the GOP candidate will pull a lot more that 10%.  He will be first on the ballot.  Lieberman will be like 5th.  That has got to count for something.  

by Winston Smith 2006-10-29 04:35PM | 0 recs
I call bullshit on this

I call bullshit on this for two reasons.

One, the polls are not what is at stake here, the Democratic electorate throughout the country and a real Democratic majority in the senate are what is important.  We have had quite enough, far too much really, of "leaders" who merely respond to polls.  That is how we got in this mess; it is not how we get out.

Two, if the "leaders" of the party had done their jobs, Lamont would be leading in the polls.  If they had gone to Connecticutt in the days after the primary and made it clear that they would support Lamont, the choice of the Democratic voters of Connecticutt, and only Lamont, that they would not support or endorse or do anything to help Holy Joe, the Lieberman campaign would have collapsed.  The constant signals to the public and to the money people that it is okay with the "leaders" if Lieberman's "Only I Matter" campaign succeeds are a significant factor in his standing in the polls.

by James Earl 2006-10-29 05:45PM | 0 recs
Hedging their bet

Lamont did it without those leaders.  If he just dd not slacken after the primary and continued his defining of Lieberman,  he would still be leading now and the Dem leadership will be fawning all over him.

Please stop dividing Dems now.  Keep focus on the goal--a Congress that will be a real checks and balance not rubberstamp.

by jasmine 2006-10-29 08:56PM | 0 recs
Re: To be fair to them...........

Sorry - couldn't disagree more. We party faithful are simply stuck with the likes of Senators Boxer, Schumer, Clinton, Biden, etc. et al who prefer an old embarrassing whore such as Lieberman for they fear Ned Lamont and other newcomers to their private little senatorial club. It is sickening and   disillusioning but there you are. And, as I write this they are probably criticizing Senator Kerry for daring to rail against their republician friends. I have much greater faith in the good people of Connecticut whom I hope and trust will elect Ned Lamont and rid us all of HoJo once and for all.

by Newspaperbrat 2006-10-31 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab Us In T

Obama singled out?

c'mon.  Read it again.  Obama is mentioned in a sentence that also mentions Bill Clinton, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and unnamed participants in "standing ovation at a caucus meeting."

by sTiVo 2006-10-29 02:37PM | 0 recs
Stab Us In The Front

I'm gathering that Matt's point is if Lamont loses it's everyone's fault but Lamont's.

by MyDD Fan 2006-10-29 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Stab Us In The Front

No, that's not true.  Every conflict has two responsible parties, and Lamont is one of them.  But Lamont's role is like the role of the freshman in Animal House.  He fucked up - he trusted them.

by Matt Stoller 2006-10-29 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Stab Us In The Front

Matt Stoller, why do you think Dem leaders have hedged on the CT race? I mean, let's be serious here. simply because they are "buddies" with Liberman? simply because they are "moral lepers", because they want nothing except to beat down the Democratic base? the decision has nothing to do with strategy? is that what you really, honestly, believe? the decision has nothing, nothing at all, to do with strategy?

by Chris G 2006-10-29 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Stab Us In The Front

What possible 'strategy' could conclude that keeping Lieberman was a wise idea? He's a sociopathic liar -- and if does make it past Ned's ground game, he's probably going to have to resign anyway due to his corrupt election activities ($400,000 in petty cash??? -- if you think that issue is going away after the election, you are sorely mistaken, my friend), at which point Rell will nominate a bona fide Republican anyway.

Oh, I know, it's the brilliant 'let's concede everything to the GOP, and maybe we'll get to keep our personal fiefdoms' strategy. In which case Matt Stoller is actually overestimating the moral rectitude of the Dem leadership.

by lightyearsfromhome 2006-10-29 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Stab Us In The Front

"keeping Lieberman" is a meaningless phrase. Liberman decided to run in the general as an independent, and that's a sunk cost.

also, your insinuation about Dem motives is contradictory- i'm suggesting Dem leaders could be hedging precisely because they do NOT want to concede the Senate to the GOP. i'm just speculating, but it's a hell of a lot more rational than vague notions about "moral rectitude". what do Dem leaders have to gain by supporting Lieberman? do you think they are secretely Republicans and the elections are just a rouse?

by Chris G 2006-10-29 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Stab Us In The Front

i'm suggesting Dem leaders could be hedging precisely because they do NOT want to concede the Senate to the GOP.

And exactly how does electing Ned Lamont concede the senate to the GOP?  Are you suggesting that Lamont would be losing to the Republican if Lieberman were not in the race?

Lieberman is running against the Democratic nominee.  Why wouldn't the "leaders" of the Democratic Party do everything in their power to elect the Democratic nominee?  And to defeat the other candidates?

What does the Democratic Party lose by cutting Lieberman loose?  Why should Democratic voters in Connecticutt or Democrats all over America care what happens to Lieberman?

I have no way of knowing why the "leaders" are willing to trash their party's nominee in favor of Lieberman.  My inference is that they want to crush the notion that anyone outside the Establishment can or ought to choose who represents the party or what those chosen stand for.  Lamont's win in the primary scared them all that they might themselves be held accountable for their repeated failure to oppose the Republicans.

by James Earl 2006-10-29 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Stab Us In The Front

you don't understand. electing Ned Lamont would not concede anything. in fact, Dem leaders are not trashing Lamont, and they've expressed their support. but by "cutting loose" Liberman, and trashing Liberman, as you suggest, they run the risk of the following: Liberman winning nonetheless, and organizing with the GOP.  

Why wouldn't the "leaders" of the Democratic Party do everything in their power to elect the Democratic nominee?

because Liberman has indicated he would also organize with them if he won.

My inference is that they want to crush the notion that anyone outside the Establishment can or ought to choose who represents the party or what those chosen stand for.

that is an illogical inference. their decision is based on the given that Liberman decided to stay in the race as an Independent. now, if Dem leaders actually encouraged Liberman to stay on as an Independent to begin with, that would be a different story. but i've seen no evidence of that. have you?

by Chris G 2006-10-29 07:32PM | 0 recs
What strategy?

THe correct strategy would have been to abandon Lieberman in the final weeks of the primary once it was obvious Lamont wasa going to win. They could have stripped the seniority thing leading only republicans to support Lieberman which wouldnt have been enough in a three way race. Independents would not have wanted to vote for a guy who wont weild influence for their state as the incumbent reasoning goes out the window.

Even with Lamont getting no real support from the party bigwigs except for Dean, CLark and Kerry, he is only 10 points behind an 18 year tenured incumbent. That is a big deal of support by a green challenger against a mighty incumbent. To chip away at the other support, you need to have Lieberman marginalized removing the massive incumbency advantage.

by Pravin 2006-10-29 04:51PM | 0 recs
Re: What strategy?

but this doesn't account for the fact that Liberman decided to run in the general (which, as far as I'm aware, he decided on his own). if they stripped him of his seniority, there was the strong probability that he'd run anyways, get GOP backing, and win GOP voters and enough Indies to win the general, after which he would caucus with the GOP, and it could possibly have been a decisive event against Dems retaking the Senate. Liberman's decision was pretty fucked up in my humble opinion, but it became a given. given what he did, what would YOU have done? risked control of the Senate just to win some pissing match? you guys keep talking about showing backbone like the GOP does. well, look at what they've done. they backed Chafee in RI even though he's lambasted Bush. interesting, isn't it?

by Chris G 2006-10-29 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: What strategy?

Chafee won his primary.

by Pravin 2006-10-29 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: What strategy?

and now that race is a lot tighter than it would've been if Laffey had won.

by Chris G 2006-10-29 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: What strategy?

i want to be clear on this: Chafee and Liberman are not analagous (esp. since CT is a blue state). the point is that GOP leaders backed the candidate that actually said he did not vote for Bush in 04. strategy and coalitions matter.

by Chris G 2006-10-29 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Stab Us In The Front

I don't think that's his point at all.

Certain Democrats decided to abandon the duly chosen Democratic nominee, and to back a Republican bought renegade incumbent. Whether or not that turns out to be 100% responsible for a defeat, their actions have consequences of which they were fully congizant.

When mistakes are made on a campaign, you can agonize until the end of time whether another decision would have made a difference in the outcome. However, there's a substantive difference between a mistake or strategy that ultimately contributes to a consequence, and something that's just wrong in and of itself. Going on vacation after a primary victory on not going on the attack is a mistake and bad strategy, but those are  considerations in hindsight. The problem with actively supporting Joe Lieberman and abandoning Ned Lamont does not materialize merely in hindsight, they're premeditated acts of betrayal.

At the end of the day, if Ned loses, we can argue over fault. But the Democrats that betrayed our nominee will always be at fault for betraying our nominee. Win or lose, thats unacceptable.

by loyalson 2006-10-29 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Stab Us In The Front

Joe's treachery has been given complete support at every oppurtunity by the CT media.  

by 1970cs 2006-10-29 03:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Stab Us In The Front

Going on vacation after a primary victory on not going on the attack is a mistake and bad strategy, but those are  considerations in hindsight.

Almost no one goes on vacation during campaign season. That's not something that you could look back and say it was a big mistake.  It's something any advisor worth his/her salt would warn the candidate about prior to the vacation.

Campaigners and candidates (in tough races) go on vacation after the election in December.

by Newsie8200 2006-10-29 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Stab Us In The Front

In general, yes, but I'm somewhat alluding to the notion that Ned was lying low in response to promises from prominent Dems to talk Joe down from his indie run. Was this a brain-dead move? Bear in mind that at the time there was strong talk of a BC deal to keep Joe from going independent in exchange for strong pre-primary support. In hindsight, it was, of course, a big mistake. At the time: not a crime.

Or it might just have been a bad example, take your pick.

by loyalson 2006-10-29 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Stab Us In The Front

No, it was a total fucking brain dead move. Lamont had his work cut out for him: convincing Independents he's their guy.  he'd have to do that regardless of whether Liberman ran in the general. I hate Liberman's knee-jerk centrism, but if I were the Dem leadership, I'd be doing the same thing. Lamont had a chance to prove to them that he was capable of taking this thing all the way. when he went on vacation he sent all the wrong signals. I'm not privy to Dem strategic discussions, but my guess is that they really began to worry that Lamont couldn't hack it and so they had to start hedging.

by Chris G 2006-10-29 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Stab Us In The Front

Agreed Lamont didnt run a flawless campaign. But how many campaigns have you seen that could have taken down a respected long term incumbent? At some point, a challenger needs help from the establishment unless the incumbent is embroiled in a major sex or corruption scandal.

by Pravin 2006-10-29 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Stab Us In The Front

oh look, I agree, I'd like to see Lamont take this from Liberman. Liberman's so-called "bipartisanship" has supported Cheney et al. demogoguing and fear-mongering. I won't impune Liberman's motives, but I don't like his politics and he indeed needed a kick in the ass.

but again, if you're the Dem establishment, and your goal is taking back the Senate, you have to think strategically, and this is a very unique race. the wisdom of their decision to hedge some is debatable, but my main point is that its not so outrageous that it deserves the language Matt Stoller used, especially 1 week before the god damn general election.

by Chris G 2006-10-29 05:58PM | 0 recs
Hillary should have stumped for Lamont!

As most people know, I have been an ardent defender of Hillary Clinton on this site as well as others.

However, the treatment of Lamont (and by extension the rank-and-file Democrats who made their choice in the primary) have made me begin to re-think my support.  I am now wavering.  I do know one thing:  I do not support Obama for any office.  He has ZERO spine.  He didn't even want to filibuster Alito when even Hillary was among the first to advocate filibuster for BOTH Alito and the Alito-with-pretty-blue-eyes, Roberts.  

I guess I am now looking at Richardson.  My previous support for Hillary was mainly because I think her campaign people had and have balls.  The balls to answer attack ads that the Kerry people lacked.  And, I really really want to see a woman president.  And I fear if Hillary doesn't get it, then it's going to be decades before and other woman with enough gravitas is considered presidential material.

I hate to say this, because undoubtedly people will read anti-semitism into it when there is none, but is the fiery support for Joe Lieberman anything to do with his extreme support for the current regime in Israel?  My partner works in Newton, MA (a mainly Jewish-American community) and has been actually threatened with physical violence by voicing support for Lamont and displeasure towards Lieberman.  He has been called an anti-semite on many many occasions.  Mt partner is Jewish.

So there you have it.  I think I am going to flirt with Bill Richardson.  Perhaps because I think he has the national security cred which I think is needed in these times, plus he'll get the latinos to come home to the Democrats, plus Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado.  The mountain states and SW is where it's at.  

by jgarcia 2006-10-29 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary should have stumped for Lamont!

Richardson looks like a nice guy, but have you seen him on the talk shows?  I can't support him.  We need somebody with some fire in their belly who can speak decisively.

So, no Richardson for me.  I ruled him out a long time ago, after one of his tepid appearances on MTP where he couldn't say yea or nay to one pressing question after another.  He'd definitely be better than Bush and probably better than Hillary, but he's still a member of the Spineless-Dem club.

My money has been on Wes all along.  I just wish he would do more to keep his hat in the ring.

by Dumbo 2006-10-29 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab Us In T

Can't wait to pay these asshole Dems back in 2008

Hillary Clinton - cannot win in 2008 even with Barak Obama on the ticket
John Edwards - good choice but cannot win in 2008
Al Gore - like Al Gore but too much excess baggage and no to very little cross over Republicans
John F. Kerry - nice job for Ned but cannot win in 2008
Joe Biden - forget this bozo
Wesley Clark - Great job for Ned and BEST CHANCE of winning in 2008 because he would get more independent and crossover Republicans than ANY other Dem candidate

Wes 'walks the walk' and has clearly showed why he is the gold standard of leadership in the Democratic party today.

The only person that can win hands down over any Republican in 2008 including 'I will say anything to get elected' John McCain is Wes Clark

by km4 2006-10-29 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab Us In T

Yeah right.  Do you remember the campaign he ran in 04?  He's far from our best shot.  

by blueryan 2006-10-29 03:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab Us In T

It is ridiculous to judge Wes on his 2004 campaign. He was not ready and he was rushed into the campaign too late. Pay attention to how he conducts himself on the many television appearances he makes. He speaks with a clarity that even the well meaning democrats like Pelosi lack. He has it all. All he needs is the aura of a winner and he can only get that if we can build some momentum for him.

The only question I have is the Clinton connection. The rumors was he was their candidate in 2004. But everything he has done since then doesnt indicate any puppetry on their part over Wes. He has been a great voice for the democrats. He has Dean's sincerity without his gaffes.

All he needs is momentum. Unlike Lamont, the MSM will have a harder time questioning his past experience.

by Pravin 2006-10-29 04:09PM | 0 recs
You're wrong on Gore...

Nixon came back the same way. I got a friend who is an evangelical and he says that there is one Dem he would vote for right now: Al Gore.

by Erik 2006-10-29 04:29PM | 0 recs
How about 'Third World War' for 'Baggage'?


'Third World War'

But General Clark's plan was blocked by General Sir Mike Jackson, K-For's British commander.

"I'm not going to start the Third World War for you," he reportedly told General Clark during one heated exchange.

General Jackson tells the BBC: ''We were [looking at] a possibility....of confrontation with the Russian contingent which seemed to me probably not the right way to start off a relationship with Russians who were going to become part of my command.''


The Republicans will make sure that every man, woman and child in American hears this in case we nominate Wes Clark.

by tv123 2006-10-29 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: How about 'Third World War' for 'Baggage'?

Name a candidate, and I will produce enough baggage for you.

by Pravin 2006-10-29 06:26PM | 0 recs
Obama

Explain what baggage (lack of experience is a shortcoming, but it doesn't count for baggage).

The exercise is quite moot because Clark's chances of getting the nomination are marginal.

by tv123 2006-10-29 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab Us In T

You're aboslutely spot on. I have felt like Lamont was not getting support from the Senate Dems. For them it's all about clubby friendships. The "Joe's my friend" mentality. They have given nothing but lip service to Lamont and it's WRONG!!! They are giving the finger to the Connecticut democrats (of course not to their face -- but in subtle ways).

These politicians "use" us -- us being the blogs/the netroots. They seduce us, court us,  tell us how wonderful we are BUT after the election they will have moved on to someone else. You know it's like the guy who chases after the girl until he gets what he wants and then he doesn't come around anymore.

You know they've met with Lieberman on the side and made "the deal". Screw the Democrats who elected Lamont. It's all about their buddy Joe.

These folks think that we are as gullible as the Republican base. Gin us up before election day, take our money, and then kick us to the curb after election day.

by stlseven 2006-10-29 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab Us In T

Your fear is justified. I also was slammed as anti-semite for suggesting that Lieberman's support was from pro-Israel Jews.

Re Richardson: I remember that he stabbed Dean about something. I don't think he is really for the middle class.

by antiHyde 2006-10-29 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab Us In T

 apparently Richardson comes from old money (oil, timber, cattle) on both sides of his family

by BlueinColorado 2006-10-29 03:49PM | 0 recs
Losing the message

What I see as the major culprit is the fact that the Lamont campaign somehow lost track of their message.  I was taken aback when I saw those cutesy "turncoat" ads criticizing Lieberman for leaving the party.  How is that supposed to help Lamont win the votes of independents, who don't have much of an interest in party loyalty anyway?  There's only a tiny population of voters who would be swayed from Lieberman to Lamont based on attacks like that.  

The Lamont campaign had some great issues to whack Lieberman with.  There's the war, first of all.  I also thought that emphasizing the deficit would allow Lamont to play up his moderate businessman persona effectively and win over independent voters.  But for some reason -- I'm thinking that Bill Hillsman got a little too full of his own cleverness -- they ran lots of gimmick ads that didn't push the key issues at all.  

More support from high-profile Dems wouldn't have hurt.  (By the way, I'm still not understanding why the John Edwards visit doesn't count.  If every Democratic leader supported Lamont as much as Edwards did, that would definitely be a plus.)  But I think a lot of the responsibility sits with the people who ran the campaign.  

by Neil the Ethical Werewolf 2006-10-29 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Losing the message

Iraq is a deadly serious issue and I think Lamont made a BIG mistake by having even ONE cutesy, ostensibly funny commercial.

Lamont's biggest weakness is lack of resume and not being taken seriously because of it.  Well, he exacerbates the problem and plays right into their hands by running silly ads.

Lamont's candidacy is very serious.  It should have been run that way, from the very beginning.  

by jgarcia 2006-10-29 03:16PM | 0 recs
Lack of CV must count, surely?

Pretty much everyone here knows more about the race than I do.

But - from the (very) outside, it's always seemed strange why Lamont should plunge into a US Senate race from the dizzy heights of town selectman. Apparently, he ran for CT Senate in 1990, came third and never tried again.

(And - not just any US Senate race, but trying to unseat a three term incumbent, too!)

by skeptic06 2006-10-29 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Lack of CV must count, surely?

bah... look through history for people with weak CVs making it to the Senate and higher. Abraham Lincoln was a one-term congressman who had lost a Senate race. Harry Truman was a county road commissioner, I believe? Hillary Clinton was a corporate lawyer from another state. John Edwards had never held public office, IIRC.

Everybody's gotta start somewhere.

by BlueinColorado 2006-10-29 03:52PM | 0 recs
while I love Harry Truman

and originally hail from Missouri, I must point out that "Give 'em hell, Harry" was "installed" as Senator by the Kansas City-based Democratic political machine (of that time).

This is not to say Truman did not "earn it," but I think he earned it after being elected, not before.

by OH Mark 2006-10-31 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Lack of CV must count, surely?

Lots of folks without political experience have won elections.

The key is utilizing your non-political experience and framing it to your advantage.

by Newsie8200 2006-10-29 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Lack of CV must count, surely?

I think this election was a case of Lieberman being vulnerable, but not to another career politician. All the other ladder climbers in Connecticut saw Lieberman as an unbeatable, three term incumbent and sat out the election, leaving the door wide open for a crusading everyman like Ned. It may seem strange, but the only way an election like this would ever have happened is if it was a former town selectman, once failed state senate candidate like Ned Lamont. Seasoned, career minded politicians just don't challenge three term incumbents with good approval numbers. The anti-joe sentiment needed an outlet, and it had to be someone like Ned. Thankfully we got Ned, and not some nutjob former psych patient perennial also-ran.

by loyalson 2006-10-29 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Losing the message

More support from high-profile Dems wouldn't have hurt. [...] But I think a lot of the responsibility sits with the people who ran the campaign.

who ran the campaign... and the candidate himself.

Quite frankly, I could probably just cut & paste that to most diaries complaining about how they didn't get x, y and z from the campaign cmtes and top Dems and that's why so and so lost.

by Newsie8200 2006-10-29 03:47PM | 0 recs
You're going too far here

I'd love to see Lamont beat Lieberman, and I still think its possible.  But its not the top priority, getting back Congress is the top priority.

by bosdcla14 2006-10-29 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: You're going too far here

when Lieberman caves in to whatever atrocity Bush nominates to replace JP Stephens, and brings Salazar and Landrieu and Pryor and Carper and the rest of the torture caucus with him, then you can tell us how this race is not a top priority.

by BlueinColorado 2006-10-29 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton

From a 9/21 NY Times article titled "Presidential Hopefuls Do a Delicate Dance with Lamont:"


Despite the help he got from a few national headliners in the primary, like the Rev. Al Sharpton, many inside the campaign now think local names like Senator Christopher J. Dodd -- who has presidential ambitions but also a Connecticut address -- and Representative Rosa L. DeLauro of New Haven are safer and more effective alliances.

"We have to make our mind up as a campaign: Do we really want a flood of out-of-staters coming in?" Mr. Lamont said over dinner in Washington recently. "Selectively, maybe, yeah, they can burnish my credentials and talk about some different issues in a way that gives me credibility."

I quote this only because I think there have been mixed signals coming from Lamont's campaign as far as how much help they actually want from other senators.

Your attack on Bill and Hillary Clinton seems off-base. Hillary publically met with Lamont, gave him a staff member, and held a fundraiser for him. Please, if you know that the Lamont campaign specifically asked for Bill and/or Hillary to do an event for Lamont and refused, then say it. Otherwise, they don't deserve to be called liars.

Quoting you from above:


The American people know this. They know that Democratic Senators are moral lepers, weaklings, and that is the only reason we aren't further ahead when the Republicans screw everything up.  The Democratic Senate leaders will sell us out at every opportunity, be it torture, Iraq, Alito, Lieberman, the Bankruptcy Bill, or stopping war with Iran.

Wow. Just wow.

by blueflorida 2006-10-29 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: obama and hillary are backstabbers

I, too, can no longer support obama and all those backstabbers....Its discusting how they all skips CT and ignores the fact that Lamont was voted in by the people....

We need to remember all of them..obama, hillary, reid....you know obama and hillary will seek netroot support, and i would advice mydd and dailykos not to support obama and hillary and back kerry and clark...they both can go to hell as far as im concern.

by Maria19Rodriguez 2006-10-29 03:15PM | 0 recs
They HAVE to be nice to Joe


  If the Senate Dems are rude to Joe, he'll stab them in the back, kiss up to the Republicans, fail to support important progressive legislation, thwart filibuster attempts, criticize Democrats publicly and frequently, and blame all of America's problems on hip-hop music and Democrats' failure to be bipartisan enough.

I mean, it would really, really suck if Lieberman started doing that kind of stuff. Can you imagine?

by Master Jack 2006-10-29 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: They HAVE to be nice to Joe

haha, good snark there.

by scientician 2006-10-29 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: PUT YOUR MONEY ON NED LAMONT

Im so sick and tired of those lieberman supporters that comes here with the same tired talking point  that goes like this :" i would like to see lamont wins but there's more important priority"..Im sick of this talking point because its the talk of defeatism..those users are the same users that keep telling us to divert money away from ned lamont and put in in other races..I also have proof that some of those users are aids of democratic senators and congressmen that likes lieberman and want him to come back...i say skew them because those people are clearly walking hard against us.

by Maria19Rodriguez 2006-10-29 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: PUT YOUR MONEY ON NED LAMONT

skew them indeed, yes, skew them... where's this proof, by the way?  maybe I should out myself... I work for Nancy Pelosi.

by MyDD Fan 2006-10-29 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab Us In T

While I agree that people really let Ned down, it also seemed to me like he sort of disappeared after the primary for a while. People said he'd been ill-advised by the Party and was campaigning in a different way. I presumed that was right, though I would have no way of knowing. All of a sudden, it was all Lieberman, and his faithful bloggers like Jane, but not much from Ned. Now, things have picked up, but a lot of momentum was dissipated in those months. I guess "blame" is immaterial at this point, but what happened in those sort of "lost months?"

by jnardo 2006-10-29 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab Us In T

he "disappeared" because he took a vacation.  or so i'm told.  not good.

by jgarcia 2006-10-29 03:50PM | 0 recs
Don't Forget Dean

I'm not sure if by "high-profile Democrats" you meant only those running for the nomination in 2008 or those firmly in the DC Establishment, but Howard Dean did go to CT last week to stump for Ned.

by Luigi Montanez 2006-10-29 03:24PM | 0 recs
On Obama

 I wouldn't go so far as to call Obama a liar, but he HAS been a major disappointment. He's got one of the safest Senate seats around, having romped to a landslide victory in what was a dreadful year for Democrats nationwide, and he's done next to nothing to advance Democratic values, choosing instead to scold Democrats for, among other things, not being religious enough.

 Well, Barack, let's talk religion, since it's one of your favorite subjects. When the torture bill came out, where the hell were you? The practice of torture is strongly condemned by the immense majority of world religions, including most widely-practiced faiths in the United States. You could have very easily established a narrative against that egregious bill on YOUR religious terms, by defining it as an affront to morality (which it was). But you instead scurried under a rock, coming out with a tepid statement against the bill when it was too late to do anything about it. Mr. Obama, I still have some hope for you, but your silence on the torture bill means that you have abdicated any credibility in lecturing ANYBODY on "moral values". You're not a whole lot better than Republicans in that regard.

by Master Jack 2006-10-29 03:24PM | 0 recs
Careerist Pigs

Unfortunately, the Senate Dems are just as much careerist pigs as the rethugs.  In addition to Stoller's point of screwing the primary voters, the Senate Dems are also screwing themselves -- do they think that Lieberman is going to backstab them any less than he has before?  Hell, no.  There just aint no way that being voted out in the primary, and being elected by Republican voters and with Republican money is going to make him vote anything but more Republican.  If the Senate tightens up, he could be the guy who prevents effective Democratic control.  And then I'll be really pissed.  Because what that means is, the Democratic Senators actually don't care about taking back the Senate.

by CTLarry 2006-10-29 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Careerist Pigs

Exactly, when we need public sentiment on our side in 2008, people like Lieberman will undermine and contribute to the Liberal bashing under bipartisan cover. These idiots may end up winning the battle, but may lose the war.

by Pravin 2006-10-29 04:23PM | 0 recs
Evidence supporting Matt's case

Here's a article from the Hartford Courant supporting Matt's case.

Basically, Schumer and Reid fell down on the job in terms of helping Lamont's fundraising.

The fact that Lamont's still having to write checks to himself is symbolic of this. More pressure could have been put on the rest of the senate caucus to contribute to Lamont.

by blueflorida 2006-10-29 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: say no to obama, say no to hillary

Do not support obama and hillary..they both are liars...we need to remember both of them when they come back here in '08 asking for our supports like rats...we need to remember them.

Joe lieberman will not change and he will continue to support this horrible war because backtabbers like reid and schumer worked their butt off against lamont.

by Maria19Rodriguez 2006-10-29 03:31PM | 0 recs
I'm doing what I can locally

  I just got elected to my local Central Committee in Frederick County, Maryland. There are five or six other newcomers to the committee who also have reform in mind -- we're bringing the party back to the people. Our long-term goal is to demolish the good-ole-loser network that results in launching Joe Lieberman-types to political careers. Once the elections are behind us that's going to be our project...
by Master Jack 2006-10-29 03:32PM | 0 recs
Clinton Stab Us In The Front

It might be that the Democratic Senators who have failed to support Lamont have made the cowardly calculation that they don't want to go out on a limb for Lamont and then discover that Lieberman has won the election.  Lieberman would then return to the Senate with a real bad attitude, and might caucus with the Republicans.

This is the kind of chicken-shit thinking that has put the Democratic party in the hole it's in.

by global yokel 2006-10-29 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Stab Us In The Front

oh, so is it the same chicken-shit thinking that led Republicans to back Chafee in RI? how is that calculus "cowardly"? what do you think is going to happen? within years the US Senate will be populated by Netroots candidates who walk in lock step with this blog? if not, then you've got to figure out what kind of coalition you're willing to be a part of. Liberman caucusing with the GOP would be a major fucking defeat in the press. there's nothing cowardly about doing what you can to avoid that.

the hole the Dem party's been in has to do with 911, Rove's manipulation of that issue, and what was until now our lack of competition on national security. its also had to do with a split liberal movement in this country (re: Nader). what you've said in your comment is precisely what Rove wants to hear. Liberman's decision to run was a gift to the GOP because of the wedge it presents us with right now, so yeah, let's be pissed at Liberman for his decision. but you're playing right into the GOP hand by blaming Dem leaders for this calculus.

by Chris G 2006-10-29 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Stab Us In The Front

Um...Lincoln Chafee won his primary, and is running as a Republican, not as the RI for Chafee candidate.

by dr bloor 2006-10-29 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Stab Us In The Front

you don't understand. my point is that strategy matters (not that Liberman and Chafee are analagous). if Republicans had based their decision in the primary soley on loyalty, they would have backed Laffey. but they knew he wouldn't stand a chance, so they backed Chafee instead, despite his announcement that he did not vote for Bush in 04.

by Chris G 2006-10-29 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Stab Us In The Front

That analogy only holds up if Schlessinger stood a chance of beating Lamont in a two-way race. Not bloody likely.

by BlueinColorado 2006-10-29 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Stab Us In The Front

no, listen: i'm NOT making that analogy. NO analogy. my only point is that strategy matters. the GOP decision to back Chafee is simply another example of a strategic decision based on the goal, ie power over the US Senate.

by Chris G 2006-10-29 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Stab Us In The Front

Well, let me be frank. I've read through just about every post (and response) you've left on this thread, and I don't think I'm  the only one who doesn't get what the hell you're talking about. Why don't you spell it out for us, and explain to us lunkheads why not opposing a miserable goddam sonofabitch who not only has supported this God damned war at every turn, who has  undermined his "fellow' democrats whenever the cameras he is addicted to were pointed at him, who voted to allow George W Bush to torture people, would you please explain to those of us who are a bit slow-witted how not opposing a man like that is "good strategy"?

Thanks.

by BlueinColorado 2006-10-29 09:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Stab Us In The Front

Liberman decides to run in the general as an Ind. your a Dem leader. you can

1. officially endorse Lamont and call Liberman on his bullshit, burn that bridge, strip Liberman of seniority. at that point, the GOP increase its efforts to recruit Liberman to caucus with them if he ran the general. thus, under this scenario, there's  a significant chance of CT becoming a competitive race with Liberman as the de facto GOP candidate, and getting tons more of national attention, negative publicity for the Dem party, and another drain on resources.

2. officially endorse Lamont, but convince Liberman to remain in the Dem caucus if he wins. under this scenario, you take CT out of play from the GOP and concentrate resources elsewhere.

with such a close election, #2 is a rational short-term choice. there remain long-term issues with the Dem party, and i want to make clear that i fully support the return of a big, viable progressive movement over the long-run. its difficult to balance this against practical constraints like the one Liberman posed.

but it's a tough position to be in if you're a Dem leader and you're responsible for taking back the Senate. chosing #2 does not warrant the kind of accusations Matt Stoller made, especially 10 days out. its good to see a force like this one to check the DLC and help grow the Dem base. that's good, and opposition to Liberman is good. but "moral lepers"?? get real. the culprit here is Liberman, not Dem leaders.

by Chris G 2006-10-30 03:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Stab Us In The Front

One of the reasons Lieberman is polling high among democrats(a third) is that they think he will retain his seniority. That is his only selling point at this time.

by Pravin 2006-10-30 05:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Stab Us In The Front

what data show that? in my experience very few voters base their decision on that kind of information. i'm open to polling data if you can point the way, i'd be very curious.

my point stands regardless. the bottom line is that it's unreasonable to assume Dem leaders are somehow trying to spite the Netroots or the Democratic base. i understand there's a lot of tension right now in the party, but there's a much more probable explanation for why they've not stripped Lieberman of his seniority--because they wanted to take CT off the table in the battle for control of the US Senate.

by Chris G 2006-10-30 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Standing ovation

thanks, matt. this is good to know. i've seen their weaseling since day one but didn't know there'd been a standing ovation. had he gotten one after conceding the race and giving his support to ned it would be understandable. nice, even.

but the idea of democratic senators giving joe lieberman a standing ovation while he is running against the democratic candidate for senate is absolutely revolting. especially when you consider how he has undermined those very same democrats... publicly and often.

the democratic establishment's lack of real support for ned lamont is one great big 'fuck you' to democratic primary voters. and not just in connecticut. the rest of us can read. and have excellent memories.

maybe they think there will never be a ned lamont in their future. or maybe they think their own political futures depend on squelching ned and showing him no loyalty to serve as a warning to others not to even try it.

by irene adler 2006-10-29 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab Us

If the Dems wanted to "win", they should have been unified in coming out and denouncing Joe for "two-timing".

They should have made it clear he would lose seniority (which he will anyway, unless he is the 51st dem and blackmails each side.  Otherwise, I have one word - Lautenberg.)

Had they been strong and unified in their opposition, Joe wouldnt have had a chance and they would have a) secured discipline inter-party   b) secured the 3 house seats for CT dems c) removed all doubt about who the CT-sen would caucus with d) shown the base that they respect our fucking votes and hard work  e) shown the world that they're not the pandering, middle of the road wusses we all know they are  f) allowed us all to focus on beating pugs in other races, instead of in CT-sen  

Of course, there's lots of smarter people out there, many of whom advise these clowns, so I assume they have a reason, but I dont know what positives have arisen from their passive acceptance of Joe-Lie.  It certainly isnt moral respect or whatever bullshit Biden spouted the other day.

Actually, that brings me right back to Matt's excellent point - It sure would be earier to beat the Pugs and take back the country without the knife in our back (or front).  I swear, its like they fear (and hate) us more than the Pugs.  Goddam disheartening, thats for sure.

by Urban Pirate 2006-10-29 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton

by Urban Pirate 2006-10-29 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab Us In T

Hmm, this says that Lamont hasn't asked Bill Clinton to appear.

by Jerome Armstrong 2006-10-29 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab Us In T

Why would the Lamont people bother after Clinton threw Lamont under a truck on Larry King Live? Clinton flat out said that a Lieberman win wont be bad.

by Pravin 2006-10-29 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab Us In T

When dealing with a former president, wouldn't such an invitation be a formality after the matter had been settled by emissaries?

by BlueinColorado 2006-10-29 05:37PM | 0 recs
Straw man alert!

The important story here is that the DC Senate Democrats and DC lobbyists are not on our side.  They have their own side, a side that is out of touch, immoral, and dishonest.

I think we've been here before: yet again, Matt appears shocked - and not in the Captain Renault sense - at the spectacle of politicians being politicians.

Whoever said that they were on our side? Never have been, never will be.

We just have to deal with it: reality-based, remember?

by skeptic06 2006-10-29 03:57PM | 0 recs
THIS DIARY COMPLEMENTS MY LAST DIARY

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/10/27/211 32/679

Instead of boring you with more outrage on my part, if you haven't read my diary, please do so. It explains very clearly how we on the outside felt about the entire charade in the Lamont Lieberman race. I hate to pimp my diary, but I feel so strongly about how clearly it illustrates the disenfranchisement some of us feel with this party.

by Pravin 2006-10-29 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: obama and hillary backstabbed us

Guys, i cant respect harry reid, chuck schumer and all those bastard inside the democratic party..those rats are working against us...Lets remember them...i suggest to not donate to the dscc..if you like a candidate, i suggest you to donate directly to them.

Also, please remember hillary and obama.

by Maria19Rodriguez 2006-10-29 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab Us
"With the exception of John Kerry and Wes Clark, no high profile Democrats have been there for Lamont. "
Do you remember who the first big name to campaign with Lamont after the primary was?  John Edwards.  Be accurate.
by dbarkley 2006-10-29 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab Us In T

I am not sure how helpful any of these endorsements are. Let's not forget that Bill Clinton and Boxer and Dodd campaigned for Joementum during the primary. Yes, the race was close but it did not provide the desired outcome.

At the end of the day it boils down to if Lamont can close the deal with the voters in CT and more specifically the 35% of Dems who are telling pollsters they do not intend to vote for him. Ultimately its up to the candidate to make the sale. The DC establishment has done nothing for very many candidates in this cycle but they may still pull it off.

At this stage Lamont has not been able to get beyond 40% in the polls. He is stuck. He can't seem to peel off the 35% of the Dems that are telling pollsters they plan to vote for Joe. Unless something happens in the next few days that gets him beyond 40% reality maybe that he is not going to beat Joementum across the finish line. One factor could be a final break - where most Dems vote on straight party lines. That could provide Ned some momentum in the final hours.

A Lamont win will clearly be a spectacular upset and its repercussions will be felt throughout the DLC, "centrist" Dems, Bloomberg Repubs club. It will be a blow to the NY money men. It will cause a rethinking among the Hillary's and Biden's and Schumer's. It will energize the progressive Dem base. IMO, a Lamont win is very important for the emerging progressive grassroots and netroots as it sends a shockwave disorienting the "appeasement" and "triangulation" wing of the Dem party leadership and their funding base.

by ab initio 2006-10-29 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Stab Us In The Back
It is really "stab us in the back".
We have all been angry for some years now about being stabbed in the back by the Democratic Party in Washington.  We are angry that they have not fought for our values, for our ideals, for our Constitution, for honest elections, for the people who elected them.  You are telling us here that it continues.
You are rightly angry as we see that they said one thing right after the primary, and you are discovering that they are now doing something else.
The anger has to do with expectations -- we expected that when they said they would support Lamont, our choice for Democratic candidate and now they have sold us out again.
What we have to do is Say it. --Say the truth.  And ask for the real answers. And continue to clarify and define them.
 Are they supporting Lieberman because of his ties to the rich (and rich Jewish) donors.  (I am Jewish too so I can say this.)  I think that is part of it.  Or are there parts of the Democratic Party that really want to see the Republicans or Republicans-lite stay in power?
 That is not an outrageous question if we see again and again that they have taken actions which lead to that result.  The Democrats are  supporting a Bush supporter (Lieberman) to stay in the Democratic Party, and they seem to be conspiring to keep him in a position of power.  That is the truth on the face of it.  The question is "Why?"  
We must continue to examine the reasons, and we must continue to tell the truth, as you are doing here, most powerfully.
But we must continue to tell the truth after we accept that they have disappointed us again, and we must be clear and truthful about who we are and what we want as Americans, and as Democrats, and we must not let them continue to think they can get away with the lie-- the lie that they are representing us.
I don't know if this is clear.  So many people in Washington are lying to each other about so many things, that constuctive action about anything has become impossible.  The Democratic leaders are pretending that they represent us, and they are not representing us, they are representing, who?, the corporations, the drug companies, the neocons, the donors, who?  And why?
  My area is honest elections.  Why did they capitulate to the Republicans on elections?
Why since 2004 did the Democratic Party do nothing to fix the problems at the precinct level -- voting machines breaking, registration disenfranchisement, long lines, turning people away, not letting them vote.  Why didn't the Democrats take action to fix it?  Now they put out a crisis line for voting day. What are the consequences to someone breaking the rules if I call the hotline?  There are no consequences.   Two years have past. I know that is my rant and not yours.
 But you are doing brilliantly at defining the truth here about who they are and who we are.  And that is what I want to say that you should continue to do.  As we speak the truth, and continue to speak the truth, it will change things.  It's been changing them so far.
 Lamont has changed a lot by standing up to run for the office.  And other candidates throughout the country are standing up as well. If we continue like Lamont has to tell the truth we will make a difference. We are making a difference already.  We are making progress.
In fact, it looks like we'll win.
by syolles 2006-10-29 05:20PM | 0 recs
It's Hackett All Over Again Only Worse.
Matt Stoller had this to say back then:
"If you are angry at Schumer or Reid, and I have had issues with both at various times, it doesn't matter unless you can figure out a way to make them feel it.  We haven't figured out how to make them feel it yet, because their political survival and success is based on factors that we haven't impacted yet (local media and big dollar donors)."
And I had my solution ready back then too.
by Cernig 2006-10-29 05:47PM | 0 recs
Let him die before you bury him

I think Lamont may very well win. Looking at the two most recent polls, he seems to have cut Lieb's lead in half.

Very few DC Dems have campaigned for Lieberman. Nearly all have lent some support to Lamont, ranging from both feet in to name only. Kerry, Clark, Dodd, and Kennedy are in the both feet category. Without any others, these names add credibility to Lamont--which, as a raw newcomer, he needs--and will serve to bring some blue-collar Dems home, the world series finally being over.

There will be a sufficiency of blame to go around if Lamont loses including a giant's helping for the Netroots for attention deficit syndrome.

But Lamont hasn't lost. We are not done. And we have no moral right to voice opinions like those in this thread while the Lamont Connecticut volunteers are pissing blood trying to complete the stretch run.

It's not over until we--or the Secretary of State--says it's over. So again I say:

Beat Holy Joe
Beat him black and blue

by stevehigh 2006-10-29 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Let him die before you bury him

You could very well be right.  The polls could very well be wrong in CT for the simple reason that campaigning has been so intense, making the models used in the state non-operative.  Lots of unaffiliated voters haven't decided who they will be voting for and likely won't until this upcoming weekend.  With anti-war sentiment running high and many voters now awakening to how the cost of the war is starting to hurt them, a sudden surge of otherwise overlooked voters could change the results of the campaign.  The fat lady ain't sung yet for sure.

by VizierVic 2006-10-30 02:15AM | 0 recs
Of course you know!

You are as chicken as they are, Matt Stoller! The Clintons, Obama, Schumer, and all the rest of that deadly bunch!

You know what is happening here. You all know but none of you have the guts to say it.

You write: The important story here is that the DC Senate Democrats and DC lobbyists are not on our side.  They have their own side, a side that is out of touch, immoral, and dishonest. How meek of you!

Try TREASON!

by Freedom 2006-10-29 07:50PM | 0 recs
Dolchstosslegende

I can do without a Democratic Dolchstosslegende. We've got Senate races in VA, TN and MO that are closer than CT. Win those and we win the Senate.

by souvarine 2006-10-29 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Dolchstosslegende

wasn't Souvarine the one who allowed the bombs to go off? the one who believed he had to kill workers to save the working class?

by BlueinColorado 2006-10-29 09:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Dolchstosslegende

You clearly don't live in CT.  Lieberman has conducted a scurrilous campaign.  Worse, he has been allowed to capitalize on his "experience" which really means seniority.  He does not own his seniority.  The Democratic Party in the Senate owns  the seniority attached to the seat.  He is no longer the Democratic Party candidate for the Senate and the party leaders in the US Senate should have made that clear to CT from the beginning of the general election.  Their silence is very telling - it tells the real CT Democrats that you're on your own and that DC Democrats will tolerate rogues.  Don't be surprised if it spells the death knell for the party if Lamont loses by a whisker.

by VizierVic 2006-10-30 02:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab Us
Matt,
Some of the best blog writing I've seen has been coming from you on the race in CT. From "Debate Train to Crazy Town" to this article, you are on a roll. Up until the few weeks after the CT primary, I was part of the school that thought "we have to take back control of the senate". Of course, at that time, it never occurred to me that Lamont wouldn't receive the full backing of the party. Now I know that it is much more dangerous to elect a non-progressive to the Senate for the reasons you've outlined here. Only Lamont's personal wealth has kept him competitive in this race. What is the likelihood that we're going to find other multi-millionaires with Ned's sense of decency and character willing to take on the D.C. slime if Ned doesn't win this one? Who's going to help us change the campaign finance laws so that candidates don't have to be incredibly wealthy in order to run if people like Ned aren't elected? Bob Casey? Harold Ford? I don't think so.
by grayslady 2006-10-29 08:20PM | 0 recs
Man, lighten up

It's not like Ned Lamont is some crusader for liberal values or anything.  He's your pretty standard democrat.  The only difference is his view of the Iraq war. I mean isn't the whole reason we like Lamont is because he'll go along with the democratic leadership rather then supporting shrub?

Lamont is no Dean, he's no Tester or Feingold.

Alienating Lieberman during the election to the point where Lieberman felt so pissed he caucused with the republicans would be criminally negligent if split the senate evenly.  

I want Lamont to win, but I have no problem letting Lieberman back into the fold if he wins, and hoping that he caucuses with us.

control of the senate is what's important here, not individual races.  That's why we're supporting people like Harold Ford.

Look, I hate Lieberman, but let's be realistic.  

by delmoi 2006-10-30 12:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Man, lighten up

"...I want Lamont to win, but I have no problem letting Lieberman back into the fold if he wins, and hoping that he caucuses with us..."

Wrong!  Individual elections do count.  Lamont went out on a limb, agreeing to play by Democratic Party rules, to run in the primary and in the general.  He's even shown a sufficient commitment to throw his own money into the effort given the amount of popular support he's been able to generate.

Why should anyone hope Lieberman will caucus withe Democrats in the Senate?  He's shown himself to be a pathological liar during the course of both the primary and general election campaigns.  Why should anyone trust him?  He's a weasel.

Further, why should anyone believe he will be allowed to stay in the Senate.  His nearly half-million dollar walk-about will likely land him in serious trouble with the state of CT, if not with the Federal election commissions.  What do you do when Rell appoints his replacement because Lieberman has to step down?  Oh, yeah, elect a known criminal to office and see what it gets you.

Lieberman will go to whomever offers him the most.  Since it appears that the Republicans just might have the #3 slot open in their caucus, I suspect they could offer more, much more.  We know what Joe is.  Now, all that's being determined is the price.  

by VizierVic 2006-10-30 01:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Man, lighten up

It is important because this will have a chilling effect on anyone who wants to challenge an incumbent in the future. INcumbents can always follow the lieberman plan.

by Pravin 2006-10-30 05:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab

Oh good grief.  I know wrath against Lieberman is running high right now, but have some consideration of the possibility that the folks in DC may not share your loathing (50+% of folks in Connecticut don't seem to either).

This race is a minor marquee event made prominent by the unremitting stream of vitriol directed at Lieberman.  I think Joe's a tool.  But I think he's best left on Page A3.  I think Clinton and Obama deserve a bit of understanding - this whole situation forces everyone to try not to antagonize either person.  If Lieberman wins (despite all the wishful thinking I see here) they'll want to limit the damage he can do.  That may well mean staying on the good side of that coot.

And, with hot races in VA, TN, RI, MO (you know the litany) they do have other things to think about.

by fstilicho 2006-10-30 04:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab

GO to freerepublic.com. A lot of people dont like Lieberman but they want him to win badly because they loathe Lamont. A lot of them are doing this out of spite.

by Pravin 2006-10-30 05:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab

But I think he's best left on Page A3.  

So when he voted for torture, when he votes for Janice Rogers Brown to replace John Paul Stephens next year, when he goes back on Hannity to talk about how Democrats are just encouraging terrorists  by criticizing Bush, you'll be okay with that?

Just because Joe Biden and HIllary Clinton are too fucking stupid not to point the gun at their own foot doesn't mean the rest of us have to be too..

by BlueinColorado 2006-10-30 05:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab

Unless you have a crystal ball, let's just talk about events in the past.  

My point is this - bigtime Dems like Obama and Clinton have other races to worry about, like VA, and TN (you know the litany).  Forgive them for not wanting to wade too deeply into this muck.  Lieberman may be many bad things but he's nowhere near being a George Allen.  Trust me.  I live in VA.

by fstilicho 2006-10-30 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab

And, on shooting oneself in the foot, doesn't lashing out at everyone and anyone who seems the slightest bit ambivalent about this race seem, oh, a bit unproductive?  Are we a party or a sect?

by fstilicho 2006-10-30 02:21PM | 0 recs
Power vs Purity

The choice is between power and purity.

If Lieberman helps gain power Democrats power you will not get everything you want.

If you opt for purity you get even less.

So what will it be?

by M Simon 2006-10-30 07:49AM | 0 recs
Consider the possibility

That however Lamont may excite us, he isn't selling well to the average Connecticut voter.  Is that too hard to imagine?

by fstilicho 2006-10-30 04:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Consider the possibility

Is that too hard to imagine?

no, I think you're right. I'm just appalled by the voters of CT (and by extension, the entire damn country) who yawned and clicked back to Dancing With the Stars when the President of the United States proposed, and the Congress of the United States approved, that he be given the right to torture people and suspend the separation of powers at will.

by BlueinColorado 2006-10-30 05:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Consider the possibility

Challengers, in general, have a mighty hard task to sell their plans to an electorate whenever they face an entrenched incumbent without any sex or corruption scandal in the U.S. What Lamont did in the primaries was very rare.

All it took was a couple of missteps by Lamont to lose the momentumn. Joe was able to survive many missteps in his campaign.
Lieberman has the advantage of getting the support of two party establishments.

by Pravin 2006-10-30 05:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Consider the possibility

I wouldn't lay the blame, as the original entry does, on the Democratic establishment.  As you say, it's uphill.  I just think all the Lamont backers underestimated the difficulty of trying to beard a lion in his den.  If we lash out at everyone who shows the slightest hint of ambivalence about this race, all we do is shoot ourselves in the foot.

by fstilicho 2006-10-30 02:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Consider the possibility

I was abig Lamont backer. Read my latest diary. Some of us didnt underestimate Lieberman.

by Pravin 2006-10-30 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Consider the possibility

Would that the higher-ups here shared your careful assessment of CT . . .

by fstilicho 2006-10-31 02:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab Us In T

I think it will be necessary to be able to fully fund the desired candidates outside of the Democratic Party organization to get the required results.

by M Simon 2006-10-30 07:29AM | 0 recs
Stab in the Back

I think it will be necessary to fully fund the desired candidates outside of the control of the Democrat Party.

He who has the gold makes the rules.

by M Simon 2006-10-30 07:32AM | 0 recs
A Winning Issue

I'm a libertarian leaning guy.

I don't know why the Left is not destroying the Right on the drug war issue. It is racist. It has cost us a trillion dollars in the last 20 years.

The NIDA says that addiction is in part genetic and in part envirnmental. I believe the environmental part is trauma.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2006 /04/ptsd-and-endocannabinoid-system.html

The drug war is a persecution of the traumatized.

The real Left ought to be leading the charge against this war. Where are they?

Do Republicans support drug prohibition because it finances criminals or because it finances terrorists?

Republican Socialism. Price supports for criminals and terrorists.

Catchy don't you think?

by M Simon 2006-10-30 07:42AM | 0 recs
not interested

the thing is, will you seek out those voices that described the real machine all along?

no, you will continue to think you can know better, that people describing the patterns right under your nose are merely... mistaken, or... something.

you've made some silly assumptions... stabbed in the front is right, and it was clear as a bell all along.

and it's also why it's a grave mistake to save philosophy for after an election when they are free to use their own philosophy.

a political promise is NEARLY WORTHLESS, but no promise at all is TOTALLLY worthless.

conservative dems have a choke hold on the party because they arbitrate everything by threatened and actual cooperation with conservative allies in the Republican party.  We should EXPECT them to do that, it's not betrayal... that's what they REALLY BELIEVE!  When you think a pro-life candidate is going to help your pro-choice agenda, YOU are the one expecting betrayal from them!

Like all con games, it was the mark's greed that brought them in, not the "betrayal"...

by pyrrho 2006-10-30 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab Us...

You may wish to rethink the use of the word "leper", since your usage is an insult to those who suffer from a debilitating physiological disease not of their making for which they actively seek cure. More than can be said for some of those you list... perhaps they can be seen as a leprosy on the body of the public.

by ravi 2006-10-30 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Blaming everyone but yourselves

Actually Lamont made those same points. The republicans in CT wanted to spite the Dem party by siupporting Liebs. In fact, Liebs made a big deal about Lamont's wealth and his lamont voting with republicans in the past.

But yeah, Lamont dropped the ball on the ads. There should have been ads emphasizing the Iraq war as an exercise in incompetence and not just failed idealogy. There should have been clearcut analogies how it is not just some past issue and whether someone who has blundered so badly on a crucial issue in the past can be trusted with crucial issues on National security from a competence point of view in the future. Analogies should have been made with firing an exec in a corporation who made a huge blunder.

by Pravin 2006-10-30 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab Us In T

Unfortunately, I don't think they are pretty stressed. I bet the people working under them will suffer from a post traumatic stress disorder after the elections are done. They have enough money to rule the world after all.. and they want more. Everyone wants.

by andreea360 2008-03-16 01:03PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads