A few thoughts about the Lamont/Lieberman primary.

[Skinner]

I've never been a big fan of primaries. I prefer to see Democrats attacking Republicans, rather than watching Democrats attacking Democrats. Primaries sometimes have a way of weakening the eventual Democratic nominee as he or she heads into a general election.

So I was pretty ambivalent about the Lamont/Lieberman race from the start. I know that many people here have long detested Joe Lieberman, but my feelings toward him were never that strong. Obviously, I disagreed with his position on the Iraq war, and I found his cozying up to Bush and his relentless scolding of fellow Democrats to be highly distasteful. But other than that I guess I have a pretty high level of tolerance for bullcrap coming from fellow Democrats -- I just kinda chalk it up to politics and don't take it personally. Also, as the admin of a website that is (in theory) open to all types of Democrats and where I have to act as a referee between different factions, I was inclined to stay out of the Connecticut primary.

But Joe Lieberman lost any goodwill he might have had from me when he declared his intention to run as an independent if he were to lose the primary. Seeing as Joe Lieberman did not feel bound by any notion of party loyalty, neither was I. It was a moment of clarity for me and (apparently) for a lot of other Democrats. Whatever lip-service he gave to the idea of doing what's best for the country, for Connecticut, or for the Democratic party was shown to be just that -- lip-service. The truth is that Joe does what's best for Joe.

So, like many of you, I was extremely satisfied by the results of the Connecticut primary last night. The progressive blogosphere deserves a great deal of credit for Lamont's victory, and in particular I tip my hat to the bloggers who have been behind the Lamont campaign since the beginning. Obviously, the blogs provided extremely important early support for Lamont that made his campaign possible, but I don't think he could have won the primary if his campaign was a bloggers-only phenomenon. Lamont won because he was able to put together a campaign and a message that appealed to a majority of Connecticut Democrats -- and even brought thousands of new voters into the Democratic fold.

Now that we know that Lieberman is going to follow through on his threat to run as an independent, many high-level Democrats are in a position that they were desperately hoping to avoid. To be honest, I'm rather enjoying watching some of them squirm. So far, those who have made their positions known seem to be making the wise choice and throwing their support behind Lamont, but it's clear that some folks would prefer to avoid making a choice entirely. The almost comic timidity of the inside-the-beltway crowd is not surprising. But in this case I can kinda see the motivation. I suspect that many Washington Democrats are afraid that if they alienate Joe Lieberman, he might renege on his pledge to caucus with the Democrats in the Senate if he wins the general election. If the party split in the Senate in 2007 is close, Joe Lieberman (if re-elected) could well be courted by both parties to provide the majority. This explains why George W. Bush and Karl Rove have (apparently) pledged their support for his campaign.

If Democratic leaders were smart, they would pressure Joe to get the hell out of the race with his dignity and his reputation still (barely) intact, thereby virtually guaranteeing a Lamont victory. But Democratic leaders are not that smart. Or, at least they aren't organized enough or gutsy enough to make it happen. My prediction is that most Washington Democrats will officially declare their support for Ned Lamont, but they won't actually do much of anything to help his campaign. So my advice to you is: Do not count on party big guns to go to Connecticut and pull out all the stops for Ned. Their tepid endorsements are all he is going to get. If we want Lamont to win in November, we'll probably have to make it happen ourselves. Hint, hint.

Having said that, I think Democrats would make a big mistake if they gave Lieberman a free pass. As I watched his gag-inducing concession speech last night, I could virtually taste the bile welling up in the back of my throat. It was perhaps the most cowardly and least gracious concession speech I have ever heard -- which is not surprising since he's running in the general, and he wanted to use that opportunity to get his message out. And the Lieberman campaign message is clear: Democrats are a bunch of dangerous lunatics. (No wonder Republicans are enthusiastically cheering him on.) When Joe Lieberman smears us all as crazy, out-of-touch, extreme, or dangerous, every loyal Democrat has a responsibility to stand up and condemn him for saying it. Staying silent will only hurt our party in the long run.

Before I finish, I would be remiss if I did not add a plea for civility here on DU. Obviously, our members overwhelmingly supported Ned Lamont in the primary. But we did have a significant number of people who supported Lieberman. The fact that someone may have supported a different candidate than you in the primary is not indicative of some deep-seeded character flaw, and it does not make that person your mortal enemy. I suspect there may be some hard feelings from this primary -- there always are. But our goal now should be to find a way that we can all come together and find common ground again. We will not help Ned Lamont win in November by continuing to demonize those who have supported -- or continue to support -- a different candidate than we do.

On a somewhat related note: Many people have already asked whether DU members will be permitted to campaign for Lieberman here on DU. We intend to treat Joe Lieberman's third-party candidacy the same way we have treated every other third-party candidacy since 2002. In short: Don't use our bandwidth to support any candidate that is running against a Democrat in a general election. We understand that some people here have supported Joe Lieberman, and will continue to do so in the general election. That's fine. We're not going to ban anyone for simply admitting a preference for Joe Lieberman. But if we think you're just trolling our site for votes, then we're not going cut you a great deal of slack.

To those of you who supported Joe Lieberman in the primary, I wish to congratulate you for a hard-fought campaign, and thank you for your commitment to the future of this country. Now that the campaign is over, I wish to offer the hand of friendship, and I hope we can find a way to work together for a Democratic victory in November.

And most of all, I hope that everyone here will keep in mind that the elections in November are not about Joe Lieberman or Ned Lamont. The November elections are about increasing the number of Democrats in elected offices around the country. The Connecticut U.S. Senate race is only one campaign out of many.

[VolcanoJen]

1. Ned Lamont: Give Early, and Give Often

We've got to hold onto that seat, and the best way to get Joe Lieberman to reconsider an independent bid is to flood Lamont with money.

There are many other urgent races going on... Ohio, of course, and Pennsylvania's getting closer, and we have a real chance in Montana.

I do hope that DUers choose a favorite candidate and start spending time and money.

It feels so good to win, doesn't it? Hasn't it been a long, long time? Keep this adrenaline flowing to November!

[drfresh]

80. Doesn't Lamont already have a boatload of money?

I mean, I want to see him win too, but I wonder if there aren't other candidates who actually NEED that dough more than Lamont to stay afloat.

[WilliamPitt]

2. Hammer meet nail n/t

[Atman]

3. That's more than A FEW thoughts, Skinner.

Whaddya think, ya own the place?

[bananarepublican]

94. k & r! Just one question...

... is this all I have to do to recommend a post?

P.S. Everyone has to be continuously be aware of a wolf in sheep's clothing (such as Joementum).

[helderheid]

4. Bravo!

:applause:

[countingbluecars]

5. Well said!

Onward!

[Hippo_Tron]

6. K&R

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

7. "The November elections are about increasing the number of Democrats"

Hear Hear Skinner! Absolutely.

That was a very well written thread by the way, especially given the level of passion and emotion revolving around the subject right now. This obviously has put you and many of us in a very awkward position, but that is not of our doing. Joe has done this to himself the moment he abandoned our party for his own selfish will to retain power over the good of the country.

I also agree with you that I don't detest joe nearly as much as some others here have, but last night really got to me. One of the things I hate about the GOP the most is how they are more loyal to an individual than they are for the country as a whole. And that is always a narrow minded and ignorant position to have. Last night, Joe made himself guilty of that cardinal sin in my eyes. He now put himself, via those he's begging to support him, as being more important than the democratic party and our strategic mission itself.

I cannot forgive that.

[Rex]

8. Both fought a tough political battle and the better man won.

Now Joe should be the bigger man and go work with Jimmy Carter or Nelson Mandela. Do some good Joe, you can still be a Dem and have pride in your voting record. Help us win back Congress Joe!

[madfloridian]

9. Honest question, Skinner.

If there were not primaries, who would you want to pick who runs and using what criteria?

Being sincere here because our state chairwoman has discouraged primaries. I don't believe in just everyone jumping in and causing dissension...but we don't have anyone running here anymore. It is a serious problem.

Our group ran a candidate, establishment Dems here did not like his pro-choice stance...and they ran someone against with the churches getting out the vote. Instead of a good intelligent strong candidate, we had a religious choice who was unable to speak coherently at a podium

So, I do realize that many here at DU don't like primaries. I am just wondering how you want to choose them if maybe 2 or 3 are wanting to run. Who gets to pick?

[Skinner]

13. Primaries are the best way to pick candidates, IMO.

I would not want to pick candidates any other way. But I think my opinion of primaries is roughly analogous to Winston Churchill's opinion of democracy:

"Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Link

[im10ashus]

38. I still can't believe that yesterday it was a "40% voter turnout"

or whatever, and that's a record. This always disappoints me, as I've voted in every primary and general election since I was eligible to vote. 40% is to low to be a record, IMHO.

Thanks for posting and thanks for keeping things relatively civil during these tense times.

:yourock:

[PegDAC]

45. I just heard that it was 50%. N/t

[im10ashus]

48. That's great then.

I just wish all American's took advantage of the process. But I know that's asking too much.

:shrug:

[femrap]

72. And this is a percentage of

Registered Voters....think of all of those who are NOT even registered. It makes me sick and sad to think that people don't participate in their democracy.

When I find someone who has not voted or registered, I tell 'em they might like to live in China where they're not allowed to vote.

[Turn CO Blue]

70. One reason is that they don't let Indys vote in primaries

and for some reason many people do not want to declare (as in my state, a huge percentage are registered as Independent.)

Another is that many people just can't seem to plan their day for a stop at the precinct. I read somewhere that the vast majority of divorcee's and single-mothers do not vote simply because they are too busy with all of their responsibilities.

Needless to say, I am a huge fan of the national voting holiday!

[dalaigh lllama]

79. Indys get to vote in MO primaries

I'm registered independent, and we just say whether we want a republican or democratic ballot when we go in.
Can't understand why indys can't do that all over. :shrug:

[yellowdogmi]

87. I like the idea of a

national voting holiday too. Of course I also wish they allowed kegs at the polling places too.
:patriot:

[shimmergal]

104. Another thing that helps is

early voting. We have it here in Nevada--about two weeks' worth of days beforehand with voting possible at malls, libraries, groceries etc. It's great, because you can vote at a time & place that's more convenient than trying to squeeze it into one busy workday.

[rhett o rick]

54. Democracy is tough. A lot of hard work. Life as a repub is easy, few

choices, few decisions. Democrats fight, that helps democracy. Primaries are a good place to get choices w/o them we would be republicans. Eeeew!

Peace

[Richard Steele]

10. Very well put! K&R

[MazeRat7]

11. Just one more "crazy, out-of-touch, extreme librul" that says.. hell yes!!

[Dr Fate]

12. Thanx Old Bossman- I'll keep today's gloating to a minimum. n/t

n/t

[ChairmanAgnostic]

14. that bile in back of throat feeling must be contagious. me, too.

Although I will never get over the fact that Al Gore picked this ass.

I agree, too, that every time the GOP tries to paint us as out of touch extremists, we should return the favor in spades.
no more polite discourse with a bunch of lunatic, war-mongering, neocons who seek world war.

[PassingFair]

52. "I will never get over the fact that Al Gore picked this ass. "

And Al Gore unceremoniously UNPICKED that ass
in '04 by supporting Dean early and earnestly.

I think LIEberman was forced on Gore by
his handlers.

Don't you?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

56. yes, and I phrased it poorly.

THe more I get to know about Al Gore, the more impressed I am.
Would that he had done then what he is doing now. This tells me a couple of things,
including,

Bill Clinton was lucky to have him
he was a hell of a VP
He is a hell of a guy working on one of the most critically important issues for the entire world.
he got some very bad advice about how to run his campaign for president
the inner circle of Dem "advisers, political consultants and election experts" are so inept and incapable, not to mention out of the loop, while being stuck in the bloatway, that not one single democratic candidate should ever consider hiring them again.

that includes Donna, Lanny and many others.

[Inspired]

63. Yes, he was forced.

I've heard that Gore's choice was a freshman from North Carolina who impressed everyone by his performance in the Clinton impeachment hearings. His name was John Edwards.

[kenfrequed]

100. I would usually agree.

The caste of handlers and "professionals" often seem to push for moderation and timidity as a rule. Often they seem more concerned about making a candidate as inoffensive as possible rather than getting a message out and making some noise.

However, in this case I don't think Gore's campaign people had as much sway with who would be picked, as did certain aspects of the party establishment and the ever-monied DLC. And we must take into consideration the time period; he party was still following the moderation ubber alles thing staking out the "middle" a mistake made after the mid-nineties 'Republican Revolution.'

[Cleita]

15. Thanks Skinner. In the glass half full side of the debate, it

used to be really hard to criticize Lieberman here while he was still a Democrat. Now we won't have to tip toe anymore about what we put up about him.

[Skinner]

16. To be fair...

...it wasn't that difficult to criticize Lieberman here on DU. Plenty of people had no difficulty at all doing so, and were not shy about doing it.

[Cleita]

20. Yeah, but there were the Joe sycophants with the trigger ready

alert button fingers if you didn't word your post just so. Fortunately I think most of them got tombstoned. I got one or two posts deleted when we debated Joe backing the IWR days so I'm hoping I don't have to be so PC anymore.

[Skinner]

23. Here's a little unsolicited advice.

Opponents of Joe Lieberman would still be wise to think before posting.

I have seen some extremely vile things written about him here on DU which have earned the authors a quick tombstone. Those who think it is now okay to post such things are in for a rude awakening.

[Cleita]

26. You won't have to worry about that from me.

I would post only what I think needs to be said about him for the information of other DUers. What I did say in the past was that Joe wasn't supporting the Democrats like he should and was voting in the Senate like a Republican. I don't consider that vile but the truth that needed to be said. I was attacked visciously about that.

I pretty much stay out of the election threads anyway, because I believe we have to support all the candidates including our preferred one because we may have to vote for the other candidate in the end. Hell, I have to vote for Dianne Feinstein again this November and I have only slightly more esteem for her than I do Joe Lieberman.

[ScreamingMeemie]

36. On the other hand, I saw a post of mine deleted the other night

for using the word bullshit from what I can tell, in a forum that tosses the f word around like salad. It was describing the post, not the poster. I have seen the sly and the slick feel as if they are getting away with something. I must say I was stunned.

That said, and that post aside, I think Admins and mods are doing a good job at maintaining civil discourse.

[cali]

18. Now that's the laugh of the day

you have things neatly reversed; it's those who supported Lieberman who were treated disgustingly.

[Cleita]

22. I'm so happy that I'm able to provide you with so many

laughs this week. It's unfortunate that when we criticize a candidate that their supporters take it personally. You really gotta chill and look upon the debate as exactly what it is, differences of opinion.

[Skinner]

24. I'm going to nip this sub-thread in the bud right now.

Thanks.

[cali]

29. Sorry Skinner.

I didn't read your nip in the bud post, before I shot off my not very civil retort.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[Zensea]

17. I don't understand not being fond of primaries

It's part of the democratic process and a welcome change from the backroom deals from not so long ago.

Other than that I agree with your post.

on edit, I see you addressed this in your post 13 response to madfloridian.

[Annces]

19. sounds good to me

Let the politicians know they are beholden to their constituents interests.

[RandomKoolzip]

21. Great post, man.

The fact that someone may have supported a different candidate than you in the primary is not indicative of some deep-seeded character flaw, and it does not make that person your mortal enemy.

Definitely something everyone on DU should take to heart.

:thumbsup:

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. Thanks Skinner

It needed to be said.

[xchrom]

28. i will add my thanks to you, skinner -- on several different levels.

first for your about the lamont/liberman race -- they were wll thought out and refelcted well on your commitment to the democratic party.

and my thanks to you for democratic underground.

i wish the leaders of the democratic party had your vision -- but as you say -- that's politics.

however you are playing a very important role in reinvigorating the party at the street level -- and i hope you can appreciate the important and constructive role you're playing.

that's my third thanks to you --

so thank you.

[TygrBright]

30. Hey, Skinner, do ya think we can find 4-5 other rightward-leaning...

...zombies to declare Independent candidate status and siphon votes from ol' Joementum?

experimentally,
Bright

[byronius]

31. Damn, I love this place. Rip-roarin' or Head-Hurtin' --

I live here. Democratic The Underground. It's The Informaton.

[Bretttido]

32. Great to hear Skinner!

I'm glad to see that Democratic Underground will not give free campaign time to supporters of Lieberman, who has shown he clearly does not respect democratic principles. Let him fork over his war-chest money if he wants the banner-space! :toast:

[proud patriot]

33. Understood

Thanks Skinner :hi:

[gully]

34. "Lieberman lost any goodwill he might have had from me when he declared

his intention to run as an independent ------"

Exactly Skinner and grown ups understand that.

And most of all, I hope that everyone here will keep in mind that the elections in November are not about Joe Lieberman or Ned Lamont. The November elections are about increasing the number of Democrats in elected offices around the country. The Connecticut U.S. Senate race is only one campaign out of many.

Indeed it is. Let's not forget that McKinney was also "ousted" from office yesterday.

[Raydawg1234]

51. Lieberman lost my goodwill when he said that we shouldn't question

our commander in cheif in a time of war.

[NovaNardis]

35. I think that part of the reason

that Senate Democrats especially are hesitant to support Lamont over Lieberman is that they consider Joe Lieberman a personal friend. While it is clear he lost the election fair and square, it is hard to put personal feelings aside. So I give some people the benefit of the doubt in being unwilling to go against Joe. However, that doesn't mean they should be supporting anyone other than Lamont as a public head in the Democratic party. Personally, they are allowed to feel otherwise, but publicly they must support Lamont.

[tulip]

37. Thank you, thank you, thank you

"And most of all, I hope that everyone here will keep in mind that the elections in November are not about Joe Lieberman or Ned Lamont. The November elections are about increasing the number of Democrats in elected offices around the country. The Connecticut U.S. Senate race is only one campaign out of many."

I am ssooooooooooooo with you on this one.

[Zomby Woof]

39. Lieberman lost his chance to be a statesman

And with it, he will never again hold any credibility with me. I gave him a pass on a lot because of his pro-choice, pro-environmental, and pro-labor stances - but with his longstanding support of Bush on the Iraq debacle... well, it wasn't that hard to say goodbye, Joe. You are a schmuck forevermore.

I understand what you mean about the primaries. Here in California, the Democratic gubernatorial primary was brutal and awful. Angelides is weakened in his run to oust Schwarzenegger, and is trailing the incumbent in the polls and fundraising. I am pinning a lot of hopes for the congressional races though.

Your thoughts are spot on, and sensible to the end.

[flamingyouth]

40. Thanks, Skinner

:)

[NewJeffCT]

42. Lieberman's independent run was a moment of clarity for me, too

While I was never happy with Lieberman's support of the war and his calling out of Demcorats who criticize the president was awful... but, I thought money & energy could have been better spent supporting our 3 Democratic challengers in CT House races.

However, when he announced he would gather signatures for a possible independent run, it was the Kiss of Death for me.

[Der Blaue Engel]

43. Well said, but I disagree on this point:

"Do not count on party big guns to go to Connecticut and pull out all the stops for Ned. Their tepid endorsements are all he is going to get."

I think they will. That's my prediction. Boxer has already offered to do so. I think Lieberman has lost the support of most Democrats for his divisive stunt. I think he has stepped over the "gentleman's agreement" line in politics, and they will not take it kindly.

[hvn_nbr_2]

47. Some will, some won't

I think we could have predicted that Boxer, Pelosi, and some others would support Lamont. Some others, we could have predicted would go the other way, and some may or may already have surprised some of us.

IT WILL ALL CHANGE AS TIME AND CONDITIONS CHANGE. A couple of months of being ambiguous about supporting their party's official candidate will more and more stick in the craws of real Dems. If polls start to show a close divide in the Senate and if Rove keeps cozying up to Joe, Dems will start to shift to supporting their party's candidate and will also start to do more than lip service to that support. But if polls show a clear Dem control of the Senate or no way for Dem control, the DLC wimps, enablers, and appeasers will continue to be as they have been.

[PassingFair]

58. Schumer

snip>>>Schumer explained that there were degrees of independence: "You can run as an independent, you can run as an independent Democrat who pledges to vote for Harry Reid as Majority Leader."


What says the DSCC head now?

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/06/14/dscc_would_support_indy_bid_by_lieberman.html

[DallasNE]

44. Kudos Skinner

You are so right that the November election is not about Joe Lieberman no matter how much he thinks it is.

The guns need to be turned on the Bush administration. Just today Bush spokesman Tony Snow called Ned Lamont a reincarnation of Neville Chamberlain. For shame. Tony needs to answer why Bush did nothing when on August 6, 2001 he received a PDB stating "bin Laden determined to strike inside the US", thus green lighting bin Laden's plan for the 9/11 attacks. Tony also needs to explain why Condi Rice and Bush decided to ignore the Hart-Rudman report that outlined a number of urgent steps, including increased airport security, that this country needed to take as defensive measures against a terrorist attack.

The snakes on the right hide in the grass until the time is right for a strike -- as demonstrated by Snow today. Let's not lose sight of that and who the real enemy is.

[Swamp Rat]

46. AMEN brother!!

:kick:

[what now toons]

49. Big Baby Lie-berman-RINO

The Big Baby is now joining Ralph Nader as a spoiler with Republican funding. This LOOSER must be stripped of all his Democratic seats. He sits on many Democratic boards and must be completely removed, ASAP spread the word no more R.I.N.O.'s
www.whatnowtoons.com

[JanusAscending]

105. I think you meant DINO dear!

Will use this post to say THANK YOU SKINNER !!

[WhollyHeretic]

50. The worst part of his speech last night was Lieberman calling himself

an "Independent Democrat." He has no right to use the title of Democrat anymore, he basically flipped off all democratic voters last night by ignoring how the Democratic membership voted.

[paulk]

53. I agree with most everything you say - but one point I'd like

to make -

A Lieberman/Lamont race is, in many ways, the worst case scenario. Now the Democratic Party will have to put money into a campaign that was a lock for them - a lock in what should be our number one goal this fall - taking back Congress. That should also be the goal of DU - so I can't agree with your hint at donating to the Lamont campaign.

IMHO - Any money sent to Lamont would be far better spent helping to unseat a Republican in your home state.

[bigwillq]

55. Awesome post Skinner.

:hi:

I like hearing your position, vision and opinion on the big topics.
You always have that knack to really put things in perspective when the DU gets a little nutty, giddy, excited, encouraged, etc....all of which are good things but I can always count on you for a reality check.

Thanks for everything you do here. :hi:

[rhett o rick]

57. Skinner, did you ever get a response from Sen Schumer?? nm

[democrank]

59. Thanks for your thoughts, Skinner

and thanks for DU. This place means a lot to me. I hope Democrats will be able to iron out any differences and come together before the mid-terms.

[Redstone]

60. Damn right. I've been a registered indepent all my voting life (except to

be a Republican for a Day to vote against bushyboy in the 2000 primary, and to be a Democrat for a Day to vote for Lamont), but I detest traitors.

I detest traitors, and I detest politicians who put their own self-interest before not only that of the party that got them to where they were, but their constituency.

Fuck you, Joe. Just go the fuck away, would you?

Redstone

[WhollyHeretic]

66. I've always been a registered independent

I registered as a democrat to vote for Lamont. I am sickened by the way Lieberman crapped on the will of the democratic membership.

[savemefromdumbya]

61. Lamont is the Democratic candidate period

and he will win the race. The more people that let the Lieberman thing fossilize the sooner the better.

[fernsibal]

62. the kiss of death

I heard it said on the radio today that this Connecticut primary wasn't as much a vote against Lieberman as a vote against Bush. Randi Rhodes says "that famous kiss from Bush was the kiss of death".

Also, I believe we should give Gore some credit for choosing as his running mate the first Jewish person ever. Link of interest re. religious affiliations of veeps: http://www.adherents.com/gov/adh_vp.html

Lastly, one of the things I hate most about the Repugs is how they're in lockstep behind Cheney/Bush, but this "party loyalty" is also what makes them so successful.I feel a little uncomfortable criticizing Liverman for switching parties, and not having any "party loyalty" when I can see the negative results of such loyalty. But I think it's not party loyalty Liverman lacks, it's that he doesn't support Democratic principles.

[Laurab]

64. Nicely said, Skinner

Although I was not a fan of Lieberman's, he lost any possible respect he could have had from me when he announced his intention to run against the Democratic primary winner. If I were a member of the Senate, I wouldn't believe anything the guy said, really. Sure, he "says" he'll vote with the Dems, but will he really?

Any integrity he had is gone, and I think it would be wise for his fellow senators to support Lamont wholeheartedly, without reservation. If Lieberman is talking to Karl Rove, the dems should run away from him as fast as they can.

I hope someone, somewhere can talk some sense into the man, but it's doubtful, particularly if he's talking to Rove, so it's going to have to be the dems in Connecticut who do the talking on Election Day, and I hope to God they do - and loudly.

[aasleka]

68. joe

"I wouldn't believe anything the guy said, really."

Yup Joe will do whats good for Joe. Dump him now from his committees and offer him a job elsewhere.

[tlsmith1963]

65. Finally!

Something good happened for our side! When I woke up this morning, I was afraid that I was going to hear that Lieberman won. After all, that's the way that things usually go for our side lately. How nice it was to hear that we didn't have bad news this time. And the fact that Lieberman is Jewish had nothing to do with why I wanted him out. He seemed too loyal to the extremist wing of the Republican party. If he had sided with the moderate conservatives who want the neocons & fundies to stop controlling their party, I might have cut him some slack. But he hangs out with the biggest wackos in the country, & the company a person keeps says a lot about them.

Tammy

[AwakeAtLast]

67. Your post is indicitive of why I love your site

You always show that you take the time to think about every side and calmly but succinctly state your case. Thank you, Skinner. I look forward to a very good November 2006 election with you and the other Admins. at the helm!

:hi:

[JerseygirlCT]

69. Thanks, Skinner. That's a great post! nt

[Sparkly]

71. Yes!! Thoughtful and fair.

And right on target. :hi:

[femrap]

73. More than anything, the 2006 Election is about

getting SUBPOENA POWER!!!

[Botany]

74. Horse Sense?

[onehandle]

75. You make too much sense for a DUer.

C'mon. Start howling about Israel and Catholics.

They're to blame for that bad bagel you were served last week.



Democratic Unity in the Fall, Bitches!

[itzamirakul]

76. Thank you for making your position on this clear...

A couple of us have been talking about starting an on-going letter writing campaign to defend ourselves as Democrats to the media news shows and its pundits who insist on painting us with a broad brush and villifying every positive thing that we do.

Since it appears that none of our legislators is willing to step out on a limb and refute these lies, we belive that a massive letter campaign cannot be ignored.

It would be helpful if we could post a permanent list of contact info for the major network and cable news stations...perhaps in one of the existing Topic Forums. Sample letters can be posted that DUers could cut and paste on email forms or original letters could be written. But the idea is to flood the stations with our complaints the same as do the Republicans who have organized letter writing groups.

I belong to the NY Meet Up group for Dems and I would certainly try to get that group involved as well as family and friends and hope that other DUers would do the same.

At least we would be doing SOME kind of activist work while it appears that our legislators are sitting on their hands. It can only help and also relieve some of the frustration that many of us feel about the stagnant position we find ourselves in.

[Skinner]

78. Your wish is my command...

National Media List:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1903

State-by-state links to Local Media:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1624

[itzamirakul]

82. Thank you so much! Now we can begin to encourage support

and participation from our fellow DUers. There can no longer be an excuse for not contacting the media since the necessary info is right at hand.

[LoZoccolo]

77. Question: I am behind Lamont as the Democratic nominee...

...however, you have probably caught on by now that I am a moderate, and did support Lieberman for a long time. I probably have more to say about the nature of this primary, the way things played out, and it's implications for the future of our party, than the candidates themselves: would this be permissible subject matter? The criticisms I have do not reflect on Lamont (who I have found to be very likeable and fair) nor his official campaign, so I would not be impugning him as a good candidate.

[Skinner]

81. Sounds like a perfectly appropriate thing to write about.

And the way you present it in this post seems quite thoughtful. Go for it.

(But if you plan to troll around and post flame bait about the primary, or about other people on this website, that's another issue entirely...)

[RoyGBiv]

83. Cheering him on ...

I have to this point remained entirely out of this fray, primarily because I have, will have, and should not have any voice in the election of a Senator from Connecticut. Up front, I can't say I preferred Lamont entirely. His positions on certain issues close to me are, at best, uncertain, but at worst, completely opposed. These positions are largely based around technology and copyright law, but unlike some who support or condemn a candidate based on one issue, I'm not going to declare I dislike Lamont simply because of that. In the end, the two Democratic candidates from Connecticut were a wash for me. One held a position on several issues I do not support. The other held positions on other issues I do not support. As you say, though, Lieberman's declaring his intent to run as an Independent opened my eyes to what was really at stake. Lieberman, in my view, is not a Democrat, never has been except in name, and as of now, is The Enemy.

No wonder Republicans are enthusiastically cheering him on.

My main point in commenting here, though, is to take a stab at this. I've seen commentary about Republicans and other nutjobs coming out in support of Lieberman, and I've seen massive discussions unfold, with most of the replies merely focusing on condemnations of our current favorite person to hate rather than an examination of why this might be so. Lieberman is *not* a Republican and the vast majority of the time has not voted in a manner even a traditional Republican could consider proper. Republicans, in other words, have absolutely no intention of *voting* for Lieberman, but they will damn sure support him.

And this odd, unexplainable ignorance seems to have come over people in their wondering why. People claim it's because he's really a Republican. That's dumb. People claim it's because he stood by Bush in his stance on the Iraq war. That is also dumb. Republicans are supporting Lieberman because they know, from hard lessons, that propping up Lieberman splits the Democratic vote in November. I almost feel stupid for mentioning this. It is such a no-brainer. Lieberman running as an independent means Lamont loses in the general, one way or another. I'm typically more pragmatic about such things, and I do hope I am completely full of it, but I cannot see any other outcome in this race. We either lose the seat, or it will be held by a person who has abandoned the Democratic Party.

I have hated watching this race. My hat is off to Lamont and the throngs of individuals who pushed for the result last night. I am happy he won the primary. Lieberman, however, has exposed a large part of what is wrong with our election system, based on two parties and chosen through primaries. "The People" have a voice that is an illusion. Being an illusion, politicians like Lieberman don't hear it.

[Skinner]

85. Well said.

I think you nailed it.

[sandnsea]

84. Good analysis

Although I don't think there were more than 5 people here who supported Lieberman and I also think that if Lamont can avoid Dean's foot shooting that people will respond to his message and others across the country will pick it up and the national party will go where the votes are in the end. Between the war, Katrina, stagnant wages, health care costs, and energy prices - people are getting more than a wake up call on the simple fact that Republicanism doesn't work. Very different than 2002 or 2004. Whichever Democrat that can make that case effectively will be the next Dem President. The ones that remain oblivious will be vulnerable in 2008. It'll be interesting, provided Lamont doesn't end up footless.

[aaronbees]

86. An eloquent call for reconciliation....

and focusing on what's important. Thanks for saying that, man. :)

[lonestarnot]

88. Don't use our bandwidth to support any candidate that is running against a

Democrat in a general election." Here! Here!

[orleans]

89. nicely put. thanks skinner. n/t

[rumpel]

90. Thank you, Skinner

for expressing what I could not.

Lieberman can start a new party if he so choses, and I just wish him well. I do not agree with him for saying that people with differing opinions (while it appears to be the majority) are hijacking the party and ask that he take that back.

[txaslftist]

91. this is it exactly, Skinner:

"But Joe Lieberman lost any goodwill he might have had from me when he declared his intention to run as an independent if he were to lose the primary. Seeing as Joe Lieberman did not feel bound by any notion of party loyalty, neither was I. It was a moment of clarity for me and (apparently) for a lot of other Democrats. Whatever lip-service he gave to the idea of doing what's best for the country, for Connecticut, or for the Democratic party was shown to be just that -- lip-service. The truth is that Joe does what's best for Joe."

Exactly right.

[AntiFascist]

92. Here, here !

(or is it hear, hear?)

at any rate, Lieberman's decision to leave the Democratic party can only mean one thing: that his personal convictions are more important to him than Party loyalties. I feel that these convictions are dangerously intertwined with those which we all dread overlap both major parties: the neoconservative/neoliberal pro-war agenda which, many of us assume, is primarilly based on our need for securing cheap oil from the Middle East. Republican pundits may play up Lieberman's Jewish ties and his support of Israel, throwing that in our faces and calling us anti-Semitic, or worse, anti-American and crazy for not endorsing policies that they hope will lead to defeating terrorists in the Middle East. In actuality, many of us have seen that preemptive, aggressive war policies handled by a government which has no real war plan, other than placing faith in a warmongering god, can only lead to disappointment. Aggression can only lead to more counter-aggression and the radical changes brought about in the name of security are leading to changes in the Constitution which any real patriotic American should rise up against.

[Rainscents]

93. Great post, Skinner!

K&R!

[benny05]

95. First Dem to Congrat Ned was John Edwards

Well said, Skinner. Where I differ is that I do tend to support a candidate more than a party, but Joe L lost me a long time ago when he insisted in keeping his senate seat while running with Gore. This is very much about Joe's ego and not about our country.

I might add though it was Elizabeth Edwards who said in Iowa a couple of weeks ago about Lieberman's potential independent candidacy: "Let me clear: we cannot have this." So, Skinner, you are echoing her thoughts.

[Jim Lane]

96. A contrarian view: The role of the blogosphere

Skinner wrote: The progressive blogosphere deserves a great deal of credit for Lamont's victory, and in particular I tip my hat to the bloggers who have been behind the Lamont campaign since the beginning. Obviously, the blogs provided extremely important early support for Lamont that made his campaign possible ....

Skinner's comment reflects what seems to be the online consensus, but I have my doubts about whether bloggers deserve "a great deal of credit", let alone whether they "made his campaign possible".

My understanding is that there was, not surprisingly, considerable dissatisfaction with Lieberman among Connecticut Democrats. Various people tried to recruit a candidate and/or considered running themselves. Lamont emerged as the consensus challenger. One factor was his personal fortune, which he could spend on his own campaign but couldn't contribute to someone else's.

Once he entered the race, he certainly received much favorable attention online. Because of the blogosphere, he was known to and cheered on by many progressives outside Connecticut. But what impact did that have on the race?

Presumably, some swing voters in Connecticut were somewhat influenced in Lamont's favor by what they read online. The blogosphere also generated some donations. I just don't see any reason to be confident that either of these factors was significant.

Perhaps the online excitement over Lamont's candidacy helped to influence the media coverage. Perhaps there were more stories about him because journalists knew that he was being touted as a hero in the blogosphere. Here again, though, I don't see any reason to think that he actually did get more or better coverage because of bloggers.

There's probably some post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking at work: Bloggers supported Lamont, Lamont won, so he must have won because of the bloggers' support.

Yes, I know that there was a lot of bandwidth devoted to Lamont. I'd be very interested to hear people's thoughts about what specific link there was between that bandwidth and the actual votes cast on Tuesday.

[Skinner]

98. I think you missed my point. Perhaps I was not clear.

I was trying to make the point that the apparent consensus about the role of the blogosphere was only part of the story, and probably overstates their influence. After your elipsis, I said this:

...but I don't think he could have won the primary if his campaign was a bloggers-only phenomenon. Lamont won because he was able to put together a campaign and a message that appealed to a majority of Connecticut Democrats -- and even brought thousands of new voters into the Democratic fold.

It is my belief that bloggers can give candidates an important boost in the form of money and buzz, both of which help to create the appearance among potential supporters, party activists, and the media that a candidate has a real chance. But bloggers don't win elections -- good candidates with well-run campaigns and a compelling message win elections. It is my belief that the vast, vast majority of primary voters most likely never read a blog and probably could not even name one.

[Jim Lane]

103. OK, I think I missed half your point.

I took it as self-evident that bloggers can't elect a Senator all by themselves. You think, though, that some bloggers do believe that, or believe something close to it, and you were trying to bring them back to reality. That much of your post is certainly true. I may well have underestimated the extent of self-delusion in the blogosphere, which is why I didn't pay much attention to your refutation of it.

Despite your limited contrarianism, however, you do reassert that "bloggers can give candidates an important boost in the form of money and buzz...." I'm not sure that even that much is correct.

What would've happened in Connecticut this year if the Internet didn't even exist? I think the course of events would've been pretty much the same. The widespread antiwar sentiment, along with other sources of progressives' dissatisfaction with Lieberman, would've resulted in a primary challenger. I'm guessing that there was a fair amount of informal communication among the "Joe must go" Democrats, so that they coalesced behind one candidate instead of splitting their votes. That one candidate, Lamont, was still far behind in the polls even after getting the blogosphere buzz. He turned it around because he was able to reach the voters -- partly because he had the money for paid media (much of it from his own fortune), and partly because he had a compelling message that helped him get free media.

I don't know how much of Lamont's funding was blog-generated. (I think MoveOn.org channeled about $250,000 to his campaign. I'd count that as netroots money even if it's not blogosphere money.) Certainly, Dean and others have shown that the Internet can be a powerful fundraising tool. Unfortunately, however, the current state of our campaign-finance laws means that a wealthy candidate can support his own campaign in amounts that dwarf what's available online. No one can accuse Lamont of "buying" a race in the style of Mike Bloomberg. In fact, I think that Lieberman outspent Lamont. Still, it's disheartening that a non-millionaire in Connecticut probably couldn't have pulled this off, blogosphere buzz or no.

Anyone who wants to help prove that Skinner is right and I'm wrong about the power of the netroots to help a non-millionaire against a pro-war incumbent can hustle on over to Jonathan Tasini's website and contribute or volunteer!

[Skinner]

106. I don't think we actually disagree that much.

I think that Tasini's lackluster performance is fully consistent with what we are both saying.

[Cassandra]

97. Alec Guiness's character in Bridge on the River Kwai.

I was suddenly reminded of this by Lieberman, who seems so wrapped up in feeding his ego and doing what's proper that he doesn't realize that he's aiding the enemy. Unlike that character, I don't expect Lieberman to come to his senses at the last minute.

[Evergreen Emerald]

99. "Staying silent will only hurt our party in the long run."

Most of our elected officials have sat in silence while Bush pushed for his war, picked radical ideologues for the Supreme Court, rolled back generations of environmental laws, and attacked our Constitution (to name a few). I do not expect them to suddenly stand up and speak. They disappoint me.

[IronLionZion]

101. This is for the best IMHO

I'm glad that Ned won the party's nomination, and therefore he will have the full support of the party and all their resources and will likely win the election.

Joe is well within his rights to run as an indie. Many of the people who are so against his indie run are the same ones who support and vote for indies and third parties against Democrats like Joe.

All polls at this time show that in a 3-way race, the republican fellow comes in last. Therefore the election will be between Ned and Joe, and that's a good choice IMHO. That's much better than what other states have to choose from. In PA, if Casey doesn't win, we'll be stuck with sick rick for 6 more years. Last time I checked, both Ned and Joe are pro-choice.

[nasher]

108. I don't support Lieberman, Nader or anyone else who wants to defeat

the better Democratic candidate. Yes, they have a right to run, but I don't support them.

[quiet.american]

102. I don't know about the "Lieberman/hard-fought campaign" stuff.

From what I could see, Lieberman sat on his duff laughing off Lamont until it became clear his back was up against the wall, then panic hit and it was "bring on the smears and dirty tricks" time.

But the rest is well said.

[AX10]

107. k&r Skinner!

:kick:

:dem:

[kcwayne]

109. I remember getting posts deleted 3 years ago

when I pointed out that Lieberman was not a Democrat, and that his support for Republican positions was outrageous. The posts were deleted because the rules of the board were that Democrats should not be attacked. It was of no avail to point out that Lieberman repeatedly proved he wasn't a Democrat. How times have changed, even though Lieberman hasn't.