Why Ned Lost

[jgraz]

Great analysis by David Sirota.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2917

One side will say Lamont lost because he talked only about the war and therefore alienated a mythical, pro-war "center" even though polls show most Americans oppose the Iraq War. The other side will say he lost because he stopped talking about the war entirely. What really happened?

< ... >

Ned Lamont lost by 10 points. Such a margin indicates that something structural was happening that could not have been addressed by any of the tactical or rhetorical tweaks either side says made the difference. Some of those structural problems were unique to this particular race, some were more generic, but together, they steepened the climb for Lamont in ways that made victory almost impossible. The challenges included:

• Entrenched incumbency: Lamont was attempting something no one other than Paul Wellstone has done in the modern political era: defeat a statewide incumbent as a candidate who has never run for major office before. And Lieberman was no regular incumbent—this was a man presenting himself as a hybrid of both parties, and a 36-year political institution in Connecticut —the most careerist of career politicians.


• Abandonment of the Democratic nominee by the Democratic Party: The story of the national Democratic Party’s abandonment of Lamont will likely be written more fully in the coming weeks, with explanations of both how this happened and even more importantly, why. But the broad strokes are obvious: Almost every major figure in national Democratic politics save John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Wes Clark and John Edwards refused to seriously help the Lamont campaign.

More at http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2917

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[msongs]

2. because most republicans voted for joe? nt

[Sydnie]

3. Ding Ding Ding

We have a winner. :)

[Evergreen Emerald]

12. That is exactly why

70% of the republicans voted for him
33% of the democrats...which means over 60% of the dems voted for Lamont.

[BlueCaliDem]

13. Nail right smack on the head! eom

[Thickasabrick]

14. Bingo - I know I've said this a kajillion times - but he was the

fucking republican candidate and Rove won that won.

[Selatius]

4. In first-past-the-post voting with a private election system, entrenched incumbency is...

very difficult. Up until recently, incumbents won 90 percent of the time against all challengers. The only time the general observation is broken is when the people are extremely pissed.

[onenote]

9. which just shows that CT voters weren't as pissed at Lieberman as DUers

[Selatius]

10. Well, on that score, Joe's victory was due 90 percent to the Repubs

The minority of his voters were Dems. The majority of Dems backed Lamont, though, especially when it came to the war.

[onenote]

24. intersting math -- how do you calculate the 90 percent figure?

No question that the support that Lieberman got from repubs propelled him to victory. On the other hand, 33 percent of Democrats voted for Lieberman and if half of them had voted for Lamont instead, he'd have won. So you could just as easily blame his defeat on those Democrats. Or on independents, who are by almost as large a voting bloc in CT as Democrats and who went for Lieberman over Lamont by 55 percent to 35 percent.

In my view, the key wasn't party affiliation, it was "ideology." Only 26 percent of all voters in CT self-describe themselves as liberal,while 53 percent call themselves "moderate". If Lamont could have captured a majority of the moderates, he'd have won.

THe point of this is that we have to learn to analyze election results with our heads not our hearts. Lieberman, who I hoped would lose, knew the lay of the land better than Lamont did and that's why he stayed in the race and that's why he won.

[hfojvt]

27. at least not Republican Connecticut voters

and DUers are usually better informed than the average public. It's a media thing. Watching TV vs. reading and research and debate on the internet.

[onenote]

28. or the independent voters

or the moderate voters.

I won't dispute that it would be nice if everyone was fully informed and was progressive in their political thinking, but if you want to win elections, you have to attract the voters that are, not the ones you wish existed.

[hfojvt]

30. we would have won this election

Lamont vs. a Republican (other than Lieberman) would have been a win for Lamont. Supposed moderates probably lean one way or another. If they were left-leaning independents, then they should not have voted for Lieberman. But again, if Connecticut people do not hate Lieberman, then either it is not a blue state which voted against Bush twice, or they were woefully misinformed.

In any case, Lamont and Lamont supporters forced Lieberman to reveal that he is not really a Democrat, which should take away some of the mileage Lieberman gives to Republican spin points.

[onenote]

34. connecticut's reputation as a blue state is somewhat overstated

yes, it went against Chimpy in 2000 and 2004. But there are as many, if not more, independents as Democrats and while those independents are probably more moderate than conservative, they are also more moderate than liberal. Moreover, the state's governor is a repub and until this most recent election, 3/5 of its Congressional delegation was repub. Two of those incumbent repubs hopefully lost (although I'm not sure if one of them has been declared yet). And while the two Democrats who ousted repubs (Courtney and Murphy) are definitely better on the war than Lieberman, neither one publicly advocates immediate withdrawal.

I agree wholeheartedly that if Lieberman had not run, Lamont would've won. But that's like saying that if Lamont had not run, Lieberman would've won. Analyzing election results should focus on the results that happened, not those that might have happened under some other scenario.

[hfojvt]

39. not the same thing at all

First, incumbents win alot of races. Almost all of them in fact. Second, the argument is that a progressive or liberal candidate cannot win in a general election. Lieberman does not prove that. Typically a race breaks down to liberal vs. moderate in primary. When the moderate wins, the liberal drops out, he does not run as a Green. So choice breaks down to Democrat (either moderate or liberal) vs. Republican (either moderate or extremist) in the General. People like Sebelius, Moore, and Boyda have to be moderates (or worse, one step away from DINOs) to win in Kansas, but that should not be true in places like Ct and Wisconsin, in spite of their Republican governors.

Without the third party BS that Lieberman created by starting the Lieberman party a liberal candidate could have won the general election, especially considering how weak his Republican opponent was. However, the party elites of both parties seemed to have preferred Lieberman, rather than a challenger to the incumbentocracy.

[onenote]

47. in addition to the party elites preferring lieberman, so did 50% of the voters

Again, I supported Lamont, but facts are facts.

[Warpy]

5. There was also a very effective whispering campaign

that painted Lamont as a rich dilettante who didn't know his thumb from his bum and wasn't a "real Democrat." You know, nobody with money can possibly be one of us, and all that crap.

[Vinca]

6. Plus, and I think more importantly, the Republicans didn't

put up a viable candidate. If they had, and Joe hadn't gotten the Republican vote, Ned might have won.

[onenote]

7. gee, didn't webb just defeat a statewide incumbent as a candidate

who had never run for major office before? ANd then there's John Edwards. I'm fairly certain he'd never run for office before he took on and defeated incumbent Lauch Faircloth. I bet if I checked, I'd find a few others.

A few others:
Bobby Kennedy
Conrad Burns (only prior candidacy was for Yellowstone County Commission)
Orrin Hatch
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Bill Frist

I wish Lamont had won, but explaining his defeat by reference to false history is pretty silly.

[Eric J in MN]

17. Arnold Schwarzenegger (NT)

NT

[Eric J in MN]

18. Mark Ritchie, the new Secretary of State of Minnesota,

...beat an incumbent, and was never a candidate in an election before.

[Eric J in MN]

20. Also, Paul Wellstone himself ran for State Auditor...

...unsuccesfully before running for US Senate.

Perhaps, Sirota considers State Auditor less than a "major" office, but if so then how can Sirota count the many US Senators and Governors who previously held seats in state legislatures as having previously held "major" office?

[Jim Warren]

8. and of course there's this

Running as independent, Lieberman overcomes primary loss to keep seat

Ousted by his party in a stunning primary defeat in August, Sen. Joseph Lieberman ran as an independent Tuesday and defeated Democratic challenger Ned Lamont in one of the nation’s most closely watched U.S. Senate races, bucking a rising tide in dissatisfaction with the Bush administration over the war in Iraq.
Lieberman, who supported the war, won by a comfortable 11-point margin. The third candidate, Republican Alan Schlesinger, failed to attract much support.

The Jewish vote, which was widely believed to hinge on whether support for Israel was a voter's principle issue, went to Lieberman, as had significant financial support from pro-Israel factors across the country. A CNN exit poll of 114 Jewish voters found that 63 percent supported Lieberman on Tuesday, a slight increase from the 61 percent that voted for him in the primary.

It was below the overwhelming Jewish support Lieberman enjoyed in past elections - yet it was enough for Lieberman to overcome the primary debacle and retain his Senate seat.

http://www.jewishledger.com/

[xchrom]

11. republick party money, and republick party votes gave lieberman

his victory.

and yes, the democratic party DID NOT stand by lamont as they should have.

and the reasons for that can pretty base and ugly.

[BlooInBloo]

15. Damn jackass CT voters.

[Hutzpa]

23. Thats what I say too

either CT voters are just plain stupid or they got robbed, all the same something does not add up

[Eric J in MN]

16. Skinner of "Democratic Underground"....

...posted early in the general election contest that Ned Lamont should attack Republican Alan Schlesinger.

But Lamont didn't make any TV commercials doing that, and Lamont lost.

In Minnesota, by contrast, the Republican governor had TV commercials attacking both the Independence Party and Democratic candidates, and the Republican governor won.

[autorock]

19. Lieberman won because of experience

Lamont had a background in cable TV. There's really no comparison.

[LiberalPartisan]

21. Ned lost because...

He's an unqualified dilettante and Joe is a great representative for the people of Connecticut, who, on balance are not nearly as liberal as those who got Ned his primary win.

End of story

[Alexander]

41. Joe "I won't miss more than 300 votes" is GREAT??

How about "I won't run for a third term"?

Or better yet, "I will never leave the Democratic Party and run as an independent"....something he repeatedly said in 2004, while claiming Howard Dean (now DNC chair) would.

I would still have respect for the guy if he ran for Governor against Rell. Or if he pledged to support the Democratic nominee, like he did in 2004. Or if he didn't hire Republicans and take Karl Rove's money to win re-election.

Joe is a liar now, plain and simple. I will never trust him again.

[ruggerson]

22. Ned lost because

on the night he won the primary, Jesse and Al Sharpton were framed right behind him on the television screens as he gave his victory speech. And this was the first time a lot of voters were introduced to Lamont.

And, no, it has nothing to do with Sharpton and Jackson's race, it's because middle class CT voters views them as representative of the old school far left wing of the Democratic party.

YOu don't win in CT, unless you get the moderate, Catholic, middle of the road Democrats. These are people who do not respond to Dennis Kucinich, Ramsey Clark, Al Sharpton kind of ideology.

Whoever the advance man was that set up the tv shot on primary night should never help run a campaign again.

[Peace Patriot]

25. Interesting post. Very interesting discussion.

loathesome
vile
slimy bigot
scum
racist
anti-semite
tainted
pariah
racist
bigoted
low
in the mud
filth

All this to describe a black politician. And this is not racist, in itself?

Imagine these words--vile, scum, pariah, filth--scrawled by nazi brownshirts on the doors and windows of Jewish businesses and homes in Germany, as hatred against Jews was stirred up, that would lead to the near extermination of the Jewish race. These were the sorts of words the nazis used. These were the sorts of words that were also used by white bigots against black citizens in the U.S., particularly in the south. Filth. Dirt. Scum. I remember a bigoted white woman, owner of a laundromat, in Alabama in 1965--where I first saw "white" and "colored" drinking fountains in a nearby park (I am white--from California)--telling me that her washing machines did not have high enough temperatures to kill the germs on black peoples' clothes, and that I could not mix white people's and black peoples' clothes together in the washing machine. The idea that other people are filth, or scum, or untouchable, tells you a lot about the speaker, but nothing about those whom they hate.

Seems to me we have a lot of healing to do, and truth and reconciliation.

Boston Critic is not telling us something reasonable He/she is telling us something visceral, something that is originating in fear and emerging as hatred. There is no content here, no rational discussion, no evidence presented that Al Sharpton is a racist or antisemitic (or vile, scum, pariah, filth). What we may be learning is what some of those 63% of Jewish voters who voted for Lieberman--despite what may have been their own views of the Iraq War--may have been feeling, seeing Al Sharpton standing with Ned Lamont: fear. Why? A guess--because Al Sharpton has criticized Israel's rightwing, militaristic policy against the Palestinians, and its suicidal alliance with the despised Bush Junta.

Let me tell you what I think is going here. Jews are afraid, and they have reason to be. They, like blacks, have been the scapegoats of insane 'christian' bigots like those who worship George Bush, for thousands of years--a lot longer than even blacks have been. For most Jews, Israel was/is the dream of safety from European pogroms against the Jews that culminated in Hitler's ovens. A land of their own, in the place where their race was born--their ancestral home--where Jews would always be welcome, and can always find refuge. But because of the conflict with Arabs and particularly Palestinians--who suffered loss of status, land and wealth, and suffered violence--as the state of Israel was created after WW II--the hostility of surrounding Arab/Muslim countries, several Arab-Israeli wars, and continued injustice by the Israelis against the Palestinians, with Palestinians retaliating, most recently with suicide bombings, Israel as a home for Jews has never been secure, and has been virtually in a state of war since its beginning. Two powerful forces within U.S.--the oil cartel, and the Jewish vote (which isn't that big, but which is backed by strong Jewish political organization and political money)--both have a high interest in the Middle East and in maintaining a western state in that region. Also--and very importantly--many other Americans truly sympathize with Israel as a Jewish homeland, and have long supported large U.S. expenditures, mostly military expenditures, to bolster Israel's security.

And I think this is what is really at issue--both in Boston Critic's visceral remarks, and in what seems to be unreasonable or inexplicable support for Joe Lieberman, in a very Democratic state, CT, where you expect that the Iraq War and Lieberman's collusion with the Bush fascists on that war, to have been a large and deciding factor in the Lieberman-Lamont contest. What's at stake is OTHER American's support for Israel, in view of Israel's unfortunate alliance with the most despised U.S. administration in our history. The backlash to the Iraq War in this country could be a change in American opinion regarding political and large-scale financial support for Israel, with people here failing to distinguish Israel itself and its people from the rightwing militaristic politicians and war profiteers in both Israel and the Bush Junta. In other words, Israel could become the scapegoat for the failed Iraq War.

I haven't followed Lieberman's votes that closely, but, as I understand it, Lieberman is a liberal on most issues--in the great CT liberal tradition. He is not a Bushite in that sense. So Jewish voters, who tend to be strongly liberal and to vote Democratic, would not be betraying their social consciences in voting for Lieberman. And I presume also that CT is not much different than the rest of America on the Iraq War: 70% opposed! So the most important factor for Jewish voters in CT must have been Israel. They did not trust Lamont to continue to support Israel, and Lieberman--acceptable to them on social issues--was a sure bet to support Israel IN THE FUTURE, even though Lieberman was a strong supporter of the Bush policy that has put Israel in more danger than it has ever been in. They are willing to forgive Lieberman for that, in order to have a strong advocate for Israel in the Senate--as the fallout from the failed Bush policies is played out, and future Mideast policy is determined.

Israel's rightwing DID maneuver within the Bush administration to bring the full force of the U.S. military over to the Middle East, and to thoroughly embroil the U.S. on Israel's side in the conflicts between the Israeli government vs. Palestinians, and vs. other Arab/Muslim states. But is the Iraq War "Israel's fault," or the fault of its people? No. Grabbing Mideast oilfields away from the people who live there--and also war profiteering--have been the project of the U.S. Oil Cartel, and other rightwing forces in the U.S. for decades. Israel's rightwing leaders, and ITS war profiteers, fit into this nefarious cabal and its schemes, but did not create them. This has nothing to do with ordinary people and OUR attachments to our countries, and everything to do with greed for money and power, which has no loyalties. Example: I think that the U.S./Bush Junta was responsible for the 2002 attempted violent coup against Hugo Chavez's democratic government in Venezuela. Does that make ME anti-Chavez, or a militarist, or a fascist? No, it does not. We must always distinguish between ordinary people and their true interests and views, and the policies of fascist governments like the Bush regime, or militaristic governments like those that Israel has suffered, no matter what rightwing news media are telling us. For instance, we read in polls that most Israelis support these militaristic Israeli policies--such as bombing Lebanon--but is that REALLY what most Israelis WANT, as their future--a hundred years' war--or are they just very scared and think there is no other option? (--bearing in mind that they have been in state of war for generations, a condition in which fear and despair, and the tricks of mind that those emotions can cause, may be rampant). (Also, what is the influence of war profiteers in that situation?)

In any case, Israel is in one hell of a spot--with the Bush Junta as its only friend in the world. The Bush Junta--and the bulk of the American people up until now. As this despised Junta slinks into history as the worst U.S. government we have ever suffered, will Israel go down with it? I think this is why 63% of CT Jewish voters, who normally vote Democratic, voted for Lieberman, who supported a policy (the Iraq War) that has put Israel in mortal danger in the Middle East, and not Lamont, the Democrat who strongly opposed that policy. It's not the Iraq War, but the potential CONSEQUENCES of the Iraq War that was/is the issue. And Lieberman--for all his faults, and wrong-headedness--is not only a staunch supporter of Israel, but also a SYMBOL of the conflict within the Jewish soul, at the moment, over the injustice of the Iraq War and all of its ravages (including injustice to the American people), on the one hand, and the deep tribal desire (and tribal panic?) for the U.S. to continue to protect Israel.

As an immigrant country, we have many peoples and tribes in the U.S. who maintain attachments to their home countries, and lobby in their interests. There is nothing wrong or disloyal (to the U.S.) about this. It makes us what we are--one of the most successful multi-cultural societies on earth. Jewish and other American support for Israel has additional resonance--in that Jews were the particular victims of Nazi hatred, and also suffered bigotry here, and elsewhere in western society. We have a special moral obligation to prevent that from happening again, and to insure that the Jewish race and Jewish culture survive. This is the profound basis of U.S. support for Israel.

Vile, scum, filth, pariah, loathsome, tainted, slimy, low. No human being is any of these things. A human being may be ill, covered with sores, dirty, smelly, homeless and crazy. But he is not "vile." He is not "scum." Or he may even be clean, well-dressed and rich, but guilty of multiple murders. I would still avoid words like "loathsome" and "scum" and "filth" to describe the human being, as opposed to the human being's behavior. Scapegoating the human being leads straight to injustice of the worst kinds--including wrongful prosecution and punishment, denial of the opportunity to change, mob rule and genocide. We must not characterize people who are addressing the critical issues before us in the Middle East as anti-semites, for questioning U.S. support for Israel, or the actions of Israel's rightwing government. We must instead make the case not just for Israel's survival--and I think it's a strong one--but also for the prosperity and well-being of the Israeli PEOPLE--and try to bolster the forces of peace, truth and reconciliation within Israel, and here, which can produce a positive outcome for ALL Middle Eastern peoples, and an end to the "endless" war.

[Boston Critic]

29. And yet you can't defend

Sharpton's record of racism, antisemitism and bigotry.

All the handwaving in the world won't make it go away.

[Hutzpa]

33. An interesting read,

Vile, Scum, Pariah and Bigot are words that can be associated with racism, people who dislike Blacks period....they tend to hide behind these words, enough said.

[Boston Critic]

37. Bigot is a racist word?

On what planet is this?

And still no one is able to defend Sharpton's notorious record as a hatemonger and demagogue.

[Peace Patriot]

40. Boston Critic, you said...

loathsome
vile
slimy bigot
scum
racist
anti-semite
tainted
pariah
racist
bigoted
low
in the mud
filth

You didn't just say bigot. You said "slimy bigot." "Scum," etc.

Can you quote for me one statement (or more) of Al Sharpton's that displays bigotry? I'm not all that familiar with Sharpton's record. (I don't have a TV.) But I don't remember reading about it, or seeing anything like that, on his part.

That's why I suspect that you just don't agree with his political opinion--criticism of Israel, maybe.

And what about, "vile," "loathsome," "pariah," "low," "filth"? Any statements or actions of Sharpton's that support this?

These are such emotional, visceral--and, dare I say, "low"--words. Something's got you angry, and throwing words at Sharpton that YOU would call bigotry--and rightfully so--if they were used against Jews or other minorities.

What if I called Lieberman "scum" or "filth"?--which I hope I would never do, no matter how much I disagreed with him. Even if I thought it, in anger, I hope I would hold my tongue. Because words like that do absolutely no good whatever, and much harm. They spread a hateful attitude.

Can you imagine Martin Luther King calling the white bigots who were beating him up "scum" or "filth"? He never condemned them. He always spoke and acted in a way that left room for even the worst bigots to change and be ennobled. And the changes he and others helped bring about, with this peaceful attitude, were simply amazing. I don't know if you remember "white" and "colored" drinking fountains. Do you? Change can happen, Boston Critic. But not if you project "scum" and "filth" and "slime" onto others.

I'm guilty of it myself. I've used some awfully vile descriptions of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and a few others in posts at DU--out of anger, frustration and horror at what they've done. And helplessness. And I can only hope that it does no harm. That's it's just "self-expression" and things that need to said, to let off steam. But I know that demonizing others is a dangerous business that can lead you yourself to become what you hate. And it certainly doesn't help any of the targets of my anger to change--or to see my point of view at all. I think it's a little more justified against such immensely powerful people, than it is against someone like Al Sharpton. But it's the same low impulse appeal to those demonizing kinds of emotions rather than reason or positive projections. It's also not very effective argument. It turned me off to your point of view. Now I don't trust you.

[Boston Critic]

42. No, I'm not going to do your homework for you

You're blindly defending a man you know nothing about and assuming anyone criticizing him is guilty of namecalling.

You have the same access to Google that I do. Start learning something about Al Sharpton and the lives he's helped to destroy, sometimes fatally.

[PassingFair]

44. "I haven't followed Lieberman's votes that closely"

Then STFU before you come out swinging with
accusations like these! What gall!

There are DAMN good reasons for these descriptors
for Mr. Lieberman. He is TURNCOAT to the democratic
party.

I cannot recall the name of a democrat who LOST
a democratic primary, only to run as an independent
in a senate race.


Anyone?

It is patently unethical.

[Radical Activist]

26. In other words, centrists are at war with liberals in the party.

Even when a liberals shows they are electable and wins the primary, centrists will refuse to support the party nominee. I will remember this when moderates demand party loyalty from me when they nominate a conservative Democrat.

[jgraz]

31. Not the centrists, the corporatists

The centrists are too wussy to be at war with anyone.

[Radical Activist]

32. True, true. n/t

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

35. Brilliant analysis.

And pretty much what most of the people who opposed the anti-Joementum crusade said would happen way back at the beginning, not that anybody bothered to listen.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. One word: incumbency.

The Democrats decided to change horses in the middle of a race. That was why they lost.

If Lieberman hadn't held the seat for three terms, and hadn't been generally regarded as having represented his constituents well during them (irrespective of the truth or falsity of that belief) then the Democratic nomination would have carried it for Lamont without difficulty, but choosing to ditch the incumbent candidate is always a dicey business, and in this case it didn't pay off.

[Boston Critic]

38. Incumbency helped Joe...

... but if he had done the honorable thing and accepted the results of the primary, Lamont would have easily won.

[bridgit]

43. i thought he lost cause he never really ponied up, seemed to me he just sat...

there, and whether it seems likely or not, Lieberman being for whatever its worth the more seasoned 'politician', Lieberman campaigned circles around him

[madfloridian]

45. He lost because Joe courted the Republicans...

And had huge number of Dems from the previous administraion of Clinton behind him.
I save the national Dems for Joe page. Glad I did, appears deleted now. Next I will post the CT Dems for Joe

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/562

Former Senator David Boren, OK

Former Senator John Breaux, LA

Former Senator Richard Bryan, NV

Former Senator Dennis DeConcini, AZ

Former Senator J. Bennett Johnston, LA

Former Senator Bob Kerrey, NE

Former Congressman Norman D'Amours, NH

Former Congressman Buddy Darden, GA

Former Congressman Cal Dooley, CA

Former Congressman Ben Erdreich, AL

Former Congressman Mike Espy, MS

Former Congressman Don Fuqua, FLA

Former Congressman Frank Guarini, NJ

Former Congressman Peter Hoagland, NE

Former Congressman Ken Holland, SC

Former Congressman Earl Hutto, FLA

Former Congressman Jay Johnson, WI

Former Congressman and Mayor Ed Koch, NY

Former Congressman John Krebs, CA

Former Congressman Mel Levine, CA

Former Congressman Jim Lloyd, CA

Former Congressman Matt McHugh, NY

Former Congressman Ron Mottl, OH

Former Congressman Tim Penny, MN

Former Congressman Stephen Solarz, NY

Don Baer, Director Of Communications - Clinton Administration

Mark Brzezinski, Former Director of National Security Council – Clinton Administration

Ash Carter, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense - Clinton Administration

Bill Danvers, Senior Director for the National Security Council - Clinton Administration

Lanny Davis, Special Counsel to the President - Clinton Administration

Stuart Eizenstat, Former Deputy Treasury Secretary – Clinton Administration

Steve Elmendorf, Former Chief of Staff to House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt

Al From, Founder of the Democratic Leadership Council

Bill Galston, Deputy Assistant for Domestic Policy - Clinton Administration

Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General - Clinton Administration

Martin Indyk, Assistant Secretary Of State, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel - Clinton Administration

Max Kampelman, Ambassador to the CSCE - Carter Administration

Jim Kennedy, Former Spokesman for Former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore

Simon Lazarus, Associate Director of the White House Domestic Policy Staff – Carter Administration

Michael Levy, Asst. Sec. of Legislative Affairs for the U.S. Dept. of Treasury – Clinton Administration

Abbe Lowell, Chief Minority Counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives

Will Marshall, President and Founder, Progressive Policy Institute

Dana Marshall, Senior Advisor, U.S. Department of Commerce – Clinton Administration

Mack McLarty, Former White House Chief of Staff - Clinton Adminstration


John Nakahata, Chief of Staff to Chairman of the FCC – Clinton Administration

Tom Nides, Special Counsel for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs - Clinton Administration

Leon Panetta, Former White House Chief of Staff – Clinton Administration

Tony Podesta, Clinton Transition Team, Former Counsel to Sen. Ted Kennedy

Bruce Reed, Domestic Policy Advisor - Clinton Administration

Dennis Ross, Special Middle East Coordinator- Clinton Administration

David Rothkopf, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade - Clinton Administration

Richard Swett, Former Ambassador to Denmark - Clinton Administration

Ben Wattenberg, Aide and Speech Writer to President Lyndon B. Johnson

Jim Woolsey, Former Director of the CIA - Clinton Administration

[madfloridian]

46. And see the CT Dems for Joe. This is why Ned lost.

Joe became a Republican in all but name, and got 70% of the Republican vote. CT Dems for Joe

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/458

Jim Amann - Speaker of the House (Co-Chair)

Reggie Beamon - State Representative, Waterbury

Jeff Berger - State Representative, Waterbury

Bert Bosse - Vice Chair Board of Finance, Lebanon

Susan Cable - First Selectwoman, Beacon Falls

Frank Cirillo - Fmr. DTC Chair, Meriden

Tom Conway - Fmr. State Representative, Waterbury

Chuck Coursey, Town Council, West Hartford

Pat Crowley - City Council, Enfield

Kevin Cunningham - First Selectman, Plainfield

Red Edgar - Town Council, Enfield

Mary Fritz - State Representative, Wallingford

Willie Fritz - First Selectman, Clinton

Joan Hartley - State Senator, Waterbury

Mike Jarjura - Mayor, Waterbury (Co-Chair)

Kevin Knowles - Fmr. State Representative Naugatuck

Ben Lathrop - Mayor, Norwich

Pat Lynes - Deputy Majority Leader, City Council, Meriden

Corky Mazurek - State Representative, Wolcott

Tom McCarthy - City Council, Bridgeport

Steve Mikutel - State Representative, Griswold

Jeff Nicholas - Former First Selectman, Bethlehem

Mike Pacowta - DTC Chair, Shelton

Iris Papale - City Council, Wallingford

John Picard - Mayor, West Haven

Rich Roy - State Representative, Milford

Dan Russo - DTC Chair, Middletown

Bill Satti - Former Mayor, New London

Domenique Thornton - Former Mayor, Middletown

Christel Truglia - State Representative, Stamford

Albert Vertefeuille - Former Selectman, Windham & Lebanon

Joe Walkovich - Former State Representative, Danbury

Jim Miron - Mayor, Stratford

Bill Finch - State Senator, Bridgeport

Juan Candelaria - State Representative, New Haven

John Leone - Former Mayor, Bristol