Jean Hay Bright is calling herself the next Lamont in her race against Olympia Snowe.

Sherrod actually got the honor bestowed on him by Ken Mehlman:

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/a rchives/2006/08/mehlman_sherrod.html

I've posted about this lots before but if you're looking for a race in which progressives are remaking the Democratic party through grass-roots activism and sharp message to overcome big-money conservatism, check out next week's Democratic gubernatorial primary in Nevada -- state senator and Democratic minority leader Dina Titus who represents the working and middle class neighborhoods of east Las Vegas is running against Henderson Mayor Jim Gibson, a corporate lawyer who has overseen rampant suburban sprawl in the southeastern suburbs.

Titus is supported by a wide array of labor, environmental groups, and progressive activists and has made very effective use of her money == an effective use of the web to shape media coverage and a series of sharp, 15-second ads that have been more effective than Gibson's standard-issue distortion/attack ads. Gibson has raised over $2m in large chunks from development interests primarily (his latest financial disclosure form hasn't been released), but this money hasn't helped him overcome his lack of prior involvement in state democratic politics.

As a result, independent polling has consistently shown her ahead by double digits, and she's got an extensive field operation in place for the current early voting period and next Tuesday's election day. Massive phone banking this week is returning very positive results as undecided voters are breaking decisively towards Titus.

Last night was the second of two tevelised debates, the key moment of which came when Gibson, following Lieberman's lead, refused to commit to endorsing the winner of the Democratic primary. (He's supported republican gubernatorial candidates in the past).

The big challenge for Titus, as for any grass-roots progressive, is funding; she's in no position to self-fund (she's a college teacher of American government who got into politics as a learnign experience, in the tradition of Paul Wellstone) and will be up against massive corporate donations from gaming and mining (which are virtually unlimited in Nevada) should she win the primary and face Richard Pombo protege Jim Gibbons in November.

I don't know about the particular demographics of MD-04, but it's pretty diverse from looking at the map and thinking back.  There's military, there's poor minority overflow from eastern DC, there's new development up the 95 and 270 corridors, but as I recall, there was never much hard support for Wynn among the average folks on the street.  I'd assume he's well connected to the Maryland machine by this time which is daunting, but so was Joe.  My impression was always that Wynn was a lifer by virtue of the momentum of incumbency, but maybe not.

NY's 19th District has an entrenched Bush aligned Sue Kelly, who has held the seat for 12 years.  While this district has had to deal with a beauty pagent of candidates for the primary, there is only one true progressive candidate, John Hall.

Wynn's District 4 is majority African-American but Wynn is not, well, beloved there.  Cardin was beloved in much of District 3, especially before the recent redistricting.  Wynn is less loved, but especially in the largely white, VERY liberal areas of Takoma Park, Silver Spring and NE Montgomery County.  I don't know that he is intensely loved anywhere in his district.

Some of those latter areas had had Connie Morella until 2002 or 04, I forget whether before or after redistricting, a quite liberal and very popular RINO Republican who got knocked out by very liberal Chris Van Hollen.  Some of those folks actively dislike Wynn for his coin-changer-on-his-belt appearance of cooperation with various corporate lobbyists against the liberal stream of his party.  So Wynn - a black Democrat - is a right-ward shift for many of those voters who, formerly, had a liberal white Republican.  Edwards' leftward appeal may actually bring her more white voters than black voters, in an inversion of conventional political dynamics.

I suspect, but do NOT have hard numbers, that Edwards' being female may help her.  But her calling herself the next Ned Lamont - and especially her calling Wynn a Lieberman - is probably an excellent idea for her campaign if they do it.  I do think Wynn can Lose, though it's a long-shot.  A Lamont-esque long shot.

The next Ned Lamont is Ned Lamont until Lieberman is driven out of the general. Until then, we have to defend a seat in play.

This is how Edwards is playing hardball right now.

THIS is how Edwards is playing hardball right now.

There's a really cool documentary about someone who was an early prototype of Lamont that's being self-distributed right now:

http://www.mrsmithmovie.com/

It's been playing St. Louis for awhile, but is opening in L.A., Boston and other places...You shold all check it out and help spread the word! A great primer for just the kind of struggles ahead for all these candidates.

Lizzy - Hall may very well be the most progressive of the 4 remaining Democrats, but he's very unelectable...he has too many skeletons in the closet and will be very easy to paint as "weak on national defense" by the Kelly machine.  Ben Shuldiner is our best bet in that race - he's quite progressive without all the skeletons.

I've commented on this many times before, but I really believe that Jennifer Lawless can win her primary and that there are many similarities between her race and Lamont's.

Langevin is out of sync with Rhode Islanders and the Democratic Party on a plethora of issues--he has left himself open to attack on a much broader array of issues than Lieberman did.  Sure, he may not be plagued by the dynamic image of kissing the President, but we could do so much better.  From supporting the PATRIOT Act to voting against a timetable for withdrawing our troops, to voting over 25 times against a woman's right to choose, Langevin is proving he is out of touch with the needs of his constituents.

Additionally, while Lieberman was at least a visible an outspoken leader for his constituents, Langevin is simply not.  Where has he been on the fight to create better jobs and provide quality education and healthcare?  Where was his voice speaking out against Iraq?  Not only is he out of touch on a lot of issues, on the rest, he simply is a vote without a voice.  With the Republicans fully in control of our government, we need more.

http://lawlessforcongress.com

I hope Crablaw (@12:32:32) is right, but Donna Edwards has her work cut out for her.  This 2004 article* seems pretty good to me in suggesting both opportunity and challenge for her campaign.

*(BTW, I've only recently discovered this gazette.net site, but it looks fairly decent for local MD news, though it doesn't appear to contain particularly in-depth articles; searching on {"Donna Edwards" + Wynn} will pop up a couple dozen or so articles which provide some small flavor of their past encounters.)

We have a lot more federal employees here than there are in CT (save for the shipyard constituency there), so Wynn might be more effective than Lieberman in implying negative consequences for MD04 voters, if they turn out a rep with significant seniority.  Beyond that, my impression is that he hasn't been as aloof as Lieberman in dealing with his constituents, although that is generally the case in comparing House-vs.-Senate reps; his proximity to his district helps him in this matter.

It's good to see her getting tough, as illustrated by that cartoon.  I've donated to DE, and will donate again.

  What does yesterday's defeat of Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary mean for the rest of the country?

   The answer may be found in the IL-8th Congressional District, where independent candidate Bill Scheurer is taking on two pro-war, pro-corporate candidates from the Republican and Democratic parties in the general election this fall.

   Scheurer, who beat huge odds to get his Moderate Party on the ballot, notes obvious parallels between his and Lamont's campaigns.

   "Lamont's stand on the war in Iraq, working families, healthcare, and balanced budgets, are identical to our Moderate Party platform here in the IL-8th District," Scheurer said.

   "(Democratic freshman incumbent representative) Melissa Bean and Joe Lieberman are both 'Bush Democrats' blatantly courting Republican votes."

   However, perhaps the bigger and more important similarity is that Lamont will now have to take his battle into the general election this fall, to finally defeat Lieberman's policies of accommodation with the Bush administration, since Lieberman has vowed to stay in the race.

   "Bean is a Lieberman Democrat, what we call a 'donkephant' here in Illinois," Scheurer said. "Donkephants die hard. Ned Lamont is now learning what we have known all along: The only way to get rid of a donkephant is in the general election."

   On the heels of several incumbent upsets in yesterday's primaries, Amy Walter, a House political analyst with the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, was quoted in the Washington Post as saying, "I don't want to read too much into primary results, because by their very nature (primary voters) are different from the broader electorate, but what these races suggest is that, yes, the antiwar, anti-Bush, anti-establishment, anti-Washington message is very effective."

   Scheurer believes the movement away from the status quo reflects growing voter dissatisfaction with candidates who are virtually indistinguishable from each other.

   Bean has pointedly avoided TV debates when independent candidate Scheurer is invited and his presence might highlight the overwhelming similarities between her and Republican candidate Dave McSweeney.

   "It is not about Republicans and Democrats," Scheurer said. "It is about voters, and offering them a real choice. Our campaigns [Lamont's and Scheurer's] in the general election will finally give voters that choice."

Since the new progressive movement is almost certainly strong enough to punish Melissa Bean for abandoning the Democratic Party on crucial votes, the only question in this race is how much dough Rahm Emanuel will waste in vain via incumbent protection for a DLC loser who votes with the GOP far too often.

Since it is clear that Bean is going to lose, the discussion shifts to the quest to find a good Democrat to run in 2008. I've already begun candidate recruitment, I'm looking for a great Democratic, with proven leadership abilities, who has spent many a year living in the district, who is highly regarded by the new progressive movement, who knows what it takes to get the job done. Let me know if you have any ideas who fits this profile.

Langevin is exactly the same as Lieberman and even more conservative!  I'm from Rhode Island and believe me, Jim Langevin is not what Rhode Islanders need or want!  I hope that Ms. Lawless can put up some good tv and get the netroots involved.  If these two things align with a strong field effort, she will win.  Lets go netroots...lets take another one!!

I concur with the suggestion that we need to continue to watch Ned Lamont's back until Lieberman's out of the race.

I also concur with the conclusion that of the other names suggested in this thread so far, while there's something to be said for many of them, Dina Titus offers the most bang for the buck. Support for her does not put a blue-held seat at risk, and, frankly, both the conservative Democrat she's running against in the primary and the Republican she'll face in November are way worse than Wynn or Langevin and way more important than the nuances of difference among the Democrats running in NY-19.  

Further support for Scheurer in IL-08 is just static on the line, at this point in the cycle.

If the Lawless challenge is able to pick up steam in the media in the coming weeks (which is more likely now that everyone is looking for the next Lamont), the Terri Schiavo vote could be the noose around Langevin's neck...

I personally think Langevin is the perfect example of a candidate that is complacent.  The Lawless people are hungry for change; they have a young, energetic team that really believes in progressive issues such as choice, net neutrality, Iraq and others... Langevin simply does not represent his district ideologically.  If this is the real year for the Democratic tide, then progressives like Lawless should defeat conservative Dems in liberal areas like Langevin in RI...

No leadership and way to the right of his constituents.  Can't think of a better set of reasons to get rid of him.

lawlessforcongress.com

There is a difference between Lieberman and Langevin: Lieberman is way more progressive.  If anyone should be challenged it is candidates that are aggressively pro war and pro bush on eroding our civil liberties.

The progressive punch doesn't tell the whole story. Sure, on paper Langevin looks ok. And no doubt he is a nice guy. But that isn't enough. He is on the wrong side of so many issues (that key 15%): he wants universal insurance, not universal healthcare. That means that people will be required to get coverage, but they will be responsible for paying. The poorest will be covered, but there will be a group of people who are working hard who will be strapped to get the insurance. Jen wants Universal healthcare. Everyone gets basic coverage.

He voted multiple times for tax breaks for the rich, and voted to keep the bush tax cuts that benefit the top few percent, rather than roll back the taxes and use the money for education and healthcare. His PP rating on family planning is 26%. He voted to shied fast food companies from lawsuits.  And voted against medical marijuana multiple times. He voted for the schaivo bill, and against gay marriage, and for a flag burning amendment. I could go on.  

These are important issues to me. I have spoken to his office a number of times about health issues, and have gotten replies such as "there isn't a bill about that issue right now, so he's not going to spend much time looking at it." He is "unsure" about emergency contraception (and therefore most forms of contraception, which work by the same method) and that should be enough to scare anyone who wants to have sex for pleasure, not just procreation.

I have long been hoping that someone would challenge him, and I think that Lawless is an excellent choice. She is very smart, interested in learning about new ideas, and willing to fight for what is important to RI. She is articulate and in it for the right reasons. She knows that we can do better. Washington needs outsiders to clean things up - campaign finance reform, ethics violations, big business taking precedence over the people, plus an exit strategy for Iraq, universal healthcare, reality based sex ed, and good environmental and alternative fuel options.

I am not sure why people are so scared of a challenge. Let the 2 debate, and then let RI'ers decide on the issues. Lawless deserves to be taken seriously, and given enough press and exposure so that people can make an informed decision. I think that she has earned that right by fighting a good campaign and getting this kind of grassroots support. Unlike Lamont, Jen Lawless is not independently wealthy, and she has had to work very hard to build this kind of momentum, in a time of so much apathy. She actually gets people excited, and hopeful for the future. Wouldn't you love to feel a little hopeful again?

YES, absolutely! When a Democrat is "in bed" with W, is so far-gone and blinded by radical Republican's views on the most fundamental issues, then yes Langevin deserves much the same democratic ousting that dear, droopy Joe experienced Tuesday. True reform, true democracy, true change comes in a primary -- only then will "new" Democrats lead the charge for change in Washington, only then can a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate, and a Democrat in the White House become a reality.

Do it right Rhode Islanders...Lieberman Langevin!