by robliberal, Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 07:12:23 PM EST
by Matt Stoller, Thu Feb 22, 2007 at 05:26:57 PM EST
I was just in the Boston area, appearing at the Institute of Politics for a class taught by Ned Lamont. I lived in Boston for about eight years or so, and I really love the city, so it was nice to come back here and spend time around lots of red brick. Also, I have to say, Lamont is just a really good guy.
This is an open thread. And my anger will return tomorrow.Update [2007-2-22 22:35:11 by Jerome Armstrong]:
Let me see if this works (I know it's a conservative outlet, but it's a cool widget too):
by areucrazy, Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 11:23:47 AM EST
(crossposted at dailykos)
The 2006-midterm elections presented Democrats with a historic opportunity to strengthen the party brand and retake control of both houses of congress. Party members of all stripes helped secure an election day capped with record setting victories through the nation.
Although Howard Dean's 50-state strategy emphasizes long run party building over the short term electoral gains, its immediate success was vitally important not only to Americans hoping to derail the Bush agenda, but also to Democratic people powered movements in general. Would grassroots level party building strengthen the brand or would it be wasted on people picking their noses in "red America"?
by Joseph Hughes, Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 08:13:37 AM EST
Let me be the first, Ed, to tell you that you can't have it both ways. Further, that what goes around, comes around. Remember the 2006 election, particularly the race for U.S. Senate in Connecticut? Then, you made quite a stink about the blogosphere and its support of Ned Lamont. You even accused the netroots of backing Lamont versus Joe Lieberman as a result of the 2004 election. That's right. Revenge.
by Matt Stoller, Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 09:00:04 AM EST
I remember a conversation that I had with a very smart donor about Lamont before November, one in which he said that the second worst situation for progressives would be a loss to Lieberman in the primary, and the worst situation would be winning the primary and then losing the general. At the time, it seemed like an eminently reasonable opinion, because he was essentially arguing that either situation would reveal the impotence of the progressive movement. As you know, the second scenario came to pass. After the election I was confused as to why Joe wasn't chest-beating, wasn't talking anymore about saving the soul of the Democratic Party. I didn't understand why the press wasn't helping him.
I still fully don't, but with conservative Democrat Max Baucus calling for a withdrawal in six months, it seems fairly clear that Joe Lieberman just doesn't matter anymore. The whole escalation fight has been between Bush and a number of Democrats, including Reid, Pelosi, Biden, Murtha and Kennedy, all of whom have different positions and strategies. McCain is in there too, backing Bush with even more of a surge. So are the blogs and Moveon, pushing for withdrawal. Moderate Republicans are in a pickle, being pushed back and forth.
But where's Joe? Sure he was at that AEI event calling for escalation, but would he have mattered without McCain? I don't think so. Lieberman is just out there, like another irrelevant warblogger. It's weird. It's unexpected. My sense is that a good part of this is traceable to his defeat in the primary on August 8. I wish we had won in November, and it hurt us that we didn't. But maybe not as much as I had feared.
What do you think?