If leading Democrats did not support Holy Joe over Lamont would Lamont be in the Senate today?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

HoJoe has been in the news today so it got me thinking. If leading Democrats like HRC, Barbara Boxer, and Barack Obama did not intervene on behalf of Holy Joe over Ned Lamont in the primary would HoJoe be relegated to the dustbin of history today? Here is why I think things may have turned out differently if leading Dems did not aid HoJoe. If they did not heavily support him he would have lost to Lamont by a larger margin in the primary. If he lost by a large enough margin (i.e. 20-25%) perhaps he would have either been shamed into accepting the primary result or been talked out of not running in November.

It is unlikely that he would have stepped aside, given his overall popularity in CT, but the possibility is tantalizing. Imagine Ned Lamont fighting to end the war in the senate instead of Holy Joe promoting the war, calling for an expansion of the war into Iran, and carrying *'s water in general on Iraq and Iran.

[eyesroll]

1. Obama supported Lamont.

http://nedlamont.com/blog/1976/barack-obama-writes-emails

[wyldwolf]

3. yes he did - in the general.

[eyesroll]

5. Fine...I think Lieberman's loss margin in the primary wasn't the driving force behind his indy run.

He could have lost by .5, could have lost by 50, he still would have run in the general. It was all ego.

I think it matters less that he had bigwig support in the primary and more that he still had a bunch of support in the general. That people, including some Democrats, refused to accept the results of the primary -- and that Republicans crossed over in huge numbers -- was the much bigger factor.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

8. That is a valid opinion

This is all speculative. Sadly, we will never know what would have happened if some Democratic leaders allowed a fair contest between Holy Joe and Lamont.

[eyesroll]

13. That's very true -- but I don't agree that leaders taking sides made the contest unfair.

A valid case could be made for party leaders staying out of primaries -- I don't think the DNC/DCCC/etc. chairs should be endorsing in primaries -- but right now, and in 2006, Boxer, Obama, etc. had the right to campaign and donate. Lamont had some high-profile support...one on Lieberman's side (one who doesn't understand how blogging works, but still) could easily argue that Lamont was getting some unfair support from Daily Kos and the netroots in general, for instance. (In fact, didn't Lieberman whine that his primary loss was unfair because only a small portion of the electorate can vote in the closed primary there?)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

19. Look at all the party backing he got in post #8

The netroots represent grassroots supporters. There is a difference between ordinary citizens contributing to Lamont and the party machine helping fund-raise, drum up support for Holy Joe.

[xxqqqzme]

62. '...party machine helping...'

the dlc was just supporting a loyal member of the corporate ass kissing group.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

4. He supported his mentor Holy Joe over Lamont when it mattered

In the GE it was obvious that Holy Joe was going to win and they covered themselves by switching to Lamont then.

Obama in fact made the trek to CT a week before the primary to promote Holy Joe when Joementum was trying a last minute full court press to win the primary.

==Obama wasted little time getting to that point, calling it the "elephant in the room" but praising Lieberman's intellect, character and qualifications.

"The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it," Obama told the 1,700-plus party members who gathered in a ballroom at the Connecticut Convention Center for the $175-per-head fundraiser.

"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf," he said.==

==Lieberman became Obama's mentor when Obama was sworn into the Senate in 2005. They stayed close at Thursday night's event, too, entering the room together and working the crowd in tandem.==

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/

[eyesroll]

9. See above. I'm willing to give people a pass for supporting their friends in a primary.

Obama did the right thing by accepting the results of the primary.

[ripple]

31. Lieberman wasn't and isn't Obama's mentor

And the other Senators who endorsed Lieberman made statements similar to Obama's. It's silly to blame Obama for doing the same thing decades of legislators have done...and in fact, his peers did in the very same situation.

If you really want to place blame, you might want to look at the democratic party in Connecticut. I'm guessing their allegiances were a bit of a mess, both in the primary and in the general.

Obama, along with a number of Senators not facing reelection in 2006, spent a hell of a lot of time campaigning for democrats all over the country. He served our party well and it paid off for us. Sure, it would have been nice to have picked up Lieberman's seat, but Obama didn't lose that race for him- nobody did.

If a candidate's chances of winning truly hinge on who they can find to stump on their behalf, they were not a strong candidate to begin with.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. The article says he was. Supposedly, Obama picked Holy Joe and not the other way around

== It’s depressing to think that we’ll have to endure Obamaspeak for months, if not years to come: a pulp of boosterism about the American dream, interspersed with homilies about “putting factionalism and party divisions behind us and moving on.” I used to think Sen. Joe Lieberman was the man whose words I’d least like to be force fed top volume if I was chained next to a loudspeaker in Camp Gitmo, but I think Obama, who picked Lieberman as his mentor when he first entered the U.S. Senate, is worse. I’ve never heard a politician so desperate not to offend conventional elite opinion while pretending to be fearless and forthright.

That’s right - Joe Lieberman is Obama’s mentor, and Lieberman brags that Obama picked him, not the opposite.==

http://pieceofmind.wordpress.com/2007/01/18/obama-lieberman-and-the-dlc/

==It's silly to blame Obama for doing the same thing decades of legislators have done...and in fact, his peers did in the very same situation.==

That is very ironic, on so many levels. ;)

==If you really want to place blame, you might want to look at the democratic party in Connecticut. I'm guessing their allegiances were a bit of a mess, both in the primary and in the general.==

I include them when I speak of leading Democrats. The problem was not limited to the national party.

It wasn't just Obama (the only reason this thread shifted so much to discussing Obama's role is because a BO supporter tried to revise history). Look at the list in post 8. Obama just warrants special scrutiny (more than, say, Mark Pryor or Ben Nelson) because he brought more to Holy Joe. After Bill Clinton, Obama was probably the top Democratic draw in 2006. Obama and his supporters also love to tout his opposition to the IWR. Yet, he went to bat for the most pro-war Democrat over anti-war Lamont?

[ripple]

38. That isn't an article, it's a blog

piece solely devoted to trashing Obama- and without so much as a link to back up the writer's assertions. Big difference.

Lieberman was never Obama's mentor, but I do wonder if Obama respected Lieberman at one time for standing by his principles, despite political opposition. I could see that happening, but of course that's pure speculation on my part.

Either way, I find it ridiculous for anyone to think that Lieberman was ever Obama's mentor in terms of political philosophy. While he doesn't mention Lieberman, Obama speaks about his great respect for Senator Byrd in his book. Does that mean he considers Byrd a mentor, particularly given Byrd's regrettable past? I would think not, unless one uses the term in a pretty loose construct.

I'm off to bed, so I don't have time to look it up, but I believe I read that Obama had great respect for Paul Wellstone and considered him something of a mentor. I'll check it out when I get time.

Either way, I honestly think Lamont would have lost, even if the national leaders who supported him in the general had supported him earlier. I think there were a lot of dynamics going on that didn't involve stump speeches or endorsements and again, my opinion, but I think his message was far stronger than he himself was as a candidate.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

39. This is the (AP) article I was alluding to

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/

I posted it in response to post #1.

==Lieberman became Obama's mentor when Obama was sworn into the Senate in 2005. They stayed close at Thursday night's event, too, entering the room together and working the crowd in tandem.==

Is this a myth? I haven't seen BO supporters here dispute this.

[ripple]

26. In the primary only, like the other Senate dems

That is what is customarily done- elected dems support the dem candidate. It wasn't just Obama, or Clinton, or Boxer...it was all of them.

Once Lamont won the primary, they got behind him- as the dem candidate.

And in my view, Lamont was a strong candidate for change, but he wasn't a strong candidate overall. Plus, I would imagine a good number of republicans came out to vote for Lieberman in the general, because they found the alternative far worse. Combine that with Lieberman's loyalist-type democratic support within the state, his incumbent status, an uninspiring opponent, and his coffers of campaign funds...it isn't difficult to see how he was re-elected.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. Post 8 shows that is false. The vast majority of senate dems did not support Holy Joe

==In the primary only, like the other Senate dems
Posted by ripple==

I agree with you that Holy Joe was practically unbeatable in the general, especially after the GOP got behind him. The OP is about what would have happened if Holy Joe lost the primary badly. The only way Lamont would be a senator today is if Holy Joe accepted the primary result and did not run in the GE.

[ripple]

40. Are you directing me to the correct post?

I don't see a breakdown of Senate endorsements for the Lieberman/Lamont primary in post #8. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that most Senate dems endorsed Lieberman for that race.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

43. It shows a list of primary endorsements for Holy Joe

I don't know of any incumbent senator who endorsed Lamont during the primary but the vast majority chose not to meddle in the primary. Look at the endorsements. Not even half of Democratic senators backed Holy Joe, and a disproportionate number who did are now presidential candidates (Obama, HRC, Dodd, and Biden)...

[MADem]

2. Lamont's crew didn't turn out for him. He had a good campaign, but his people let him down

And the GOP ran two candidates--the official one, and the one they got out the vote for--Holy Joe.

No one does GOTV better than the Rove machine. They're relentless.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. There was no way Holy Joe was going to lose the GE imo

The only chance Lamont had was if Lieberman decided to accept the primary result and not run as an independent. That only way this could have happened is if he was trounced in the primary IMO. Instead, he lost the primary by what, 10 points? That easily allowed him to run in the GE, given his high overall approval rating.

[NoPasaran]

10. Umm, ten points is quite a trouncing

Especially when a challenger does it to an incumbant.

If Lamont couldn't have won the general election in any realistic scenario, it was a mistake for him to have run.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

15. Not when you have Holy Joe's approval ratings

It would have been more difficult for him to justify defying the Democratic party if he lost by 25 points. By losing by 10 he could point to a divided Democratic party and then point to his overwhelming support among independents and Republicans.

==If Lamont couldn't have won the general election in any realistic scenario, it was a mistake for him to have run.==

He would have easily won if Holy Joe accepted the results of the primary and did not run in the GE.

[Ethelk2044]

7. OH Look Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton Obama

The following have endorsed Joseph Lieberman in the 2006 Connecticut Democratic Senate Primary.


People
Former President Bill Clinton, who campaigned for Lieberman in Waterbury on July 24
U.S. Senator Chris Dodd
U.S. Senator and Minority Leader Harry Reid
CA Senator Barbara Boxer, who campaigned for Lieberman on July 24
DE Senator Joe Biden, HA Senator Daniel Inouye, CO Senator Ken Salazar, who campaigned for Lieberman on July 31
NY Senator Hillary Clinton
IL Senator Barack Obama
IN Senator Evan Bayh
NJ Senator Frank Lautenberg
DE Senator Tom Carper
CA Senator Diane Feinstein
OR Senator Mark Pryor
OR Senator Ron Wyden
NE Senator Ben Nelson
CT Representative Rosa DeLauro
CT Representative John Larson
CT Lt. Governor Kevin Sullivan
CT Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz
CT State Comptroller Nancy Wyman
CT State Treasurer Denise Nappier
Former Democratic Party Chair John Olson
All of Connecticut's State Democratic Legislators <1>
All Democratic CT candidates for U.S. Congress <2>
Both Democratic CT candidates for Governor <3>
Republican Congressman Christopher Shays.<4>

Organizations
The League of Conservation Voters
CT Planned Parenthood
UNITE-HERE, The Human Rights Campaign
The CT AFL-CIO, the Food and Commercial workers, the CT Teamsters, CT Letter Carriers, Firefighters, Carpenters, Communication Workers of America Locals 1103 and 1298, Connecticut's Postal Workers, American Federation of Musicians, the National Association of Government Employees and the National Association of Letter Carriers, Branch 19. <5>.
Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund has endorsed Lieberman.<6><7>
AFL-CIO and affiliated labor organizations endorsed Lieberman.<8><9> However, Connecticut AFT, the second largest AFL-CIO union in Connecticut, endorsed Lamont (see below).
Planned Parenthood Federal PAC endorsed Lieberman on June 30, 2006.<10>
NARAL Pro-choice America PAC, which lobbies for reproductive rights nationally, has endorsed Lieberman.<11> However, Carolyn Treiss, head of Connecticut NARAL, supports Lamont.<12>
Human Rights Campaign, one of the largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) equal rights organizations in the United States, has endorsed Lieberman.<13>

[draft_mario_cuomo]

12. Damn, and we are not supposed to believe this hurt Lamont?

It is a shame these individuals (minus Republican Shays) did not allow a fair contest for the nomination between the two.

I notice you didn't mention Obama campaigning for Holy Joe? Why did you leave that out but include when others campaigned for Holy Joe?

This roster looks like the DLC all-star team. :rofl:

==U.S. Senator Chris Dodd
U.S. Senator and Minority Leader Harry Reid
CA Senator Barbara Boxer, who campaigned for Lieberman on July 24
DE Senator Joe Biden, HA Senator Daniel Inouye, CO Senator Ken Salazar, who campaigned for Lieberman on July 31
NY Senator Hillary Clinton
IL Senator Barack Obama
IN Senator Evan Bayh
NJ Senator Frank Lautenberg
DE Senator Tom Carper
CA Senator Diane Feinstein
OR Senator Mark Pryor
OR Senator Ron Wyden
CT Representative Rosa DeLauro
CT Representative John Larson
CT Lt. Governor Kevin Sullivan
CT Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz
CT State Comptroller Nancy Wyman
CT State Treasurer Denise Nappier
Former Democratic Party Chair John Olson
All of Connecticut's State Democratic Legislators <1>
All Democratic CT candidates for U.S. Congress <2>
Both Democratic CT candidates for Governor <3>
Republican Congressman Christopher Shays.<4>
NE Senator Ben Nelson ==

[Ethelk2044]

14. Obama is on the List as well. You need Glasses

[draft_mario_cuomo]

17. Did I say he wasn't?

I simply said you didn't mention the fact that he, like Biden and Bill Clinton, campaigned for Holy Joe.

[MADem]

20. How would people take it if all of those people supported a challenger to Obama in 2012?

Jesus. I can't believe people actually think there's no "issue" with supporting a challenger when an incumbent who is running with DNC assistance and the support of his fellow legislators is on the ballot during a PRIMARY.

It's not CUSTOMARY to support a primary challenger. You go with the incumbent, and the incumbent goes with you. If you're totally pissed at the incumbent, you waffle. But you don't go with the challenger unless you're into all-out war. And the Senate isn't like that. They're collegial.

To the credit of many on that list, when Lieberman lost, they chipped in. They may not have been leaping for joy, but they did their duty and shifted their support to the choice of the Democratic voters.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. How about staying out of the primary like the vast majority of Dem senators?

No one excepted them to support Lamont. What they should have done is not intervened in the primary and allowed a fair fight between Holy Joe and Lamont

==To the credit of many on that list, when Lieberman lost, they chipped in. They may not have been leaping for joy, but they did their duty and shifted their support to the choice of the Democratic voters.==

How many of them actually campaigned for Lamont?

[MADem]

27. Again, how would you take it if the Senate Democrats REFUSED to endorse Obama's reelection in 2012

The only reason they endorse is because the incumbent ASKS. None of them want to go out on that limb. Some of the ones who have PACS have to, especially if the incumbent helped out at a fundraiser or two. Quid pro quo.

It wouldn't surprise me if Holy Joe helped more than a few people on that list with fundraising. He had some good cachet in the Post Gore/Lieberman robbery. People were grooving on his sincere, folksy style back then.

He didn't become a total asshole until he became a petulant independent.

Why don't you 'do the Google' and let us know how many campaigned for Lamont, if it matters so much? What part of "not leaping for joy, but they did their duty" is unclear? They didn't KNOW the guy. They knew Holy Joe. Politics is a personal business.

Again, I refer you to my Obama example. Keep everything the same, only the race is in Illinois in 2012, and Obama is the incumbent. Another candidate, one not everyone loves, knocks Obama out of the race and Obama decides to run as an Indy, because he figures he can win by triangulating.

Would you expect the Democratic caucus to jump through their own assholes at the prospect of supporting a new guy, when their pal Obama, the guy they know, made deals with, fundraised with, was the incumbent?

Politics is local, certainly--but not just amongst constituencies.

[PassingFair]

53. Wrong. He proved himself a TOTAL ASSHOLE (tm) during the

democratic primaries in 04.

I was watching....

[MADem]

59. Who?? Holy Joe?

When we talk about a mess of people it's helpful to say who you think is the asshole.

Your OPINION may be that he was a total asshole, and you may well have evidence that he was, but "WRONG" is an incorrect assertion--because he managed to do a fair sales job, selling himself as a folksy, nice, sweet fellah, by and large.

He had great appeal, still, with moderates, centrists and conservatives in the Democratic Party before Lamont slapped him out of the primary. You might not like that assessment, but he would not have won the 06 general without the help of many of them. His pathetic Presidential run two years prior was a joke, but he came off to the larger, wider audience as a quixotic "Happy Warrior" type--not a mean bastard (even if he actually WAS one).

Since he started acting like an asshole after the primary, he lost the moderates and some of the centrists. Many admitted voting for him and cursed themselves.

Post-election, his histronics about party switching and his hand-wringing, attention seeking whining on a regular basis has lost him the rest of the centrists and a large chunk of the conservatives as well. No one likes a jerk. His base in CT now is the Defense Industry stock-owning bastards and those who like his approach to Israel.

But in the run-up to the 06 contests, he had a lot of cachet amongst SOME--not all, mind you--but SOME factions of the party.

[MADem]

16. You need to be fair, though, and give us a list of who supported him in the GENERAL

Why is it a SHOCK that fellow Senators and others would support their collegial INCUMBENT in the primary?

Would you think it was "cool" if Obama was running for a second term in 2012, and all of those people you named supported Freddy Fuckstick, his primary challenger? I mean, get real.

Sheesh. That's POLITICS 101. If they HADN'T supported Al Gore's running mate, THAT would be the shock.

Keep in mind, Lieberman didn't get insufferable until AFTER he lost the primary.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. The result was assured for the general. It was easy to flip-flop then when HoJoe was safe

The vast majority of Democratic senators did not support Holy Joe. These senators did not have to intervene in a primary to promote the Rove-backed Lieberman.

I also noticed that Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards (a former senator), and Bill Richardson were absent from the list. So some presidential candidates did the right thing.

[MADem]

25. Well, ya coulda fooled me. Assured? Lamont was leading Lieberman in the polling for a bit.

A blog that was quite active in that race reported and commented: http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2206

Rasmussen had it close, too: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/senate_races/connecticut_senate_two_days_after_primary_lieberman_ahead_by_5

The Kos crowd was upbeat, as well: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/7/19393/2208


And Lamont wasn't shy of endorsements: http://lamontblog.blogspot.com/2006/11/sunday-morning-round-up.html

His people just RAN out of GAS. IMO. They didn't keep the push on. Or maybe, to be fair, the Rove-bots did a better job, as I said, of doing the GOTV for Holy Joe.

I don't understand why a southwestern governor or a FORMER senator would HAVE to weigh in--they were smart to stay the fuck out, because they didn't HAVE to participate--it coulda gone either way, if a few factors had shifted. And frankly, Kucinich's endorsement wouldn't be helpful to the military-industrial complex/SUBASE GROTON-type supporters of Holy Joe--so his nonsupport of the guy is a non-surprise, in fact, it is logical.

Again, it's POLITICS 101. Everyone would be outraged if incumbent Obama didn't get the full measure of the Senate Democratic Caucus's endorsement. Same deal with any incumbent.

It's just how it's done. You support the incumbent, until he or she loses. Then you support the choice of the Democratic voters.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PassingFair]

54. "Keep in mind, Lieberman didn't get insufferable until AFTER he lost the primary."

This is TOTAL CRAP!

The impetus to unseat this war-hungry, Bush-kissing ASSHOLE,
came from NOWHERE?

He was a KNOWN jerk.

JOMENTUM was a WELL-KNOWN affliction LONG before he lost the
primary.

YOU and the BELTWAY had your heads in the sand.

[MADem]

60. I said this to you elsewhere, and I will say it again--NO, it is NOT.

You aren't looking at the big picture. You are seeing only what the people who think like you see.

He still had enormous appeal amongst moderates, centrists and conservatives in the party--and that's the DEMOCRATIC Party I'm talking about.

Don't let your view get too insular. That's what Lamont did, and it cost him.

You may not have liked him, but enough people did to send him back to the Senate.

And let me tell you something--tossing immature remarks like "You and the BELTWAY had your heads in the sand" is just a dumbshit thing to do. See, that's a false comment. You're making the classic mistake that a lot of ideologues make--you are ASSUMING, that because I stand back, see what happened, and discuss it, that I somehow am an ADVOCATE for Holy Joe. I'm not. I just don't wear rose colored glasses. I happen to like truth, not wishes. I'm not inclined to discuss him, though, or CT politics, either, with you when you make snarkass, designed-to-insult-but-off-the-mark comments like that. I don't care to waste my time.

[PassingFair]

63. "You are seeing only what the people who think like you see."

People with their EYES OPEN you mean.

He still had enormous appeal among supporters of Zionist policies,
Republicans, DLC Supporters, AND those

"moderates, centrists and conservatives in the party" who were NOT AWARE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON.

This is NOT snark.

It is FACT.

[MADem]

64. Oh, for Chrissake.

Stop being an obstreperous partisan for one frigging minute. Can you manage that?

How did the guy manage to grab the election if everyone HATED him so, as you do? Apparently most of those voters had their eyes closed? Yeah, that's a simplistic explanation.

Never underestimate the opposition. You end up like Lamont, going HOME, if you do.

No one is talking about his behavior AFTER his win. Those people who you say "were not aware of what was going on" WERE aware. Holy Joe changed substantially after he stopped going to Democratic caucus meetings and began making threats in earnest to jump.

Please. A bit of maturity and a grasp of realpolitik are in order here. Even though you don't like the guy (and I don't either, so stop giving me shit), there were sufficient numbers from both parties to give him that win.

That's a FACT--one you seem to overlook while you're busy snarking at me.

[PassingFair]

65. He managed to win the election with the support of DEMOCRATS

and the votes of REPUBLICANS.

Which, if I am not mistaken, is the subject of this thread.

Snark not withstanding.

I maintain that "Holy Joe's" behavior has NOT changed substantially.

The spotlight has been shining rather brightly on him, and
his cover has been blown since he lost his big (D).

And by the way, you can SNARK with the best of them.

:hi:

[MADem]

66. Yep, those DEMOCRATS.

That's my point.

:hi:

[Totally Committed]

11. Yes, I believe he would.

Pure and simple as that.

Lamont was screwed by the Party.


TC

[IndianaGreen]

21. Bill Clinton campaigned for Lieberman, but did not campaign for Ned Lamont

Bill Clinton did not criticize Lieberman when he went independent, fearful perhaps of offending AIPAC which was the backing Lieberman because as they saw him as "Israel's best friend" in the Senate.

Hillary met with Lamont at her New York home. They had tea. No photos taken. Hillary did not campaign for Lamont.

Hillary is backed by AIPAC, the same AIPAC that backed Lieberman.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

23. Thanks for the info. Did any of those who flip-flopped to Lamont actually campaign for him?

Or did they simply issue a weak statement to assuage their progressive bases who were upset at their meddling in a primary for Holy Joe?

What the Clintons did in that race was disappointing. Imagine how much BC could have helped Lamont...

[MADem]

30. Lamont didn't WANT Clinton campaigning for him. He said so himself.

He said he didn't want "out of staters." The quote is in my post below this one.

Clinton was still too "war" aligned, and Lamont didn't want his antiwar cred besmirched. See the last article of the three I posted in the post below.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

36. So why did he have a rally with NC's John Edwards campaiging for him?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/benny05/20

[MADem]

58. You'll really have to ASK him. I'd suggest you go back to his very words that I provided to you.

I am not a mind reader. I would wager that he didn't campaign with her because he was shopping himself as an ANTIWAR candidate, and there would be that little thing called "cognitive dissonance" if she appeared with him. The peeps would say "Politics as usual."

And I'd wager that Edwards glommed on to him to enhance HIS antiwar bonafides. It makes perfect sense from a political perspective. I don't blame Edwards at all--an easy way to get some decent exposure in a state that's not a real battlegrounder, and not worth spending a lot of time in, in national contests. He certainly didn't help the guy for purely altruistic reasons. If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

I really don't quite 'get' what you are after, here. She OFFERED. He REFUSED. She gave him money. He TOOK that. She offered him a strategist. I don't know if he took that guy, I think he let him sketch out some ideas, but I don't know if he let him on his team.

So what are you saying here, about Senator Clinton? That she's the "bad guy?" Because she offered her help and he was choosy about what help he decided to take? Gimme a break.

And he's a VICTIM? Because he made poor choices about who he wanted standing beside him to round up the votes of those disrespected mushy middle moderate, centrist and conservative Democrats?

Sorry, he's an adult. He had an opportunity, and he passed on it. That's on him and his staff, not Clinton, or anyone else who offered and were turned away. They had campaigns too, a lot of them. What, they were supposed say "Awww, fuck my race, and the races of my colleagues that I've worked with for years, fuck trying to take back the Senate, and my PAC efforts too-- I need to go and hold Lamont's--and no one else's-- hand?" Even when he spurned the help? When he was rich as Roosevelt and could hire experts (instead of yes men and Rosie Scenarios) to do that?

PLEASE. He just did NOT run the best campaign.

His staff sucked. That's a huge part of why he lost. Too many yes men, or too many tone deaf wishers and hopers. They didn't transmit that urgency to the electorate, and they didn't push him to do it, either. His initial "getting to know you" ads were great, but he had too much of a Frank Sinatra Easy Joe Cool attitude throughout his entire campaign. You never saw that "fire" on TV. Ideas aren't enough. Like LBJ used to say, "You have to BELIEVE what you are selling." I'm not saying he didn't believe, but his body language suggested he wasn't a FERVENT believer. He lacked passion.

[Tellurian]

49. Yes, Lamont committed the Al Gore error... (we are not on the same page) Oops, defeat!

[MADem]

29. Your facts are incomplete, at best. Lamont didn't want "out of staters" campaigning for him.

He said so. I even provided the quote, below.

Sins of omission are still sins. The fuller story:

Mrs. Clinton Offers to Raise Money for Lamont Campaign
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/26/nyregion/26lieberman.html?ex=1184212800&en=e624e496bec30c87&ei=5070

...Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton offered to help Ned Lamont in his battle to unseat Senator Joseph I. Lieberman by sponsoring a fund-raiser, campaigning by his side and lending him one of her top political strategists.
That strategist, Howard Wolfson, said Mrs. Clinton wanted to throw her considerable political weight behind Mr. Lamont because the national Republican Party “is clearly invested in Ned Lamont’s defeat.”

“I think they are going to do what they can to see him defeated,” Mr. Wolfson said....“They are going to attack him in the way Republicans do,” he said, “and he obviously needs to be and is going to be prepared.” ....Mrs. Clinton, who has known Mr. Lieberman for several years and endorsed him in the primary, has already contributed $5,000 from her political action committee to Mr. Lamont. Former President Bill Clinton campaigned for Mr. Lieberman in the primary, but has been critical of the senator’s views on the war in Iraq in recent days.

“I think on nearly every issue we are closely aligned,” Mrs. Clinton said of Mr. Lamont later in the day, after an event in Amityville, N.Y.


Democratic leadership quickly backs Lamont
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/09/democratic.primaries/index.html

CNN) -- Democratic leaders Wednesday moved quickly to back Ned Lamont, the winner of the Connecticut primary. The move puts veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman, who has vowed to run as an independent, at odds with his own party.

Lieberman lost the primary election to Lamont, a millionaire cable executive, 52 percent to 48 percent...In a joint statement, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said they would back Lamont...They also said Lieberman's ties to President Bush caused his defeat.

"Joe Lieberman has been an effective Democratic senator for Connecticut and for America," Reid and Schumer said. "But the perception was that he was too close to George Bush, and this election was, in many respects, a referendum on the president more than anything else."

Other Democratic senators Wednesday also voiced support for Lamont, including assistant Democratic leader Dick Durbin of Illinois, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California also endorsed Lamont's campaign.
However, two Democrats -- Sens. Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Ken Salazar of Colorado -- said they would support Lieberman's independent campaign.

Connecticut's senior senator, Chris Dodd, also appeared with Lamont on Wednesday. Dodd had campaigned for Lieberman...In a statement, Dodd called Lieberman "a good friend, a good senator, and a good Democrat...now the voters of our party have spoken -- and I respect their decision," Dodd said.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uslieb074880331sep07,0,2173163.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

Lamont ponders Clinton's aid

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton invited anti-war upstart candidate Ned Lamont to her Chappaqua estate last month. But the millionaire Democrat from Connecticut who upset Sen. Joe Lieberman isn't sure he'll return the favor by inviting Clinton to campaign in the state.

Lamont, speaking to reporters in Washington yesterday, was noncommittal when asked if he wanted the pro-war Clinton to stump for him. "I'm not sure we need a lot of out-of-staters," said Lamont, 52, a Long Island native who faces a tough November contest against Lieberman, now running as an independent. Still, outsiders like Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and the Rev. Al Sharpton stood with Lamont on primary night.
Lamont said he appreciates Clinton's support - even if she's backing him to appease peace Democrats.

"I don't mind. ... I think it's fascinating," he said. " . . . I like all of my new friends."

[draft_mario_cuomo]

44. See post 36. Edwards campaigned with Lamont

Perhaps Lamont's problem was with the flip-floppers who endorsed Holy Joe initially. He had no problem with Edwards, who did not endorse Holy Joe, campaigning for him.

[MADem]

61. Asked, and answered below your post. 36

Lamont was afraid to be associated with anyone who voted for the war and talked about it in any fashion other than "TROOPS OUT NOW."

Again, no sympathy for an ADULT who spurns help that has been offered by a Senator who had her OWN campaign to run.

And Edwards had something to GAIN by running with Lamont. Anyone with doubts about his antiwar bona fides breathed a bit easier seeing the two side-by-side. Symbiosis.

[nevergiveup]

24. Just curious

Did John Edwards appear in Connecticut and campaign for Lamont in the primary?

[jsamuel]

34. yes

[Mass]

52. When? To my knowledge, Edwards was the first to appear AFTER the primary, but not before.\nt

[jsamuel]

57. oh, the primary

I was thinking of the general.

[ripple]

28. No. See post #26

He was a weak candidate and his position on Iraq, while laudable, wasn't enough to overcome an incumbency...even Lieberman's.

[robcon]

32. Lieberman won because the Repug was so weak.

Liebermean held onto 2/3 of the Dems who voted for him in the primary. What drove him over the top, though, was his strength among Repugs, because the Repug candidate had no support.

[madfloridian]

41. I think your figures are wrong. I am going to look up some stuff.

I posted quite a bit about this.

Far more Republicans voted for him in the general than Democrats.

[CTLawGuy]

51. wrong

Joe got 1/3 of Dems, about 85% of Rs, and indies I'm not sure off the top of my head.

In the GE, Joe failed to get a majority of the overall vote. 49.7%.

Lamont, while a good guy, made some mistakes, namely conceding the legitimacy of Lieberman's independent run, rather than painting him as a sore loser and forcing him to constantly justify himself.

and allowing blatant flip flopping by him to go unchallenged: ex: primary - lieberman says lamont voted with republicans, general - lieberman says lamont would be too partisan a democrat.

[robcon]

55. You got it all right except the conclusion.

Lieberman got 1/3 of Democrats - which was just over 2/3 of the Democrats who had voted for him in the primary.

That, plus the Repugs, got him elected.

[leftshoe]

42. It's hard to say, really.

To be entirely honest, I have yet to come up with a viable explanation as to how Lieberman won reelection. His campaign was like that of every failed politician put together, and streamed on a continuous , excruciating blooper reel. The sunset ad, his Cartoon Network looking website, his staff problems, his gaffes, that "Connecticut for Lieberman" nonsense, being placed at the bottom of the ballot, etc. Did anything go right for Lieberman? Not that I can remember. I am sure that the backing of influential Democrats such as Clinton and Obama could have helped Lamont, however, based on the happenings of the campaign, Lamont should have won by at least 5 points. The voters of Connecticut just dropped the ball.

[rufus dog]

45. Hi Mario - How is it going tonight?

I am sitting here in a grey t-shirt, a tad hot in SoCal. Checked my closet, I have a lot of shirts, white ones (have to wear the tie occasionally) some blue ones, a horrible green one I bought in NYC, a red one I got at a golf event (I don't like red to much, never have for as long as I can remember) a few greens, mostly white though, not a lot of imagination I guess, any way, what's up?

:hi:

[Nutmegger]

46. The party leadership was wishy-washy when it came to supporting Lamont.

Obama did not once come out to to lend his face to team Lamont, though he did travel here and there and everywhere to support Democrats. Why was he avoiding Connecticut? Oh he did send a letter of support, and that's great, but Lamont needed everything and anything to beat this son of a bitch LIARman.

But I do give him credit for that, and credit to Clinton for lending him her advisor and I also give credit to Kerry, Kennedy and Edwards for coming up here to give Lamont some support. In fact, Edwards was the first to call Lamont when we showed LIARman the door. Good on all of them.

And he's not "loved" and overly "popular" here. He wasn't elected based on that. He lied, and flip-flopped so many times I lost count. People bought into the LIES and at the end of the day, people waved their arms in the air and voted for the status quo.

There's a lot of blame to go around, but I do place a small part of the blame on the establishment. When Lamont won the primary (oh what a glorious day that was), every Dem from the local to the federal level should have accepted the results and support the DEMOCRATIC nominee and not throw Ned Lamont under the bus. It makes me sick to my stomach the way he was treated by his party equals!

And LIARman received the support of 1/3'rds of the Democrats, over 70% of the Repukes and 2/3'rds of the Independents.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

48. Thanks for your post and your insight as someone from CT

:toast:

[Lord Helmet]

47. too late to revisit that mess

[MaineDem]

50. No, I don't think so

The people in Connecticut really liked (past tense now) Joe. He knew he had the votes or he wouldn't have run as a (supposedly) Independent. I now think the voters there are a bit disappointed, as are we all.

I seriously Joe has jumped the shark. I'm not sure just what he's trying to do.

[xkenx]

56. Read Wes Clark's urging support for Ned Lamont early on,

since this blog is all about supporting 2008 candidates. And Wes Clark personally campaigned in CT for Lamont.

Urge Joe Lieberman to help Democrats
Support Ned Lamont! Urge Joe Lieberman to end his campaign for U.S. Senate.

On Tuesday, the message sent by Connecticut voters was loud and clear. They want change, and they want Ned Lamont to represent them in the U.S. Senate, voting for Ned by a 52% - 48% margin over Senator Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary.

You see, despite what Joe Lieberman believes, invading Iraq and diverting our attention away from Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden is not being strong on national security. Blind allegiance to George W. Bush and his failed "stay the course" strategy is not being strong on national security. And no, Senator Lieberman, no matter how you demonize your opponents, there is no "antisecurity wing" of the Democratic Party.

Indeed, Connecticut Democrats recognized all of this, and yesterday they chose Ned Lamont as their nominee for the U.S. Senate. Now, I hope you'll join me in supporting Ned as he heads into the general election this November.

Stand with Connecticut Democrats. Send a message to Joe Lieberman to end his Independent campaign for CT Senate.

As a Democrat, I respect the will of the Connecticut Democratic voters and their decision to make Ned Lamont their nominee. Even before the election results came in on Tuesday, Ned Lamont showed his respect for the voters by committing to abide by the Democratic primary result and support whoever won.

Joe Lieberman, on the other hand, began collecting petition signatures to run as an Independent several weeks ago while concurrently running in the Democratic primary. In short, he wanted to have his cake and eat it too.

Despite his efforts to appear on the November ballot as an Independent, I held out hope that Joe would withdraw from the Connecticut Senate race after the primary votes were counted. Unfortunately, Joe has announced his candidacy as an Independent candidate, running against Ned, the Democratic nominee.

Today, I ask you to email Joe Lieberman. Urge him to respect the will of Connecticut Democrats and end his Independent candidacy for CT Senate.

In 2000, the presence of a third party candidate, Ralph Nader, no doubt played a role in the defeat of Vice President Gore and Joe Lieberman. Now Joe Lieberman is risking our party's claim on his Senate seat by running as a third party candidate himself. Recent news reports detail the GOP's interest in supporting such an effort. It's time to draw a line.

I committed myself to supporting the Democratic nominee for the US Senate in Connecticut, and I ask you to do likewise. Because too much is at stake with our troubles abroad and at home, we cannot play games this Election Day. That's why I call on all loyal Democrats to join me in urging Senator Lieberman to drop his bid for the Senate as an Independent and endorse the duly nominated Democrat.

We should thank him for his service and invite him to stay active, or even run again someday, but as a party we cannot let Joe Lieberman be this year's Ralph Nader.

Email Joe Lieberman. Encourage him to do the right thing, withdraw from the Connecticut Senate race, and focus his efforts on electing Democrats across America.

The 2006 elections represent a real crossroads for America. We must unify our efforts to stop George Bush's radical agenda and end this one-party government. I hope Senator Lieberman will join us in this critical fight for our nation's future.

Sincerely,


Wes Clark

PS: After you send your message to Joe Lieberman, please take a moment and forward this message to every Democrat you know.