I would not be surprised if Obama campaigned for Lieberman.  After all, Lieberman is his advisor in the Senate, and Obama and Lieberman share a penchant for criticizing their own party.  And both of them are mavericks, if we are to define maverick as someone who consistently votes against the interests of their constituents.  Both Lieberman and Obama are out of touch with the voters who elected them and with the progressive politics I and many other constituents uphold.  Obama will campaign for Lieberman, and Obama will not respond to emails from his constituents when asked why he feels entitled to intervene in local primaries.  

Apparently Salazar has said he'll back Joe's indie run, according to the Dailykos.

Ugh.

You should be asking whether or not these Senators will support Ned Lamont if he wins the nomination.

Are there any senators good enough for you Matt with all the shots you take at Obama?

I missed the MTP where Feingold spoke about Lamont/Lieberman.  Did Feingold say he is staying neutral or did he say he'll support Lieberman unless he loses the primary?

Also I'd be interested in knowing if any bloggers here would support Lamont if he ran as an Independent against Lieberman, should Lieberman win the nomination.

I am really tired of all of this talk... when did we become such fans of guilt by association.  

As hard as it may be for many of  us to understand, these people are real, actual PEOPLE with real, actual working relationships.  They work together day after day in the Senate, and many of them have socialized together for many years.  

And if what Matt says is true about these politicians living in a bubble (and I agree that most of probably them do), then we can't expect them to think that Joementum is really going to lose the primary, and THEREFORE we have to expect that they are supporting their friend the incumbant senator in the primary, not only because of personal connections but also because of political pragmatism and the expectation that they will have to continue working with him in the future (and we already know that Joe is vindictive and retalliatory).

It does get trickier after the primary when seeing whom these senators support for the general, but WHY ARE WE WORRYING ABOUT THAT NOW?  Let's cross that bridge when we get to it...I'm all for taking out Lieberman, but there's no need to take down every Democratic Senator who's ever had coffee with him while we do it.  Is that too much to ask?  

Again, CIRCULAR FIRING SQUAD.

I believe Obama spoke on behalf of the Connecticut Democratic Party, an organization which invited him to speak.  Part of our strategy to retake the House involves several key House races in Connecticut.

Candidates like Chris Murphy and Diane Farrell should not be punished for Joe Lieberman's conservatisim.  They need all the help they can get.  Like it or not, Barack Obama is probably the Democratic Party's biggest star and his appearance at such an event brings in much needed donations.

Utter nonsense. Supporting Lieberman equals "standing against Connecticut voters"? So Lieberman is going to get 0% in the primary, or do non-liberal-bloggers not count as worthy constituents to our humble front pager?

Connecticut voters are made up of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Senators represent ALL of their constituents. I always thought "toe the line" politics was Tom DeLay's area of expertise, but now even red-state Democrats, miracles all, are supposed to toe the blogosphere line.

Because he started singing the "I will support Joe Lieberman, even as an Independent" theme song long before Boxer, Salazar and Obama.

Obama continues to disappoint me with his triangulation tactics, and if Harold Ford wins Frist's senate seat, he'll be even worse than Obama.

I don't find it at all remarkable that sitting Senators, all of whom know Lieberman, would be inclined to support Lieberman... in the primary.

I see a stark distinction between doing that and continuing any such support if Lamont wins it. Which I hope he will.

The whole situation is new. Numerous weeks will pass, with Lamont (I predict) gaining in popularity as voters hear his message. Senators love to hear themselves talk (it's one of the traits that leads people into politics) and some of them will regret shooting their mouths off too quickly if they commit now to Lieberman. I think we and they could all benefit by lowering the temperature and watching what happens during the primary campaign (or participating, to whatever extent is appropriate).  

And, as a final thought, I don't suppose very many of us expected that a brand-new senator from a Western state, one who flipped the seat he's in from Red to Blue, was too likely to be ideologically very far to the Left?  Part of the reason some of us are so cross with Lieberman's drift toward the right is that he's not one of the Senators from, say, Colorado. He's supposed to be representing Connecticut, a very different constituency. And they should throw him out, if they don't approve of the job he does for them any more. Looks, in fact, like they may.

Before I get too grumpy with senators who stick with Joe in the primary, I'm gonna ask myself: if some conservative Democrat were to file to run against Russ Feingold, next time he's up, wouldn't I be happy to see his colleagues support him in the primary (if it gets that far)?

Support the two-faced crypto- fascist Lieberman? Boxer sux the big one. Period. These "Democratic" turds can kiss my churly ass. No fucking more. No fucking more. My vote goes to Nader.

Meta-discussion is boring... but I'll note that I usually give "3"s when someone has added information that helps with decision-making, whether I agree with the poster's conclusions, or not. I sometimes also give "3"'s when someone expresses the intention to do something actually useful (like donate or volunteer or write a letter to the editor).

I seldom assign any other rating. When threads become personal or involve name-calling I skip over them. Once calm returns, the embarrassment of re-reading ill-tempered postings is probably punishment to the posters who made them. I know I wince over mine, if temper betrays me.  

The fact of the matter is that East coasters, and Matt Stoller especially, have no standing to criticize Ken Salalzar.

Maybe you east coast elites should care more about "fly over" country, then when a moderate Dem does moderate things.

Now, why don't you worry about Maine's two GOP senators, or why the hell blue PA sends to Republicans to DC?

Oh, but you coastal liberals, you know all!  

Well, I guess zeroing out stuff is one way to halve a 104 comment thread. Still, don't you think you're going a little hard on njfellow, blues? That's a hell of a lot of zeroes.

According to Obama's staff, Obama WILL support the winner of the primay.

the way Matt showcases Salazar's support as 'surprising' implies people exist who see him as a true Dem. he seems so very pink from my vantage here in CO that i had not realized anyone saw him as blue... given our success in state races in 04, i have really felt it was less Salazar flipping CO than a shift in state ideology itself.

given pacified and JRyan's responses (and track record over on squarestate), i accept my take may be way off.

salazars pp score: 82

comparison:
kohl 81.9
inouye 81.8
pryor 77
rockefeller 86
lincoln 74
reid 81

for a divided state, thats a pretty solid voting record.