They are not going to let Lieberman lose.

[madfloridian]

Bill Clinton is all over the airwaves there, or will be soon.

Lieberman is getting huge new staff, ramping up. Looks like it really does mean they fear losing Lieberman more than gaining a great new candidate like Lamont.

I think it is about the Iraq war after all. The Democrats appear to need to keep it going as much as the Republicans, and Lieberman will do that for them.

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=5197065&nav=3YeX

Interesting how this is playing out, very interesting. It is about Lieberman, it is not about the Connecticut voters it appears to me. It is about keeping the "nutroots" from making a difference. It is not just about money either, as Lamont has his own money...he just can't use it in the race much anymore. Now Lieberman can ask for double donations.

The Clinton TV Ad Blitz to Come in Connecticut

"This is now a fight between whether Lieberman can lie and snooker enough reporters to reprint his lies, or whether Connecticut voters will have the opportunity to vote on Joe Lieberman's war. The whole Democratic machine from DC is helping Lieberman, including ex-President Clinton and lobbyists galore.

Lieberman's meltdown has stopped. This is going to be a dogfight from here on out"

And Lamont speaks out on the money we are spending abroad while depriving our own citizens of their needs.

""I think we're spending too much money abroad. I think we're wasting too much money in Iraq and I think we ought to be investing in jobs. I think we ought to be investing in education. I think we ought to make universal health care a right for every American in this country," says Ned Lamont, (D) For US Senate."

[blm]

1. Funny, Clinton was on TV throughout 2003 and 4 always careful to say

how much he liked George Bush and supported him as commander-in-chief making difficult decisions.

[madfloridian]

9. His hold on the party is being threatened by the upstarts.

That does not go over well.

Hate to be so blunt but it is time to say it. He has the money for sure from his books and speaking engagements. He has the power still.

Hillary at the end of June had 57 million in her PAC. That is an obscene amount of money for one person.

Kerry/Edwards money leftover from the campaign is 54 million, but I think Kerry specified something he was going to do with it. Can't find it now.

My gripe is the attitude, like Bill Clinton saying no one should challenge a fellow Democrat. Like Lieberman being angry and bitter that he is being opposed.

It is about the war.

[cliss]

23. "It's about the war"

There it is.

[karynnj]

76. The K/E money leftover was closer to $15 million

and Kerry has given much of that to the DNC, the DSCC, and the DCCC. In addition to that money, Kerry has raised and given over $10 million to 2006 candidates. The higher number was from Donna Brazille - it wasn't accurate when she said it and it was simply a continuation of her nastiness in the campaign. (She complained that Kerry didn't have enough minorities in his campaign - what she meant was he didn't hire her.)

[madfloridian]

108. Let me find it, there was a complete rundown.

I kept it somewhere. Not being critical.

Ok, here's where I saw the figures at the CNN Morning Grind the other day. It is long long article and the Democratic Pacs are at the bottom. I may not be up on the various names of the leadershp PACs, just went by the amounts in each one.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/24/mg.mon/

[madfloridian]

112. Aha, CNN changed their totals from the previously posted article.

I had the original on my hard drive. They now have the last figure given as more like 5 million. But before it was this:

The old figures:

"Previous federal committee (Kerry-Edwards legal/accounting fund):

$0 contributions 2nd quarter

$333,652.65 total raised 2nd quarter

$232,579.56 total spent 2nd quarter

$53,796,244.41 cash-on-hand as of 6/30/2006"

Glad they caught it and changed it. Sure was confusing.

Here is the new total in the same article:

"Previous federal committee (Kerry-Edwards legal/accounting fund):

$0 contributions 2nd quarter

$333,652.65 total raised 2nd quarter

$232,579.56 total spent 2nd quarter

$5,376,244.41 cash-on-hand as of 6/30/2006"

At least they corrected themselves. We have to watch our media carefully. One digit makes a huge difference.

[ray of light]

115. lol--office space (the movie!)

[madfloridian]

116. CNN made a 48,420,000 error, glad they fixed it.

How in the world does one make an error that huge?

[karynnj]

124. If I were suspicious of CNN

I would say to revive the criticism of last year.

[karynnj]

123. Thanks again - that makes sense

and accounts for the money given the various organizations.

[blm]

153. CNN did it on purpose to foster backlash against Kerry. The corpmedia are

masterful at fostering backlash against Dems so the left wouldn't stick by him in the future

[madfloridian]

117. karynnj, watch out in case anyone else quoted CNN on the original

If you see anymore people quote it, correct them. That's a huge mistake,

[karynnj]

122. Thanks for the heads up - I need to find a good link

that backs up what I said. I know it was an issue that came up over a year ago.

[WCGreen]

136. No ome gets a free ride bill.....

Every one at some time in their career faces a challenge...

[karynnj]

75. Very true

He sure seems to be giving Lieberman more support than he ever gave Kerry. I know that he had major heart surgery, but there were things he did that hurt. He insisted on putting out his book in June/July of 2004. This, along his the death of Reagan dominated the newswaves for nearly a month (2 weeks each) during the time Kerry needed to introduce himself. Needless to say, the first thing the media talked about was looking up "Lewinsky" in the index - so I guess he wasn't content with just being a drag on Gore's campaign.

Then, in his book, Clinton went out of his way to diminish Kerry's role in the 90s. The longest part on Kerry is a page dealing with the Weld/Kerry race, where Clinton says he liked Weld who he knew as a governor. But he decided he didn't want to lose Kerry because he was a leading Democratic expert on the environment and technology. He then had a very strange comment that Kerry also had been very involved in curbing youth violence since the time he was a proscecutor but that was an issue that never drove votes, "which he guessed was ok". He neglects to mention Kerry's recognized competence on foreign policy, which was what Kerry was most known for.

Note this ignores all of Kerry's work on Contra drug running, that exposed the Contra part of the complicated Iran/Contra scandal and BCCI - BCCI is not mentioned in Clinton's book and Iran/Contra is mentioned only in a paragraph where Clinton said he closed that investigation after Bush pardoned people involved. That Clinton doesn't mention that these scandals hurt Bush in the 1992 election is ok, but in describing the Weld/Kerry race, he certainly could spare a sentence for this - especially as Kerry was known to be the nominee and he selfishly was putting his book out when he was.

He also spoke of his major success in opening relations with Vietnam - mentioning that he was happy to have the support of John McCain, Bob Kerrey, John Kerry ...., who were Vietnam Veterans. He could at least have put Kerry first! The reality was that Kerry and Bob Smith headed the POW/MIA committee that managed to investigate rumors the Newsweek, in a brain dead moment, had highlighted in a cover story with a fake photo, that Vietnam still held American soldiers. Per McCain's account, it would not have succeeded without Kerry, who took 14 trips there, got the Vietnamese to let them go anywhere without advance warning, and got them to commit to returning American remains. Kerry and McCain presented the case for opening Vietnam to Clinton - per McCain, Kerry, the lawyer, spoke for an hour making a strong case that answered any negatives and then McCain said that he agreed with everything Kerry had said. Seeing that Clinton took credit for healing the Vietnam rift, he could at least have credited all of this work, not in detail after all the book was only 900 plus pages, but one paragraph would be nice - especially as Kerry was the candidate. (Also, Kerry was both the chairman and the person who did by far the most on this - why the hell not even list him first. )

Clinton simply showed that he is a self-centered egotist.

[saltpoint]

2. Twelve more days. They've called in the big guns, but Lamont

is going to take this one, I believe.

If Lieberman does not win this primary, the pressure on him to end his third-party run will be strong. The wider the margin of loss, the greater the pressure.

[madfloridian]

14. I hope you are right, but there has not been time...

for the power in the party to have shifted. If we had made a bold statement like a million people supporting the DNC through Democracy Bonds...funding our own party efforts I would agree for sure.

But that effort has not had time to be more than a germ of thought and planning, and most people don't realize what a hold these people have on the party.

[karynnj]

77. I see what you are saying, but there is hope. Look at 2004.

From mid 2003 on, only two men were the front runner - Dean for all of 2003 and Kerry starting sometime in January 2004. Neither were party favorites - though both were well thought of. I remember Dean being mentioned as and interesting possibility when he worked with Hillary on her health plan and Kerry was on Gore's short list. Clinton went so far as to be quoted as saying in late 2003 that only Wesley Clark and his wife were Democratic stars.

People were not driven by Clinton's comments - they looked at the candidates and chose Dean and then Kerry. I think here, the dynamics are different. Lieberman was even 3 months ago seen as an easy win. If Clinton et al would have joyfully backed him pointing out where he was with the Democrats, Lieberman could have won people who hadn't considered the race yet. Now, polls are showing more than half of the people are picking Lamont.

This is more significant than if it were more than half of the people are choosing Lieberman. Those who are choosing Lamont have already made the big decision to not support their long time Senator and secondly that they can support Lamont. (What scares me more than the Clinton stuff here is that they will try to challange the second part of the decision - that Lamont is acceptable. I really don't want to see Democratic swiftboating.)

[JerseygirlCT]

26. I think you might have it exactly right -- especially on the second

point, OC.

If he loses by a wide margin, there will be intense pressure for him to step aside. It will be an interesting tug of war, b/c the guy certainly doesn't appear to want to do that. He's the one who famously said after the NH primary that he was thrilled to be in a three-way tie for third place -- remember?

I honestly don't know what's going to happen here. I hear a great deal of confusion from people. No doubt from most that they're pissed off with Lieberman. The big question mark is who is this Lamont guy, really? Can they trust him? Is he just saying the right things -- will he actually be effective? There's a hesitation about jumping from the devil you know to the one you don't.

But as I look around I see more and more Lamont signs and bumperstickers. I see few Lieberman ones.

And I don't think most people are buying the big argument that Lamont is the one risking a safe seat here in CT. Most don't seem to like being told that we have to keep the senator we've got, and have no right to use the primary process. That's a pretty arrogant argument, it seems to me.

Whew. I really don't know what will happen!

[saltpoint]

29. Hi, JerseygirlCT. Nice to see you again on DU.

Yes, that press conference Lieberman had after his not-so-hot showing in NH in 04 was very revealing. I don't know to this day if he was just putting as positive a spin on it as he could, or if he actually believed he had scored a big triumph.

It's all a blur with him sometimes.

Yes, that margin of victory. If Lamont wins convincingly, I think Joe's out altogether. If Lieberman wins the primary, he rolls to victory in November.

If the primary goes to Lamont but only by 1-2 points, Lieberman has a much more interesting case for a third-party run.

I'm with you -- I have no idea what's going to happen.

[karynnj]

79. I do remember that NH remark -

and the fact that Clark and Edwards had roughly 12% and Lieberman 9%.

[Cha]

92. It is The Most Arrogant!

I can't believe Bill Clinton is trying to shove lieberman Down Our Throats!

Can anyone say "Irony" with the Blue Dress in mind?

[JerseygirlCT]

107. I don't even mind the Clintons so much

It's what they do; they have their own reasoning there.

But the op-ed pieces, etc... they bug me. It's always phrased somewhat condescendingly: you silly CT Democrats are risking it for everyone!

I just don't understand why the incumbent is supposed to be "granted" that seat every time. If they don't win voters approval through a primary process, why should they feel at all entitled?

I also imagine Lieberman didn't feel Weicker was entitled to the seat when he took it from him.

Regardless of Lamont's plus or minuses, Lieberman has done quite a bit over the years to piss people here off. I don't get why he shouldn't be held accountable for that.

[Cha]

120. Good point about Wicker

and lie-berman.

Do you know what lieberman's big catch was to get the voters to want him instead of Lowell Wicker?

[JerseygirlCT]

128. I remember those sleeping bear commercials very well

I also voted for Weicker.

[MarkDevin]

138. Ironically, what won Lieberman the 1988 election...

...was a series of attack ads that accused Weicker of having become a Beltway insider who had lost touch with his constituents in Connecticut.

I swear, you can't make this stuff up!

[bleever]

53. Eventually, there's a cabinet seat

with his name on it, no question.

He's eminently qualified, given his years of service to the Democratic Party and its principles.

Unless something changes, I look forward to his future service to America.

:)

[Cha]

93. Who are you talking about?

"He's eminently qualified, given his years of service to the Democratic Party and its principles."

[bleever]

101. This is my polite way of telling Joe not to stink up the joint by

running as an independent. He could be a cabinet secretary, possibly, but not if he undermines his own party to try and save "his" seat.

[Cha]

121. Oh, nicely put!

:)

[partylessinOhio]

3. Very disgusting, VERY! Are they going to use Diebold to seal the vote?

[JanusAscending]

54. As I've said before on DU, We don't use Diebold in CT. (yet)

thank God. I was a little alarmed today to see Chris Dodd stumping for Joe in a local TV Ad.!! I refuse to be swayed for Lieberman, as a matter of fact I hung up on a "canned" call from his supporters today!! If it had been a LIVE caller, I would have told them why I'm voting for Ned Lamont!!! DC

[buff2]

4. I am so disappointed in Clinton for supporting Joe

Joe was downright cruel to Clinton during the so called "impeachment".I can't understand why Clinton sticks to the very people who stuck it to HIM. Joe was a back stabber to Clinton and now Clinton supports him??? :wtf:

[Taverner]

7. Because it was never personal, merely political

[MarkDevin]

33. Yeah, like in "The Godfather."

Remember near the end of the film, when Michael Corleone finds out that Sal Tessio has betrayed him? As the boys are taking Tessio for a ride, he says, "Tell Mike it was only business. I always liked him."

[Taverner]

90. DINGDINGDINGDING

We have a winner.

Mario Puzo once said that he chose the meduim of the mob because people would find it more believeable, but said that culture extends to all businesses and politics.

[AJH032]

8. strange, isn't it?

I liked Clinton as president, but sometimes what he does doesn't make any sense.

[Greyhound]

16. Because he knows it ain't about Right or Left,

Democrat or Re:puke:, it is about the haves and the have-nots, and the haves live in mortal terror of the have-nots gaining power.

[FormerDem06]

32. Ummm Greyhound

Lamont is worth 20 times what Clinton is easy. His net worth is 220+ million and his family has a HUGE trust from building up Europe after the World Wars.

So by your post's theory (which I happen to agree with) they're all HAVES, and the rest of us just don't matter.

[Greyhound]

125. So what's your point? I am aware that the number of have-nots in, or

seeking, public office approaches zero. That's the point, Lamont will be elected in CT and will make sure his nest is nicely feathered, and will do little to nothing to really help the have-nots, but he says that he wants us out of Iraq and would not have supported many of the corporate giveaways that Lieberman has supported and sponsored. In addition, if nothing else we need to make it clear to these corporate politiwhores that you can only fuck us so much before we will punish them.

[CTyankee]

149. I don't agree. Lamont has a varied family background. His great

uncle was a well known Socialist. Some in the upper classes are egalitarians. I think Ned is smart enough, and decent enough, to know that it doesn't diminish his family to have more income equity in our society, plus it enhances our American democracy. Ned is not a dilettante. He's a serious guy.

[Greyhound]

154. I sincerely hope that you are right. Since I don't live in CT

it is all academic to me, and I'm sure there is a lot that I don't know about him. As always I'm hoping for the best, but will not be shocked by the worst, which IMO is that he will be more of the same.

[Raster]

39. It's about maintaining the power status quo, not so much about personal

wealth. The old-line politicos, of which Big Dog Clinton is certainly one, live in mortal terror of grass-roots, ordinary persons having access to the reigns of power. Let's examine what would happen if a government truly representative of the people came to power:

1. Referendum on the American military machine and the never-ending drain on the country's resources;
   
2. Referendum on the current medical system and the lack of quality care for many Americans irregardless of the obscene spending, much ending up in the pockets of drug companies;
   
3. Referendum on living wages for all citizens;
   
4. Referendum on freedom of reproductive choice. Why is there still an issue when all polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans favor reproductive choice?
   
5. Referendum on the "lobbyist" form of government, where the industry that spends the most in bribes to public officials wins the right to loot the citizenry;
   
6. Referendum on the shocking state of electoral affairs and prosecution of electoral fraud;
   
7. Referendum on the wholesale give-away of public lands and resources to corporate patrons;
   
8. True enforcement of the separation of church and state, which is supported overwhelmingly by a majority of American citizens;
   
9. Referendum on the issue of "immortal person hood" for corporations.
   
10. Referendum on the obscene tax breaks and advantages for the rich, which is bleeding the middle class of America.
    

That's just for starters. Clinton had his day. It is time for the citizens of Connecticut to voice their opinion on who should represent them in Congress. Lieberman won the seat from someone else, now he should be subject to the same process.

Stay out of the fray Clinton. Your 15 minutes are just about up.

[ms liberty]

83. Very cogent post there, Raster...

you should post this as it's own thread.

[Raster]

105. thank youl. perhaps I shall.

[Cha]

96. Exatamundo! And BC thinks

he's foolin' the peeps.

[Greyhound]

126. and why not, he's fooled them for decades. n/t

[Cha]

94. Cause he's doin' that "triangulation"

thing again? Better watch out or it's going to be strangulation.

[WI_DEM]

5. I honestly think that if most people believe that the war is wrong

and are bothered by Lieberman's support for it that they will not be persauded by Bill Clinton or any other big name Democrat who supports Lieberman. However, that said, I think it will be a tight race and will come down to who gets out their supporters. Turnouts in primaries this year have been abysmal and I hope that isn't the case in CT. I'm hoping that the activists and anti-war folks will get out in force and vote for Lamont. Hopefully the national attention this race is generating will generate turnout.

[AlinPA]

6. If Lieberman wins the primary, does it follow that he will win the race?

Would a ton of Democrats who vote for Lamont stay home in November? Could we lose a seat in the Senate? I'm for Lamont the whole way, but I do worry about the numbers of senators with a D next to their name.

[SteppingRazor]

10. Yes. If he wins the primary, he's in...

Schlesinger has less than an ice cube's chance in hell of winning the general election. Even if half the Dems. stay home, Lieberman would still win in a head-to-head against Schlesinger.

[AlinPA]

25. OK, but not OK at least its not an R. (for the numbers toward control) n/t

[Greyhound]

17. Whichever wins the primary, almost certainly, wins the seat. n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

28. Yes, absolutely. I think there's still a very good chance that

he'd win, even running as an I.

We'll have a gubernatorial race here, too -- so turnout might not be too bad.

[MarkDevin]

34. If Lieberman wins the primary, I'm voting Green.

And I don't care who that offends!

[JanusAscending]

57. I don't think there is a "Green" on the ballot in this primary.

Anyone else out there from Ct. who can confirm this? I do know we have a very tight Gov. Primary going on as well, and that WILL bring out the voters on Aug. 8th. By the way it's also the day my newest Grandson is scheduled to be born!! (C section) Yeah, it's gonna be a great day for me!!!!!:bounce: :toast: DC

[NoPasaran]

72. Not in the primary

But Ralph Ferrucci is the GP candidate in Novemeber.

[JanusAscending]

106. Thanks for that info!

I don't get a newspaper, and ya don't hear stuff like this on the local TV news.

[MissWaverly]

11. Look, we must believe in Lamont

I don't care what Bill does, he is trying to help Hiliary by helping Joe. Someone pointed out that Joe and Hiliary's opinions and votes are alike, I don't care. We the people don't like
Lieberman, you heard about the soldier that contacted his office about his gear, Lieberman
couldn't be bothered. He's all lip service when it comes to support the troops. Let's
contribute to Lamont, keep a cool head and keep fighting for Lamont.

[MarkDevin]

35. I've been doing volunteer work for the Lamont campaign.

I take it that counts toward believing in him? :hi:

[Cha]

95. May I thank you, personally,

for doing that volunteer work for Lamont. This race in Connecticut is important to our Nation as a whole! :hi:

[LynzM]

99. Same here, dude!

Which office are you volunteering through? :hi:

[The_Casual_Observer]

12. NAFTA, Welfare Reform, Globalization, Lieberman

Remind me please, what was so great about the Big Dog?

[AJH032]

18. To name a few

Adding 2 Democrats to the Supreme Court (and countless more to other courts), other countries didn't hate us, joining of the Kyoto treaty, record economic growth, more people moving out of poverty than ever before, gun control legislation, protecting social security, increased medicare, decreased defense spending, balanced budgets, decreasing crime rates, more environmental laws and regulation...the list goes on and on.

[Bake]

22. Eight years of peace and prosperity!

Thank God that's over with!

Bake

[rman]

65. Not for everyone

It was better than Bush 1 and 2, but that's not difficult.

[oasis]

62. How soon they forget.

:-(

[Red Knight]

89. That's all well and good but

don't discount how HUGE the consequences of NAFTA and WTO will be for a long long time and many generations. The side agreements were bullshit and if Clinton truly cared about the environment and the working class he never would have hopped aboard with Rubin to sell this.

In the end he married up the Democratic party to corporate money and has changed the direction and priorities of the party. If you're "ok" with that, fine. But don't kid yourself. Would I rather have had him than a Republican? Sure, because we know they would have pushed that stuff through too AND been worse on other issues.

But Clinton was not what he made himself out to be. He sacrificed meaningful health care reform for the corporate masters. As this country slides further down the hole in the race to the bottom, you won't remember the deficit cutting because that was short term.

You will remember the WTO.

That isn't going anywhere.

[bvar22]

129. Don't forget the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

That one allowed a handful of powerful RightWingers to gain control of the US Media.

[depakid]

148. Yep Bill was great regulator, wasn't he

Bottom line is that his (and Lieberman's) deregulation was also responsible for the financial meltdown in the early part of the 21st Century.

[MarkDevin]

36. I think history will remember Clinton as a good president.

Not a great one, but a good one.

[Cha]

97. bush set the bar

into the abyss.

[xynthee]

127. Don't forget about DoMA!! n/t

[SaveElmer]

13. I think it's too late...

As one who was convinced a few months ago this would be a blow out for Lieberman, his announcement he would go indie I think has killed his chances.

Bill Clinton is a master campaigner, but even in his comments at the Lieberman rally, he was very careful not to say anything overly negative about Lamont, and has made it very clear he will support Lamont if he is the nominee.

[madfloridian]

15. I hope you are right.

I really do. Maybe people will be catching on.

[madfloridian]

19. Kos has a good take on this issue.

A lot here don't care for him, but he is pretty blunt about this.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/7/26/162520/603

"Bill Clinton is doing whatever he can to rescue Lieberman from defeat. He may pull it off, as the Clintons and their lobbyist and establishment and DLC friends band together in common cause against Lamont's people-powered army.

Lieberman has no message or appeal to Connecticut voters? Bring in Bill. Lieberman has no ground troops in the state? Bring in paid field guys. The facts are unfriendly to Lieberman? Lie, obfuscate, distort. And to further bolster the Lieberman cause, continue outspending Lamont by millions to drown out his message.

That's the game plan. On our side we have people. Which will triumph?

If we remain disengaged and indifferent, they will."

[Awsi Dooger]

31. Sounds like Kos wants a pure forfeit

We want Lamont to be good enough. Not merely a different body to replace Lieberman.

Let's see how Lamont handles this, the first bit of competence Lieberman has managed in the entire campaign. In the debate Lamont started out shaky and nervous then rebounded nicely.

If he has to counter this new Clinton factor, that's politics. I appreciate astute handicapping and the resulting adjustment.

Kos is pathetic if he doesn't expect a three term incumbent to spend millions to defend his senate seat, especially knowing if he wins this primary then the general election is a cakewalk and he doesn't have to spend anything. What planet has Kos been on?

[madfloridian]

37. Lieberman is not spending his millions....

he will be spending the millions brought in by the Clintons. It is creating the kind of situation that will spiral out of control in spending.

Where does Kos say all that? I did not get that. He seemed to be saying get involved, donate, or lose.

Democrats are famous for not wanting to fund things.

[Awsi Dooger]

44. Kos needs to realize it's not as simple as winning the Montana primary

He's on a little winning streak but this is the big prize and it's funny to me he apparently thought it was over with, and now he's annoyed the race may tighten.

Kos did emphasize get involved and donate. That's been his theme all along and a terrific message, and certainly more effective in this race than could have been projected. But it's absurd to rip Lieberman for spending millions, just as it was inappropriate for Lieberman to mention Lamont's personal wealth during the debate, and otherwise, implying he was trying to buy a senate seat. That's the way the current system works, as we've seen in New Jersey and Washington and elsewhere.

My beef is Kos apparently expected Lieberman to meekly self destruct throughout the remaining two weeks, and now he thinks it's outrageous when Lieberman instead brings in Clinton, and paid field guys. That's world class unrealistic. Longtime incumbents naturally form bonds with other bigwig politicians and use them in the final stages of a campaign, if necessary. Why should Lieberman be any different?

[madfloridian]

45. Not really.

I don't think he thought that at all. I read a lot there, and I just have not gotten that impression.

No one thought Lieberman would do that at all. My gripe is that a former president who played a huge role in the 04 primaries is now going into a state and playing a huge role there.

I think they need Lieberman for the support of the war, and they can not control Lamont if he wins.

Hillary is sitting on 57 million last count end of June. Bill has millions now also and through his network they can present insurmountable odds.

In the long run though, it is or should be the voters who decide.

[Awsi Dooger]

51. It's probably my sports background

I like the horse race aspect, so Clinton getting involved makes it delightfully interesting. Admittedly, while I'm rooting for Lamont I don't place it in the top 20 priorities of this election cycle. Two Democrats, one will win. I'll take that everywhere.

Kos seemed unusually bitter to me in those first two paragraphs, that's what surprised me. Terms like obfuscate, distort, drown out, rescue, people-powered army, no appeal, lobbyist, establishment...

[madfloridian]

59. I can understand his tone most times.

I am learning a lot lately about being tough. I mean really tough. I never was that way about politics. Someone would say boo, and I would back off.

Now I won't. There is too much at stake. I have been tough with my Republican family. It is partly working. My brother's wife came by to visit (we have been estranged over the war as he was a NATO advisor and Naval commander) some lately. She was trying to get the lay of the land. She started talking about their wonderful health care, TriCare. She informed me they never watched the news. (I thought WHAT...a former high up guy who doesn't watch news).

I said to her then if you don't watch news you don't realize what Bush is trying to do to TriCare. Maybe you need to do an internet search. She listened.

There is lots more, but boring. And painful.

Kos is determined. He realizes what Dean does, that we are entering a new era of politics in this country that will stand the old one on its head. You have to hold on tight, not be afraid to make people mad, and fight. Kos does not try to likable. That is ok with me. I appreciate his contribution and his book.

[WildEyedLiberal]

109. I don't think it's about the war

Not directly, anyway. I think it's just a shrewd calculation on Clinton's part because he knows that Hillary will need support from Dems who are likely to support Lieberman if she has a ghost of a chance for the nomination in 2008. Clinton is pure 100% politics so it's no surprise to see him throwing his weight around for Lieberman, and I guarantee it's a "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" situation. I don't really think Clinton cares about the war one way or another - he probably wishes it didn't exist because it's proven to be such a boondoggle to Hillary's ambitions - but other than that, I really think Clinton is mainly concerned with the backroom strategizing and winning elections, and not so much with issues. Issues only exist to the Clintonistas insofar as they can be used to gain an electoral advantage.

Do I think it's right that Clinton is campaigning for Lieberman? Do I agree? No. But nevertheless I don't think it's about anti-Lamont/pro-war sentiment so much as an attempt at currying favor with a segment of Democrats.

As for Kos - he's far more similar to Clinton than he'd like people to believe. He is concerned with winning and gaining power in the Democratic party, and ideology can and will be sacrificed in order to ingratiate himself to big-name Dems that can help catapult him to the land of consultant glory. Why else would he be shilling for Mark Warner, DLC pointman and ever-so-milquetoast on the war, if he were truly committed to "progressive," "anti-DLC" principles? Kos is just another hack who will say and do anything if he thinks it'll get him a powerful ally - he's just the mirror image of the Clintonistas, and fights them only because they are an impediment to his growing influence and fame.

[Cha]

98. Turnout, Turnout,

TURNOUT! Imagine lieberman going down in Defeat TWICE!

[Bake]

20. I understand that Clinton put a condition on his support

That is, that Bill would only support LIeberman if he agreed NOT to run as an independent in the event he loses the primary. Oh, and there's the "support Hillary" thing too. Frankly, I see it as a smart move on Clinton's part, and I'm no fan of Holy Joe.

I suspect it's too little, too late for Joe. The media, despite its likely preference for keeping Joe in the Senate (after all, he supports their hero * ), can't help drawing the contrast between the man who ran for Vice President in 2000 with the sad sack trying desperately to hang onto his Senate seat now. Joe has imploded and I think it's too late to stop the inevitable.

We'll see.

Bake

[Eric J in MN]

30. That's a theory, but there is no proof that I've seen. NT

NT

[bklyncowgirl]

70. If that's true then I'm OK with what Clinton is doing.

The whole idea of a primary is that everyone gets to support the candidate of their choice and then, once the voters have spoken, get over the bad feelings and get behind the winner.

If Clinton's placed those conditions on Holy Joe then what he's doing is entirely appropriate and entirely within that tradition.

Has anybody noticed whether Lieberman has backed off the third party talk since' Clinton's come on board?

[DYouth]

21. I've been thinking that very thing

Are the Democrats really going to allow antiwar people to unseat established members of their own party? I can't imagine they're going to let it happen to Joe, let alone Hillary (with Tasini's challenge).

[davidwparker]

24. Yawn. Clinton still around? How's WTO-NAFTA working for us?

[sleipnir]

40. Exactly.

It's working fine, if you ask Clinton and the rest of the Centrist/DLC Dems. It's putting a lot of cash into the pockets of their supporters and their own bank accounts.

[benny05]

27. Of Course Not

DLC is running scared instead of tryin' to unite us...they are dividing us. Chicken hawks.

[skipos]

38. Uhm.. regular people still vote in primaries, right?

If people nominate Lieberman, there is no one to blame but the people.

[Raster]

41. Kicked and recommended.

Let's get this puppy to the greatest page. THREE!
:kick:

[AtomicKitten]

42. Clinton made it clear to Lieberman he will support Lamont

if Lamont wins the primary. He probably isn't sure Lamont can win the general and/or there is an element of party loyalty to someone who served 18 years in the seat.

Can we agree that's understandable?

As much as there is a lot of kvetching about Bill Clinton banging the drum for Lieberman in the primary, the truth is he may be doing the Democratic Party a service by getting Lieberman to drop out when Lamont wins. I think that is the unspoken consequence of Lieberman losing the primary.

As much as the Clintons are vilified here, they both in the end came out on the right side of the most important part of this issue, supporting the candidate that wins the Democratic primary.

I can't say I have a problem with this under these circumstances.

[Raster]

43. Not under those circumstances, no. Anything else, all bets are off.

Big Dog and Mrs. Big Dog can go from DLC darlings to pariahs fairly quickly. One wonders if they ever get groin strains from straddling so many fences?

[madfloridian]

48. Oh, come one. Vilifying? Who vilified? I didn't.

Read my OP again.

Questions and critiques are not villification.

I would rather the race be about Liebeman and Lamont than about Bill and Hillary. In the long run I fear that is what is going to happen.

[AtomicKitten]

63. psssst:: I didn't say you did.

It was a generic "here at DU."

Come on, mf, you know perfectly well the Clintons are not happy subjects here at DU overall, and that has zero to do with you specifically.

You and I have arrived at our usual Goldilocks moment :), you worry too much, I worry too little, but in the end Lamont is doing great, and since Bubba is playing the war card, I can't see how this last ditch Hail Mary pass is going to help Lieberman in the least little bit.

One foot in front of the other. Victory for Lamont. That's what matters. Bubba is just doing his thing as the Big Dog. IMO just let it slide. Lamont's victory will put it all back into perspective.

Again, in the final analysis, if Bubba serves to put Lieberman out of the race when he loses to Lamont, he'll be doing a real service for the Democratic Party. Patience. Let it play out.

[Imagevision]

50. Clinton can then go on record as stating he no longer supports Lieberman

if he loses the primary, then let the photo-ops of Bill and Lamont roll bigtime!!

[AtomicKitten]

64. Yep, and those will be good times indeed.

I for one think Bubba is doing the Dem Party a service. He's doing his Hail Mary pass for Lieberman to fulfill the loyalty thing, Lamont is kicking ass in the polls, and Bill has made it perfectly clear he's going to support Lamont upon his victory in the primary.

And I can just see the optimism and fresh start Bubba will impart to a brand new day with a brand new direction with a brand new Democratic candidate.

IMO it's a good thing. But then again I'm one of those annoying optimistic sorts. :)

[karynnj]

81. The problem is that theprimary election endorsement still exists

and it is not unreasonable for the later endorsement of Lamont (D) over Lieberman (I) is simply a political act - where Clinton is looking just at the (D) but had said in the primary that Lieberman is a better choice than Lamont. The question would be what (other than the primary election) has changed.

[Orangepeel]

46. Why can't Clinton campaign for whomever he wants?

That's not cheating.

If Connecticut voters are silly enough to vote for Lieberman because Clinton tells them to, that's their lookout.

[madfloridian]

47. It's not cheating. I never said it was.

I think he can do whatever he wants wherever he wants, whenever he wants to do it.

He was once president, and he can do what he wants.

I don't think it is wise to cause the costs there to spiral, not just financial.

[Orangepeel]

49. yes, you never said it was cheating

that was hyperbole on my part.

The thread title, of "They're not going to let him lose" (or something like that, I can't see the actual title now that I'm replying) seemed to me to imply that you thought "they" were doing something wrong, or at least, somehow taking power away from the voters.

[madfloridian]

56. Well, in a way I do look at it like that.

Not sure why, but I do. When a former president who played such a prominent role in the 04 primaries comes in and plays a prominent role in the campaign of a man who said he will run Independent if he loses I do see a problem.

There is too much involvement in primaries by party leaders. Florida really has a lot of it going on. Karen Thurman has discouraged primaries though she sort of denies it. She told me she just did not want them in some areas. Ok, fine, I can see that. But who gets to decide the races they pick candidates in.

We have Tim Mahoney, Christine Jennings, Rick Penberthy and a couple of others being handpicked here in Florida.

I just worry that it is hard enough to get anyone to run as a Democrat in Florida, and Karen and Rahm make it harder by picking and getting involved.

I am all for getting Democrats elected. I just think we don't have fair primaries when everyone gets involved in them.

[Reckon]

52. We're learning just how far right the Dem party has moved.... nt

[okieinpain]

55. I not sure about this one, I was pretty upset until I heard Clinton's

speech and it seemed as if he wasn't necessarily pushing joe. it was more like lets think this through, joe is not great but he's a sure win in the general. personally I hope joe loses to lamont, but I worry about lamont vs. the repug.

[JanusAscending]

60. Don't !!!

The repub is a known crook "shady at the least". His polls are waaaaaaaay down :thumbsdown:

[Rose Siding]

85. Yeah -besides, how many incumbants need x-prez level help in a *primary*

People must look at that, too, don't you think? In the midst of all this rah-rah "Joe's really really a dem", won't people wonder why they're hearing that so much?

It's daunting to see some semi-heroes on the other bench, but the star-strategy hasn't been a consistent winner for Democrats. sigh. I'm sending another $20 bucks.

[populistdriven]

58. DINO!!!!!!!

[Caria]

61. Bill Clinton called me tonight

Well, his recorded voice anyway. I hung up. I'll be voting for Lamont or Mertens.

[Contrary1]

66. Look how this Repub is spinning it:

Democrats Lose if Lieberman is Defeated

"The most interesting question about the possibility that Connecticut Democrats could deny Joseph Lieberman renomination is whether that would help or hurt the senator's political prospects. Or, for that matter, the Democratic Party's.

That's because even if Lieberman loses the Aug. 8 Democratic primary - and the newest polling data says that is a real possibility - he would be a huge favorite for re-election as an independent come November.

And if that is the case, it would not be hard to write a scenario in which the real loser from a Lieberman defeat to anti-war candidate Ned Lamont might be the Democratic Party itself

That would especially be the case if Lieberman's good friend Sen. John McCain of Arizona becomes the 2008 Republican presidential nominee and picks Joe as his running mate.

Then, Lieberman, Al Gore's running mate in 2000, would become the only person in American history to have ever run on the national ticket of both parties. And Lieberman on a Republican fusion ticket in 2008 might be a huge GOP asset..."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/07/politically_dems_need_a_lieber.html

[Clarkie1]

67. Wow.

Look, I like Lamont but the thought of McCain/Lieberman is disconcerting. They would model themselves as the pragmatic moderates...both putting principle before party, that sort of thing.

That kind of ticket would concern me.

[NoPasaran]

74. McCain putting principle before party?

Crack whores are sickened by the way he's become Dubya's dog lately.

[Clarkie1]

132. I was thinking global warming, campaign finance reform, etc.

Certainly that's what he will try to market himelf regardless of how much it fits reality....the independent-minded maverick guy.

[karynnj]

82. My first thought was the same as yours -

but then in thinking more about it I wondered if it would aggrevate the sanctimonious streak in each of them that seems to suggest that they can't possibly be wrong and that they have more character than anyone else. They really could push each other more into that direction that would make most people sick of them. (This is a country that loved "bad boy" Clinton)

[PassingFair]

144. It shouldn't.

No one would vote for a couple of limp dicks like them.

They would appeal to no one.

[Norquist Nemesis]

84. Oh, I so hope the Democrats Lose!

Lose Lieberman, that is!!!

PS - Can't stand that smug a-hole from rcp. He claims he's a moderate Independent. Apparently, I'm on the fringe by his guage.

[MarkDevin]

133. And the GOP only wants what's best for the Dems of CT. Right?

:rofl:

[Guaranteed]

68. It's it up to the real CT Dems to TURN OUT on the day of the vote.

That's what this is going to come down to.

[The Backlash Cometh]

69. At the risk of getting attacked, I think the Democrats are trying to

appease the pro-Israeli lobby group. How can you see it any other way? By all evidence, the "lobby" group put lots and lots of money into political campaigns, and they aren't too loyal to one party over the other. Therefore, the Dem incumbents have to pony-up if they want a share of the winnings.

If I dare ask, where was the Jewish vote trending in the last three elections? I couldn't help but sense it was moving to the Right. It's one thing to have a pro-Israeli lobby group going Right in the hopes of riding the wave of the PNAC, but it's really meaningful when you have average voters doing the same within the Jewish community, and going against previous alliances with Democratic ideals, so I have to ask...The Christian Coalition is a powerful right-wing voting block that has been used and misled by unscrupulous men, is there something similar happening with American Jewish voters?

[karynnj]

86. I think the percent of self described Jewish leaders

favoring these PNAC ideas may be greater than the percent in the entire Jewish community. In 2004, I was very upset when the local Jewish newspaper that was sent automaticly to people in our synagogue and other synagogues with guotes from local Jews in support of Bush's policy.

We were motivated to write an email to the editor. He immediately wrote back that the other side would be given comparable coverage - and that did happen. The paper, as a non-profit, couldn't endorse. He asked and got our permission to edit out some sentences about the newspaper and our question on who they intended to endorse and convert it to a letter to the editor. He gave it a catchy title and printed it as the top LTTE. We were amazed by the number of people who positively commented to us at synagogue that they agreed (The amazement was that they saw it). Thinking about it - it looks pretty good today.

Here is my husband’s and my letter to the Jewish News (a North Jersey Jewish news weekly):

Inspire, don’t inflame

In the Oct 7th article, “Party of one issue”, the primary issue of the Jewish Republicans who support President George W. Bush was whether or not the war in Iraq was good for Israel or not. Although this should be a n important concern for Jews, we have other concerns as Americans.

Even as it concerns Israel, how can inflaming the entire Middle East possibly bode well for Israel? Down the road, even if we manage to avoid chaos and civil war, the Iraqis may create an Islamic state, like Iran, that will be more dangerous for Israel, the United States, and the rest of the world. A more judicious, less bull-in-a-china shop policy in regard to Iraq, such as the policy advocated by Senator John Kerry (D-MA), would lead to a safer world.

We strongly believe that the core Jewish value of tikun olam is embraced by many of the positions that Kerry has taken in this presidential campaign.

[The Backlash Cometh]

100. How awful. I suspected as much. Thanks for sharing.

[itzamirakul]

146. karynnj, are there a great number of dual citizenships in that

community? I am not trying to single out Jewish people here, because the fact of dual citizenship is a privilege that is offered to many countries.


I won't lie, it DOES concern me as a matter of loyalty relating to security.

Flame me if you will, but this is a question that I really think needs to be discussed and and make ideologies clarified.

Edit to add: I may have worded this awkwardly, but my request is sincere.

[itzamirakul]

145. You might be interested in reading the Mearsheimer/Walt paper

"The Israel Lobby" which elaborates on much of what you say. It is really important reading for anyone who is trying to get a grasp on where things are headed, rather than where they APPEAR to be right now.
It is a bit unnerving for the sanctimonious among us.

After reading this paper, I began to understand WHY Bush is doing those "signing statements."

Find it here: www.londonreviewofbooks.com/v28/n06/mear01_.html

[alcibiades_mystery]

71. Is this what it will take to convince Dems that Bill Clinton is an asshole

Always was an asshole, always will be.

Yeah, you got me on record saying it. Clinton is a Class A schmuck.

[ihelpu2see]

73. Both on TV and Radio, I hear mostly Lamont ads. NESN has had only

Lamont ads and on wtic and the FM station I listen to there have been more Lamont ads..... Is Joe waiting to long???

Personally my mind is made up and has been for a while. You can not stand by a senator that questions our rights as citizens to question our President. Just as Joe did. And personally Bill Clinton loses some of my respect, since Joe spoke out about his fiasco but has not about our current Presidents illegal forays into data mining!!

[AzDar]

78. I am not a Connecticut voter, yet I am greatly anxious for Ned Lamont

to win. Lieberman was despicable and Bush-like during the televised debate; petulant, and his sense of entitlement to the Seat was obvious.
A victory for Lamont obviously threatens the status quo for ALL politicians who are not truly serving the interests of their constituents.
Go Ned!!!

[RangerSmith]

80. No matter who we are talking about

Ted Kennedy, etc, etc...

This is why we must have term limits.

Bill is there because of what he owes Lieberman. That's career politics and regardless of which side you are on, it's the root of 80% of this countries problems.

Fuck the incumbent!

[ShortnFiery]

139. Here's an excellent resource: Vote Out Incumbents Democracy

Vote Out Incumbents Democracy! http://voidnow.org/

VOID's MISSION STATEMENT: organize Americans to use the power of their anti-incumbent vote to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse of office in Wa. D.C.

[gasperc]

87. Clinton was all over the place in 1994 and we lost both chambers

Lieberman is hitching to the wrong horse, he betrayed his constituents and is now paying the price

[madfloridian]

103. You are right. We did lose then. Also 02 and 04.

I am pulling for Lamont all the way.

[gasperc]

142. Lamont will win, I predict 58%-42%

:beer:

[cmkramer]

151. No he wasn't

Most of them ran from Clinton and did not want him anywhere near their campaigns in 1994. I think he did do some campaigning late in the season but for the most part it was a case of "Thanks, but no thanks, Bill" as far as most of the Democratic incumbents were concerned.

[mike_c]

88. K&R-- excellent analysis....

eom

[Renew Deal]

91. This is a power struggle in the party.

It's the Left vs. the DLC. They DLC crowd does not want to lose.

[AtomicKitten]

104. I disagree.

It's Bubba fulfilling the loyalty thing (Lieberman has served 18 years, you know) by agreeing to endorse him in the primary but making a deal that if he loses, he's done.

Clinton is doing a service for the Democratic Party by facilitating a finale to the Democratic primary and endorsing the most important thing here - that Democrats en mass will support the winner of the primary. It's the right thing to do.

But instead of acknowledging what he's really doing here, a brilliant strategy that will prevent splitting the vote and putting the full weight of the party behind Lamont in the general where it counts, you pull out the DLC versus the universe meme.

It's not only tired and predictable, it's not even applicable.

[Renew Deal]

110. Hillary

If Lieberman loses, it means Hillary is in big trouble. Bill knows that. But there are also seperate DLC undertones. Have a look: http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/7/26/1021/52167

[AtomicKitten]

114. I agree there are overtones

and this is a bellwether for those that voted for the Iraq war; I just don't equate that necessarily with a strictly DLC stance. Some Democrats continue to straddle the fence on Iraq which is cowardly, and Lamont's win will put the fear of God in them. As powerful as the DLC and some Dems in leadership think they are (not necessarily one in the same), the beauty of Democracy that is being played out in this primary is it is the voice of the people that will prevail. It will be rude awakening indeed at the moment that is demonstrated unequivocally to them vis-a-vis a Lamont win.

Perhaps I see beyond the machinations, but IMO the deal Clinton brokered with Lieberman in the end serves democracy and upholds the primary process. In other words, my confidence in a Lamont win and knowing what a comeuppance it will be to those that have forgotten that we the people call the shots gives me comfort in an almost smug way that this will play out to our satisfaction.

The blow-by-blow kvetching over what transpires in the interim IMO is self-imposed discomfort. That train has left the station and I'm looking forward to reaching our destination - a Lamont victory and the Democratic Party pulling behind him in the general.

[western mass]

137. Showing loyalty to a senator as disloyal as Joe?

If Bill wanted to make a gesture about loyalty to the Democratic Party, this is exactly what he shouldn't be doing. Sorry, this explanation doesn't hold up.

[AtomicKitten]

143. loyalty is in the eye of the beholder

18 years of service versus as seen through the prism of DU

Sometime the criticism dished up at DU is snarky but not particularly viewed reasonably from all perspectives. And while Clinton is being slammed here for what he is doing, I have already explained how and why I think he is really doing the Dem Party a great service by clearing the decks after the primary, as part of the deal forcing Lieberman to accept the primary decision and not run as an independent. You will appreciate what he is doing when Lamont wins, and I have every confidence he will. Clinton's stump speech for Lieberman was, shall I say, tepid.

Also, Clinton is entitled to support whomever he wishes in the primary, right? Isn't that the idea behind democracy? Unless you are suggesting that only applies to candidates with the stamp of approval of DU. Sorry, that's not fair, reasonable, or democratic.

On edit: I realize people are anxious about the outcome of the primary. Patience. Let it play out. People are turning themselves inside-out over something they have no control over (unless you're a CT voter, that is).

[Q]

102. Lieberman has always been a front man for the defense industry...

...as his record will reflect. He's the industry's perfect replacement for Front Man Bush.

It's too bad that Gore didn't see it coming. He was blindsided by his not-so-faithful DLC advisors.

Perpetual war and war for the sake of war will be the downfall of this country.

Let's hope there are enough liberals/progressives left to pick up the pieces and rebuild.

[ulysses]

111. I'll be damned.

What's up, Q? :D

[ShortnFiery]

140. And we know The Defense Industry is presently "Making a Killing" ...

in more ways than one. :puke:

[LincolnMcGrath]

152. Always good to hear from you, good sir!

[ray of light]

113. kick

[onenote]

118. "they"? I thought it was up to the voters in CT?

Hope they choose Lamont, but its their decision.

[Generator]

119. "They" are the problem, afterall so it seems

I've given up on the Democratic party. They no longer represent me. I don't have an answer. It's going to take blood to change this country. Not that I'm giving any (I'm no idiot, no warrior, not brave either) I just don't see how else anything can change when Democracy is a farce. And as everyone as said a zillion times, our lives are not that bad, we have it easy, we have TV and cheap food and booze to distract us, and until all of our sons and daughters are drafted, nothing is going to change. The warmongers learned that lesson from the sixties. But a few terrorist attacks should surely change that and make enlisting a duty.

The future seems so grim. I wish I saw some other way. The majority of the people don't want war, don't want the Republican lies, but the majority of people haven't been affected enough to get in the streets.

We are in the miniority because we see the truth and fear the future. And it's not going to change by voting. That to me is a farce. I don't believe it any more. I don't believe enough of our votes or the people that want to vote-Blacks, Hispanics get their vote counted. If they did, we wouldn't have had the last six years. And even if our votes our counted, the Dems side with the Republicans most of the time. Why not get the votes counted, Democrats? That seems to be the point. No the point to them is bullshit like "framing the debate." Or in plain language making sure they sound more like Republicans because they honestly BELIEVE the Republican view point is the majority when it's not the majority at all.

No-the point is to have the votes counted and the MAJORITY of this country represented-who are not coroporations, who are not rich.

We are hosed. They don't act like Dems, and I'm told I hate them. No I hate them for not acting like Dems. When they represent me, the middle class, the poor, the people that don't want war and want basic rights again, then maybe voting will matter again. If our vote is counted.

*Note to Will Pitt-of course I'll vote Dem-it's the least I can do-but if I get to say told you so, don't blame me. (They get a majority in the House and NOTHING changes)

*Note to the world-we are nothing special in America, the rich and the warmongers taking all the spoils is nothing but the story of the world. It's the same damn story. We thought we were different. We were fooling ourselves.

[CTyankee]

150. It could be worse, you know. We just have to suck it up now

Nobody said it would be easy, you know?

I know how you feel. I am escaping to Europe as often as I can since I feel I have to get away from this oppresive American culture, but when I am gone I long to come back.

It's hard, but what is our alternative?

[Singular73]

130. No no no no no.

The reason the democratic establishment if behind Liebermann is because he has the best chance of winning, state-wide, in 06.

They don't seem to be bothered with the fact that he's a wing-nut.

[MarkDevin]

131. Lieberman "has the best chance of winning?"

Then why has Lamont surpassed him in the polls?

[calico1]

141. No, that's not it.

The establishment is backing Lieberman because Lieberman himself is part of that establishment. It is hard for newbies like Lamont to gain acceptance. Either one of them will easily beat the Republican.

[BigBearJohn]

134. It's about money and nothing more. the whole fucking world... so sad

[ProudDad]

135. We're trying to change that

here in California...

http://www.caclean.org/

Public financing of ALL elections -- that's the cure...

[depakid]

147. If he does win- and I don't think he will that's the last nail

in the Democratic Coffin.

And wouldn't be apropos that Bill Clinton- who's arguably MORE responsible than anyone for the party's decline into irrelevancy in national politics and policy making should be the one to help to drive it in....