Lamont "will have accomplished more in defeat than most campaigns do in victory. "

[madfloridian]

There are so many levels to this. He may yet pull it out, but since so many Republicans and Clinton advisors are supporting Lieberman...it is doubtful.

Lamont showed the power of the blogosphere and the people....Lieberman shows us that the old way is still in control for a while at least.

I read this blog about it, and it moved me that someone saw it so clearly.

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/Election_Predictions_November_2006_3872.html

In Connecticut, it is hard to see how Ned Lamont wins, since the Republican candidate is polling at less than 10%. Joe Lieberman is getting at least 80% of Republicans, and only needs 20% of Democrats to win.

Connecticut is not a progressive state. It regularly elected a very conservative Republican as Governor (John Rowland only left office after being indicted), and three of its five congressmembers are Republican.

Ned Lamont’s campaign, like Howard Dean’s presidential effort, will have accomplished more in defeat than most campaigns do in victory. History will remember that Ned Lamont enabled the Democratic Party to make Iraq the centerpiece of the 2006 elections. Dodd and Lieberman won’t be around forever, and Lamont will eventually find his rightful place in the Senate.

Thanks, Ned, for putting yourself and your family through this. It will not have been in vain either way. It showed up the clear divisions in our party in a way that nothing else could have done. So in effect, as the blog says...you have already won.

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. Indeed. Ned Lamont has given proof to the lie that the primaries mean squat

I can't tell how many times I've heard here, "If you want change, you should have voted in the primary." Well, the people of Connecticut did vote in the primary, and it is nonetheless a forgone conclusion that the "Democratic" incumbent will get relected with the full support and endorsement of his party's leadership.

[blm]

4. I guess this is why 'Isn't Clinton great' posts annoy me - he refused to be 'great' for

Ned Lamont, and everyone knows that is where you direct 'star power' for the party.

So, they are picking and choosing who gets his 'greatness' and who is denied his 'greatness' and they decided to give the finger to Connecticut Dem voters.

[AtomicKitten]

6. ah, yes, the typical RW spin ---- IT'S THE CLENIS' FAULT

http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/local/scn-gt-a1clintonsundayoct29,0,847813.story?coll=green-news-local-headlines

Excerpt:
Lamont's spokeswoman, Liz Dupont-Diehl, said the campaign had given little thought to the subject and had not made a formal request for Clinton to appear in the state. The campaign, she said, was concentrating on connecting with voters at Town Hall-style events.

"We won the primary without a whole lot of established party support and we've continued to campaign in the same vein, trying to get Ned out to meet the voters," Dupont-Diehl said.

For the Lamont campaign to say it hasn't reached out to Clinton is "curious," said Kenneth Dautrich, a public policy professor at the University of Connecticut.

"If you're Lamont, why don't you ask Clinton, when Clinton brings so much to the table?" Dautrich said. "I can't think of a better person to bring in to energize the Democrats and appeal to independents," Dautrich said.

If not asking for Clinton's help is the Lamont strategy, it is a tactical mistake, he said.

[madfloridian]

8. Because they knew it was useless? Be realistic.

From Lieberman's website, the Dems who are backing him.

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

[geek tragedy]

58. Lots of "formers" on that list. eom

[dethl]

65. David Boren? Doh...

I'm applying for a foreign exchange scholarship that's named after him.

o_O

[blm]

9. Well, we'll hear the real story on Wednesday. Hillary 'donated' her communications guru

to Lamont, remember? And Schumer denied party money to Lamont, remember? You can believe in coincidences all you want.

You can believe this spin in the paper, but Lamont DID expect support from Clintons and isn't getting it. His campaign people will be telling the full story at kos on Wednesday.

But, I somehow doubt you will believe it. And if you don't care about Lamont winning, why bother showing up on this thread? Geez.

[madfloridian]

11. I have been waiting for that after the election.

I saw Tim's post there. That should be interesting.

[blm]

12. Interesting? I'm expecting it to be sickening.

Infuriating. And sad.

[madfloridian]

14. Well, I agree. Bad choice of words.

I should say interesting in the worst connotation. I need to find that post there.

[madfloridian]

18. Let me know when it appears there.

I can not find the post where I saw it...might be in my hotlist.

[AtomicKitten]

16. Which orifice did you pull that of?

I have supported Lamont all along, so don't even try to go there.

And by the same token the usual suspects' disdain for the Clintons never disappoints in blaming the Clintons for all ills. Chatter on blogs is not gospel; it is worse than opinion, it is gossip. Maybe if you and yours spent less time filling your head with that crap and actually following factual information, your input would be less obsequious.

[madfloridian]

17. Did you see my post to you about Joe's bragging

about all the Clinton folks supporting him?

[blm]

19. Then you should be concerned that there is a backstory re Lamont, too.

And it isn't that he wouldn't let Clinton campaign for him. One of Lamont's top people posts updates at kos. You can believe what you read which sounds like a planted story to me, or wait to hear the fuller story after the election from some of the people who lived inside the campaign.

[Timefortruth]

25. Gossip?

So Bill and Hill campaigned for Lamont?

The thing speaks for itself.

[Timefortruth]

24. Hillary's people orchestrated

the early post primary Lamont campaign, which was so bad that it seemed designed to cause the candidate to go down in defeat.

As I said, the only good to come of it is that it torpedoed Hill's presidential nomination chance. She would have lost in the general, and this prevents another weak Democratic presidential candidate.

[AtomicKitten]

28. that's funny

Seriously, blaming now BOTH Clintons is rich.

Convenient and oh so DU.

[Timefortruth]

34. plausible deniability

Is meant to fool most of the people most of the time, but it didn't work for the Clintons this time. You may believe they wanted to help publicly elect the Democrat in Connecticut, but very few others fell for it.

Hillary is toast, the group she alienated with this would have been the most likely to support the election of a woman.

[AtomicKitten]

39. She has not changed her standing with you and yours

nor with anybody else, and it is delusional of you to think so as if you are doling out a punishment for an imagined trespass.

I won't vote for her in the primary because she voted 'yes' on the IWR, but she never had the support of the foaming-at-the-mouth lefties anyway and this doesn't change that in any way, shape, or form, although your puffed-up posturing about it is amusing.

If Lamont loses tomorrow, it will be because lazy pseudoactivists didn't get off their ass and work his campaign but chose to bloviate here on the internet instead.

[Timefortruth]

41. Yeah, that's right, the

base thinks she supports Democrats. Murdock has fundraisers for all the good Democrats.

This Lamont betrayal of the Party is just another tell about what she really thinks of us.

[madfloridian]

42. Now you are crossing the line of name calling. No one else is.

"If Lamont loses tomorrow, it will be because lazy pseudoactivists didn't get off their ass and work his campaign but chose to bloviate here on the internet instead."

Well, my dear, I am in Florida. We donated to Lamont and helped other ways. And guess who is bloviating here also? You are.

"I won't vote for her in the primary because she voted 'yes' on the IWR, but she never had the support of the foaming-at-the-mouth lefties anyway and this doesn't change that in any way, shape, or form, although your puffed-up posturing about it is amusing."

Foaming at the mouth? Really, AT. That is just insulting.

[AtomicKitten]

44. new strategy!

* tsk-tsking *

Please feel free to hit 'alert' if you think you have a case.

And, um, that's AK, not AT.

[madfloridian]

49. I don't alert. I just don't take part in name-calling.

It is a practice that is usually only used here by those who look down on us lefties.

[mtnsnake]

60. Bullshit. Crossing the line is how some posters totally distort 1 candidate

in order to make theirs look better. I'm not talking about you, but there are plenty of posters doing it 24/7. It's as obvious as the day is long. Sometimes I think there are more outright lies and distortions spread here on DU about the Clintons than on RW hate radio.

[madfloridian]

62. Read this.

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

And remember who these people are, their positions.

I did no name-calling. You are attacking me for supporting the guy who WON the primary.

Ned won, Joe did not.

[mtnsnake]

64. I wasnt attacking you. I was attacking the ones who REALLY cross the line

with the way they distort reality in feeble attempts at knocking one candidate to make theirs look better. It happens all too often on this forum.

I don't blame AtomicKitten one iota for her response. It's absolutely tiresome the way some people stretch the truth until it hurts. I'm not talking about you in regards to that, just was making the point about what "crossing the line" really is and isn't.

I just edited my intitial post, btw, to make sure it doesn't appear that I was grouping you with the people I alluded to in that post.

[madfloridian]

75. Thanks, but I think we are about to see the scenario play out.

I hope I am wrong.

[mtnsnake]

61. Who exactly were these people? At least name their names

Thank you.

[politicasista]

69. Gore and Kerry were not weak

Did they make mistakes? Yes, but who do you think would have done better? The GOP slime machine would have smeared anyone and they will do it again. If anyone doesn't think that they are in for a rude awakening.

[fuzzyball]

68. Clinton's lack of support for Lamont is a STRATEGIC decision

A Lamont win would have put dagger thru Hillary's 2008
ambitions. It would have proved that people everywhere
including Connecticut want quick withdrawal of troops
out of Iraq. That is in direct conflict with either Bill
or Hillary's positions.

Therefore a strategic decision was made to undermine Lamont's
run for senate. And a smart one at that, from Hillary's
perspective of winning nomination and white house in 2008..

[AtomicKitten]

70. proof-positive

that Hill can't win either way with people that don't like her to begin with. If she helped Lamont (which she did), it was either not enough or she will be blamed for screwing up his campaign, and if she didn't in your opinion it is strategic to undermine him.

She can't win either way which proves my point upthread that whatever her real motivation is doesn't really matter since she never had nor will ever have the support of some anyway. The theories emanating from amateur keyboards always start with not liking her and end with denigrating her, and the stuff in the middle is often contradictory and always speculative, but always amusing nonetheless when issued with earnest certainty.

[blm]

13. And, oh yeah.... It's the RW who is supporting Lieberman AGAINST The left.

So where does that place you in the spin department?

[Timefortruth]

23. "I think it has to do with the

delicate line the party is walking in this race. They're backing Lamont, but they don't want to anger Lieberman, especially since he's ahead," said Jennifer Duffy, editor of the nonpartisan Washington, D.C.-based Cook Political Report.


It is face saving for Lamont to publicly pretend they didn't request Bill's help and that's why he hasn't come around. It is idiotic to believe that Bill's help was declined. The good part of this betrayal is that it makes it perfectly clear to anyone watching that the Clinton's wish to protect the status quo, more than they wish to support Democrats.

[AtomicKitten]

26. "It is idiotic to believe"

that this delicate dance has anything to do with nefarious implications but is rather about "the delicate line the party is walking in this race." Lamont didn't reach out to Bill Clinton which has already been established to be poor strategy.

Being a poor sport does not establish any truth to your accusations. It doesn't take a genius to understand the balance of power in the Senate hangs in the balance which, in the final analysis, is what is really important.

[Timefortruth]

27. Sure, OK, Lamont didn't

want Bill's help. He didn't really want to win despite all the money he spent.

I have some waterfront property for sale. Since you believe that, you seem open minded enough to be interested in this deal......

[madfloridian]

29. Wait till the whole story comes out at Kos.

Not being a poor sport. Being realistic.

Maybe you did not see my post above. This is who is supporting 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

[AtomicKitten]

30. Would that be the same Kos you and yours declared a pariah last week?

... for slamming Kerry for sitting on his warchest?

That Kos?

[blm]

31. That was kos believing another blogger, but the poster at kos is posting as

a lead player in the Lamont campaign. He is known there the way people know Will Pitt here. You can scoff at his updates from inside the campaign all you want. It doesn't diminish his standing or his claims.

[WildEyedLiberal]

32. Well, it won't be Kos's story.

It will be Lamont staffers posting AT DailyKos. You know, there is a difference.

And even if it were Kos himself, one good post does not mean that he is immune from criticism for the lying bullshit he has posted in the past.

[madfloridian]

35. I don't think you get the point at all, do you?

You keep making it about someone else. In fact you are evading the issue....Lamont is getting screwed by the Clinton group.

It is wrong, it is inexcusable.

More to come.

Now about Markos. Some days I like him, some days I don't. Some days I like Jerome and Chris, somedays I don't.

It has nothing to do with this issue.

[AtomicKitten]

37. actually you and yours keep making it about someone else - THE CLINTONS

get that part right

[madfloridian]

38. My OP was a tribute to Lamont until it got hijacked.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/565

[AtomicKitten]

40. 1) the election isn't over ; 2) your tribute became blaming others for the declared loss

eom

[saracat]

15. In AZ they count and the Republican vote is skewed so that only

the conservatives get nominated because no one else votes! And in some districts , mine included,the Dem's don't even nominate an opponent.That is why this year they were stunned that my husband was nominated and is giving this empty headed right wing bubbled head a run for her money.Her sole qualification for office is that she is a Christian and has carried "life' in her body.She has one child. Whoop. and she is a state representative for one term. My husband is set to win and in a Repug District.But primaries do count.The selection of your candidate can determine winning or losing.Conn. is an anomaly

[Thrublue]

2. Makes me cry.

[madfloridian]

3. Yeh, I have shed a few tears over this one as well.

The people spoke, but they were not heard.

[trof]

5. Pass the Kleenex.

That is SO sad.
:-(

[MercutioATC]

7. He sunk a lot of his own money into this, too.

Let's hope the Party finds someplace to polish him for another election (one where he's supported with Party money).

[KurtNYC]

10. 1) he hasn't lost yet and 2) he opened the door and others ran in

and one more time I would remind any lurking GOP types:

A vote for Lieberman is a vote for Nancy Pelosi!

[Dick Diver]

55. Not a "lurking GOP type" but

"A vote for Lieberman is a vote for Nancy Pelosi!" -- how is that true?

[KKKarl is an idiot]

20. It is a sign of the times

It won't be long before the old is weeded out to bring in the new era where people aren't afraid to vote their mind. I believe if the old guard of the democratic party does not change some of it's patting the good ole boys on the back stance then they too may be taken down & a new independent party step up to challenge.

[Infinite Hope]

21. My thoughts...

Lieberman will either win so easily tomorrow that it'll be called early OR that it'll be so close that it runs into the early morning hours and Lamont will win.

[bigwillq]

22. I'm still holding out hope.

:bounce:


Thank you Ned! :bounce:

[tom22]

33. I vote tomorrow at 8:00AM.

One guaranteed vote for Ned Lamont.

[bigwillq]

43. Two votes for Lamont!

:bounce:

[Cha]

36. KNR!~ This makes me feel sooooooooo

good! Because to me it's seems true. I'm saving this forever..thanks, mad!

[madfloridian]

45. It was an important primary victory.

We can't let ourselves forget that.

I hope he wins tomorrow, and there is always that chance.

:hi:

[madfloridian]

46. Sirota's post at MyDD tonight will also bring a tear or two.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/11/6/205325/206

"When the day finally ended at our last rally in Danbury at the Portugese Cultural Center, Ned looked wistful addressing the throng that had assembled (the picture from this event is the one with this post). He recounted how when he got in this race, no one said he could make any difference at all, and how far we've come. As my wife would tell you, I'm not one for crying - but I'm big enough to admit that I, Tim Tagaris and a lot of others there had trouble keeping it together, not out of sadness, but out of admiration for what he - and all of us - have achieved, regardless of what happens tomorrow.

This is a campaign not against Joe Lieberman - but against a man who has become an institution and a symbol - one that has come to represent all that is wrong with politics today. Ned's campaign changed the country on the War in Iraq. It's not a coincidence that since the primary, Republicans, Democrats, military officials and retired Bush administration icons have all come out and said that it's time for a change in Iraq. That's what Ned courageously said 10 months ago, even as Joe Lieberman and his $30,000-a-month goons called him a terrorist for it. And when he kept pushing it, he pushed the whole country.

Even as the waning hours of the campaign coincide with a sharp increase in American casualties, Joe once again dismissed Iraq as just "one issue." But like Ned says, it affects everything because it is tied to everything - our ability to invest at home, our national security, global stability, everything. The fact that a campaign by an earnest non-career politician in the little state of Connecticut has so intensely impacted one of the most pressing geopolitical crises in a generation is such an unfathomably large achievement, that I'm genuinely embarrassed not just for Joe but for our whole country that in the face of this incredibly important reality, Joe's website today fronts pictures of the senator with puppies and yuck-yuck petty personal attacks on Lamont campaign staffers like me.

I'm tired - real tired. But I'm also excited because I know tomorrow we are going to make history. So with the bus tour over and election day now just a few hours away, I want to leave you one thought, and one simple request: There are two kinds of people in this world: those who bow down and worship power, and those who stand up and challenge power. When you walk into the ballot box tomorrow, please ask yourself: which kind of person are you or do you want to be? When you do that, I guarantee it - all the dishonest TV ads, misleading slogans and canned rhetoric that is designed by the Joe Liebermans of the world to confuse you will melt away. Suddenly, you will know in your heart who your choice is to represent you for the next six years."

[Clarkie1]

47. The people are in charge, and the people of CT seem to prefer Lieberman.

I wish Lamont a win on Tuesday, but if he loses it won't be because the will of the people isn't being expressed. It will be, one way or the other.

[madfloridian]

48. Well, I blame Joe, not the people. He is making it about him.

You speak of ALL the voters of CT, but you are forgetting something very important....something at the heart and soul of our party.

It is called the PRIMARY. It is held so the people can choose their candidate.

Joe refused to accept the will of the Democratic voters. He made it about him.

When all this is over, one will be remembered for winning...and it won't be Joe. He may get the most votes in the general election tomorrow....but he is still the loser.

And so is our party and its primary system. And the people who keep making excuses for Joe will be able to rationalize it when he makes the vote 50/50 so Cheney can be the tie breaker.

OR even this....if Bush gives him a cabinet appointment, and the Republican governor appoints a Republican in his place. Some will still be excusing poor Joe for ignoring the voters of CT.

Your post shows you don't understand what is going on...he lost. Period.

[Clarkie1]

50. Not worth arguing this now.

I agree he lost the primary and a better Democrat would have accepted the will of the Democratic primary voters.

However, if he gets the most votes tomorrow he will have earned the right to be the Senator from Connecticut. The people of Connecticut will have spoken. The two-party primary system is not sovereign. The will of the people is.

I hope Lamont wins. I have no further comment on this.

[madfloridian]

51. It was really sort of a good thing to have happen after all.

It delineated the party lines more than anything else could have done. It is not a bad thing, except for the man who actually won.

But he sounds philosophical about it.

[blm]

53. It will be the will of the Republicans, not the majority of Democrats.

Big difference. If Joe had stayed out, the Democratic candidate would have won easily.

[JI7]

52. i'm disgusted by anyone who did not give full support for Lamont

once he won the nomination.

i feel so bad for him. and i'm not even one who was a big fan of his. but once he was our nominee nothing else should have mattered. and Lieberman already said he isn't sure whether he wants Democrats to have control of congress.

that's a great picture of Lamont. i hope he sticks around and we see him again in the Senate or other office.

[robcon]

54. Nothing to do with Dems' support /endorsements of Lieberman

Lieberman will be elected because the Repubs didn't vote for the Repub candidate, they voted for Lieberman.

[madfloridian]

57. No, you are wrong. Here are the CT and National Dems for Joe.

You are so wrong. Lieberman is taking from Lamont the Democratic votes he needs to win. He is attacking Lamont, the Democrat, who won. Look at it this way. Lieberman is attacking the man who beat him in the primary instead of supporting him.

Here are the Dems who are supporting Joe, shame on them. I will keep the list handy, I will remember that Bill Clinton refused to campaign for Lamont, and there is more to come on that subject.

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

[robcon]

71. not a shred of evidence that endorsements have any impact

Repug candidate will get 30pts less than a normal loser. those are the votes that Lieberman got to win the election.

[Justice]

56. Had dinner with several CT residents last night - interesting discussion

Several well educated voters - many supportive of Lieberman in the past. Some Jewish, some Republican, some Democrats. Lots of discussion about the number of congressional races in CT, and a consensus that Johnson is probably going down, that Shays may well go down, and that Simmons might go down.

Lots of discussion about how Lieberman really gave Bush tremendous cover because of Lieberman's prominence as former VP candidate, Democrat from Northeast, blah blah - that Lieberman above anyone really allowed Bush to say he had bipartisan support (I would throw Gephardt under that bus too, but he decided not to run again). Then lots of discussion about how Lieberman was unable to acknowledge that Iraq was going badly -- and that the facts had changed (that we thought there was WMD but there was no WMD), and thus he (Lieberman) could change his opinion/view b/c of changed facts. (This person believes full well that the facts are unchanged, that there was never any WMD, but for the sake of argument, and those that did believe, he posited his comments to them).

Best point in discussion was older well spoken gentleman who brought up the comment reported recently that voters today are more worried about the status quo than about change. Then, one person (more moderate-right) then said, he had not decided until this weekend, but in the end - he said that is what made up his mind - he did not want the status quo, and thus he would vote for Lamont.

One person still said he would likely vote for Lieberman. He seemed unhappy about that. In part, I think because he felt like he was going to win based on the polls. I said well, my view was that Cheney and Bush have said they would fight to the death any attempt to investigate/fight their policy -- and that it would take absolutely everything we had to deal with the Iraqi situation and getting our country back, and that for that reason alone the only vote was a vote for Lamont. Lieberman has not shown he is able to stand up to Bush, and we need more than anything independence. Ironic that the guy running as an independent is not.

[rep the dems]

59. It's not over yet. I'll admit, I'm worried that Joe is going to win

but we shouldn't give up on Lamont.

[Q]

63. This has...

...DLC stink all over it. Why in the hell do you think Republicans want Joe in office? It's because he and his DLC buddies vote WITH them on many of the important issues.

This is a prime example of why we shouldn't be voting for just any politician that pretends to be a Democrat. THIS is how the 'new' Democrats plan on taking over the Democratic party. And as we have seen...like the Republicans...they don't think they have to play by the rules.

If Joe is given ANY power within the party after declaring himself an 'independent' after LOSING the primary...it will show that winning IS more important than morals and values.

[madfloridian]

66. Lamont represents the change that is gaining ground...

the change we need. Not necessarily leftist in nature, not the point. Not about right or left.

It is the change that represents not having a sense of entitlement to a seat in congress. A change that means you listen. I will never forget when I found out that Bill Nelson's office got over 2700 calls begging him not to vote for the Iraq war. An aide told me when questioned about it...that they had to listen to the ones "who didn't call" as well.

I asked her what they said. That confused her.

Standing up about Iraq

[madfloridian]

67. Record turnout in CT today. Hope it is a good sign.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/7/132959/043

"State officials are projecting a strong turnout and reported a busy morning at the polls, which opened at 6 a.m. today. Turnout in Danbury, Wilton, New Britain and Vernon was outpacing that from two years ago, said Dan Tapper, spokesman in the secretary of the state's office.

A suspected reason for the large turnout is the race between Sen. Joe Lieberman and anti-war challenger Ned Lamont. Lamont's primary victory was widely seen as a referendum on Iraq -- and a sharp rebuke of Lieberman's pro-war views."

Lieberman campaign sends NYT an angry letter for endorsing Lamont.

[madfloridian]

72. The letter Joe's campaign sent the NYT when they endorsed Lamont.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/564

"It is quite telling that the Times, much like the bloggers who have been trying to purge Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party, failed to acknowledge any of these accomplishments and stands - or to explain why they were not relevant to your endorsement process.

Nor do your editors acknowledge the fact that Senator Lieberman has opposed the Bush Administration on most every major domestic policy initiative.

Or that Senator Lieberman has been endorsed by groups as diverse as the League of Conservation Voters, the Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood and NARAL, the Chamber of Commerce, the Realtors, and Connecticut's police, firefighter, and building trades unions.

Or, not least of all, the Times editors did not acknowledge the consequences of losing Senator Lieberman's seniority for the people of Connecticut and for many of the progressive causes the Times has long championed."

[madfloridian]

73. Lamont was not the loser. Joe won, but he is no winner.

I will not forget this. :cry:

[madfloridian]

74. A kick for the real winner....Ned Lamont.

And a reminder of who screwed Lamont from our own party. I won't forget who thought the party was unimportant...but they expected us to stay on board in 04.

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

Here is the list of the national Dems for Joe, the CT Dems for Joe are listed above them. Some seem not to believe the Democrats who are donating and working for Joe:

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