Ok, an unknown candidate garners 33% in a machine state like CT against an 18 year incumbent who has been the VP nominee (an won, basically), and ran for POTUS in '04, and the unpopular incumbent is the winner? Lieberman should have crushed Lamont, and a third of the delegates voted for him.
This is a truly historic event, like LBJ facing stiff oppositon in '68. Its pretty rare that an incumbent with the time and spotlight of Lieberman faces such strong opposition from within his party, while enjoying broad support in the GOP.
I am of this generation, and I take offense to her comments. Instead of blaming the youth, she should be working to make sure that we can succeed, by providing us with money to go to college, and not let Bush raise interest rates on student loans without making hell over it. Does she actually want college kids on her campaign?
that was a stupid, stupid article. Why would these Dems want to lose so that we could maybe make more gains in 2008? What state will the country be in at that point? They say "Don't investigate", while thats just what the American People want.
As noted here, Sen. Lieberman is hurting the Democrats taking on GOP Congressmen in CT. Diane Farrell challenged Rep. Chris Shays to a debate on Iraq, and he responded by saying that she should debate Sen. Lieberman, because they agree on supporting the war basically without question. The War in Iraq is the largest issue in this election, and it is important to stand strong against it.