Ouch

Lieberman is down 54-41, and only 5% of voters are undecided.  That's according to the latest Quinnipiac poll.  And apparently Clinton's endorsement has only convinced 2% of voters to vote for Lieberman.  Ouch, Big Dog.

Lieberman is just atrocious on the campaign trail.  Awful.  Almost no one is showing up at his events, and he has no energy in his speeches.  I was talking to a great Connecticut reporter yesterday who told me that Joe's never been able to attract crowds, even in 1988, but that this is extreme.  I took a crappy video from my non-video camera, which should give you an idea of how bad he is at rallying people.  The cheering you hear is from the massive number of paid Lieberyouth.

There are a few more pics of the Wakeup Walmart rally.  The one to the left is the Kiss float in front of Joe's Epcort Ride.  The Kiss float has become just devastating to the Lieberman campaign; the bloggers here are driving around and tagging along with Lieberman everywhere.  

At the Walmart rally, we were expecting fireworks because Lamont and Lieberman were both showing up, and Maura had found out that Lieberman accepts Walmart PAC money in March.  At the microphone, when confronted by that claim, Lieberman said it was a lie, and that his campaign had returned the money a week later.  There's no record of that in the FEC on either the Walmart PAC side or Lieberman's side.  Reporters are actually sleuthing on this race, discussing matters like this lie, our lobbying-driven culture and the Iraq War, oh wait, no, they covered a bloggerputting upan edgy picture.

This guy showed up to the event as well; Lieberman supporters are clever.

The day was confusing, because the Lieberman campaign claimed they were canceling all events to film a new commercial, and then showed up at the rally anyway.  Or rather, they claimed this to reporters they considered unfriendly, and told other reporters the event was on.  Just one more lie in an ocean of bad retro 80s politics.

The Wakeup Walmart event was packed with Lieberyouth, 50 or 60.  I took this picture of a kid wearing 'The Hug' button and holding a Lieberman sign.  Apparently Clinton hugging Lieberman is not doing it for Lieberman.  He must be the only one.

Last night, I went to a Jesse Jackson event in New Haven.  If you've never seen Jackson speak, I very much recommend it.  He does a great job of linking the moral to the political, and the crowd was nodding along.  Lamont got up after Jackson, and rocked the house.  It was a very different type of energy, but there was the same amount of nodding and cheering.  It's pretty clear that the vibe among all Democrats in Connecticut is one of disaffection and a sense that they don't have to take it anymore.

Oh, and Dan Gerstein keeps being a jerk.

Lieberman's campaign said the senator's attack on the administration was nothing new. "This is one of those great myths that the Lamont campaign have been able to peddle," said spokesman Dan Gerstein. "He's been critical [of the handling of Iraq] since the war started."

If you want to run on bipartisanship, run on bipartisanship.  Put it up to the voters, don't just lie about who you are.

I'm going to start bugging people to come up to Connecticut.  Get your ass up here.  It's fun, and it's momentus, and we need you.

Tags: Connecticut, CT-Sen, Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont (all tags)

Comments

33 Comments

Re: Ouch

As I recall Matt, you had as much to do with the blogosphere's decision to engage in this fight as anyone.  I don't know what went on behind the scenes...but congratulations.  You should be proud!

We might just win a few this time.  

by aiko 2006-08-03 04:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Ouch

Those of us too far away to help you on the ground are with you in spirit.  Y'all are almost there!

by kentuckydave 2006-08-03 04:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Ouch

Well at least Clinton kept the Lieb in the 40s. If he was in the 30s, WalMart would be demanding their contribution back for real.

by scvmws 2006-08-03 04:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Ouch

By the way: the hug button still has no union bug, it seems.

by scvmws 2006-08-03 04:31AM | 0 recs
God It's Fun!

Watching the establishment Democratic campaign machine screw things up over and over and over again, as per usual, and not having it destroy the most progressive candidate in the race, for a change.

Hey, here's a thought: In 2008, whoever you support, make it a litmus test that they promise not to hire Bob Shrum!

Or Susan Estrich.

by Paul Rosenberg 2006-08-03 05:04AM | 0 recs
Not to divert blame from the establishment, but

I see a huge impact from charisma.

Ned Lamont rates high on the likability quotient. He just looks like someone you would want to sit down with for dinner or coffee. Lieberman looks awkard and uncomfortable.

One of the things the VRWC has been very good at is identifying candidates early in their career who are telegenic.

Yes, I want my candidates to vote with my values, but we are living in an age of TV and sound bites. Charm and attractiveness are valuable assets.

by MetaData 2006-08-03 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Ouch

The NYT reports in a front page story for today that Lieberman is seeking to make Ned Lamont's wealth and family pedigree an issue in the campaign.  Why doesn't the story draw the obvious paralell between Lamont and John F. Kennedy in this regard?  Does Lieberman think that JFK was "out of touch with ordinary Americans?"  Maybe in fact he was but I don't think the comparison would be unhelpful to Lamont.

by pattyk9 2006-08-03 05:29AM | 0 recs
Third in the nation per capita

Millionaires in Connecticutt 54,524. One out of each 25 households.

Millionaire bashing may work in Mississippi where the ratio is 1 in 50 (and I bet the ratio of Democrat millionaires a hell of a lot lower than that) but a lot of people in Connecticutt are going to be scratching their heads wondering hmm. What's wrong with being well to do? Especially in this housing market?

by Bruce Webb 2006-08-03 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Ouch
Whenever a Liebermanite makes wealth an issue, he should be confronted with this IMMEDIATELY
  1. Isnt his wife getting paid vbecause of her poliical connections?
  2. How rich was Lieberman before he entered public service and how rich is he now?
  3. Hasn't Lamont earned all of his money without having to take money from lobbyists? He earned it the old fashioned capitalistic way. Is Lieberman a commie?
  4. WHY DIDN"T LIEBERMAN MAKE BUSH"S AND CHENEY"S WEALTH AN ISSUE IN THE PAST? SO IF LIEBERMAN IS TRULY BIPARTISAN, WHY DOES HE RESERVE SUCH UNDERHANDED ATTACKS ONLY ON A DEMOCRAT LIKE LAMONT?
by Pravin 2006-08-03 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Ouch

I have a question, will there be a minstrel show at Lamont's campaign party on Tuesday?  Since his supporters seem to like blackface so much.

by ditka 2006-08-03 06:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Ouch

Excuse me, Ditka, but your comment might be interpreted as race-baiting and unfair to Lamont? Would you please explain what you mean/are trying to imply in clear English so that I, an African-American, can understand you?

by Anouke 2006-08-03 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Ouch

You don't understand what he means? I do. He's an idiot. That's what he means.

by bruh21 2006-08-03 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Ouch

He being the poster above- not Lamont and not you. :)

by bruh21 2006-08-03 07:40AM | 0 recs
Kerfluggle at Firedoglake

Jane Hamsher posted a picture of Lieberman in blackface with this article at Huffingtonpost and a tempest in a teapot broke out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsh er/on-the-ground-with-lamont_b_26316.htm l

Standard demands from the Lieberman camp that Lamont denounce Jane who they claim is working for the campaign, cut all contacts, yada, yada, yada. They took the picture down, Jane apologized - to Lamont for creating the problem. Typical false outrage to bolster their attack on Ned as racist.

As for Ditka his comment history seems just to show a rapid Lieberman guy who is kind of losing it at this point. Doesn't like Sharpton and Jackson so probably at least a bigot, I didn't see immediate signs he was a vicious bigot.

by Bruce Webb 2006-08-03 08:42AM | 0 recs
T-Shirt

Does that t-shirt say 'Toady for Lieberman'?

And bananas is good these days. Ned's bananas - B-A-N-A-N-A-S. Ned ain't no hollaback girl but Joe is a ho'.

by joejoejoe 2006-08-03 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Ouch

I'm a somewhat liberal and somewhat conservative   Democrat and I was just wondering..say Mr Lieberman  loses next week and then drops his indie bid because of political pressure will this community feel any different about him? I'm sure there will be an uproar if he joins the Bush Administration (although  Paul McHale, the first dem to blast Clinton over Monica Lewinsky serves is currently a deputy sec'yh to at DHS or DHD), but what if he doesn't but says he will continue to speak out on what he believes even though he isn't in office any longer..will it matter to MyDD regulars? I guess what I'm trying to get at is this...Lieberman is not Zell Miller and to me he is not as conservative as some other congressional democrats...is this about getting a Senator who is more in tune with the base from a reliably Dem state (would we be this involved had it been Ben Nelson?)... or is this about Iraq and the perception that Mr Lieberman has been the largest cheerleader on the Dem side? ...is this personal in the sense that Lieberman made the error to "stiff" CT Dems by saying he'd run anyway if he lost the primary..or is it something else or all the above? If we had Lieberman as a Dem Senator from say OK...all things being the same, would he be viewed differently?

by dantata 2006-08-03 06:35AM | 0 recs
Depends what he says.

I obviously speak only for myself, but hopefully many others are in line with what I'm saying here.

If Joe Lieberman speaks out about something I agree with.  (Say, not drilling in ANWR) then of course I'll welcome his voice as I will any other voice on the issue.

If Joe Lieberman speaks out against something I believe in, I'll figure probably few people are listening.

If he speaks out in a condescending way, telling me that I have no right to question the president, or that I'm clearly angry or ignorant of whatever, I'll (depending on my mood) continue to be pissed off, or will dismiss him as a bitter loser.

Given his history to date, I'm expecting the latter, though I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised.

by Go Vegetarian 2006-08-03 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Depends what he says.

see now that would be my attitude too..i don't mind disagreeing with someone but would be mad if someone outrigthts insults me on top of that....I could tolerate Lieberman provided he wasn't out bashing his party on Fox news (unlike Ben Nelson) but he completely lost me when he played the coward and stiffed CT Dems by saying he'd run as an independent...however, I seem to get the impression (maybe its just me)..that the netroots had it out for him for so long until when they finally had him cornered...would this had been possible if he represented another state like OK, where the politics are way off the deep right-wing end?

by dantata 2006-08-03 07:19AM | 0 recs
Will anyone listen?

Once he's out of office, it'll be a lot harder to justify giving him more than occasional TV time, even on the B-list political shows.

If he says something then that anyone notices, he won't be representing the Democratic Party.  If Lieberman says something stupid then, it'll be equivalent to Robert J. Samuelson saying something stupid.  BFD.

by RT 2006-08-03 07:33AM | 0 recs
Punditocracy

Retiring from office has led to big careers in punditry for any number of Republican shills.

But, Lieberman doesn't do good TV, and I assume the marketing staff at the talk-TV will suggest other talking heads.

by MetaData 2006-08-03 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Ouch

I dont get the need to ask this question now. I have seen variations on these what if questions on multi diaries now.

by bruh21 2006-08-03 07:41AM | 0 recs
I will regain some respect for him.

If he loses, observes the will of the voters and then decides against the Indy bid.

Hell it can become Hannity and Lieberman at that point!

If Joe was from a solid red state, i'd be much more inclined to cut him some slack, the constant war cheerleading and trash talking about the party (Ben Nelson doesn't do that) would still bug me though.

-C.

by neutron 2006-08-03 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Ouch

See you this weekend Matt - do anyone know if Joe will be campaigning this Saturday (Sabbath)?

by Karatist Preacher 2006-08-03 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Ouch

no he wont be campaigning from sundown friday to sundown sat

by yomoma2424 2006-08-03 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Ouch

Does it look like the story about the photo is dying, or is this something with legs?

by who threw da cat 2006-08-03 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Ouch

Matt - Lorenzo and Sue thank you for the water from yesterday:

http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do ;jsessionid=B4B2A37AA6EDFD47DEA208B3CA55 DCAA?diaryId=2468

by Sprinkles 2006-08-03 06:48AM | 0 recs
Less than six months ago

Qunnipiac, Feb. 16, 2006:

In a possible Democratic primary, the incumbent beats businessman Ned Lamont 68 - 13 percent.

In half a year Lieberman's poll numbers have fall by 27 pts while Lamont has gone up 41 pts. In net comparison, Lieberman has gone from +55 to minus -13 in what may be one of the biggest shifts ever for an incumbent senator who has not suffered a major scandal.

I predict Joe getting very nasty (today is Black Thursday so it will be interesting to know what mail hits today).

by Bob Brigham 2006-08-03 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Less than six months ago

Lieberman has gone from +55 to minus -13 in what may be one of the biggest shifts ever for an incumbent senator who has not suffered a major scandal.

And that is the most beautiful sight to see, because it means that when an informed citizenry learns about  a person's record that informed citizenry can nearly always be counted upon to make the correct decision and adjust their vote accordingly

I don't care what anyone says the blogs in CT (and here) are doing a fabulous job accurately relating what Lieberman stands for and how he has voted and what Lamont stands for.

Thank God for the free flow of ideas and information

by merbex 2006-08-03 07:46AM | 0 recs
Low Information Voters

That is what is so funny about Sean Smith (Lieberman's campaign manager until Wednesday). His claim to faim is manipulating low information voters. Lieberman hired Smith because Joe's only chance of winning was for voters to know as little as possible.

Instead, the exact opposite has happened and that spells death for DLC candidates.

by Bob Brigham 2006-08-03 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Ouch

Sorry I can't join you folks in CT this weekend, but I've been on the road the last 3 weekends in a row; I think my wife would like me back.

by RT 2006-08-03 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Ouch

This is not only an indictment of Lieberman, it's an indictment of the old ways running campaing.

by bruh21 2006-08-03 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Ouch

Yep.

Hopefully after this, the old Democratic establishment will realize they can't just pat us non-corporate, non-DLC types on the head and send us off to bed with a glass of water when we start to make a little noise.

by Oregonian 2006-08-03 07:47AM | 0 recs
BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT...

far left extremists!
blogonistas!!
OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM!!!!!

sputter clank explode

-C.

by neutron 2006-08-03 08:03AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads