Joementum

Stray thoughts on Connecticut:

Lieberman loses, files the paperwork to run as an independent.  But what will his party do?  Here is the Times:

Mr. Lieberman’s determination to remain in the race may soon collide with the will of many Democratic leaders in Washington and Connecticut. The Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, and Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, who is leading the effort to elect more Democrats in November, were expected to announce this morning that they were supporting Mr. Lamont and that the party should unite around the nominee, according to Democrats close to both men. A spokesman for Mr. Schumer said a statement would be forthcoming, but declined further comment.

“Reid and Schumer will back Lamont, but the big question is if they will approach Joe about dropping out, because they don’t want to get his back up against the wall,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide who was involved in the Reid-Schumer discussions but was not authorized to discuss them publicly.

"[T]hey don’t want to get his back up against the wall" - when you ain't got nothing, you've got nothing to lose, and right now, all Lieberman has is a Senate seat, a shot at an independent run (with tacit Republican support), and an alternative life on the speaking/book tour circuit.  He has promised, like Jeffords, to vote as a Dem on Senate organizational issues such as majority leader and chairmanships, but maybe Joe is looking for love (and money, and senior committee assignments) on the other side of the aisle.

Meanwhile, Kos displays his skill as a political strategist with the suggestion that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid should be pushed to "strip Lieberman of all committee assignments."  Uh huh.  If that forced Joe to switch parties [presumably *after* the election], the guy who is "all about winning" would have managed to tilt the Connecticut Senate seat from Automatic Blue to highly competitive.

More from Kos in a "winners and losers" analysis:

LOSERS: Republicans... If they really thought Lieberman losing was such a bad thing for the Democratic Party they wouldn't have gone out of their way to prop him up. Instead, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, the wingnutosphere, several Republican congresscritters, and the GOP's Big Money all rallied around their man. This is not a happy day for them.

Really?  Speaking only for myself, I am always deeply concerned when a businessmen worth a quarter-billion rises to power and prominence as a champion of the progressives.  But I may be a minority; "Machiavel" at Red State explained (and I agreed) a few days back that regardless of the Lamont-Lieberman outcome it was all good for BushCo:

Up until now, I was genuinely undecided on who I wanted to win the CT-SEN primary. A Lieberman loss would be great for us nationally, pushing the Democrats even further off a cliff. However, a Lieberman win would be a huge netroots defeat in a race they've thrown everything at. And that could quite possibly spark the mainstream meme that Kos is a has-been on the decline.

After weighing all these factors, I have tentatively come to the conclusion that Ned Lamont and the netroots need to be victorious next Tuesday.

I should add that Machiavel and I do not score any bonus points for creativity - Hotline's round-up features a number of happy righties.

On this point, Micky Kaus notes the "waddya gonna do" response from Markos, to wit, "The DSCC and the DCCC will have to deal with the fact that this race will continue to suck oxygen from great pickup opportunities."

(Editorial aside to Mickey - the "suck oxygen" quote comes from the Kos post titled  "Lieberman to go indy"; his "Winners and Losers" post, which you describe as non-meglomaniacal, includes this gem as the second winner (after Lamont himself):

Winners: People-powered politics... Tonight we saw that people-power is not just a Montana phenomenon but a national one, and it can move mountains.

And Kos predicted it!  Any meglomania there?)

In addition to "Winners and Losers", let me suggest "Easy Marks" for this bit of gullibility:

Winners

Hillary, Bayh, and Edwards, who moved most aggressively to embrace Lamont after the winner was called.

What did Hillary do to win Kos' love?  Per this post, she sent Lamont's campaign $5,000, as if either his campaign or hers needed the money.  Well, if that is all it takes to buy off the dogs, it was money well spent, but I am going to wait to see whether Ms. Clinton puts her mouth where her money is.  (Aside - one never knows with these activist blogs.  Is Kos that credulous, or does he simply hope to promote the illusion that Hillary is on board and the "Sink Joe" ship is sailing?  Who can tell?)

Last thought, on the possible hacking of Lieberman's website - Brandon Loy had thoughts here and here, and I will extract this:

Anyway, here is Lamont’s official statement:

If Senator Lieberman’s website was indeed hacked, we had absolutely no part in it, denounce the action, and urge whoever is responsible cease and desist immediately. It is our sincerest wish that everyone planning to vote for Ned Lamont or Joe Lieberman does so today.

Can’t argue with that. Now if only Kos had the same degree of integrity, and would apologize for his totally unsubstantiated and unjustifiable smear against the Lieberman campaign, claiming that their whole DoS story is a lie and that really they just didn’t pay their bills. For shame, Kos.

Lamont, who doesn't know anything about the blogs, at least had a reasonable idea - denounce the action, complete with an "IF" to encompass the possibility that the real cause may lie elsewhere.

By contrast, the netroots, born at the intersection of internet technology and activist politics, can't even imagine that this might be a tech-savvy dirty trick.

Folks like Kos and Armstong ought to denounce this behavior on a hypothetical basis, as their candidate did.  However, having lain down with dogs, Lamont is thoroughly flea-bitten - he won't be exerting any control or providing any leadership for his "supporters" on this point, and they are clearly unable or unwilling to do so themselves.

FWIW, the obvious predictions are (1) we will see a lot more of this come November, since hack attacks seem to carry zero consequences within the community that *might* be the source of the behavior.  The only consequence so far has been some unfavorable press; my impression is that the FBI has a hard time cracking these cases, so I am not expecting much from the investigation.

And (2) if the Kos site, or the site of some Dem candidate gets hacked this fall (which I herewith deplore in advance), Kos and Company will have forfeited any and all moral authority to complain.  Not that an absence of credibility has ever kept them quiet before.

MORE:  Justin Rood of TPM Muckrakers is actually covering this, but would he follow the trail to a bitter end?

Apparently, the web folks working for Lieberman were involved with Kerry's 2004 site, and the claim to be paying about $150/month for hosting, not the $15/mo being bandied about by the "say-anything" crowd.

Comments

[Semanticleo]

A note on the tremendous push (both ft/lbs of
human energy and cash) to unmake the Connecticut DINO;

It takes about 500 hp to get a three-ton flywheel from zero to 10, but only about
15 hp to keep it moving.

The inside game of DNC is a triple-tide
that makes it a formidible force to set
on reverse.

For several years now WingNut Nation has been working on moving the 50 yard-line
to the 30. How much manpower and resources
did that take? Hegel's dialectic requires
the pendulum to swing to and fro, but he
has no timeline for when the swing begins
it's return. Let's get things back to the middle, that's what this is about.

[larwyn]

On FNC now Bob Beckel says turnout was historical and that Dem turnout in Nov will be massive.

Cal Thomas says the "taliban wing" has taken over. Message is "you better not deviate from the fundamentalist line". "Rove is salivating".

Beckel say Lieberman will run as Indy and win and caucus with the DEMS.

"caucus with the Dems"??? after he is thrown off all the committees if the "taliban wing" has way.

On CNN "86% are against the war"
"shivers thru every Republican in Congress" "comming of age of new force" said Bill Schneider*(?)

*Whenever I see Schneider and Eleanor Cliff and some others, I cannot help but think of cold war movies that portray those "trials" of the Communist Party enemies.
Can't you just cast them as one of the watchers assigned to every ship, school and neighborhood in the utopia of the USSR and East Germany?

So according to CNN's political analyst that 86% of American "voters" will join the new
rising wing of the "taliban party".

According to CNN's meme we are not to worry about Islamic terrorism and we should jaw, jaw with them.
Cut to alert: FBI looking for 11 Egyptians.

[Appalled Moderate]

Everything will depend on Lieberman not looking like a sore loser and a whiner. (That confounded sanctimonious bent of his is going to work against him in this.)

How does Lieberman play this? Not enough "real" Democrats voted in the primary, so this is a phony result? Does he go all populist and decry money in politics? Why should TM trust the political instincts of a three-time loser?

Liberman will finish a distant second in November, unless the Democratic nominee really botches things.

The thing the Demos should reflect on is whether they really want their party run by a bunch of limosine liberals and silicon valley types advocating endless confrontation. If the GOP should get itself a politician with the skills of Reagan or Clinton, they will look very bad and very shrill and sooooo out of touch.

[SunnyDay]

Well, If Liebermans' site was down for 24 hours because of a DDOS attack, he needs a new hosting service - one that knows how to configure a server.

[topsecretk9]

I think Leiberman wins as an independent. And i think the money will pour in from all over now that he has an "I" next to his name.

Kos really defined the parameters of his effectiveness by feverishly blogging about the website hack and "Strip him of all committee assignments" Kos is only effective of boosting candidates and raising money, and that is it.

[Aaron Adams]

If Joe switched parties before the November election, he would doom any chance of success. CT votes may, out of loyalty to an old friend, continue to support Joe as an independent (although I personally doubt his campaign will succeed), but they will not support Joe as a Republican. So your theory that stripping Joe of committee assignments and the highly theoretical Joe jump to the other side of the aisle would make the race highly competitive for republican candidate Joe is silly.

I'll take Kos' demonstrated political instincts to your wishful thinking any day.

[The Unbeliever]

LOSERS: Republicans... If they really thought Lieberman losing was such a bad thing for the Democratic Party they wouldn't have gone out of their way to prop him up.

Oy, would somebody PLEASE lend the man a clue? A Lieberman loss is bad for the Dems because it forces the Dems to the left and lets the GOP paint the entire party with the Lamont/Kos/Hamsher brush, but that's merely a secondary issue. The real reason some on the right supported Lieberman is because a Lieberman loss is bad for the country in a time of war. Country over party, markos, or have you forgotten that little principle?

I swear, I don't know how kos has the chutzpah to call himself a political force if he can't even comprehend basic politics or the opposition's motivation.

[larwyn]

Oh my, they are really feeling their oats as reported by LGF:

The Protocols of the Daily Kos, Part 14
At the left’s premier “progressive” web site, Daily Kos, the Kidz take a short break from crowing over empty suit Ned Lamont to suggest that the US should “impose” a “solution” on Israel: Daily Kos: Why the US can impose a one-state solution on Israel-Palestine.

Why would we do that?

To appease the Arab terrorist groups who want to kill us, by throwing Israel to the wolves.

In my diary of yesterday, I proposed that our party support the creation of a single secular democracy in the area now controlled by Israel, and I was impressed by the quality of responses. Based on this tiny sample of 100 or so Democrats, I’m thinking that maybe the average Democratic voter might be open to taking a more impartial role in the Middle East - and thus making our country less of an object of hatred by Muslims everywhere.

The most common objections to such a proposal is that the two sides hate each other too much to stop the killing and that outside forces, like the USA, cannot impose a solution.

However, I think that the US, as the prime, and virtually the only, supplier for the Israeli Defense Force for the past many decades has the capacity to force a settlement simply by cutting off that support.

Ken Melhman should be capturing these policies as stated by the
"rising/comming of age" force taking over the DEM party.

If American Jews see this and still vote overwhelmingly for DEMOCRATS....(don't know how to end this sentence without using terms such as "death wish").

[ed]

Hmmmm.

1. Yet *another* Democrat richer by far than either Bush or Cheney.

Yet Republicans are the party of wealthy people?

2. Frankly I think this is the start of the final Democrat split. Either the moderates or the far left will leave and form a new party, or join the Republicans.

[Jane]

Lieberman spoke this morning and talked about how Americans have to understand that the war on terror is real, and not going away, and that we damn well better pay attention. Ned Lamont wants to cut and run, and that is not an option.

Tony Snow parroted those remarks this afternoon.

The 86% figure is a joke. The democrats are conflating the "cut and run" folks with the "let's get it done" folks. And that is a very dangerous bit of PR.

The president needs to emphasize and re-emphasize what is at stake here so that every single American understands it.

[Cecil Turner]

I'll take Kos' demonstrated political instincts to your wishful thinking any day.

[Snort] What's this make, 1 for 21? (And what if the upshot is to take a safe Dem seat and put it in play come November . . .? Can we retroactively put this one in the "loser" column?) Judging from the track record, Kos's political instincts are very beneficial . . . to Kos.

On the bigger issue, I'm having a hard time getting excited. The only way this has a national impact is if Lieberman wins as an independent and then decides not to toe the party line. Or if the anti-war sentiment generalizes into a nationwide groundswell. And I ain't tabulatin' any chickens on either 'count.

[Jane]

Yeah that kos is a wiz - his first victory is by defeating someone in his own party. Boy that is an accomplishment!

[larwyn]

CNN is reporting from Iraq that 2 "reporters" confirmed dead and identified. They go on to report
"that 135 "journalists" have been killed in Iraq.

CNN does not identify the two whose identities "have been released".

Tells us the CNN didn't want to say the names of these "reporters" - wonder why?

We can only hope that one is the SOB from AP who took the infamous photo of the shooting deaths of motorists some months ago.

[TexastToast]

Joementum’s campaign struck me as Stuart Smally- esque - "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me."

Unfortunately, the democratic voters of Connecticut didn’t seem to like this war very much. I’m sure its comforting to you guys to blame Joementum’s defeat on the unwashed netroots, but I really don’t think they won it as much as Jomentum’s position on the Iraq war lost it. After all, only an extreme minority of 55 to 60 percent of all registered voters nationally opposes the war and, of course, that support for George’s Excellent Adventure is even stronger among the democratic voters in Connecticut! ;-) .How else do you explain the forfeiture of the advantages of incumbency and seniority? Could that be less of an advantage this year? Ya think?

Tom has denigrated the influence of Kos et. al. on many occasions. Why, all of the sudden, is Kos representative of the Democratic Party? Who appointed him except, perhaps, himself? On the one hand, I have never been a believer in a "pure" Democratic Party. On the other hand, perhaps this war is a millstone.

Will this carry over in a less true blue environment? I guess we will find out.

[topsecretk9]

The defeat wasn't big enough. 48% of CT Dems. supported Lieberman!

Kos and Co. have done nothing but split a party and that is not an accomplishment.

[Cecil Turner]

I’m sure its comforting to you guys to blame Joementum’s defeat on the unwashed netroots, but I really don’t think they won it as much as Jomentum’s position on the Iraq war lost it.

So what's that mean? 52% of Dem voters (in an overwhelmingly "blue" state) can finally agree they're against the war? If there's anything comforting about that political dynamic, it's that one party to the debate is AWOL. (And while I'd agree that's bad for the country, it's hard to see why Karl Rove would be losing sleep over it.)

[Tom Maguire]

So your theory that stripping Joe of committee assignments and the highly theoretical Joe jump to the other side of the aisle would make the race highly competitive for republican candidate Joe is silly.

I gave up trying to phrase my thought cogently (but I threw in a parenthetical aside) - I would not expect Lieberman to switch *before* the election (only partly since there is no point - the Reps already have a candidate, formally, anyway), but if he votes with the Reps in exchange for a chairmanship *after* the election, well, surprise, surprise. And that will still be a loss of a once-safe Blue seat.

Of course, all that is avoided if Lamont wins outright, but the upshot of this is that an automatic Blue seat now has different ways to turn Red.

[Neo]

If the Democratic Senatorial Caucus got stupid enough to strip Lieberman of his committee assignments, it could set a precedent for others who decide to go Presidential office shopping. Perhaps they too should be stripped of their committee seats. Then what about hose who decide not to run again, do they strip the committee seats from "lame ducks" ?

On the other side of things, Joe Lieberman is now a dangerous man for the Democrats.
First, why should he step aside ? The Democrats nationwide did their best to strip him of the nomination .. like Kos says .. screw 'em.
Secondly, anything they do to strip him of his identity as a Democrat between now and November could come back in spades should Joe win.

[Martin]

Lieberman is as gone as Tom Delay is. And both cowardly moral midgets will be succeeded by Democrats.

Meanwhile-it's amazing how you folks always adopt the no-can-lose interpretation:

Lamont loses-Kos is an ineffectual idiot
Lamont wins-Kos is still an ineffectual idiot.

Nice, just like violence down in Iraq-we're winning-terrorist defeated; violence up in Iraq-we're winning-terrorists desperate "last throes" etc.

Is any one of you ever capable of challenging your assumptions-ever?

[Redcoat]

Prepare for the Stalinist Purge, Democrats,conducted by Commissar Michael Moore.

I realize that there are those like Kerry and Edwards who have now changed their position and are strongly anti-war. Perhaps that switch will be enough for some to support them. For others, like me—while I’m glad they’ve seen the light—their massive error in judgment is, sadly, proof that they are not fit for the job. They sided with Bush, and for that, they may never enter the promised land.

I can't wait for the show trials.

[larwyn]

Martin,
We love it when the uninformed jump in.
If you had actually followed the threads on the Lamont/Lieberman issue there were at least 3 different opinions expressed.
Many are/were very concerned that a DEM split would not be good for OUR COUNTRY.
Know you and your buds are just incapable of holding the thought
OUR COUNTRY in your head while pressing the Dems to the Chamberlain/Socialist LEFT.

[LARWYN]

"can't wait for the show trials"...Redcoat

You're getting same visions. Just wish I could remember the names of those movies.

FNC is reporting that Israeli TV2
is reporting that massive Iraeli troops/tanks now on move across Lebanon border.

Great idea KOS. Let's stop arms shipments NOW.

[Martin]

How is a lamont victory not good for the country? If anything, the warmongering crowd should be loving a Lamont victory.

Here they are-the resurrected McGovernite peaceniks in all their pussydom. Versus:

Your side-wrapped in the glory of Old Glory-proud to point to the great accomplishments in Iraq and itching to move on to Iran, Syria, and wherever evil dwells.

Elections are always best when the choice is stark. So here's your electoral chance to validate your conviction that what the world needs now is war, sweet war.

"Bring it on" as they say. You should be happy that our contry will have a clear choice this November.

[LARWYN]

"can't wait for the show trials"...Redcoat

You're getting same visions. Just wish I could remember the names of those movies.

FNC is reporting that Israeli TV2
is reporting that massive Iraeli troops/tanks now on move across Lebanon border.

Great idea KOS. Let's stop arms shipments NOW.

[Wonderland]

Cecil writes: "So what's that mean? 52% of Dem voters (in an overwhelmingly "blue" state) can finally agree they're against the war? If there's anything comforting about that political dynamic, it's that one party to the debate is AWOL.

Yummy partisan snipe, here, Cecil, but you've got it wrong. Over 80% of Democrats are opposed to the war -- which means the party is overwhelmingly united on the issue. 52% is how many think that being in lock-step with Bush's Iraq policy is a firable offense for a Dem senator.

And before you take too much "comfort" in recent events, note that 62% of everyone disapproves of Bush's handling of Iraq, with a majority (52%) disagreeing strongly.

If there's one party that's AWOL on the Iraq debate, its the one that's content to sit back and watch as Bush offers more of the same.

(And I'll add for good measure that Dems outpoll Republicans 46-38 when people were asked who they trusted to do a better job of handling the war on terrorism.)

The political dynamic of the last 5 years is changing rapidly, folks. Get ready.

[Redcoat]

Wonderland,

With those poll numbers, George Bush will never be re-elected.

You people and your polls, magic numbers for elections, magical thinking for foreign policy.

[thebizofknowledge]

I stumbled across your blog while I was doing some online research. My feeling is that it might be good to shake up our political system a bit. When has partisan politics ever benefited the constituents?

[BlaBlaBla]

"What's this make, 1 for 21?"

Does a democrat beating a democrat now count as a win? I guess in Kos world it does.

It will be interesting to watch who lines up behind Joe. Will the big individual donors keep sending checks to Joe? I bet many (like the Clintons) will throw some cash Lamont's way but will be hesitant to beat the street for him.

Whether Joe/Ned wins the in Nov is not the issue I see for dems, it's the opportunity cost. Joe v Ned is going to stir up one hell of a cat fight within the Dem party that will cost blood and treasure, all of which wont be cast onto actual races against repubs.

In the end, 52/48 spread followed by an indy run by Joe is a small victory for repubs, but probably meaningless in grand scheme of things. A small percentage of the mooniest in CT does not a trend make.

[BlaBlaBla]

"note that 62% of everyone disapproves of Bush's handling of Iraq"

I too disapprove of the way Bush is handling Iraq, but I sure as hell aint going to vote for a dem.

[vnjagvet]

Twelve thousand votes separated Lieberman from LaMont in this go-round. 114K for Lieberman and 126k for LaMont.

In the General Election, I doubt there will be much erosion in the LaMont forces. They are a committed group and will be spurred on by plenty of money and national attention. LaMont will get at least 126k votes in the general election.

Joe may have some trouble holding on to an unknown number of Democrats who voted for him yesterday. There will most assuredly be some who, out of loyalty to the party will leave him. One of his real difficult tasks is to hold on to as many of the 110k votes he got as he can.

OTH, he will get an unknown number of crossover votes from Republcans and, I believe, a significant number of Connecticut's independent voters.

It is that group that he must work for if he is to have a chance.

It looks to me like he must get at least 50k votes from the independents and Republicans if he is to win in November.

What about it you "nutmeg republicans" and independents?

[Other Tom]

"Lamont loses-Kos is an ineffectual idiot
Lamont wins-Kos is still an ineffectual idiot."

Some stupes don't get it at all: Kos is an ineffectual idiot even if Lamont had never been born. Is that too tough to understand?

[Cecil Turner]

Lamont loses-Kos is an ineffectual idiot
Lamont wins-Kos is still an ineffectual idiot.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that . . . it's a matrix thing:

1. Lamont loses Primary-Kos is an ineffectual idiot
2. Lamont wins primary-
   playoffs!
   1. Lamont wins general election-Kos replaced moderate Dem with lefty Dem (Kos Kids cheer, most others yawn)
   2. Lamont loses general election-
      1. to Lieberman-Kos is an ineffectual idiot
      2. to Schlesinger (or if Lieberman wins and switches)-Kos is a frickin' Bozo.

According to recent polls (favoring 2.2.1, assuming Lieberman stays in the race), odds are pretty good Kos is still an ineffectual idiot.

Is any one of you ever capable of challenging your assumptions-ever?

I think we might want to wait a bit before hailing the great and powerful Kos.

52% is how many think that being in lock-step with Bush's Iraq policy is a firable offense for a Dem senator.

Okay, 52% are enough against the war for it to affect their actual . . .you know . . . vote. As with most Dem politics, this is a little too nuanced for my taste. (Handy as an insomnia remedy, though.)

[Other Tom]

"Your side-wrapped in the glory of Old Glory-proud to point to the great accomplishments in Iraq..."

Your side really doesn't like Old Glory, does it, Martin? Come on, you can admit it, fella--get it off your chest and you'll feel much better.

Accomplishments in Iraq? How about: Saddam Hussein regime ousted after thirty-plus years; Qadaffi abandons entire WMD program after Saddam's capture; Iraq threat to Middle East gone, and replaced by Sunni v. Shia violence in Mesopotamia.

We're happy to bring it on in November. Your side is starkly identified as the voice of whining, cringeing despair, defeat and surrender. If you stand for anything else, it has escaped notice.

[Jackie]

http://abcnews.blogs.com/theworldnewser/

'According to a close Lieberman adviser, the President's political guru, Karl Rove, has reached out to the Lieberman camp with a message straight from the Oval Office: "The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do."'

If true, what does this say to the actual REPUBLICAN running for office in Connecticut?

I can't imagine many Independents or ANY Democrats voting for someone the Oval Office endorses.

[BlaBlaBla]

"'According to a close Lieberman adviser" = Jane Hamsher?

This is definitely a Lamont ploy.

[Lew Clark]

I question giving KOS a 1 win to go with his 20 losses. It's like a general that has lost 20 battles. So he assassinates another general in his army and gets credit for a victory because he finally succeeded in killing someone.

[Gary Maxwell]

I am going to take back the Party from Ned Lamont and Maxine Waters.

Martin go ahead and tell me me who said that, and then how that its a good thing for the Democrat Party. I am sure you can do it.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'The only way this has a national impact is if Lieberman wins as an independent and then decides not to toe the party line.'

If Lieberman wins as an independent he has every incentive to side with the Republicans if they keep the Senate. Not only a committee chair, but he's got a better chance being elected President as a Republican than he ever did as a Dem.

He had no problem jettisoning his support for school vouchers and ending Affirmative Action in 2000, to placate Dem constituencies. He'd drop a lot of Dem baggage to get the Republican nomination in a second.

[Gary Maxwell]

"'According to a close Lieberman adviser" = Jane Hamsher?

One one to tell for sure. Was the close advisor in blackface? And did Hamsher have grease paint on her hands still?

[Appalled Moderate]

Hey TM -- Remember Jacob Javits? Isn't this situation pretty similar? (The senator, preceiving himself popular with voters if not with his party, loses primary, runs anyway, humiliates self)

I do not see how Lieberman wins, polls notwithstanding. The main area of opposition is the Iraq war. Otherwise, these guys have roughly the same policies. It's not like being pro-Iraq War is something you vote for in a blue state.

[topsecretk9]

The irony is now Kos in Co. are sitting in the same position as they set the campaign against Bush...with no viable GOP candidate in CT., there will plenty of crossovers who will like to use their vote to against the Kos-wing.

[Sue]

Lamont loses-Kos is an ineffectual idiot
Lamont wins-Kos is still an ineffectual idiot.

Works for me. ::grin::

[topsecretk9]

Need to remember, preview is my friend....

What I meant was, since there is no viable GOP CT candidate many will crossover in order to make that vote do something, which is to vote against the KOS-Wing more or less.

[Don]

The problem for Republicans imho is that there's another 3 months to watch Iraq before the fall elections.

The trend line is not promising.

[Specter]

It should be interesting. Considering that Lamont's lead decreased from 10% to less than 4% in a week's time. What is unfortunate is the people here like, actually like Joe. He will get a big crossover vote because Schlesinger has not recognition at all. Remember - even with Lamon't wealth Joe has twice as much in the bank for the ongoing campaign. 12K votes in a 3+million state is lfairly small - and Republicans voted for Joe before.

I think even more interesting is the left's thought that Neddy is going to have some huge impact if he wins. Junior senator with no experience. In the Senate that voted - what 90+% to Not Stop The War just a few months ago? So what is he gonna do? Bring Murtha's resolution back to the floor? Using what political capital?

Nevertheless - the election will be interesting.

[Don]

Btw does any body think Lieberman ran a good campaign?

[maryrose]

OT:
My daughter and her cousin just had their pictures taken with Ken Mehlman in Cleveland at a rally for Mike DeWine. These college kids are the wave of the future. We are going to be strong in November.
On topic, I really thought Joe would pull it out. With a few more days he would have closed the gap. Once again Bill Clinton-Kiss of death. Mehlman on Hardball says dem party rejecting A John Kennedy or a Harry Truman in not giving primary victory to Lieberman.Edwards on Hardball tomorrow. Lamont-dead in the water in November. However Howard Fineman raises the question : will the big money people back Lieberman in Nov. Most Limousine liberals went for rich guy Lamont. The Independents and Republicans will have to come home for Joe in the fall. Dodd is covering his rear-end-fair weather friend.

[maryrose]

Fund says he shouldn't have collected Independent signatures ahead of time and showed up at more town meetings.
Don:
No I don't think he ran a strong campaign.

[TexasToast]

Its interesting that you folks seem to have deputized Joementum based on a single issue - the Iraq War. Look at Joe's voting record

"When Democrats and Republicans disagreed, Lieberman voted 90.5 percent of the time with his colleagues in roll call votes cast during his third term.

He sided with the majority of Democrats over Republicans only 78.9 percent of the time over the previous 10 years.

The 11.6 percentage point swing belies assertions by his critics — including Ned Lamont, his challenger in the Aug. 8 Democratic primary — that Lieberman has moved away from the Democratic mainstream."

Do you folks really want a single issue election when that single issue is the Iraq War?

Really?

Bring it on.

[Terrye]

Lieberman's approval rating in his state has never fallen below 55%, that will be hard to beat in a general election.

I think that Democrats think Americans want to lose in Iraq, wrong, they want to win. They do not want to run away without thought to what they leave behind and by and large they know that Democrats will say whatever it takes to get elected. When being tough worked, they were tough, when it didn't they rooted for the enemy.

I was a Democrat for years, they lost me. I have to wonder how many other people they lost.

The mistake they make is that they assume people like myself like the war. I don't, I never did. That doesn't mean I want to see Iraq fail and America lose. Which is more than I can say for Kos and his following. So when they see numbers that say people don't like to see the violence in Iraq they assume that most Americans hate Bush, hate their country and wish Saddam was back in power. They are wrong and too stupid to know it.