Big Ed says Lieberman wiped the table with Ned Lamont

[CatWoman]

what debate was he watching? :wtf:

[Mass]

1. The same I did. Lieberman was a better debater (which is not

surprising, given that he has a lot more experience). This does not mean I agree with him on issues.

[CatWoman]

4. a "better" debater?

what "I" saw was a angry pompous jerk attacking a rival with lies and bullshit.

[tnlefty]

16. Repeating, "There you go again" frequently constitutes a better debater?

Who knew?

[oc2002]

50. Better DeBater or Master Bater?

lol.

[lonestarnot]

75. Master bater, I'm sure and I didn't see or hear the debate.

[Richard Steele]

2. Does anyone still NOT think 'Big Ed' is a repug?

I listened for 2 weeks last year; that was enough
to convince me.

[LittleClarkie]

22. Centrist

And Hillary person.

[Richard Steele]

33. Raising the question, "The center of WHAT?"

No, I ain't buying it.

We have a "former" repub who uses the phrase "you lefties"
like it's an insult,
talks down to and cuts off liberal callers while
allowing repub callers to drone on with their Limbaugh
talking-point of the day,
slams Howard Dean but loves Joe Lieberman...

Etc, etc.

[coalition_unwilling]

45. His not-so-covert nationalism reminds me a lot of Henry 'Scoop' Jackson

in the 60s. I can't stand listening to him for more than a couple minutes, his blustery voice and defense of war mongers like Lieberbush make me physically ill.

[Marr]

92. He seems to spend alot more time bashing "the far left" than anything else

I tune in his show at pretty much random intervals while I'm commuting. More often than not, he's scoffing at blogs, or activists, or pretty much anyone to the left of McCain.

Schultz is a fucking fraud. I can't stand him.

[TankLV]

105. Does he post as MrBenchley here?

Fits him to a tee.

[madfloridian]

3. Big Ed also said Dean needed to get his head....

out of his ass. Said he was not doing anything as chairman.

So I give him zero credibility anymore. I don't turn him on, I simply do not.

[CatWoman]

5. I had Stephanie Miller on

then Al Franken.

That station plays Big Ed rather than Randi at 3.

I caught that snippet before I changed stations.

[madfloridian]

10. I broke down once to hear a certain interview...

then I ended up turning it off. It is like he speaks to another world, and I am very afraid he is hurting Democrats a lot.

[Swamp Rat]

34. I LOVE Mama!

:loveya: Stephanie Miller, that is. :loveya:

'Big Ed' is a primate. :eyes:

[Trouser Trout]

6. Ed is getting quite testy today

Honestly I thought Lamont came off a little tepid in response to Joe's nastiness.But since I've never run for office what do I know?

[madfloridian]

38. Big Ed is about way more than just Lamont or Lieberman.

I haven't figured it all out yet. The fact that he felt compelled to say what he did is telling.

Actually Lamont was not polished, which I love....I admire people who just talk.

But Lieberman sounded whiney and was very much on the offense. He seemed insulted that anyone would run against him.

[Mr_Spock]

51. Back when he said that, a lot of us were saying the same thing

He (Dean) was not presenting his strategy clearly - I agreed with the comment at the time and so did many others.

[madfloridian]

61. Dean was speaking everywhere at the time.

The only people not hearing it were ones who did not want to do so.

Someone posted his schedule at Kos right after Big Ed attacked him....he was all over the south all over the country drawing big crowds and letting the states take the money he raised.

Big Eddie blowhard was sent his schedule, he was sent all the stuff he was doing, it was posted here also.

Big Eddie ignored it. He does not research, he never apologizes.. I know because his staff said so. Facts are not that important to him, agenda is.

[Mr_Spock]

65. Even Dean had to defend his "quiet" strategy

Were reporters supposed to follow Dean around into small towns & send their reports to Ed & others? Part of Deans position is to manage his media coverage - he was doing a lousy job of managing it, though I had sympathy for him as well since he was busy meeting with real people. I enjoy the discussions - a little kick in the ass from your friends is a lot better than a humiliating defeat at the ballot box because your friends were afraid to criticize you.

Look at Donna Brazille & Shrum - I sure wish people had told the Dems that those folks were clowns.

[madfloridian]

67. Yeh, a kick in the ass from your friends when you're working your butt off

is a wonderful thing, ain't it?

[Mr_Spock]

71. I thought it was well timed.

Ed wasn't the only one who was wondering what Dean was doing. There were an awful lot of DUers who were fretting over his adventures during his preparation for his "50 state strategy".

If we can't take criticism, then we are unprepared to lead. How can we lead if we cannot even respond to criticism?

[madfloridian]

74. Who is leading us? Who is our glorious leader in this mess?

Since he is not qualified to lead you say, who is? Or maybe we can just stumble around in the wilderness for years because we all just tear each other down.

Good job, there, Spock, now let's see who is capable and perfect. Most certainly not Big Eddie boy. He is not very researched or knowledgeable.

Who is our leader that is so perfect?

And I think everyone of our leaders has had a share of criticism. Dean was on TV, he was openly saying what he was doing, and it was ignored. The very same people who called him fringe in 03, were ignoring his TV appearances and saying he was not doing anything. They knew perfectly well he was, and it was all posted here.

I hate our radio hosts who pretend to be Democrats or liberals and all they do is bash everyone who makes a difference. Sounds like you are falling for Big Eddie boy's spiel. He's quite convincing, isn't he?

How many people has he convinced that the DNC leader is doing nothing? Ever think about that? His listeners trust him, just like Rush's listeners trust him. Ed is violating that trust.

[Mr_Spock]

77. I never said he was not qualified to lead us?

I simply said he needed the kick in the ass to remind him to properly use his position to get face time with the media.

Your ranting on about stuff I never said is utterly rediculous.

I like Ed and many other hosts & NPR & CC's political shows. I take in a lot of information because information is power. Sorry you feel that my open mindedness is somehow a bad thing. What's going on here at DU anyway - this is terrible.

[madfloridian]

79. If you think turning listeners against the DNC is open-minded....

then we have no common ground. Ed's listeners trust him. I was communicating with his staff, as were many others, during those bashing Dean get his head out of his ass days.

They did NOT listen. They did NOT care at all.

See, they even convinced you.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

83. Spock open-minded....me close-minded...

I really have not having much fun talking to you either when you believed Big Eddie boy about that mess with the DNC.

[Mr_Spock]

85. I didn't say I believed him, nor were we talking about DNC

You brought that up, I just talked about Dean and nothing more.

I think Dems can be criticized at times - if he goes overboard he gets taken to the woodshed for it - which I think is good & healthy. At least he let's people who disagree with him talk and this leads to good discussions where he is forced to defend his position. I enjoy the dialog.

[dogday]

7. Lamont was well spoken

Lieberman acted like a pompous ass he is. I really thought Lamont was much better...

[rinsd]

8. About as valid as those who said Lamont wiped the floor w/Lieberman

The debate to me was largely a draw, with Lieberman coming out ahead only because the debate and TV ads may be voters only exposure to Lamont.

People are looking at this through their bias prism....though I think Big Ed may be doing this for ratings alah Mike and the Mad Dog where Dog says something intentionally to piss off listeners so the phones light up.

[karlrschneider]

11. Seemed that way to me, more or less a wash. I'll get flamed for this

but I have to admit Ned's eyes really do look a bit "weird". That does NOT matter to ME but I've already seen RW attacks on him based on that without regard to what he actually said. :mad:

[rinsd]

23. He looked a bit too "surprised"

And while that may not matter to you and I, people vote on that sort of thing and like you said RWers will be sure to constantly mention it.

[NNadir]

9. Can I ask who "Big Ed" is?

[CatWoman]

14. Ed Schultz

http://www.wegoted.com/

[NNadir]

26. Thanks.

I never heard of him.

[karlrschneider]

90. I only know his name from mentions here at DU.

Otherwise, he's a mystery man to me too...

[NNadir]

93. I learned about the existence of lots of pundits at DU and my previous

website.

Otherwise I would be blissfully unaware of Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter and so on...

I did once work with a person who listened to Rush Limbaugh, but it was actually before most people had heard of Bill Clinton.

[karlrschneider]

94. One of my good friends is a Lush Rimbaugh fan...and he is a

Federal Judge no less. For 5 years, I've argued my case (informally of course) trying to get him to realize how goddamn stupid his support of the Gasbag is. I regret to report not much progress so far but I'm not giving up. :eyes:

[zulchzulu]

12. Big Ed doesn't like "blogs" either

He's always ragging about how Democrats don't have a message or that they aren't consistent...yet he's defending one of the most piece of shit DINOs out there. The reason people don't like Lieberman is that he undermines the Democrats' message.

Ed is utterly inconsistent in his rants. Time to go huntin', Eddie.

[pstans]

13. Big Ed gets money from the DNC

Randi Rhodes was offered $ and turned it down, so they then gave it to Schultz to talk up Washington Democrats.

[Larkspur]

20. DNC or DLC? DNC is chaired by Howard Dean, who Schultz despises.

[madfloridian]

63. Not the DNC. Congressional Democrats. Landrieu had the dinner...

and the meeting where the offers were made.

[Warpy]

15. You have to understand conservatives

Every time a mouthpiece or even an ordinary pain in the ass social ranter says one of their talking points, they WIN. They're there to TESTIFY, not present facts or persuade anyone. The audience is largely irrelevant, especially the audience that is outside the cult.

Once you understand this, a lot of things about their campaign psychology and the apparent delusional behaviour of their sheep make a lot of twisted sense.

They see and hear what they want to, and when someone echoes a talking point they've memorized from Pox News, they've WON.

[AlCzervik]

17. what won it for Ed? The pissy look on Joenertia's face because he

doesn't really think he needs to even be in a debate with Lamont? Was it the lines he tried to crib from Lloyd Bentson? All of it that won big head Ed over?

[bluethruandthru]

18. As starved as I am for any talk other than right wing crap...

I have a really hard time listening to Ed. Probably because he starts saying "You lefties" this and "You lefties" that. To me, when Ed says it, it sounds like name-calling. He also doesn't seem to have a real grasp of the issues. When the rethug callers get through...which is alot....he lets them get away with alot of crap and doesn't call them on it.

[Larkspur]

19. Lamont started shakey but he was at his best when he got

pissed, while still being polite, at Lieberman.

"This is not Fox News, sir!" was the best one-liner for me that night. It stunned Lieberman, who had rudely been interrupting Lamont and breaking the debate rules. If there is a debate next time, Ned needs to remember that the moderator will not stop Lieberman from interrupting him, so he should just fire back at Lieberman on his own.

Ned Lamont reminded me of Jimmy Stewart's character Jefferson Smith in "Mr. Smith goes to Washington". Stewart was great at playing the follies, foibles, virtues, and nobility of the ordinary or humble person rising up to face extraordinary situations.

Ned may be a multi-millionaire, but he's the most down-to-earth guy I've met. He respects everyone, regardless of class, race, ethnicity.

And Ed Schultz, he had Lieberman on his show a few months ago. He was a Republican who turned Democrat.

[LincolnMcGrath]

21. Who cares what "DLCentrist Radio" has to say about anything?

Much like BullMoose, Big Eddie is a former GOPer and makes no bones about it.

You'll note that the usual cast of keyboard Krishna's who checked in here to give credence to both Big Ed and BullMoose over the last few days make no bones about where their loyalties lie.

[oc2002]

54. right, ED is a DLCer all the way, Big Eddy=Big Corporate $$$ = Sell Out.

He has never realy done much on his show.

[geomon666]

24. Well of course.

Republicans have each others backs in everything.

[ladjf]

25. I don't care if Lieberman is the greatest debater since Abe Lincoln.

He is an enemy to the Democratic Party and the United States.

[MarkTwain]

27. This Idiot, "Big Ed," ...

... is now doing a full court jihad on "the blogs" that are out to "get" Lieberman, Chris Dodd, and, of course, "Big Ed," himself.

This guy seldom expresses any truly authentic or meaningful sentitments evident of either a progressive, a liberal, or of a core Democratic nature

He's a one note blowhard whose pet issue is the support of unions - be the union matter of the moment right or wrong... he's "for" unions. In his crippled and tiny mid-western, corn fed brain, his union support makes him a Democrat.

He's a supporter of that trojan horse whacko, Hackett, of guns, and of that wingnut, Joe Lieberman - who supports the Iraq disaster and taking away the woman's right to control her reproductive life as just two examples of Joe's Republican bona fides. "Big Ed" frequently takes positions that, if not exactly under the sheets, are certainly in the bedroom of the Republican Thug Party.

"Big Ed" is yet another progressive impersonator with no liberal portfoilio of which to speak. He's a Rush wanna-be, at best.

[rucky]

42. Yep. He found a niche and is exploiting it.

Put that in your blog and smoke it, Big Ed.

[The Gunslinger]

68. That sums it up

He made the move to "progressive" radio in order to try the be the "Rush" of the left. On many occasions his true feelings come out. When talking about the left wing blogs, he said the word "left" with such arrogant contempt that had I just turned the radio on I would have thought is was some rightist a-hole and not someone who claims to be on the left.

[Cha]

96. Actually, it sounds like

he made his niche just right of center.

[benburch]

28. I loathe Ed Schultz.

He's only in this for the money.

[Mr_Spock]

29. We know you do.

;)

[Swamp Rat]

37. I listened to him for a couple of weeks

unfortunately. What a bozo! :eyes:

[Cha]

97. I didn't know you

did! Good to know.

[Vinca]

30. I think Lieberman made a HUGE faux pas by using the Reagan

"there you go again" schtick. And the Lloyd Bentsen paraphrasing was seriously lame. I thought Lamont did just fine considering he's a newbie next to a veteran BS thrower.

[Cha]

98. I'm thinking lie-man was

watching ol' reagun Carter debate tapes to brush up on right wing zingers for his debut debate with Lamont.

I'm betting Lamont learns from his first debate with "how lo can you go, joe?" and gets better and better.

[TomClash]

31. Neither one talked about the most important issue

the Class War being waged against everyone by the wealthy and their lackeys in the upper middle classes!

[Rainscents]

32. ED sucks!

He has big mouth and it's loud... He is only in for money.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[dogday]

41. So who cares what is best for the State

Vote with your ethnicity... Lousy reason to support anyone.... Should I start voting for candidates with blue eyes because I have blue eyes? Ridiculous....

[LaPera]

35. Schultz is so FUCKING FULL OF SHIT! Lieberman's 10% NOT voting with Dem's

that Schultz (and Lieberman both cite) were/are some very, very important legislation...

Not just the "10%" - saying oh that's not that much...that's just more Schultz bullshit...Lieberman voted with fucking anti-worker, anti-social program safety nets, anti-health insurance, anti-people, anti-privacy rights republican ideology...

The same pro corporate rights & pro corporate welfare, corporate tax breaks, the same BushCo fascist republican ideology Lieberman voted with, how DESPICABLE!!!!

Lieberman who so often speaks against and trashes Democrats and praises republicans and literally kisses Bush on the national stage...what a fucking republican Lieberman is...We can do a lot better supporting and voting for Lamont!!

Included in that 10% Lieberman and Schultz are hiding behind is what? The NSA spying, Iraq war/occupation legislation, etc. etc. 10% is an awful lot of votes over time, that Fucking "Big Ed" is hiding behind to protect the status quo & the republican Lieberman!!!!

The arrogant Lieberman thinks he shouldn't be challenged in the primary....this is not what our "founding fathers" wanted...people who are suppose to represent the people to have a fucking lifetime position in the Senate (or Congress).

Lieberman should be running in the republican primary - He already has Sean Hannity's support!!!

[GreenTea]

62. Good post! I agree, Schultz is so damn moderate, he really believes

that the country is moderate, the country was founded on liberal ideology and is liberal on nearly all issues. But people like Schultz are to the right and believe what the republicans feed them day & night, that this candidate can't get elected because he's "too" liberal or progressive, that's exactly what the republicans want us to believe, and why Democrats go in with the middle of the road moderate approach, voters see very little difference, republicans immediately tear apart the Democrats character and the Democrats lose, they keep using this moderate strategy and the Democrats continue to lose and lose.

When will the Democrats stop listening to people like Ed Schultz who believe the right-wing media's propaganda, and Roves same exact spewing, as well as the republican party tell us you can't win if you run as a liberal. Perhaps Schultz should look up what the word "liberal" means and not just mimic how the republicans want to define it.

Simply, because they do not want those same liberal social, environmental and political issues brought out in the campaign -- just play the republican way and we'll just win enough to lose the majority in the Houses.

Republicans love it the Schultz way, just look at results that the democrats have playing it the center, moderate way for years and Ed is so worried about what that the republicans will point and say "liberal" they do it anyway, and the democrat's back off and go out of their way to hide and look moderate and then ultimately, like Rove's clock-work and lose.

[madfloridian]

39. Also is Ed's show still owned by Randy Michaels of Clear Channel fame?

He bought him out from Democracy Radio, and then the head of Democracy Radio went to AAR as a CEO.

Randy Michaels gave Rush his big start in radio...remember?

[bluethruandthru]

46. That's interesting!

Is that why, even though the station I'm listening to is an AAR affiliate...they have Ed on from 3 to 6? It's a Clear Channel owned station. I've always wondered why they didn't just use all the AAR shows.

[madfloridian]

66. Randy Michaels, Schultz, and WLIB....what happened about this?

http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2006/05/air_america_vs_.html

I am not familiar with this website, and I had no idea Michaels was grabbing on to WLIB? Is this true or rumor or what? I don't want to post excerpts since I don't know the blog.

Here is something about Clear Channels father in sensationalism, buying out Big Eddie.

http://billboardradiomonitor.com/radiomonitor/news/format/talk/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000952450

Democracy Sells Stake In Ed Schultz Show To Randy Michaels
June 08, 2005
By Ken Tucker

Democracy Radio is selling its stake in the “The Ed Schultz Show” to radio veteran and former Clear Channel Radio CEO Randy Michaels and his company P1 (Product First), a division of Radioactive LLC. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

The show, which is distributed by Jones Radio Networks, is currently on 95 stations and 8 of the top 10 markets, according to Democracy.

“Democracy Radio has accomplished its first mission,” CEO Tom Athans said in a statement. “Now we will return to our core mission, to incubate and launch new progressive voices on America’s airwaves.”

[flyarm]

99. yep and Michaels will do all he can to slow the flow of info of Air Amer

http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2006/05/air_america_vs__1.html
Enter Randy Michaels. The former head of Clear Channel hasn’t missed the rapid growth of the liberal talk format fostered by his old company. If you had to pick one word to describe Mr. Michaels, “opportunist” might best fit the bill. Other adjectives that accurately describe Michaels– tenacious, outrageous, and except for falling from the Clear Channel throne– very successful. Although Air America continues to bleed cash, their strategy of cultivating left-wing talk stations across the country isn’t necessarily a losing proposition. If Randy Michaels has staked his career comeback on the format, there’s probably a lot of money yet to be made in progressive talk radio.

You can be sure of one thing, snatching WLIB away from Air America was a brilliant and strategic move for Michaels’ new company “Product First.” Certainly purchasing “The Ed Shultz Show” (now the most popular liberal talk show in the U.S.) immediately put his new progressive talk radio enterprise on the map, but taking control of Air America’s flagship station (and their only outlet in the biggest radio market in the country) puts P1 in an incredibly favorable position in a number of ways. And when it comes to the radio business, there’s no one better than Randy Michaels at sizing up the competition and then audaciously destroying or assimilating them. (For a good example of Michaels’ lack of mercy, check out this timeline on how quickly Jacor’s “Power Pig” dispatched Tampa’s Q-105 in a matter of months in late 1980's.) And when it comes to lefty talk, Air America is the ONLY competition for Michaels to destroy or absorb. And in one swift move he’s put his one competitor, which is already in trouble, into a much weaker position AND provided his company with a New York City radio outpost. Amazing.

f you had been listening to WLIB here in New York over the last year, you wouldn’t have to read all the internet rumors and allegations to figure out Air America was in big financial trouble-- Putting the yuppie idiocy of ABC’s Satellite Sisters in place of Air America’s late night angry man, Mike Malloy, and selling their weekend day slots on WLIB to shows about sports, food and money management. These were obviously stopgap measures to slam together enough cash to keep the rest of their programming on WLIB. Although Air America had a long term agreement with Inner City to camp out on WLIB’s frequency for years, it was undoubtedly the fact that they weren’t able to make their payments to the owners of WLIB that gave Michaels his opportunity to step in.
As I said last week, the one option nobody has mentioned is the possiblity that Air America might somehow join forces with Michaels. However, this would mean that the cold calculation of the former head of Jacor and Clear Channel would drastically alter Air America programming. But if they keep bleeding cash, it’s hard to see how they’re going to have much choice if they’re going to survive at all.

[Mr_Spock]

40. This is good discussion - callers are getting on Ed about Lieberman

I'm glad to have disagreements like this flogged for all to hear - it's how we learn and really confirm our feelings on certain candidates.

[iconoclastNYC]

43. Seems to me we need an ED WATCH blog.

Let's hound his ass. Wish that Media Matters would focus on Ed.

It would be an outrage for the DNC to give him money to support "centrists" and attack progressives.

[Mr_Spock]

47. Does he attack progressives?

I listen almost every day - I haven't heard that.

[iconoclastNYC]

52. From what I hear he does.

[Mr_Spock]

53. "from what I hear"? So my listening every day doesn't count?

Ed is getting beaten silly by his callers about his support for Lieberman.

This debate is good for everyone.

[iconoclastNYC]

58. I dont know what your bias is

I dont know what you consider an attack, or what you consider a progressive.

So yes, in this case countless reports from other DUers count more then your assertion.

Sorry.

And as you can see from my original post, I'd like a watchdog site that would solidly document when he attacks democrats and otherwise reveals his true nature.

[Mr_Spock]

59. DU is not a good source for unbiased reporting

Ed is bashed here unmercifully, yet I listen to him every day and only out-of-context snippets are posted to deliberately bash him. It's sad when we can't even tolerate people with varying opinions in the Democratic party. It's sad really.

I know what an attack is, and Ed does not attack progressives.

[sendero]

82. You noticed that too.

.... I listen here and there, and frankly the picture that gets painted here is bullshit.

If he's a Lieberman supporter, well that is one of the few issues he's raised that I disagree with him on.


And one more thing, unlike 99% of radio talk show hosts, Ed will take your call and he will talk to you on the air mano a mano. He often takes calls from Wingers who frankly I think he should smack down and he usually doesn't - that is my biggest complaint with the guy.

Eventually I'll call in and give him my 3 cents.

[TankLV]

106. I listen to him and have to think "who is this I'm listening to?"

Sometimes I can't distinguish him from limpballs. It's that bad.

Then after a while, I realize it's him.

He's no "progressive" and yes, he DOES regularly attack progreesives and the "far left" is a too favorite pet phrase of his.

Very dismissive of a lot of things progressive, which I find very disturbing.

I don't listen to him anymore.

[The Gunslinger]

72. He was getting his butt kicked by a caller so bad.............

He "claimed" the phone made a noise and he couldn't take it.
The caller called him out about saying the Rightists do anything to win, and then saying it was ok for Lieberman to do so. The caller got him good before the "noise" problems.

[Mr_Spock]

73. That's out of context Ed bashing again.

The phone WAS making a really annoying noise - I heard it - he simply turned him down while he responded & then turned him back up again to let the caller respond - which he did - even over the annoying noise his phone was making. Why would you distort the truth to make a point? The guy got lots of air time & he handed it to Ed good - which I was glad about because I totally disagree with Ed on the Lieberman issue. I love the disagreement - it really helps to flush out the reactionary bashing from the real reasons he (Lieberman) deserves to be reviled.

[The Gunslinger]

80. I didn't hear any noise..

but if the caller came back on afterward, my bad. I was pulling into a parking space and turnd the car of shortly after hearing the caller.

[Mr_Spock]

84. The guy got back on & ripped Ed a new one

Trust me, I LOVE when people put Ed in his place - he can be such a boar at times - he needs the spanking from time to time. He does actually listen and he often changes his perspective when he get's his ass handed to him. And he NEVER hesitiates to take negative callers - he's NOT afraid of confrontation.

He's got 7 or 8 callers bashing him on his Lieberman position - which I am enjoying as I completely disagree with him on this issue.

[The Revolution]

57. Neither have I

But it doesn't matter what he actually does or says. What matters is what we think he says based on what someone we don't know posted on a message board.

It never ceases to amaze me how strongly people will attack someone like Ed Shultz. People like Rush are generally taunted or made fun of. But people like Ed or even Al Frankin are absolutly despised on here. Honestly, I don't understand it.

[Mr_Spock]

60. It's part of a cult of personality here

So many here cannot even tolerate heathy discussion of the issues on talk radio.

They only want people like Mike Malloy who just bash unmercifully. I enjoy that, but I also like Ed who is trying to recruit righties and who likes to think he's being pragmatic on issues, it leads to great discussions among some of the more center-leaning Democrats - who we need as much as any of the Democrats to win back Congress.

[SoCalDem]

44. Big Ed is a democrat in the vaguest sense of the word

He has a microphone and sometimes says things we like, so he's marginally acceptable, but he's a "Lou Dobbs democrat", if you get my drift...

We have few commentators/hosts to count on all the time.. Once in a while they all disappoint us.. This is where we differ from the righties..

They ALL toe the line.. Even when they "praise" a democrat..it's usually in reference to how that democrat supported a republican idea..

We are in this fight alone, folks.. The ones in our party who ARE 100% progressive are not given a very big microphone (Guy James come to mind)...

The daily, 3 hour shows are handed over to mostly wishy-washy dems and rabid republicans..

[zulchzulu]

48. Ede says "...well Joe Biden voted for the banking bill...."

Exactly, Ed. Biden is just as much a DINO as Lieberman on a number of issues. Get it?

[oc2002]

49. You mean Mister Ed??....WILLLLBUUUURRRRR!

That guy is a duufus.

[Mr_Spock]

55. 4 callers in a row are bashing Ed about his support for Lieberman!!

This is why I like Ed - when he is wrong he gets his ass kicked.

I like this open discussion - he gets his ass kicked and we all learn from this.

[leftofthedial]

56. big head ed is no progressive and no liberal

[Mr_Spock]

64. I enjoy listening to his perspective.

He may not be a Mike Malloy liberal, but he sure does stimulate some interesting discussions. It takes all types and he just now said he's a Democrat as I'm listening now, I agree that he is allowed to be a Democrat even though I disagree with him on several issues.

[U4ikLefty]

107. He not a centrist nor a liberal...he's a conservative. Face it Spock!!!

[sandrakae]

69. Uh Debates do not decide an election.

After all John Kerry would be President. He embarrassed Chimp in all 3 debates and didn't even try to.

[rinsd]

86. For an upstart campaign in the primaries, they can. (nt)

[sandrakae]

70. Uh Debates do not decide an election.

After all John Kerry would be President. He embarrassed Chimp in all 3 debates and didn't even try to.

[sendero]

76. I didn't see the debate..

... but I'm going to say something unhappy here.

Time and time again, someone on DU will post a thread about how CandidateX (our guy) walked all over CandidateY (their guy).

Then I dutifully click the link and watch the video.

The problem is a lot of folks here evaluate the debate/exchange in the context of what THEY KNOW. They assume that the average listener perceived CandidateY as a lying asshole or whatever, and I think they are often wearing rose colored glasses.

I did not watch this particular debate, but I'm pretty sure that Lamont did not "win" it, even though I'm a huge supporter, have even donated to his campaign.

[rinsd]

87. Here's the debate...if you wished to see it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1fvzJRk4rU

[sendero]

88. Ok...

... I watched that. I assume that 8:07 minute segment was not the whole debate.

I would not go so far as to say Lieberman mopped the floor with Lamont, but who you think "won" is going to depend entirely on your point of view.

Liberman was more forceful, possessing of gravitas. Folks can decide that he was "arrogant", but again - that is ENTIRELY in the eye of the beholder and as much as I don't like the guy, he really drove home is "Lamont is all over the place" meme, whether it was fair or not.

Also, Joe made what I would call a fallacious assertion when he claimed that Iraq was better because the government formed, etc - Lamont could have destroyed that point by saying something as simple as "Iraqis are dying in higher numbers with each passing month, how are the things you speak of helping the people?". But he didn't and he missed several such opportunities in that 8 minutes.

Lamont did ok, but IMHO the average viewer of that is not going to come away with a "Lamont won it" opinion.

[rinsd]

89. Sorry I thought that was more complete....

http://www.youtube.com/results?search=lamont+debate&search_type=search_videos

This has it broken down into several sections, it sems no one has posted it in its entirety.

Here's a transcript

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/07/AR2006070700029.html

Your overall point that the debate needs to be looked at from a more detached perspective is worth noting and I do agree with it. I saw the debate as largely a draw because Lieberman may have taken the aggressiveness a little far(though that rarely backfires for male on male debate unlike say the Lazio fiasco vs. Hillary) but Lamont had his difficult spots as well.

[Clarkie1]

78. I agree...anyone here want to seriously argue Lamont won that debate? nt

[skipos]

95. Do you want to argue that Joe won it?

Personally I say it was a draw. Ned came across as someone who hadn't been in many televised debates, which he hasn't, while Joe came across as being angry, aggressive and condescending, which he is.

If you look at the online polls (I know they aren't scientific) and the reaction from the media (Norah, Keith, etc) very few people think Joe won. The problem is that everyone knows Joe is a career politician, and Ned is a newbie. I think the expectation was that Joe would mop the floor with him, and he didn't.

[Clarkie1]

100. Well, I didn't see it that way.

Lamont seemed uncertain of his position of Iraq, while Lieberman (although I disagee with it) seemed certain based on his own convictions.

Lamont failed to answer Lieberman's question about his tax records, and also failed to address allegations that his past voting record showed more Republican leanings than Democratic ones.

Finally, Lamont acted as if he were running against Bush, not Lieberman, and he looked like a google-eyed deer in the headlights. He didn't even respond to Lieberman's statement that he has voted with Democrats 90% of the time, just kept going off about what he would do (much of what is what Lieberman already supports, but Lamont ignored that little detail).

[B Calm]

102. I see no reason to respond to Lieberman voting with Democrats 90%

of the time! It's that 10% that speak for itself!

[skipos]

103. I saw Joe

seem very, very angry that anyone was DARING to challenge HIS seat. I saw him try to make the debate all about "who is Lamont," and not the fact that MOST DEMOCRATS THINK JOE IS DOING A SHITTY JOB. Joe is the one who needs to explain himself, and he didn't. Instead he attacked and interrupted. That whole line about "I am no George Bush" ugh that was really painful. It shows how out of touch he is. If he manages to win this primary, which I doubt, Joe needs to fly coach or ride public transport or something to try and get in touch with the people again. He really has no clue why most Democrats think he blows right now. And it is NOT just about Iraq.

Regardless of how you or I saw it, it is pretty obvious that most people didn't see it the way you did, wouldn't you say? I am well aware that there are people who thought Joe's anger and Republican one liners were great, and that Lamont looked like an inexperienced debater, but you have to admit that a large majority of the people who have commented on the debate do not think Joe won.

More importantly, I couldn't care less how they debated. It is very clear with Joe's bet hedging now and in 2000, that he is mostly concerned with self preservation at this point, do you agree? Can you explain to me why any Democrat should respect a candidate who doesn't respect the Democrats of his state? A candidate who will not honor the votes of Democratic voters in CT? A candidate who, in 2000, didn't care if his senate seat went to a Republican?

[WinkyDink]

91. To me, there is only ONE "Big Ed" : Rendell.

[KamaAina]

101. I have a hard time imagining Joementum wiping the table with anyone

"Uh, excuse me, Mr. Lamont? Wopuld you mind if I wiped the table with you? You would? Oh, darn."

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

104. I thought this a really poor performance from Ed. Spouting RW talking

points left and right.

Here's what incensed me:

1) He refused to acknowledge the reality of a legitimate groundswell of Dem voters unhappy with Lieberman, instead, making the whole thing out to be a campaign by the "blogosphere" to "get" Joe and show everyone how powerful we are. This whole scenario is a straight up Rovian talking point, something like you'd see out of David Brooks. In fact, David Brooks has said pretty much exactly this, this week!

2) He equated Lamont's decision to run against Joe as equally unloyal to the Democratic Party as Joe's decision to disregard the vote if he's defeated in the primary. After all, the Dem poobahs endorsed Joe, said Ed, so in his mind, Lamont deciding to run is "disloyal" to the Dem party as defined by poobahs picking our candidates in perpetuity. Never mind that Lamont would be rejected by the Dem voters by the primary mechanism if they didn't want him.