Matt Stoller on the Lamont - Lieberman Race in CT... AN ACT OF BETRAYAL

[Totally Committed]

"Whether it was a standing ovation at a caucus meeting when Joe got back to the Senate after his primary loss, or Obama refusing to come to Connecticut or criticize Joe in any way, or Bill Clinton praising Lieberman on Larry King, or Harry Reid promising Lieberman seniority, or Chuck Schumer refusing to get involved and practically being forced to not back Lieberman after the primary, or insiders telling Lamont's campaign that they would talk Joe out of the race if Lamont didn't go on the attack, it's very clear that the Democratic Party leadership is rotten to the core. With the exception of John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy, and Wes Clark, no high profile Democrats have been there for Lamont. (John Edwards is a bit more complicated, but the jury's still out.)"

From this WaPo Article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/10/31/BL2006103100405_pf.html

No matter what happens next Tuesday, NEVER FORGET THE FOLLOWING:

**** a standing ovation at a caucus meeting when Joe got back to the Senate after his primary loss

**** Obama refusing to come to Connecticut or criticize Joe in any way (add Biden there, too!)

**** Bill Clinton praising Lieberman on Larry King

**** Harry Reid promising Lieberman seniority

**** Chuck Schumer refusing to get involved

**** "insiders" telling Lamont's campaign that they would talk Joe out of the race if Lamont didn't go on the attack

* "... it's very clear that the Democratic Party leadership is rotten to the core." And, I don't mean Dean, here. I mean those mentioned above, and their minions. They screwed Ned, and in doing that, they screwed the Democratic primary voters in CT AND the netroots.

NEVER FORGET THIS BETRAYAL. No matter what happens next Tuesday, never forget it.

TC

* Edited to correct the context (thank you, Skinner...) Please see post # 2 where Skinner very astutely corrects me in saying ot was Kurtz who wrote this. It was not. It was Matt Stoller of MyDD. Please read the above quote in that context. I apologize for the error, but stand by my original purpose of writing this post -- WHICH WAS NOT TO DEMORALIZE ANYONE A WEEK BEFORE THE ELECTION, but to rally people against this betrayal by the heirarchy of the Democratic Party, and make them see the light before they cast their vote for Joe instead of Ned next week! Anyone who suggests otherwise does not know me or my outlook at all about the elections next week.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

1. What do you suggest we do? eom

[Totally Committed]

5. Get wise about the people we are nearly FORCED to elect

and re-elect. Remember this betrayal if or when Joe returns to the Senate. Back people who actually prove they have OUR backs.

This Party and the heirarchy of it need to be CHANGED drastically after the coming election. I was sort of hoping this would get hat point across to people here.

TC

[still_one]

7. we can hold them accountable AFTER WE WIN

it is meaningless now, this only serves to divide

[Tesha]

11. Just remember this the next time the Right Wingers in the party...

> What do you suggest we do?

Just remember this the next time the Right Wingers in the party
insist that you vote for their jerk because he's the nominated
Democratic candidate.

Apparently, it doesn't work both ways.

Tesha

[LonelyLRLiberal]

12. Lieberman is a sore loser and if he is not ousted now, he should be next time.

Right now, only voters in his State can do anything.

[Tesha]

13. Not true!

> Right now, only voters in his State can do anything.

Not true! "Big Name" Democrats from across the country *COULD*
be doing something if they had a mind to. But generally speaking,
they've been sitting on their thumbs while a non-Democrat lies
about the nominated Democratic candidate.

I, for one, won't forget this. Ever.

Tesha

[Skinner]

2. Ahem. That's not a quote from Howard Kurtz.

That's a quote from Matt Stoller at MyDD.

Context=so important.

Liberal bloggers are still mad at Joe Lieberman, especially now that it appears he's going to keep his seat after losing the Democratic primary. Matt Stoller of MyDD blames the Democratic establishment:

"In the Lieberman-Lamont fight, there has been a fair amount of handwringing over why Lamont isn't blowing Joe out of the water. Why, if Joe lost to Lamont, isn't he losing in the general? Why did Lamont let Joe get away? Well there are a number of reasons, but among the most prominent is the total abandonment of Lamont by the party establishment. And let's be very clear - this is not Lamont that they are abandoning, it's the party primary voters that they are abandoning.

"Whether it was a standing ovation at a caucus meeting when Joe got back to the Senate after his primary loss, or Obama refusing to come to Connecticut or criticize Joe in any way, or Bill Clinton praising Lieberman on Larry King, or Harry Reid promising Lieberman seniority, or Chuck Schumer refusing to get involved and practically being forced to not back Lieberman after the primary, or insiders telling Lamont's campaign that they would talk Joe out of the race if Lamont didn't go on the attack, it's very clear that the Democratic Party leadership is rotten to the core. With the exception of John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy, and Wes Clark, no high profile Democrats have been there for Lamont. (John Edwards is a bit more complicated, but the jury's still out.)"

[Rose Siding]

Stoller wrote that, not Kurtz

I agree with Stoller.

[mrgorth]

3. I like Lamont

but this is smart politics. We have to keep him mostly voting with us if Lamont loses. Joe should've stepped aside but he knows that he will win this as an I.

[still_one]

6. It will be even MORE important if the Senate ties and Lamont

does not win

[still_one]

4. You have every right to your opinion, but this thread has only one purpose

To demoralize people ONE WEEK before a MAJOR election in which at least SOME ACCOUNTABILITY may be exerted against this administration

[Totally Committed]

8. My OP now contains the following:

"Edited to correct the context (thank you, Skinner...) Please see post # 2 where Skinner very astutely corrects me in saying ot was Kurtz who wrote this. It was not. It was Matt Stoller of MyDD. Please read the above quote in that context. I apologize for the error, but stand by my original purpose of writing this post -- WHICH WAS NOT TO DEMORALIZE ANYONE A WEEK BEFORE THE ELECTION, but to rally people against this betrayal by the heirarchy of the Democratic Party, and make them see the light before they cast their vote for Joe instead of Ned next week! Anyone who suggests otherwise does not know me or my outlook at all about the elections next week."

I am repeating it here, because I resent your implication. No one wants a Democratic Party victory next week more than I do, and just because you disagree with what I've written is no excuse to make this accusation.

TC

[still_one]

10. I wasn't personally attacking you, and the point you make is valid

I was just saying that I think one week before an election we should be united on winning

After we win, then we can hold them accountable

NOTE: I am NOT disagreeing with your premise, just the timing

[bpeale]

9. you can effect change

one way to bring this all back home to democrats is to refuse to participate in the primaries. there is no reason to have a primary or participate in a primary if no one will abide by the winner of the primary. what would they do then if they can't get anyone to participate?

[Hippo_Tron]

14. The lovefest for Lieberman seems unprecedented to me

Senators lose primaries. It doesn't happen every election cycle but it does happen. Why is Joe so special that after he loses the primary, he gets protection from the establishment? When Alan Dixon lost his primary in '92 nobody, including Dixon himself, was trying to keep him in the race. Carol Moseley-Braun was an outsider but still had the full support of the establishment. I just don't get why these people think Lieberman is so goddamn special.