The DC Dem establishment was happy to run Hackett as a sacrificial lamb in Ohio.  When he almost won in an overwhelmingly GOP district, were they not prepared to deal with him as a popular Democrat.  They didnt 'hate' Hackett until he challenged their authority.

I regret that Hackett withdrew.  I hope Lamont can teach some lessons to this establishment.

Took the words out of my mouth.

Right on!  This was exactly the correction I wanted to offer Matt when I read this -- while plenty of progressives are liberal, many are not.  But we are united by our desire to accomplish things, unlike the current status quo of politicians afraid, unwilling, or uninterested in solving problems if it doesn't help them personally.

We are reviving the idea of civic service as a commitment to helping others: in our communities, and in our state and nation.  We are going to build a new society despite the intimidating challenges of our generation, that President Carter once suggested would be "the moral equivalent of war": in our case, global climate change, the end of cheap energy, and global overpopulation.

Sure, Lamont is to the left of Lieberman, but it would be hard not to be -- even the Republican is on withdrawal from Iraq.  But Ned is not especially liberal, he simply has common sense and a desire to help others... which in the current political culture means fighting a revolution to be heard.  And he is out there fighting it; I have traveled to his state to help in what little way I can, and I exhort all who possibly can to do the same.

This is a progressive's call to arms: join the battle!

Also, I wouldnt call it a "dagger."  Maybe an "Upsurge in integrity."

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are in touch with the African-American community -> Ned Lamont is in touch with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton -> Ned Lamont is in touch with the African-American Community.

Or something.

The difference between you and me is that I want to fix the Democratic party so it represents me and  progressives like me. If you don't like what the party is, fix it. Why do you think Howard Dean resonated with so many people? He recognized that the base was disaffected.

Maybe you should read Crashing the Gates.

Bitching-without-doing isn't going to get you a lot of sympathy around here. You seem to want a magical 'oakland' party that represents you without being willing to work for it. Bail out if you want. Some of us are going to transform the party into what it should be. We could use your help, if you can be bothered.

While I understand the source of your sentiment, I'm not sure I'm buying your argument in toto.

To be sure, I'd bet that there are Senators who are concerned from a "salary continuation" point of view, as you postulate. I definitely agree.

But I'd have to think that some Senate(D) incumbents are not particularly concerned about the insurgency. Your Feingold example doesn't resonate for me. I figure there are a handful of (D) Senators that already represent their states effectively and with sensitivity to progressive sensibilities. Feingold, of course, would be one of them. Carl Levin & Ted Kennedy might be other examples. I'm no Senate expert, so I won't try to make an exhaustive list.

The point is, those Senators who've maintained a strong progressive outlook over the years are not so much worried as, perhaps, bemused. In private, they can look at Joe and shake their heads while saying something along the lines of, "What goes around, comes around." Then they can get back to work without any concern whatsoever about what happens in the CT primary. They needn't concern themselves about an insurgency from the left; that's their base and they know it.

"Ask yourself whether Feingold is pleased about Lamont. Do we think that, if Lamont wins the primary, Feingold will be stumping on his behalf?

I doubt it very much."

I think that was a bad example, because Feingold was perhaps the first major politial figure to come out and say he supported the Democratic nominee and that he'd campaign for him. Tim Russert also asked if he would endorse Lieberman or Lamont, and he refused to. Somehow, I'm sensing Feingold's sympathy's to be with Lamont, and I'm sure that Feingold, if he feels he must, would stump with him especially in the event of  a Lieberman independent run.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/7/12/2 02650/697/18#18

I argued this several times before, (see above link for example) but it needs to be reiterated.  There are FAR MORE currently sitting Democratic Senators who are sick of getting stabbed in the back by their caucus' own Republican enabler, Joe Lieberman, than there are Democratic Senators who actually want Lieberman to win the primary.

We observe and rightfully chastise the few who support Lieberman, but recognize that it is a mixed bag of reasons why he is getting the paucity of support he's been able to muster (Boxer--personal friendship, Salazar--ideological affiliation, Biden--chickened out when he realized Lieberman was an anvil on his neck etc.).  

The big story is the deafening silence coming from most of Lieberman's colleagues.  Even Sen. Dodd has made only the requisite finger-lifting endorsement out of an awkward obligation that Dodd obviously resents having to Holy Joe.  It is clear behind the scenes that Lieberman is not pushing Dodd to do too much for him.  What does Lieberman know that Dodd is keeping mum about?

Understand that members of the U.S. Senate are loathe to, and almost never, campaign against members of the OPPOSITE PARTY, much less for a challenger to a member of their own party.  The only exception to this tradition being the DSCC Chair or select party leaders will come to a challenger's state to endorse their party's nominee w/o attacking the sitting member of the opposite party.  Recall the GOP establishment gunning for Tom Daschle and what a break w/tradition that was and what a big story it was in D.C.  (To me the big story was the failure of the ineffective national democrats to mount a serious defense of Daschle, but that's another story).

For all the talk about Lieberman's support within the club, he's received very little help from his honorable colleagues and has, in fact, encountered many cold shoulders for each Boxer or Salazar he's been able to push onto the stage.  He has avoided even asking some of his Democratic colleagues because he knows "they're busy that day."

In the grand scheme and when the history of this race is written, the story will be how well Ned Lamont did in neutralizing opposition from incumbent Senate Democrats in the primary, and how well he cultivated their willing support for him in the general election if it comes down to a Lamont-D vs. Lieberman-Ind. contest.

There is nothing to gain for any of them to be seen meddling in the primary of another state as Sen. Boxer learned.  And she was stumping for the incumbent!  The truth of the matter is that a significant number of the Senate Democrats believe they have more riding on Ned Lamont than even we do since they are the one's being tripped up by Lieberman on a daily basis.

As much as we rightfully complain about the decision by a Senator such as Barbara Boxer to actually hit the ground and campaign, Joe Lieberman is the one who feels (correctly) that the other Democrats in the Senate have left him out on a limb.  Most of the Dem. caucus is pulling for Lamont to win the primary and some are even smart enough to realize that Lieberman's a bigger problem for them than Lamont's campaign could ever be -- even if he tried.  A primary win on Aug. 8th will bring open arms on Aug. 9th by Ned Lamont's future colleagues.

sláinte,
cl

CL

You mean in exactly the way old "pricipled" Joe sucked up to Al back in the 2004 Presidential run?

Ah, selective preception is a wonderful thing...and utterly required to avoid Lieberkinder cognitive dissonance.

Ohmygod, the horror, the horror!!!  How can Ned ever live this down?  He must, must reject this endorsement.  What's next, an endorsement from the North Korean chapter of NAMBLA?

Oh the Humanity!