Diary from Lamont campaign staffer on Daily Kos. Very enlightening.

[Firespirit]

It's a bit huffy and combative, but it has some very interesting insight into the various power players of the Democratic Party.

Link: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/14/122820/27

Highlights:

John Kerry
One of two rock stars for the campaign. He refused to endorse Joe Lieberman in the primary. He basically made a mockery of Joe by saying he doesn't get involved in contested primaries despite campaigning for Jim Webb against Harris Miller a few days earlier. After we won, he sent out a pair of mildly successful fundraising emails on our behalf. He appeared in the state.

Most importantly, John Kerry was the Senator who spoke most forcefully and publicly about Joe's support of "stay the course" and his Nixonian deception when Joe all of a sudden became a peace candidate in the closing weeks.

Senator Kerry was by far and away the most helpful senator to the campaign.

Wes Clark
Another rock-star. He appeared in a commercial for the campaign. General Clark sent out a fundraising email for the campaign. He came to Connecticut and spoke at a packed rally in Storrs (UCONN). He also spoke out against Joe Lieberman's desire to "stay the course in Iraq. He was the first to chastise Joe for running as an independent after Joe questioned the general's Democratic bona fides during the 2004 presidential campaign.

Again, the general was absolutely terrific.

Senator Edwards
Basically, John Edwards called us up and said he was coming to Connecticut in the days after the primary. There wasn't really even an invitation (to the best of my knowledge). In his speech, he never mentioned Joe Lieberman. When pressed by bloggers about coming back to Connecticut, he said he would. When we asked him directly, he declined.

Hillary had a fundraiser for Ned. She met with Ned personally and that generated a good amount of press. They eventually (after significant prodding) sent out an email to their CT list asking for volunteers down-the-stretch (but Hillary would not have it sent in her name). Pretty good. There was quite a bit of debate inside campaign HQ about what their motivations were.

After asking no less than 5 times, the DSCC eventually sent out an in-state solicitation to volunteers. Again, after tremendous pressure coming from within online communities and leading bloggers. Mike Liddell at the DSCC told me it wasn't being sent because of that pressure, but because it was "the right thing to do." I know Mike. I like Mike. I respect Mike. I'll take him at his word. However, it was unfortunate that he insisted the email go out from the Executive Director of the DSCC and not Chuck Schumer.

This diary, in my opinion, says a great deal about inner-party politics and probable back-room dealing.

Kerry's joke was one instance in which people showed their true colors. Their acts and motivations in the Lamont/Lieberman mess are another. I know Lamont was a long-shot candidate, and I wasn't expecting him to win after he consistently failed to budge in the polls. However, this was all about honor, courage, and doing the right thing. I sincerely hope that the incoming Senators-elect and Congressmen-elect have more honor and courage than these longtime party insiders.

//Edited to include Clark information. No offense meant to Clarkies!

[TayTay]

1. I feel bad for Tim Tageris and David Sirota

That campaign deserved more support from Democrats. It's sad that hardly anyone stepped up to the plate for Ned Lamont.

At least we know who the real Dems are now.

[robinlynne]

24. yes we do, and let's not forget it.

[ultraist]

33. I feel bad for Tim too

He obviously has a lot to learn about being professional. His comments about Senator Edwards coming to campaign for Ned Lamont and his putting Edwards on a public "naughty" list, is beyond rude.

Tim fails to mention that not only was Senator Edwards the first to call Lamont and thank him, but the first heavy hitter Democrat to campaign for him. And, that's the thanks he gets from a paid Lamont staffer?

I highly doubt that Lamont himself would publicly slam Edwards for the favor he did him. So, I would take Tim's "list" with a grain of salt.

[SouthernBelle82]

38. I don't see it that way

I see it as him just being honest about the people who came to campaign for Lamont. It's so rare when we get a behind the scenes look and even then when you do it's sometimes staged or not so much staged but just what they want us to see. And as someone else said this shows us who they really are.

[ultraist]

40. No, he was not honest

Nor was he professional. A "professional" paid campaign staffer should not publicly smear someone who has campaigned for their candidate and Tim's accounting of Senator Edwards' help was dishonest.

[benny05]

43. I think that's Monday Morning QB from Tagaris

Kerry and Clark deserve their due, but I think Tagaris' feelings are tripping potential runs for Lamont. Can't do that..have to move on with a positive message and campaign, don't you agree?

[Catchawave]

47. I received a lovely letter from the Lamont Campaign

Thanking me for my support, yada, yada, yada....too bad Tim wasn't as gracious!? I am vexed.

[AndyA]

2. It doesn't seem like the Democratic Party supported Ned very much.

And that's shameful. They have their priorities screwed up somewhere. They'll wish they had supported Ned if Joe switches to the GOP and causes the Dems to lose their majority. Easy come, easy go...

[Firespirit]

5. He doesn't even have to switch

All I've read suggests that he is one vindictive S.O.B. Even if he stays with the caucus, I can see him bullying, threatening, and blackmailing the leadership. Why the hell didn't he apply this, um, determination, in 2000 in Florida?

[blm]

12. You know - Kerry was supposed to campaign with Lamont that last week - maybe the

Hillary siding with Bush against Kerry on the RW smear against him was another way of establishment Dems supporting Lieberman in a very 'invisible' way.

[blm]

3. They EARNED the right to be huffy and combative - that's how all Dems should be

with those in government who demonstrate blatant disregard for election process or the corruption of our government.

[Firespirit]

4. Agreed...

I just like to inform people of these things. :)

[blm]

6. It would be a good idea to let DUers know there's added good info about Clark at the link

I am proud of what both Kerry and Clark did. They both learned firsthand what it is like to have the establishment Dem wing turn their backs on actively supporting the nominee.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. I was posting about Clark while you were posting this.

I didn't see your post while I was writing mine. Kerry and Clark both came through for Lamont big time.

[TayTay]

9. They did.

Their support was crucial and they deserve the 'rock star' designations.

[blm]

10. They are both as standup as it gets.

They KNOW what happens when establishment Dems undermine the nominee. The stand up guys have to work double overtime in an effort to make up.

It shouldn't be the way it is.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. The other "Rock Star" for Lamont

It seems only fair, since the OP exclusively focuses on the contributions of one of the two Democrats called "Rock Stars" for Lamont, to also share here what was said about the other one:

"Wes Clark
Another rock-star. He appeared in a commercial for the campaign. General Clark sent out a fundraising email for the campaign. He came to Connecticut and spoke at a packed rally in Storrs (UCONN). He also spoke out against Joe Lieberman's desire to "stay the course in Iraq. He was the first to chastise Joe for running as an independent after Joe questioned the general's Democratic bona fides during the 2004 presidential campaign.

Again, the general was absolutely terrific."

[Firespirit]

11. I added this to the OP

No offense intended! It's just that my guy has been under attack a lot lately and so I "squeed" at the positive press for him. I like Clark a lot too. Solid Dems. Add Jim Webb and you have a trifecta of good, honorable Democrats (who all happen to be military men).

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. Thanks for that. The good guys deserve recognition.

And Kerry has gotten a ton of undeserved flak, no doubt about that. He was really there for Democrats in 2006. Both he and Clark were.

[question everything]

13. This is why it is called politics

The Senators have to, first, secure their positions and, second work on winning the Senate which, everyone said, was going to be an uphill battle. And this was before Mark Foley, and the others.

Lieberman's was always considered a safe seat plus, the man was on the national ticket just six years ago! I don't know of other instances where a secure incumbent loses in the primaries. They could not intervene in the priamries. What if Lieberman won?

In contrast, in the VA primaries the goal was to ensure an outcome that would successfully challenge a supposedly secure Republican seat. I know that even the DUers from VA agreed that Webb would be the better challenger.

[The Count]

15. None of this is about the primaries, but about Joe vs the dem party stage

Primaries should NOT be interfered with. Once Joe attacked the will of the Dem voters, it was their duty to do so.

[Hippo_Tron]

36. Here's a list of Senators who have lost their primaries

2002: Bob Smith (R-NH) – lost to John Sununu (GOP retained seat in November)
1996: Sheila Frahm (R-KS)* - lost to Sam Brownback (GOP retained seat)
1992: Alan Dixon (D-IL) – lost to Carol Moseley Braun (Dems retained seat)
1980: Donald Stewart (D-AL) – lost to Jim Folsom Jr. (GOP picked up seat); Mike Gravel (D-AK) – lost to Clark Gruening (GOP picked up seat); Dick Stone (D-FL) – lost to Bill Gunter (GOP picked up seat); Jacob Javits (R-NY) – lost to Al D'Amato (GOP retained seat)
1978: Maryon Allen (D-AL)* - lost to Donald Stewart (Dems retained seat); Paul Hatfield (D-MT)*; lost to Max Baucus (Dems retained seat); Clifford Case (R-NJ) – lost to Jeffrey Bell (Dems picked up seat)
1974: J. W. Fulbright (D-AR) – lost to Dale Bumpers (Dems retained seat); Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH)* - lost to John Glenn (Dems retained seat)
1972: David Gambrell (D-GA)* - lost to Sam Nunn (Dems retained seat); B. Everett Jordan (D-NC) – lost to Nick Galifianakis (GOP picked up seat)
1970: Ralph Yarborough (D-TX) – lost to Lloyd Bentsen (Dems retained seat)
1968: Ernest Gruening (D-AK) – lost to Mike Gravel (Dems retained seat); Thomas Kuchel (R-CA) – lost to Max Rafferty (Dems picked up seat); Edward Long (D-MO) – lost to Thomas Eagleton (Dems retained seat); Frank Lausche (D-OH) – lost to John Gilligan (GOP picked up seat)
1966: Donald Russell (D-SC)* - lost to Ernest Hollings (Dems retained seat); Ross Bass (D-TN) – lost to Frank Clement (GOP picked up seat); A. Willis Robertson (D-VA) – lost to William Spong (Dems retained seat)
1964: J. Howard Edmondson (D-OK)* – lost to Fred Harris (Dems retained seat)
1962: Maurice Murphy (R-NH)* - lost to Perkins Bass (Dems picked up seat)

It doesn't happen every election but it DOES happen. This is why I hate it when people think that Lieberman is special.

[madfloridian]

16. Dean called on Lieberman to step down, called out Dem leaders who would support him.

Tim doesn't mention this, but he knows it happened. On August 9th

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/200

"Howard Dean, the Democratic national chairman, called on Mr. Lieberman to quit the race, and in an interview said he would be disappointed in any Democratic Party leader who continued to support Mr. Lieberman, declaring they “have an obligation” to support their nominee.

But most Democrats were united in saying they would not pressure Mr. Lieberman to step aside for now, saying he was too angered by his loss to accept such counseling and noting Republicans as of now do not have a strong candidate who could take advantage of a fractured Democratic field."

Dean at the rally of CT Dems...
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/460

""Democratic chairman Howard Dean praised Ned Lamont on Friday as the challenger dealt with a dose of bad news _ a double-digit deficit in the latest poll.

"No one was going to stand up over the Iraq policy until Ned stood up and then the people stood up because Ned was a great leader," Dean said at a rally for Lamont and other Democratic candidates. "We need Ned Lamont."

"Your state has done something extraordinary," Dean said. "Your state had a courageous person step up when nobody thought he could win and take on folks who supported the Bush policy."

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Thanks MF

Howard Dean is the DNC Chair I always wished we could have, and I'm damned glad we have him now. He absolutely and very openly took the right position on Lamont. Dean needed to be acknowledged on this thread.

[Firespirit]

18. Dean has been on the right side of this battle

The lines have been drawn very clearly now -- the people versus the clique. Carville fired the first post-election shot, too, so they can't legitimately say that we started it. The Republicans are having a civil war in their ranks, and it looks increasingly like we are going to have something like that as well.

[blm]

22. The Coverup establishment wing of the party vs anti-corruption, open government wing

of the Dem party.

We have to FIGHT like hell against them.

[HughLefty1]

23. Unfortunately must agree..

The Hillary types sure seem alot more interested in their own careers than helping out their own Party. Somehow I'm guessing we'll be disappointed when one of these 'long time party insiders' is our Democratic Presidential Nominee. This is is just another example of why I would not support a Hillary Clinton Presidency~do we really need another ME ME ME Pro-Big Business type in the WH?

Of course many of the Rethugs will be disappointed when John McCain is their nominee.

[madfloridian]

19. Dem leaders said Joe "was too angered by his loss to accept such counseling"

Poor Joe. Poor baby. They took up for him.

"But most Democrats were united in saying they would not pressure Mr. Lieberman to step aside for now, saying he was too angered by his loss to accept such counseling and noting Republicans as of now do not have a strong candidate who could take advantage of a fractured Democratic field."

SO...now we have our Republican supported candidate, and the hawk Dems are cheering.

Joe's website page is down now, but I am glad I saved it. Here are the Dems nationally who supported him. We need to remember. I also saved the CT Dems for Joe site.

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

[Donna Zen]

44. Much of this was about Hillary

The insider's club did not want a anti-war Dem, someone who voted for the war and still supports it, to win. Mostly, it effects her and their fundraising.

The attitude of the Democratic hawks was and continues to be disgraceful. Had this been a liberal non-DLCer defeated in a primary, they would have flocked to Connecticut with loud calls of unity...unity...unity.

[TayTay]

20. There are a lot of people now who want to undercut this

and pretend that Dean, Clark, Kerry and others did nothing to add to the '06 wins. That much is obvious.

[madfloridian]

21. Nagourney's article URL was changed, I found it...to be very sure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/washington/10senate.html?ex=1312862400&en=cd42801226b27fd8&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

"Howard Dean, the Democratic national chairman, called on Mr. Lieberman to quit the race, and in an interview said he would be disappointed in any Democratic Party leader who continued to support Mr. Lieberman, declaring that they “have an obligation” to support their nominee.

But most Democrats said they would not pressure Mr. Lieberman to step aside for now, saying he was too angered by his loss to accept such counseling and noting that as of now, the Republicans do not have a strong candidate who could take advantage of a fractured Democratic field."

Just keeping it up to date. The original I posted in the journal...had changed.

[bobbieinok]

25. what I don't understand about the election in CT

It looks like most of the democratic establishment said 'we know better than the democrats who voted in the democratic primary.'

It's common wisdom that the base, the extremes, etc, are the ones who vote in the primaries. The party/candidate then works to appeal to all.

What about this process does the democratic party establishment not get???

There have been many times you and I have been convinced that the better candidate lost in the primary, that there may have been 'suspicious' influence. BUT if we cared about democratic candidates winning, we voted FOR the party's candidate.

The establishment comes across in their actions as people scared silly of allowing any group other than insiders to have any influence on the democratic party.

AT THE VERY LEAST the extreme Lieberman partisanship on CNN and FAUX SHOULD have made them angry. So corporate media is now to run the party????????

[fooj]

26. Thanks for the in-depth report.

I felt soooo bad for Kerry when he took the "fumbled joke" hit. I knew how hard he campaigned for many candidates and I was grateful that he stood shoulder to shoulder with the voters of Connecticut. I have a newfound respect for Clark, as well. THEY DID THE RIGHT THING.

I am EXTREMELY disappointed in our Democratic Leadership in regards to this race. They did not stand up and fight for the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Isn't that what being a Dem is all about? I was and still am completely disgusted by their behavior. NO integrity or honor, whatsoever. Tragic, IMO.

Joe will prove to be more trouble than he is worth. He's a self-absorbed traitor who can't be trusted.

To our party leaders...what goes around comes around. It's just a matter of when.

[benny05]

41. It's not all the skinny

but it's his story..

[madfloridian]

27. If you have not read all of Tim's post, please do.

That was a heartbreaking kind of campaign to run. They had most of the party leaders working against them.

[blm]

30. Gee - just like the actual undercurrent during 2004 and 2002. DNC had no intention of

winning after 9-11 - so they could concentrate on 2008 and Hillary, and so they stayed in DC and put all that money into their new building there. While the infrastructures all over the country were left to further collapse. Thankyou for building them again, Chairman Dean. Looks like the coverup wing of the party never bargained for you as head of the DNC.

[OzarkDem]

31. Astute observation, blm

I can't count how many ways I'm glad we have Dean for chairman.

I'll never forget driving around our fair town w/ Terry McAuliffe after the 2002 debacle one day when he was in town promising Ohio Dems he wouldn't abandon them in 2004. I spent a good part of the trip hanging over the back seat telling him he needed to rebuild the grassroots party organization and utilize the netroots. Too bad he didn't take my advice.

[madfloridian]

28. Update on the article in which Dean said Joe should quit the race.

Here is the original August article in which Dean was quoted firmly about Lieberman. He said Democratic leaders should support Lamont.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/washington/10senate.html?ex=1312862400&en=cd42801226b27fd8&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

"Howard Dean, the Democratic national chairman, called on Mr. Lieberman to
quit the race, and in an interview said he would be disappointed in any
Democratic Party leader who continued to support Mr. Lieberman, declaring
that they “have an obligation” to support their nominee.

But most Democrats said they would not pressure Mr. Lieberman to step aside
for now, saying he was too angered by his loss to accept such counseling and
noting that as of now, the Republicans do not have a strong candidate who
could take advantage of a fractured Democratic field."

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/200

And he told Joe it was time to remember that when you lose you get behind the winner.

Mr. Dean, whose brother James was a prominent supporter of Mr. Lamont, said Mr. Lieberman was being “disrespectful of Democrats and disrespectful of the Democratic Party” by saying he would stay in the race as an independent.

“It was decided in Joe’s favor three times and this time he didn’t get the nod,” Mr. Dean said. Recalling his unsuccessful campaign for the presidential nomination in 2004, he added, “We all do what I did: When you lose, you pull behind the winner.”

[GreenArrow]

29. Classic Edwards.

Always on the lookout for new avenues for self promotion, he invites himself to the party, spouts a few luke-warm, namby-pamby bromides, and then scoots off down the road to the next PR opportunity.

[JamesJoyce]

35. Agreed, Edwards is a snake-oil salesman

nt

[Catchawave]

39. Link?

[CarolNYC]

32. Some interesting stuff in there..

Kudos to both Kerry and Clark for stepping up to the plate when so many others were hanging back.

Thanks for posting.

[benny05]

34. Contrarian here, but in a positive way

Here's what I wrote on Skinner's Journal today, as it touches upon this topic:

Skinner, you have an amazing ability to connect with all of us, and this post resonates because I have not been able to completely articulate my feelings about the outcome of the election and of the past few years. Somehow, you did it for me, and all I can do is boo-hoo, but it is more than just the pain our country gone through and the wilderness we have been in.

We lost Andy, we lost several friends, and several people have lost loved ones due to the reckless decisions of this Administration, or perhaps funding was cut off to help pay for, as Bill Clinton said repeatedly in the campaigns, "his tax cuts." He knows he doesn't need them. Some of us lost pets due to some doofus neighbors who don't give a damn about anyone but themselves.

I might add that while I feel strongly about freedom of speech and of the Net, which is still a hurdle we haven't gotten over yet, I'm disappointed about the many attacks sparred at one another regarding past Presidential candidates and at ones who helped campaign for others. It happened again today, in which Ned Lamont's internet manager lashed out at so many, blaming them for Ned's campaign that not only failed, but by a wide margin. We all had good will for Ned. I still do, but to me, it's not healthy for his internet manager to be trashing other Dems who tried to help as we transition and try to move our country forward. What about the bloggers here at the DU who didn't live in CT gave personal donations, vlogged or blogged, and gave their best to get out the vote for Ned? Do we not count?

All of the 08 hopefuls did a pretty good job with schedules permitting or were able to give some bucks. period. But ultimately, the CT voters decided. We couldn't save Ned, and I think it is futile to think we could have.

However, a new candle of some optimism has been lit. A little DU'er growing inside of Mrs. Skinner. A new Congress, a new Senate, and yes, back-breaking work, in which I expect our pols to do, and to work longer hours and days because you are correct: we are in a convoluted mess, and like the war in Iraq, there will much to fix, and some things we won't be able to restore in funding if we are to pay as we go.

Thank you for this great site, and yes, my regular monthly donation keeps giving, now to Skinner2. My other tears are extended in joy to you, and the rest of the DU Admins and mods, who unfailingly try to do their best. I also will continue to laugh in the DUL (in which I feel a lot of kindred spirits...) and at Earl's top 10.

Clarkies, I happen to know that one of the bloggers at the Lamont/Edwards rally was treated coldly by Tagaris when he learned s/he was an Edwards supporter. Other bloggers, such as MyLeft Nutmeg, etc, were allowed blogger access when the MSM wasn't. But Tagaris' memory is a little short and his feelings are hurt at the moment and those are guiding his words. However, that should be water under the bridge.

Tom Rinaldo, I say to you and to the Clarkies again, I suggest we move on and quit attacking each other's candidate, and instead focus on making our Congress and corporations to work for us. Tonight as we speak, Wal-Mart is talking to Senator Obama and Senator Edwards about the problems with Wal-Mart and how Wal-Mart needs to do better with allowing workers the right to unionize.

http://www.kthv.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=36971

General Clark is an Arkansas native. I hope he will say something about this issue of workers in a new service economy. Just Clarkies accused Edwards of no military experience, this is an opportunity for General Clark to address domestic economic issues in different venues. We'll find out he supports the SEIU and where his loyalties lie.

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. Since you wrote to me by name

Can I ask you to not always boil the cross currents of political opinions that exist between various sundry grassroots political activists into a Clark/Edwards Binary universe? I certainly didn't say anything negative about Edwards on this thread or any other recently that I can recall, and not everyone who says something negative about Edwards, or harbors any negative feelings about Edwards, is a Clark supporter.

It's not that I don't agree with you about the advantages for all of us in not fixating on attacking other Democrats who are seen as potential rivals to Democrats whom we respect, you are correct there and I agree with you. We should not be poisoning a common well. None of us can know for certain which Democrat will be our Party's nominee in 2008, and to be honest I don't think there is anyone who has better than a 50% chance to be that person, so we all should be humble about tearing into another Democrat. But each possible candidate presents different advantages and disadvantages, so it would be foolish to not expect and even welcome some discussion and debate about how they overall compare.

There have been some on DU today who chose to use a thread with Clark in the subject OP as an opportunity to explain why they feel Clark is not well suited to be President, and I know at least one strong Edwards supporter has been prominent in that. You know what? I don't mind. The debate is a valid one. We all rate different qualities and experiences differently. But there is no reason for any of us to get ugly about it, or to smear a good Democrat unfairly. Hopefully that can be a basis for agreement.

The Democratic Party is a coalition with many strong players who to an extent have differing focuses. If we elect a Democrat President in 2008 we will have a Democratic Administration, with many talented men and women contributing, each in ways that match their personal strengths. Clark has made many statements about economic justice, Edwards has made many statements about a sane foreign policy. They both are making positive contributions to our Party and I hope and expect that they both will continue to. And as time goes on we all will learn in greater detail what the policy priorities are of all the Democrats who decide to run for President.

[benny05]

46. Thanks, Tom

I will write to you via PM to give you examples of attacks in the last 2 days by Clark Supporters, which I hope they didn't mean, but it's what they wrote.

I might add, Tim Tagaris was upset, and he didn't acknowledge Edwards in his efforts to help Ned. I think his emotions are blocking his mind. He treated a JRE blogger unkindly when JRE came up, whether it be invited or not, But according to the NYT, JRE raised money that evening (and Tagaris doesn't deny or confirm what the NYT says about it). Still wondering? Here's the link to my blog which captured the news of the week: http://bennycat.blogspot.com/2006_08_13_bennycat_archive.html

Moreover, while Tagaris' post helps General Clark and Senator Kerry, whom I respect a lot and did campaign a hell of a lot everywhere, the Clark supporters aren't getting a clear picture (the Kerrycrats are the next best in understanding what it means to do a full blown campaign since they have been with him for a long time), so instead, Tagaris and independently (I hope) Clarkies attack Edwards at every turn. One of the DU's finally gave me a hint today why she was upset with Edwards and gave me a link to an article, so now I have something to work with in researching and seeing intents, which means the Clark supporter finally was fair.

As we have conversed nicely before, and that's why I called you out, and as a native Texan I didn't extend a virtual handshake (and say, here's my right hand to shake), that General Clark has a great opportunity to present his views, especially now on Wal-Mart and his position on their workers' right to unionize.

I'm not JRE's anyone, except I support his ideas and his family. But I might add, JRE is no one's anyone either. He's just JRE.

[SouthernBelle82]

37. I really enjoyed this

I thought it interesting on what they said about Kerry and Clark. They both seemed to want to be there and the other people just kind of join. Their actions really showed me a lot for example Hillary not wanting her name on an Email list. I also found it interesting that Edwards said one thing publicaly and the other thing opposite. I'm very surprised at that and this coming out on this blog I wonder how people will react towards Edwards if he does decide to run.

[ultraist]

42. Huh?

I also found it interesting that Edwards said one thing publicaly and the other thing opposite

What?

The fact is, Senator Edwards was the first to call Lamont and congratulate him and the first heavy hitter Dem to campaign for him.

Tim is not providing an honest account and my guess is, Lamont would condone not this.