quote:

---

In the wake of Tuesday's Connecticut primary, it's hard to say which group came across looking more desperate and out of sorts: Sen. Joseph Lieberman's bungling campaign staff, universally derided as tone-deaf and slow-footed, or Beltway-based pundits who sounded noisy alarms about the disastrous impact a win by Ned Lamont would have. Progressives would be wise to ignore the pundits' free advice, since it seems to have been driven less by concern about the Democratic Party's well-being and more by personal affinity towards Lieberman, insecurity about the surging liberal bloggers, and fear that Americans might start holding somebody--anybody--responsible for Iraq.

The Lamont media flailing truly was remarkable. How else to describe longtime Lieberman pal and DC corporate lobbyist Lanny Davis, trolling online through liberal comment sections in search of random anti-Semitic slurs in order to prove thoughtful progressives opposed to Lieberman were really filled with "scary hatred." Davis also trembled theatrically for a liberal Connecticut buddy who confided that he might not return to the state to vote on primary day "out of fear for his safety."

. . . .

For the last few years mainstream media pundits and reporters chuckled over the bloggers' dismal 0-16 streak in backing candidates in previous campaigns. But the Lieberman stunner (stunning, in that four months ago nobody thought Lamont could prevail), changes everything. As of right now, the bloggers not only have juice, but represent perhaps the most potent force in progressive politics. You don't think that scares Beltway insiders who for decades saw themselves as the de facto king makers?

Revealing, too, is the fact that MSM pundits and reporters don't focus on Lieberman's arrogant decision to abandon the Democratic party in order to hang onto his seat in November by running as an independent.

---

quote:

---

The narrow primary defeat of veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary is more than a loss for one man. It is a loss for his party and for the country. It completes the capture of the Democratic Party by its Taliban wing.

---

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060810-084244-8757r.htm

quote:

---

Commenting on the Connecticut Democratic primary race between businessman Ned Lamont and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol claimed that Democrats who oppose Lieberman do so because Lieberman is "unashamedly pro-American," while right-wing pundit Ann Coulter asserted that those favoring Lamont as Connecticut's U.S. senatorial candidate are "anti-American." In his column for the August 14 issue of The Weekly Standard (posted on The Weekly Standard's website on August 4), Kristol wrote that "[w]hat drives so many Democrats crazy about Lieberman is not simply his support for the Iraq war. It's that he's unashamedly pro-American." Similarly, on the August 9 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson, Coulter asserted that Lamont's victory in the Connecticut primary illustrates that "the anti-American wing" of the Democratic Party is "absolutely in the ascendancy right now."

---

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608100006

quote:

---

Today on CNN Headline News, anchor Chuck Roberts discussed the impact of the foiled British terror plot with Hotline senior editor John Mercurio. Roberts asked Mercurio, “How does this factor into the Lieberman/Lamont contest? And might some argue, as some have, that Lamont is the al Qaeda candidate?”

---

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/11/headline-news-lamont/

And, from the candidate himself

quote:

---

If we just pick up like [sic] Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them, and they will strike again.

---

quote:

---

Today on CNN Headline News, anchor Chuck Roberts discussed the impact of the foiled British terror plot with Hotline senior editor John Mercurio. Roberts asked Mercurio, “How does this factor into the Lieberman/Lamont contest? And might some argue, as some have, that Lamont is the al Qaeda candidate?”

---

Good grief.

Isn't that slander of the lowest order?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flash Walken:

Good grief.

Isn't that slander of the lowest order?
.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Flash Walken:

Good grief.

Isn't that slander of the lowest order?

Disgusting.

---

No, its what passes for 'objective journalism' in the good old US of A.

quote:

---

Lieberman's not going anywhere. He knows better than the Democratic voters of CT. Now a Republican actually has a shot at capturing the seat. The war party marches on.

---

What makes you think that the Republicans have a chance of capturing the seat? Most of the mainstream media is clearly gunning for Lieberman. It was posted to the Lamont/Lieberman thread at EnMasse that when Lamont won the primary CNN went out of its way to describe the Republican candidate as "weak".

I suspect Lieberman will draw as many votes from the Repunlicans as he does from the Democrats. Most of the large percentage of Conneticut voters who oppose the Iraq war won't vote for Lieberman (and they're even less likely to vote for the Republican candidate).

[ 13 August 2006: Message edited by: Left Turn ]

So, Lieberman tried to get Democratic support for his leadership and failed. So, since he has certain issues he wants to stand for with the voters, he's running as an independent. So what? It's well within his rights, and not only that, I think it's undemocratic to suggest that he shouldn't. Of course, the guy's a prick, but even pricks are allowed to run for office. If the Democrats don't want him, then he'll see if the voters do.

quote:

---

even pricks are allowed to run for office.

---

Pricks are only allowed to run for office if they are attached to a body. It's in the Constitution.

quote:

---

Cheney's comments about the election were ugly and frightening. They show once again that he and his party will stop at nothing to wrap Republicans in the flag and to insinuate that anyone who votes against them is giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. It's obvious that this administration lacks basic respect for our fundamental freedoms.

Cheney and his crowd are all for free and open elections - as long as they turn out their way. They are all for free speech - provided it supports the administration. They are all for the rule of law - as long as the law does not prevent them from doing whatever they want to do. When elections, speeches or laws are inconvenient, he does not hesitate to declare that they are helping the terrorists. I can think of no graver offense against our democracy.

---

quote:

---

Pricks are only allowed to run for office if they are attached to a body. It's in the Constitution.

---

A lot of sensible media pundits are saying this is a pivotal event in US electoral politics, and I find myself agreeing. Even though it's a primary in a very liberal state, I think the significance goes beyond that. The Democratic establishment largely backed Lieberman. Now they've had to choose and they've backed Lamont. So I think it's going to make it harder for them to advance pro-war politics in the future -- now they see that there can be a cost, and they've been embarrassed by it.

More analytically speaking, there has been a huge penning-up of anti-war sentiment among the American people that has yet to find any expression at the political level. Ultimately, this situation is unlikely to hold and Lamont might be a kind of beachhead for anti-war forces at the political level.

Finally, I think it's interesting that a lot of the smear tactics used against Lamont aren't sticking. The anti-semitism charge seems to have sunk like a stone. Elsewhere, Cheney's attempts to make political hay out of UK terror arrests are actually drawing criticism from the MSM. So, it may be that those politics are losing their power. In the election for senator, I think some chunks of the MSM and the Republican party (Karl Rove) will be playing dirty against Lamont. They may find a way to make it stick. But Lamont's team has also shown they can deal with such tactics in funny, creative ways.

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
They shouldn't let him back in, but they probably will. He has already said he will caucus with the Democrats. The big question would be whether he gets his choice of committe assignments.

---

quote:

---

A group of Senate Democrats is growing increasingly angry about Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (D-Conn.) campaign tactics since he lost the Democratic primary last week.

If he continues to alienate his colleagues, Lieberman could be stripped of his seniority within the Democratic caucus should he defeat Democrat Ned Lamont in the general election this November, according to some senior Democratic aides.

. . . .

“At this point Lieberman cannot expect to just keep his seniority,” said the aide. “He can’t run against a Democrat and expect to waltz back to the caucus with the same seniority as before. It would give the view that the Senate is a country club rather than representative of a political party and political movement.”

---

quote:

---

Lieberman leads in Connecticut poll

Anti-war challenger Lamont lags 12 points behind

By Tom Curry
National affairs writer
MSNBC
Updated: 2:32 p.m. ET Aug. 17, 2006

WASHINGTON - A new opinion poll of Connecticut voters released Thursday indicates Sen. Joe Lieberman — rejected by his own party — can nevertheless make the electoral math add up for a win on Nov. 7.

The new Quinnipiac survey found that, among voters likely to cast ballots in November, Lieberman has 12-point lead over the man who beat him in the Aug. 8 Democratic primary, Ned Lamont.

The poll indicates that, as he did in his last Senate election in 2000, Lieberman gets strong support from Republican voters.

He also wins more than a third of Democrats, despite the fact that he’s no longer his party’s official nominee.

---

MSNBC

[ 17 August 2006: Message edited by: Hunky_Monkey ]

[ 17 August 2006: Message edited by: Hunky_Monkey ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasmus raven:
Actually, most pundits predicted that Lieberman would be ahead and would probably win the race.

---