The Premise asks, "Where is netroots 'leadership' for Lamont NOW?"

[blm]

He makes a great point. Lamont has had Howard Dean, Wes Clark, Kerry, and other Dems making important appearances with him, and yet there is no BUZZ created by the netroots with less than two weeks to go. They gave up pushing for Lamont last month. Why?

http://thepremise.com/archives/10/26/2006/490

Netroots Leadership Hypocrisy Watch: Day 2.

Matt Stoller over at MyDD just put up a post about Joe Lieberman, and why Mr. Lieberman is a “broken man.” The post contains not a single mention of John Kerry stumping for Ned Lamont yesterday, but that’s not surprising. What’s a little surprising is that the post doesn’t contain a single mention of Ned Lamont. Is Mr. Stoller swinging into action today to help Mr. Lamont in any way he can? Well, no. He’s actually going to a Joe Lieberman event because he’s “fascinated” by Mr. Lieberman.

Over at DailyKos, Markos Moulitsas is doing no better. Any mention of Senator Kerry stumping for Ned Lamont? No. Any mention of Ned Lamont? No.
>>>>>

So what’s the moral of the story here? The moral of the story is that the leadership of the netroots has decided that Ned Lamont isn’t going to win, so they quit on him. John Kerry’s still fighting, Mr. Lamont’s supporters are still fighting, but the leadership of the netroots has moved on to key issues like attending a Joe Lieberman fundraiser, bashing Harold Ford, Jr., and soliciting the netroots for gag lines.


These are the bright lights of integrity and passionate commitment that are leading the netroots. These are the visionary leaders of a new age in politics. And these are the same people who never stop complaining that the Democratic Party is out of touch.
>>>>>

[grizmaster]

1. It is not hypocrisy to put your efforts where they'll do the most good

every party, and organization has to make calls as to where efforts will bear the most fruit.

[blm]

3. Except this is abandoning the person you helped bring to the dance.

It says alot about their ability to sustain a prolonged "principled" battle.

Gee....what HAPPENED at that meeting last month with Bill Clinton, anyway?

blm - NOT a coincidence theorist.

[madfloridian]

2. Howard Dean was there this week... it was not noticed.

I am going to repost those who are supporting Lieberman in the party. Since you brought it up. Let me find my stuff.

And I did not see much about Kerry's visit, that should have been news.

I read a lot about the ones who go in support of Lieberman.

[blm]

4. More of a concerted effort to keep Joe in the news than there is for Ned.

I added Dean to the post. I knew I left someone out - brain freeze.

[madfloridian]

5. Thanks. Media is more favorable to Joe.

:hi:

[Totally Committed]

11. Bingo!

Thanks for that bit of wisdom!!!

TC

[karynnj]

39. It did make the CT papers and news, but the NYT was beyond weird.

Here is a linkt to their article covering it - which I couldn't find on line until I looked through our paper copy. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/nyregion/26conn.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Why couldn't I find it - here's the headline: Kerrey Offers His Support to Lieberman.

Frankly a former Senator who heads New School University (and regularly angers the students) is NOT more newsworthy that the last Presidential nominee of the Democratic party. (Both endorsements were made long ago, so that is not the issue.)

[CTyankee]

6. I'm disappointed but frankly, this is now up to us in CT to win for Ned

or rather, up to the electorate to decide.

The way CT voters feel about Joe Lieberman is complex. Dems who still support him get defensive about the war issue. Republicans who support him either have in the past or won't support their own candidate because he is so smarmy. Independents might just be swallowing the "bipartisan" crap. Their "balanced" approach usually favors the Republicans, I have observed.

On top of this is what I perceive as a dislike of Ned because he's rich. Ned doesn't live like they do and he doesn't have their financial insecurities and their feeling of helplessness in changing anything that they care about. Of course, Joe isn't doing them any favors either and indeed he is making things worse. But they don't see past their own disempowerment.

I can't speak for all CT voters of course. This is just my opinion based on my admittedly unscientific polling calls on behalf of Ned from his hq in New Haven.

[AtomicKitten]

10. The computation of Lamont's support is as follows:

Lamont ran a brilliant primary campaign with the help of the blogosphere, but not so great in the general. Much of that has to do with the fact that independent voters that comprise most of the Connecticut voting pool could not vote in the primary.

Connecticut Dem Primary: 7.5% of Connecticut Voters Voted for Lamont (6.2% of VEP)

2006 Election Results for the Connecticut Primary

Lamont - 146,587 - 52%
Lieberman - 136,468 - 48%

http://web.wtnh.com/2006voteprimary/race200.html

***********************************************************

2004 Connecticut Election Statistics:

1,965,849 Registered Voters

42.7% - Independents
34.1% - Democrats
22.8% - Republican
00.2% - Other parties

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/states/CT/

**********************************************************

2003 Connecticut - Updated Census Information

2,537,660 - Voting Age Population

2,377,109 - Voting Eligible Population

http://elections.gmu.edu/VAP_VEP.htm

**********************************************************

THEREFORE:

Lamont's 146,587 + Lieberman's 136,468 = Total 283,055

11.9 % of the VEP - Voting Eligible Population

14.4% of Registered Voters.

Lamont's 146,587 Represents

6.2% of the VEP - Voting Eligible Population

7.5% of Registered Voters.

[CTyankee]

14. Yes, from what you are saying we had to close the deal with

unaffiliated and some Republicans. With big enough numbers in the unaffiliated we could probably swing it. I'm betting that moe unaffiliateds are going with Joe than with Ned. I have yet to talk to one unaffiliated who admitted he was voting for Ned. But then many voters I call won't tell me who they are voting for, so how do I know. I can say, however, that the pro Ned Dems are proud, happy and enthusiastic about talking with me and about their support for Joe.

[blm]

17. CT... Lamont was supposed to get STRONGER with Hillary's guy, Wolfson

running the communications for the campaign. INSTEAD, the communications became WEAKER, and word starts spreading what a weak candidate Lamont is.

Lamont had just spent two months earlier kicking Joe's ass from here to eternity, especially in the communications dept.....UNTIL Howard Wolfson came in as a "donation" from Hillary.

There is more to this - why would Obama back out of showing up for Ned and just do an email?

Why did other senators not show?

There's a simple explanation.

[CTyankee]

19. You are talking about before and after the primary

We are in the general now. The deal has to be set with the unaffiliated and it hasn't so far. I think it is fairly straightforward. The progressive Dems are ahead of the general population, as they often are, on the issue of the war and on other sensitive issues such as health care and the economy. The general public has not caught up. They will. But by then we'll have Joe back in and nothing will change. That is why I talk that up when I call voters of all parties (and non parties). I want them to understand that they are really voting for NO change at all, just more of the same. That has worked in a few cases for me with undecideds (mostly those who are "leaning Ned").

[blm]

21. And THAT is what Wolfson was supposed to help - using

the Clinton cache there in Connecticut with all the powerhouse language skills geared towards centrist and moderate voters.

Now, Lamont has weaker communications? I do not buy that so drastic a change occurred.

[TheWraith]

26. Why did other senators not show?

I'd presume it's because any Democrat of any note who's not running for reelection is out stumping in 50+ House districts and a dozen Senate races. Kerry, Clark, both Clintons, Obama, Kaine, Richardson, Gore... Even Eliot Spitzer, who is himself about to be elected Governor of NY, is stumping for other Dems instead of himself. It's all hands on deck, and CT would fall way down on their priority list.

[windbreeze]

15. I certainly hope that the people of Conn.

realize we are all counting on them, and watching what they do...Lieberman has proven what a skank he is...I don't care how long he's been the Senator from that state...when it came down to it, he REFUSED to go by THEIR wishes, he more or less told the voters from that state to go to hell by making the decision he made to run indy...Lamont WON the primary...he IS the Democratic candidate...and he should win...by a landslide or by one vote, doesn't matter...it would do wonders for the Democratic party...and serve notice to all those who have forgotten who they work for...including Lieberman...
I wish I could vote in Conn...there would be no doubt who my vote would be cast for...Ned Lamont..go Ned go!!
windbreeze

[CTyankee]

20. It is frustrating, I know. I try so hard as we all do.

Even tho I try to be very polite and gracious on the phone, just asking some people who they plan on voting for sets them off. They get mad or evasive. I always identify myself as a volunteer at Democratic Headquarters, because that is exactly what I am! Of course, Lieberman supporters don't like to hear that, but it is true and I drive the point home!

We'll see on election day! Thanks for your good thoughts and wishes.

[windbreeze]

25. Trust me, I know

OH boy, how I know..I have phone banked..good luck to Ned Lamont from Wash. state...I have my fingers crossed for him...
wb

[Cha]

29. And thanks for your

hard work in Connecticut. Reading all this just makes me more than a little bewildered. We were all so happy and encouraged after the primary and now..poof!

I read about Wolfson back then and was thinking.."all right, we have some good professional help from an accomplished winner in New York(2000)when Hillary was running against the tool rick lazio.

[wyldwolf]

7. It is far easier to hate Lieberman

[stillcool]

8. with friends like these...

[DinahMoeHum]

9. Has this fool actually been to DailyKos and MyDD lately ???

Like the past several days???

Because I have, and believe me, there is at least a couple of mentions of not only Ned Lamont, but other "netroot"-powered candidates as well.

Screw him for not doing his homework.

:evilfrown:

[gratuitous]

13. Atrios has also been making posts

But oddly enough, it would appear that rather than the isolated late primary of Connecticut, a lot of people are kind of preoccupied with their own local races. While I could take the time back in September to deal with Connecticut issues, there are now some slightly more pressing things in my own state that require a little more of my attention.

Sorry we can't put together another nationwide push for Ned right this second.

[MH1]

22. Well, I have, and the support for Lamont is nothing

like what it was during the primary. I think the blogger referenced in the op is a complaining that they worked so hard to defeat Lieberman in the primary, but the energy didn't seem to carry through for the General Election. OTOH, there are a lot more races to deal with for the general, so I don't know if I fully support the criticism.

It was kind of interesting (if not surprising) that dailykos and MyDD didn't bother to mention the most recent Dem presidential nominee stumping for their guy. Guess it would have taken away from the "miser" meme they were busy hawking (despite the subject's having already given as much or more than anyone else).

Meanwhile, forgetting the blogs for a minute, firedoglake lays out pretty well the (non)support from most leading Dems for Lamont:

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/10/27/math-tutors-needed/

[blm]

44. Stoller JUST put up a solid article today about Lamont, Joe and Bloomberg Ds

I give him credit in the new thread about Lamont.

[flpoljunkie]

12. Perhaps they are taking their clues from Bill Clinton, who effectively

endorsed Lieberman a few weeks ago. Remember when they met with Bill Clinton recently in Harlem and raved about their nifty catered lunch and their "longer than expected" meeting with Bill?

[TheWraith]

27. Uh, Clinton endorsed Lamont. Hadn't you heard? NT

[flpoljunkie]

34. Clinton essentially endorsed Lieberman when he appeard on LKL by

saying that it really did not matter who won Connecticut, as the state would still be represented by a Democrat. I would not call that an endorsment for Ned Lamont, would you? And how come neither Bill or Hillary have come to Connecticut to campaign for the Democratic nominee for the Senate, Ned Lamont?

They are standing by and not helping--when it matters the most.

[flpoljunkie]

35. King to Clinton: "Are you supporting Lamont?'

KING: Are you supporting Lamont?

CLINTON: I am but, you know, my -- I don't have the same view of this as some people do. My view is Connecticut is an unmitigated blessing for the Democrats because Lieberman has said if he wins he's going to vote with us to organize the Senate.

I'm interested in getting one of these houses back, because that's the only way, I think, we can move away from the philosophical and political and economic direction the country has taken in the last five years. So I'm doing what I can to help the Democrats win the House and the Senate or both.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0609/24/lkl.01.html

[flpoljunkie]

38. Clinton: "I am, but, you know, my--I don't have the same view of this as some people do."

KING: Are you supporting Lamont?

CLINTON: I am but, you know, my -- I don't have the same view of this as some people do. My view is Connecticut is an unmitigated blessing for the Democrats because Lieberman has said if he wins he's going to vote with us to organize the Senate.

I'm interested in getting one of these houses back, because that's the only way, I think, we can move away from the philosophical and political and economic direction the country has taken in the last five years. So I'm doing what I can to help the Democrats win the House and the Senate or both.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0609/24/lkl.01.h...

[karynnj]

40. I think Bill Clinton may be in a weird spot here

He went to CT in the primaries and gave a speech that outlines why he thought that CT would be better served by Lieberman than by Lamont. I assume he thought this would result in Lieberman winning - and it did pull up his numbers.

The problem after Lamont won was that Clinton was stuck with having in effect made the case that Lieberman is the better of the two. His endorsement of Lamont is likely seen as a Democrat supporting the Democratic nominee - rather than a sincere endorsement. The fact is people in CT saw and read about exerpts of Clinton's pro Lieberman speech and there were Lieberman ads using Clinton's voice.

I think he was stuck with the impossibility of giving a speech stating why Lamont is better than Lieberman 2 months after arguing the other side.

[flpoljunkie]

45. No more weird that Chris Dodd, who is now supporting the Dem nominee, Ned Lamont.

I find it appalling that Democrats would choose Joe "Connecticut for Lieberman" when Holy Joe has done his utmost to undermind the Democratic party on national security. Why are so many of the Democratic leaders afraid to stand up to Joe Lieberman?

[karynnj]

48. I agree with you - I was just offering

a possible reason - and Dodd is an excellent counter example.

[TheWraith]

49. I would call the endorsement for Lamont, an endorsement for Lamont.

What he said about CT being a safe state with regard to control of the Senate is true. We might not like anything about Joementum, but he votes with us 80% of the time. Given that, should major Democratic figures spend their time stumping for Ned Lamont, or in states like Ohio, Virginia, Missouri, where control of the Senate is going to be decided?

[montana500]

16. Lieberman may hold the key to the senate

And the closer he is to winning, the more ass kissing the anti-Lieberman crowd will have to do. It was a pretty poor plan by all accounts.

[CTLawGuy]

18. screw him

I won't deal with a backstabber. Our party will be better in the long run.

[johnnydrama]

24. this may be unpopular here

But out of all the senate races, the Lieberman/Lamont race is the least of my concerns.

Sure I want holy joe out of there. But Allen/Webb, Menendez/Kean, Dewine/Brown, Corker/Ford, Talent/McCaskill are more important to get a D majority in the senate.

I don't even think about Burns/Tester, because I fully believe Burns will be in jail, and if he wins, his D successor appointed by the D governor.

[CTLawGuy]

30. If you lose the primary

you DON'T run anyway. That undermines the point of having a primary in the first place. Imagine president 2004: 1 dem candidate, 8 "independent democrats", 1 Republican. Who wins easily?

If Joe is allowed to get away with this, then it will just encourage other primary losers to run as independents which will spell the end of the Dem party in the long run.

[flpoljunkie]

46. That does not excuse Dem leaders for not showing up to support Lamont when Holy Joe

has done his utmost to undermine the Democratic party on national security. He is not worthy of support.

[Clarkie1]

23. We need to choose our battles. Putting resources into a Webb victory (for example)

makes more sense than putting limited resources into CT at this time. That's not "abandoning" anyone. It's just being smart and strategic.

[LoZoccolo]

28. They've been dwelling on Lieberman.

That's pretty much what netroots have been doing. I've posted this a few times before and it gets mistaken for support for Lieberman, but Lamont's supporters haven't been good at articulating why people who want to vote for Lieberman now should instead vote for Lamont. You can try to "shame" Lieberman or his supporters all you want with accusations of party disloyalty all you want, but if that didn't snag any voters for you, say, two weeks out, they probably don't care about party loyalty and you'll have to take a different tack.

People in a private voting booth don't care what a mob of assembled keyboard warriors have to say about them on a message board somewhere.

[CTLawGuy]

31. Why vote for Lamont

Lamont is for a real strategy for ending the war in Iraq. Joe is for "stay the course."

Lamont is for universal health care, Joe is not.

Lamont is for family privacy in end-of-life matters. Joe is for federal government intervention for cases like Terri Schiavo.

Lamont is against the Bush energy bill, with billions in subsidies to oil companies. Lieberman voted for it.

Oh yeah, Lamont is the winner of the Democratic primary and the Democratic nominee. Lieberman is a sore-loser clone of ralph nader, who is running against his own party to serve his narrow self interest.

[RiverStone]

32. Exactly! Lieberman will always be the poster boy of:

A Democrat that abandoned his party to run against it. Mind boggling that any true Dem would vote Joe when the balance of Senatorial power teeters so close to the edge (of falling our way). Away from a repuke theocracy that has made the world a much more dangerous place for our children. How is it they have eyes that cannot see?

[flpoljunkie]

47. Excellent post, darboy! I recommend everyone read it.

[blm]

33. That goes to my point about Howard Wolfson, Hillary's "donation" to Lamont

campaign. He is supposed to be the crack communications guru that can craft a moderate winning message - - yet, Lamont's communications took a NOSEDIVE once Wolfson showed up.

And I repeat - I am NOT a coincidence theorist.

[NJCher]

36. ehhhh, I don't buy your premise at all

Bloggers aren't into blogging because they are supporters of a political objective (although that's a peripheral reason). They're in it because they are into grassroots journalism. The story, first and foremost, is their objective. The would have written about Kerry's support/appearance if it had an angle or something interesting or unusual happened during his appearance.

But just to write a story about Kerry's appearance--that's not enough of an interesting story.

I would not infer from this that there is dwindling blogosphere support for Lamont. The people who are readers of those blogs are going to be voting for Lamont regardless.




Cher

[blm]

37. Bloggers create buzz when they WANT TO. Joe as a political story is NOT

more worthy of journalistic interest than Ned as a political story two weeks from the election.

And it wasn't just about Kerry's appearance. Dean showed up Monday and no buzz came of that, either. Why no buzz when major Democrats are standing with Ned INSTEAD of the establishment favorite SHOULD be more newsworthy than establishment figures standing with establishment Joe.

[karynnj]

41. and the NYT should not give more weight to Kerrey for Liebman

than Kerry for Lamont. Their story on both men's appearances was titled "Kerrey Offers Lieberman Supprot".

[ToeBot]

42. mispost

[ToeBot]

43. It's obvious to everyone that the Lamont/Lieberman race is about more than...

..Connecticut's senator, isn't it? It's about the future of Democratic Party, for at least the next several election cycles and maybe much longer. It's only about whether the party can be changed or not, a subject that seems to generate allot of keyboard activity, especially here. If anyone thinks that a Lieberman win isn't also a major victory for the Republicans, they aren't paying attention. The Dem's have a chance to regain power, not because their message has suddenly gained traction, but because the Republicans suck. They suck like a black hole. If Lieberman wins, the Republicans will have thwarted any efforts to move the party from it's current state (That state being a loose affiliation of disparate and often conflicting agendas.) to a more cohesive and progressive force, one capable of actually leading and retaining power. The '06 elections may be about finally stopping the Bush Administration but the Lamont/Lieberman race is about what will happen after Bush is gone.

And as for the linked article, hardly a day goes by that DailyKos doesn't run a piece bashing Lieberman. They may not be cheerleading constantly for Lamont but they certainly haven't tossed him aside either.