Interesting dynamic being set up for after the Nov elections.

[TayTay]

The Los Angeles Times is saying that any Democratic gains made in this falls elections will be attributed to Democrats who are gun-owning, anti-abortion and fiscally conservative. The Blue Dog Democrats are pre-emptively trying to claim credit for whatever happens this fall and is trying to make sure that the more progressive wing of the party is shut out of any credit for a potential take-over of the House.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-dems26oct26,0,3860101.story?coll=la-home-headlines


At the same time, should Sen. Lieberman be re-elected in Connecticut, the party is poised to be even more split on the Iraq War. Sen. Kerry, as the most vocal supporter of Ned Lamont is also being pre-emptively setup as a 'failure' in his push to elect more anti-war Democrats. At the same time, it is assumed that he will have shored up his support with the party's base and liberal netroots by doing the same.

Hmmmm, interesting tea leaves to read here. It's going to be an interesting 'after the election' this fall and there will be a lot to think about going into the '08 cycle.

Kerrey backed Kerry's 2004 White House run and campaigned for his re-election in 1996. The two are decorated Vietnam veterans who often worked together on issues related to the Southeast Asian nation.

Senate Democrats have maintained some distance in the Connecticut race, in part because Lieberman holds a double-digit lead in the polls and they want him to caucus with the party if re-elected. Lieberman has said he would stay with the Democrats.

Only a handful of Senate Democrats have contributed cash to Lamont. They include Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., Barack Obama, D-Ill., Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. and Russ Feingold, D-Wis. They each gave $5,000 through their political action committees.

Kerry's campaigning for Lamont could pay dividends among the liberal voters who tend to dominate Democratic primaries.

Kerry and Lieberman were rivals during the 2004 presidential primaries. After Lieberman's primary loss in August, Kerry criticized Lieberman, the 2000 vice presidential nominee, for running as an independent.

The Massachusetts senator also scolded Lieberman for supporting the Iraq war and for echoing Vice President Dick Cheney.

Few top Democrats have been as active on Lamont's behalf as Kerry, who earlier this year sent out a fundraising e-mail to his network of national supporters for Lamont and other Democratic candidates.

http://www.norwalkadvocate.com/news/local/state/hc-26013602.apds.m0294.bc-ct--connoct26,0,7965457.story?track=rss

[TayTay]

1. Okay A Dkos diary recommendation, but it's good

Think about this and about who is advancing the agenda the American people actually want implemented. Hmmmmmmmmm.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/26/85452/391

[ProSense]

6. Interesting! Did you see this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2484438&mesg_id=2484438

[beachmom]

2. If Webb wins, he will not be so easily put in a box

The guy was opposed to the war from the start, but for national security reasons. He and Kerry have made up, and Warner is out of the race. I know it's a long shot, but a Webb endorsement would be very helpful, because it would be from a pseudo red state senator, someone anti-war, but from a Reagan Democratic tradition.

Man, I really want Webb to win!!

Yeah, the netroots supposedly hate Kerry, but I checked and my diary got 394 rec's. And that doesn't include the lurkers.

[TayTay]

3. The real vulnerability is on the CT race

no one else is really doing anything active on it. There are only about 6 current sitting Dems who are active in that campaign. I think that if Lieberman wins, it will be spun to say that the centrists won, the moderates are the only ones who can carry the Dem banner forward. The groundwork is being laid again to give more power, not less, to the DC consultants who are perceived as being the 'winners' in the race. (Reality aside.)

[Dr Ron]

5. CT race too unusual to characterize

There are so many ways to spin CT. Primarily it is a caes of a well established incumbent being hard to beat.

This could be taken as a strong anti-Republican message--two Democrats, rather than splitting the vote and allowing the Republican to win (as would often occur under this situation), are both blowing out the Republican.

Lamont's victory in the pirmary is already a strong anti-war message. If he does reasonably well against an incumbent this would go along with that message.

[TayTay]

13. I do agree on this, that race is still unsettled

But is is worrisome anyway. I sense those who tell us what events mean, after the fact, sneaking in and beginning to lay the groundwork for some major spin. Sigh!

[karynnj]

4. That would be interesting and will say a lot of Webb

He supposedly hated Bill Clinton and his comment when Clinton was impeached was devastating, but he was positive when Clinton campaigned with him. It spoke of the lack of principle in Clinton's entire career. This suggests that Webb has a strong sense of moral values.

In 2008, imagine it is Clinton, Kerry, Obama, Bayh, and Edwards.

I know he is not in favor of Kerry/Feingold, but who is he closest to hear? I suspect that of the four, he may see only Kerry capable of listening to the generals and using his own diplomatic skills and constructing a plan. Would this be important as any could select a Secretary of Defense who has ability.

The Clinton comment was strong enough and damning enough to think that he was simply being polite to someone who was helping him. If he still doesn't trust Clinton, will that extend to Hillary?

I seriously doubt he will support Edwards - who was a war cheerleader and who seems the opposite of Webb in many ways.

As I know very little of Webb, this might be presumptuous - but I think he will not endorse Obama and Bayh because he will see them as too junior. This comes from seeing him as valuing hierarchy and because it is weird the first time someone in the generation younger than you is considered.

Kerry is interesting because Webb will have interacted with him in the Senate (if he loses, his endorsement means way less). The respect that Warner has for Kerry may make him relook at Kerry's genuine support of the military. I would hope he would also respect Kerry's gracious action in supporting him. It would be a coup and it would address the split over Vietnam and be a powerful endorsement.

I left out Gore because I don't think he'll run and because I know nothing about him and Webb.

[beachmom]

7. Read this article about Webb -- the more I learn the more I like him

http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=420&Itemid=33


It reminds me slightly of Kerry and the friends he keeps.

[wisteria]

8. The LAT piece is a joke- right?

Sure, we need fresh blood,but not the Republican lite kind. Oh, and the suggestion that the party is too liberal now and the the Blue Dog Group is poised to take it over,is just over the top. The same old stale Clinton/DLC idea that we need to be Republicans and vote like Republicans in order to win in the South makes me angry. So, I suppose we aren't suppose to bring up the Iraq War? Even though, this is the reason much of the public has turned against the Republicans.Do the Clinton's really think they can sell Hillary in the South? This posturing is the reason we can no longer be defined and differentiated from Republicans by the public. How many times have we heard, "they are all the same"? I want to scream!
Oh, and Lieberman, IMO,it will be bad news if he gets back in.I really believe this. The Republicans aren't stupid. They know they have a friend in Lieberman. They aren't backing him for nothing in return. He will be stronger than ever, abling him to manipulate and dictate Democratic positions. I still hold out hope that Republicans won't turn out, but honestly, it doesn't look good for Lamont.

As you said, it will be interesting to see what develops after the election.

[Firespirit]

11. Some parts of the South are just unwinnable

Ford and Webb have proven that Democrats can compete in certain "border" Southern states, but they're still having to give it all they've got, and those races will be nailbiters.

Other parts of the South just cannot be won. They are the states with the hardcore Bible thumpers, primarily, and the Black vote isn't enough to compensate for it. (It's like 25-33%, typically.) It's a funny thing, but typical white Southerners will be OK voting Dem for local races. Just not the national party. (And some are even more partisan than that.) There are people there who honestly believe that the national Democratic Party is an EVIL organization and a vote for a Dem for federal office is tantamount to a vote for Satan. It sounds hyperbolic, but it isn't... that's how they "think." It's a region of the country where a typical political billboard for a local race has a big anti-abortion statement below a picture of the candidate's simpering family, surrounded by a border of alternating GOP elephants, crosses, fish symbols, and tiny American flags. (That is an actual billboard I've just described for a winning candidate, btw.)

Those parts are inhabited by those who drink the kool-aid. The kool-aid drinkers are not with us, never have been, and probably never will be. If the Clintons honestly think they can win over those people, then they are either completely frickin' delusional, or they intend to sell the country down the river in order to do it.

[TayTay]

14. Regrettably, I agree.

There are groups we can win and ones we can't. That is a simple fact of life.

However, the West is opening up to us. That is the good, good news.

[Firespirit]

17. Yes -- the West has a tradition of libertarianism

I'm no fan of libertarianism, but it is far closer to liberalism than authoritarian theocratic fundamentalism. Liberalism and libertarianism have a strong respect for the individual and for liberty, self-determination, anti-Big Brother government, etc. I think we could completely win over the free market libertarians if we made them fully aware of what a scourge the "free market" has become, and how it is totally counter to individual liberty and self-determination. I honestly see no common ground with the theocrats, though. They don't even respect the basic principles of American government.

[WildEyedLiberal]

16. Holy shit

"surrounded by a border of alternating GOP elephants, crosses, fish symbols, and tiny American flags."

:scared: :scared: :scared:

[sandnsea]

9. I agree on Lamont

I am very very concerned on the message that will be spun if Lamont doesn't win. I don't know what the problem is in CT, but I sure wish the Kerry people would take a hard look at it and figure it out. If Lieberman wins they're going to say it means the people really aren't that serious about ending the war or wanting Democratic policies. Of course that can be offset with people like Tester, but I don't necessarily see him standing up with the most liberal in DC although I don't see him with the Blue Dogs either. Although I've always thought the DLC was blamed for problems the Blue Dogs were actually causing.

[Mass]

10. Part of the problem is that Lamont is not a great candidate. Part of the problem

is that all politics is local. Lamont never made a convincing case that Lieberman was a bad senator for CT or that he would be a good senator.

I listened to at least three debates and, as much as Lieberman was not good, Lamont was not either. Schlesinger was better than both, but he was not supported by his party, and, for the matter, neither was Lamont.

Lieberman is a fairly liberal senator except on foreign policy and he can claim a number of successes for CT. In particular, all the people who live off the naval bases and construction businesses know that Lieberman's position in the Defense Committee and the Homeland Security Committee can help them a lot.

To my knowledge, Lamont has not demonstrated he understood these issues, nor has he really made the case that Lieberman was not necessarily that efficient.

All that led to one result: those people who had already made the judgement they wanted to oust Lieberman because he was to cozy with Bush will vote Lamont. Those for whom there were other issues will stick for Lieberman, even if his stance on Iraq is unsavory. After all, he is not the one who makes the decisions.

[TayTay]

12. It is worrisome on what happens if Joe wins

and goes back to the Senate. All sorts of interesting things can happen then, and none of them are that pleasant. Sigh! I wonder who will be the first one to 'kiss and makeup' with Joe.

Oy!

[Firespirit]

15. I'm honestly not that worried about the Lamont/Iraq thing

Iraq is not going to get better by 2008, and by the time primary season rolls around, I expect that the contenders will be courting the anti-war vote... which will be even larger than it was in 2004. It certainly won't be a rush to the right on Iraq. Those that waffled on it, like Hillary, are going to be in a tight spot explaining themselves to the voters who want OUT and are therefore likely to support Kerry. Kerry will be able to say "I have supported deadlines for three to four years" while the rest will be scrambling to imitate him. And those sharp voters in IA and NH and NV will be able to see right through it. A poll came out saying that 53% of the public wants a timeline for withdrawal, and that number is only going to grow.

If Lamont loses, I don't think it'll be relevant past perhaps mid 2007. Certainly the Hillary machine would use that loss to pretend that it's a mandate for her wishy-washy non-stance on Iraq, but it won't change anyone's mind. I think that once people decide they want out by a deadline, they're not going to shift rightward again, period. It'd just reek of self-serving BS to the primary voters to be told by Hillary how they are supposed to think on the Iraq issue, and they'd resent it.