Why has the blogosphere dropped Lamont like a hot potato?

[Caro]

Ned Lamont was the blogosphere's first primary victory, but now he's probably going to lose the general election. I seldom see his name on the blogs any more. I see negative things about Lieberman, but never anything positive about Lamont. Why is that?

Do bloggers have what it takes to actually get a candidate elected? And if we don't, what are we trying to accomplish?

From Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire:

Lamont's Lull

In a record week, futures in Ned Lamont continued to plummet in the political market. Big board polls put the Connecticut Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate falling sharply behind incumbent independent Joseph Lieberman. Most legit polls that insiders and serious observers look to find stuck at no better than 10 points behind the three term incumbent.

Democrats around Connecticut and in DC are concluding that Lamont has gone in two months since his primary victory from triumphant insurgent to stymied novice. His campaign was largely somnolent for the five weeks after the August 8th primary. Lamont ignored whatever opportunities they were for a bounce after he shook Connecticut and the nation’s political class with his 4 point victory on a record turnout…

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[Why Syzygy]

1. What does this mean?

An "Independent" Lieberman is going to be elected in CT?

We might get an "Independent" Kinky governor in Texas.

What the hell is up with these people? Could it be an "Independent" movement?

Goddess knows that Democrats have left a black hole, vacuum. Spineless. Sorry, DU. I'm on our side. But let's look at facts.

What are we gonna do?

[trumad]

2. KOS--Firedoglake, etc

they pump Lamont up daily...

Lieb doesn't have the ground game to win this contest....

[derby378]

98. Kinky has no chance - he's just handing the win to Rick Perry

Take a good look. Carole Keeton Strayhorn is a Republican. Kinky Friedman is a Republican. Rick Perry is a Republican. Only one of them can win - and only one of them has the advantage of being the incumbent governor.

Chris Bell has less than a month to get his campaign in gear. It's "go time" for Bell.

[Justice Is Comin]

3. I think the last two weeks will be a major blitz.

The big guns will start coming to appear with Lamont and the all important kiss mobile will start shadowing Lieberman.

Money has to be spent wisely and timely, and that kiss statue is probably the single biggest thing that started Lieberman to lost the primary.

This will happen again, I predict. They are taking a well deserved rest.

[papau]

5. that seems to be the plan - but Lamont can't break through on just antiwar

And I do not know if he has the tv persona that will sell in the last two weeks.

Tearing down Joe will likely be only option if he wants to win - and backlash may kill that as Joe has been a good Dem on social and Union issues.

We may get a corporate whore for Insurance companies and the military companies who backs Bush in all things Iraq and Israel back as an Independent - the good news is that he will not be able to stab us in the back anymore than he does now as he is already 100% not a team player.

[Cha]

57. Ned Lamont has a much Better tv

persona or any other persona than the denny hastert wing of the repuke party, joe lieman!

[bread_and_roses]

23. You don't rest on campaign, ever ever ever

A campaign is 24/7, has to be, you never let up, you grab every chance to be out there, you keep pounding your message over and over and over - that's just the way it is. And you may still lose, of course, but "resting" is a sure guarantee.

[jobycom]

4. Because it's easier to destroy than build

That's one reason the whole "Kill Lieberman, vote Lamont" movement angered, and still angers me. We could unite a lot of people to scream, with justification, about the lapses of Joe Lieberman, but it's much harder to do the work required to actually get someone elected.

What the anti-Lieberman movement has accomplished, in all likelihood, is to remove a Democratic Senator and replace him with the same Senator who will now probably vote for Republican control. Imagine if Lieberman is the deciding vote on who controls the Senate. We will have defeated ourselves.

I've never liked unseating Democratic incumbents, even DINOs. There is usually a reason the DINO wins reelection. That reason is usually because the people who vote for him or her want a DINO, or at least a moderate Dem. If you defeat their preferred candidate in a primary, they may turn against the Dems and vote Republican. Or whatever the heck Lieberman is. Better a devil confined by some Democratic constraints than a devil with no need to appeal to the Democratic Party. If we wind up with a Republican controlled Senate because of this... Well, it won't be good, and therefore defeating Lieberman in the primary will turn out to be bad.

Let's hope it's a moot point after the election.

[etherealtruth]

6. Yours is not the most popular view here ...

... however, I agree with you completely.

I sincerely hope we are wrong.

[still_one]

7. Your assessement isn't too far off

In my view Lamont is in trouble because of the the perception that the "far left outsiders" are behind him. Let's be honest, what were Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson doing at the primary victory celebration for Ned Lamont? I doubt very much it was for Ned Lamont, but more for their own publicity, especially Al Sharpton.

The people of Connecticut will decide who they want, not outside groups. In order for Lamont to win support it has to be within the state, not outside

[Smarmie Doofus]

10. Agreed. He needs to be seen as less ideological and ....

... more of an independent.

A "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington type". Which is largely what he *is*.

[still_one]

11. Yup, Lamont is "more of an independent"

but from my observation at a distance, he is not being painted that way,

not only from his opponents, which is expected, but from many Democrats

[Why Syzygy]

18. Al Sharpton is not a Democrat

Don't care if he claims to be blue. Not.

[hfojvt]

43. Why? Because the Right Wing Noise Machine

geared up to smear Lamont, and protect one of their own, and the RWNM as well as the vested power of an incumbentocracy is far more powerful than the blogosphere.

It seems to me that the blogospher, DU in particular, merely follows whatever tail the MSM is wagging. After the primary, we moved on to the next 'issue du jour'. But I cannot complain, because I am unable to start my own threads so I am a follower of DU which is following the MSM.

[Cha]

58. Why can't you start your

own threads?

[Smarmie Doofus]

9. Hmmm... did he not *pledge*, *promise*, *VOW**....

>>>What the anti-Lieberman movement has accomplished, in all likelihood, is to remove a Democratic Senator and replace him with the same Senator who will now probably vote for Republican control. Imagine if Lieberman is the deciding vote on who controls the Senate. We will have defeated ourselves.>>>

in the primary campaign that he would remain a democrat and would "caucus" with the dems?

And now he will "probably" vote for republican control?

[Why Syzygy]

19. Has't Lieberman been

abandoned by the likes of Hillary, et al? I have no clue as to the political bends up in CT.
Just don't any of them come down here and start criticizing Texas again. .. okay. cheap shot ..
Liberals are out here raising money like crazy. But do we know how to spend it?

[Armstead]

21. Lieberman is only winning because of the GOP

Lieberman is picking up almost all of the Republican vote, as well as those Democrats who still like him.

Aside from the (deliberate or accidental) weakness of the GOP candidate, the system worked exactly as it is supposed to. Democratic primary voters rejected a candidate who had turned against their views, and chose someone else as their candidate.

If the GOP had a real candidate in that race, Lieberman would be a lot farther down. Insteasd, the GOP basically has no candidate in the race, so Lieberman is both a GOP stand-in candidate and dividing the Democratic vote.

If Lamont had run as a Green or something would you be beating up the "left" for abandoning the Democratic party and dividing the vote?

[jobycom]

26. Net results are the issue.

The polls showed this would happen even before the primaries.

And of course I would have criticized Lieberman if he'd run as a Green. I must be missing your point, there. Anything which gives more power to the Republicans is bad, whether it's defeating an incumbent Democrat or dividing the vote, as Nader did.

[Armstead]

30. I was saying that you'd criticize Lamont if he'd run as a Green

My point was that you seem to ba taking a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" attitude towards change that guarantees a perpetuation of the status quo.

If LaMonte had lost in the Democratic Primary but said "Well I'm going to take my voters and run as an independant third-party candidate" you most likely would be howling that he and his supporters were Nader style spoilers.

The plain truth is that many Democrats had become increasingly estranged and angry at Lieberman to the degree that tghey felt he no longer represented them. That applies both within Connecticut and nationally.

So in the primaries, they backed a candidate to challenmge him within tghe party system. The candidate of change won in the primaries.

Last I heard that's how the primary system is supposed to work. But instead of graciously conceding to the will of the voters in his party, Lieberman has chosen to run a "dog in the manger" campaign. He is backed by the GOP, who have essentially pushed Republicans to vote for Joe, rather than a GOP candidate.

What Lieberman did is indefensable. There are no excuses for it. And it should not be cefended, because he didn;t play by the rules.

[w4rma]

45. Thank you, Armstead. You nailed it. (nt)

[Cha]

60. Thanks Armstead for answering

those allegations so eloquently.

[DemonFighterLives]

86. Correct Lieberman still sucks

Let the chips fall where they may, but Lieberman being voted in by the pukes would be nothing to be proud of.
Comeon Connecticut!

[JerseygirlCT]

82. But the people supporting Lamont are not the ones dividing the vote

Lieberman is dividing the vote, by putting his personal ambition ahead of the choice of Dem. voters in his state. He has essentially chosen to become the Republican candidate for Senator. And, may win, I grant you.

But I place the blame for the division squarely in Lieberman's camp.

[SmokingJacket]

66. It's true that people were more anti-Lieberman than pro-Lamont.

But mostly because people knew Lieberman better than they knew Lamont. Nevertheless, it was a chance for people to vote their conscience about the way they want their party to go, so I can't begrudge anyone.

I'm not sure how "restrained" Lieberman was by Democrats, and if that will change. I suspect he'll vote just how he's always voted. If he does become more Republicanesque... it probably would have happened anyway.

[JerseygirlCT]

81. Serious question then

In your view, once in office, a DINO basically "owns" the office? We shouldn't vote for an alternative during a primary?

The thing is, had Joe played by the rules, and acceded to the wishes of CT's Dems, we would have a new Dem senator to replace the old one. I think blaming people who wanted a change is a bit of a stretch.

But I am sincerely interested in how you think about this. Are the seats theirs in perpetuity once elected the first time?

[Smarmie Doofus]

8. Solid republican support + RW renegade pro-war dems....

= a statistical majority, no matter how you look at it.

Lieberman's a de facto republican and his GOP backing is proof positive... rendering 'inoperative' the long-winded protestations to the contrary by some DUers over the last year or so.

Lamont may come closer; I'd like to see his people pushing the 'new' vs. 'old', 'fresh vs. tired' angle, more than they are.

Style counts, too. Lieberschnitzel has a dreary, world-weary air about him. It's personal AND political. That's gotta be wearin' a bit thin amongst other demographics in CT. besides just lefty bloggers.

I'd exploit the hell outta that.

[robcon]

12. The polls suggest Joe has a loyal following...

About 35-40% of Dems, 75-80% of Repubs. Majority of Independents.

The big story here is that Repugs are not voting for the Repuglican candidate - they're voting for Lieberman. I call that strategic voting: preventing the Dem candidate from winning, while abandoning their own candidate. That's electoral ugliness: lockstep party thinking. Where were the "instructions to Republicans" posted? Somehow they got the message.

[CTyankee]

46. It is frustrating calling registered Dems here in CT

Those who say they'll vote for Joe often claim they hate the war but it simply makes no difference when it comes to their support for Joe. He is like a pair of old, comfortable shoes. I also hear the concern that Ned doesn't have the "experience" that Joe has, so he wouldn't be able to represent CT as well as Joe. This is a major theme of Joe's TV ads. I know that TV ad themes are focus group tested so I'm guessing that that is what is swaying Dems to vote for Joe.

I will keep calling, but I am trying to find a silver lining to this campaign. People like Ned and me and most of DU will eventually turn out to be proved right on the Iraq war. But we were right about Vietnam too and sadly a lot of lives had to be lost before the rest of America woke up and said "Enough!" Being right on an issue is cold comfort to me now...

[Cha]

61. Ask them how they like the bush

kissing, enabler lieberman/the denny hastert wing of the repuke par-ty?

[Smarmie Doofus]

89. It's exactly that 'experience', and the mind set....

>>>I also hear the concern that Ned doesn't have the "experience" that Joe has, so he wouldn't be able to represent CT as well as Joe. This is a major theme of Joe's TV ads.>>

that goes with it, that created the sinkhole he and Bush have bogged us down in Iraq. More like quicksand, if you think about it. You should ask the antiwar, pro-Lieberman DEMS how they feel about a wider, regional war involving... I don't know... *Iran*, or Syria for example.

Lamont should be pledging to oppose any first strike or 'preemptive war' on Iran and *demanding* that Lieberman do the same. Lieberman won't and that will be telling.

Antiwar Dems who support Lieberman do so because:

1. they don't fully understand the implications for the war of supporting Lieberman.

2. they can psychologically back burner the reality of the war cause the media ignores it or sugarcoats the reality of it.


You can't do much about number 2 but you and Ned can raise holy hell about # 1.

BTW, any local services in CT cut during the period of time Lieberman and Bush were pouring XXXX billion $$$ into the Iraqi sinkhole?

[CTyankee]

102. good question

I'll try to find out.

I can only agree with you partially on the Dems voting for Joe. Some really believe that with Joe they have a heavy hitter in the Senate and they think his influence saved the sub base. Then there are those who don't like the idea of losing a Jewish senator or they know him personally through their synagogue and they like the guy. I don't like the idea of losing a Jewish senator either but being Jewish does not confer infallibility on a senator. For these people having an unknown is riskier than the known, Joe. I think they figure that they know what the deal is and that's ok with them.

Sigh...

[BootinUp]

13. Do bloggers have what it takes?

I think its an insulting way of asking the question no? lol.


Look. THere is no question that small activist groups can affect primaries with much greater success than General elections. If only becuase the turnout at the voting booth is so much lower.

[blm]

14. Well, Clinton DID meet with many of them.

I guess he convinced them that centrism is the way to win.

The Clintons do come across as halfhearted when they support Lamont.

[BootinUp]

15. Its all Bills fault! You kill me blm. n/t

[blm]

16. nah....just one little citizen who distrusts those who say one thing and

then another, to the detriment of iimportant ssues and their other teammates.

[BootinUp]

17. You know I've been thinkin

Maybe you are on to something, if there was no centrist Democrat then it wouldn't be their fault, it would just be the leftist Democrats fault. I'm glad I finally came to this realization.

[Why Syzygy]

20. Maybe Joe

will get arrested for drunk driving.

[blm]

22. I don't mind centrist Democrats - just don't say one thing to one set of

press that you KNOW won't get traction, and then say something else to the corporate media you KNOW will be heard.

And covering up CIA drugrunning during his term was not the act of a centrist - it was the act of someone covering up for BushInc.

And not even mentioning BCCI in his book was the act of someone who didn't want to bring it up - it had nothing to do with centrist or left politics.

Honest centrism is not the problem here.

[BootinUp]

24. I'll take

Clinton's records of accomplishments and good works any day over your conspiracy theories.

[blm]

25. OK - then that makes you a coincidence theorist.

And if you want to claim that BCCI was a meaningless event that didn't deserve the attention of a US president once he assumed office - well - that's YOUR grasp of history on display and YOUR belief that Clinton acted honestly by omitting it entirely from his book about his terms in office.

Suit yourself. I doubt HONEST historians would agree with you.

[BootinUp]

27. No, I don't see how Clinton is implicated in BCCfuckinI

Why don't you explain how a corrupt and criminal Pakistani bank that built its empire from the 70's and was exposed by 1991 had anything to do with Clinton?


Clinton wasn't a prosecutor he was the President. What the F did he do wrong? Stop with your little bullshit suggestions of conspiracy and link one credible source that faults Clinton in the BCCI matter for specifc actions that Clinton did or did not take.

[blm]

28. Clinton was a policy wonk BEFORE he took office - and fallout from BCCI

was still part of the reality of foreign policy issues. To claim they weren't is just spin. You don't close the biggest terrorist bank in the world, involving world governments in 1992 and pretend there are no outstanding issues in Jan 1993.

Especially since alot of the same names involved pop up in the 9-11 story.

But Clinton never saw any connection that mattered to his office, whatsoever, according to you.

[BootinUp]

29. You failed to provide any substance.

I won't bother to ask a second time.

[Armstead]

31. By basically letting things like BCCI drop out of site in the 1990's.....

the same crew of GOP Neo-Cons that were engaged in crap like Iran-Contra got off and quietly rebuilt their power base and are now running the country again -- Out in the Open.

Look at the names of those who are now running our foreign policy and intelligence and military establishment. Look at the names that were involved in all the messes during the Nixon, REagan and Bush 1 administrations. There is a scary degree of overlap.

[BootinUp]

34. If you are gonna blame Bill can't you do better than the repukes?

What specific actions should he have taken. According to banking or foreign policy experts not loonies with no credentials.

[Armstead]

36. BCCI was part of a much larger nexus

It was more a symptom of a deeper network that should have been investigated and brought out in the open throughout the 1990's.

It wasn't only Clinton who was asleep at the switch. The media, many other Establishment De,mocrats, the "left" and the American people as a whole are at fault for letting this all fester and grow in dank corners out of the daylight.

But as national leader, Clinton's administration should have led the way in shining the light of day on this mess. Instead, we had eight years of Happy Talk.

Many people on "the left" tried to raise the alarm bells, but were ignored and dismissed by the Democratic "centrists." They were dismissed as having "no credentials" back then too.

But their warnings have proven to be absolutely correct on many levels.

What happened in 2000 -- and what has happened since -- is not a surprise to many of those "fringe elements." Perhaps if the Democratic establishment had taken them more seriously at the time, we might have a Real Democratic president and a much healthier nation now.

[BootinUp]

37. Happy talk. You reduced 8 years of accomplishments to "Happy Talk"

I submit you have a fringe opinion.

[blm]

40. Please see my post below - let Blumenthal make it clearer for you.

.

[Armstead]

42. "Fringe" opinions have been absolutely correct before

Remember all of the "happy talk" about how Corporate Free Trade would raise the standards opf lioving and boost the economy of the US. How NAFTA was going to raise the standard of living for Mexico's workers?

Where is this b0oming new marklet for American production? How's that illegal immigration problem doing anyway?

[BootinUp]

63. This thread just goes farther and farther off course.

I guess its my fault. blm thinks the Clintons should take some blame for Lamonts current status and I rejected that idea. Now we are talking about a banking scandal from the 80's and trade policies from the 90's. If some Democrats want to say its all Bills fault I can't stop them. But they might want to look at his record which by my analysis is quite impressive and realize that no one administration will ever make everyone happy.

Further I don't want the Democratic party to do whatever it takes (or use tactics like) the Republicans of the last 30 years in the pursuit of absolute control of the government. I flatly reject the premise that it would be a good thing, rather it would just be more of a bad thing. So using a banking scandal to look up the orifices of any official or citizen with any possible connection for political gain is not my idea of a good use of government resources. I asked for specific things Clinton should have done and I have not really gotten any. I think I get the picture so lets just leave it at that.

on edit: changed last sentence in first paragraph.

[blm]

32. Octafish, H2O Man, robertpaulsen and other DUers put up MANY threads

for the last few years on BCCI and its tangled web, and most of DU is aware of it - - why you deny its import is puzzling.

[BootinUp]

35. So pick one action item. Can't you?

and back it up with an opinion from a someone with credentials in foreign policy or international banking.

[blm]

38. There were several books - but take it from someone close to Clinton WH -

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/blumenthal/2004/07/22/kerry/index.html

John Kerry, the man who uncovered Iran-Contra

The Democratic nominee has a long record of fearlessly exposing abuses of power -- including launching the investigation that unraveled the worst scandal since Watergate.

By Sidney Blumenthal

Page 1
July 22, 2004 | John Kerry's political education is far deeper than that of senators who have merely legislated. He has journeyed to the heart of darkness any number of times and emerged to tell the tale. It is not simply that the commander of the Swift Boats unit with which Kerry served in Vietnam was the model of the bloodthirsty, bombastic colonel in "Apocalypse Now." Kerry's combat experience hardly ended in the Mekong, but moved into the dangerous realm of high politics.

>>>>>>
A month later, the Iran-Contra story broke in a Lebanese newspaper. However, Kerry was excluded from the congressional investigating committee for the sin of having been prematurely right. As consolation, he was given chairmanship of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations, where he plowed ahead. After three years, he reported that "individuals who provided support for the Contras were involved in drug trafficking, the supply network of the Contras was used by drug trafficking organizations, and elements of the Contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assistance from drug traffickers. In each case, one or another agency of the U.S. government had information regarding the involvement either while it was occurring, or immediately thereafter." His report also noted that "officials in the Justice Department sought to undermine attempts by Senator Kerry to have hearings held on the allegations."

Kerry's work on the Contra-drugs connection led him to discover a link to Bank of Credit and Commerce International, an operation that was a front for drug running, money laundering and terrorism. He launched an investigation that exposed its criminal "corporate spider web," as his report put it, in 1992. His report pointed to new areas that should be investigated: "Further investigation is needed to understand the extent to which BCCI and Pakistan were able to evade U.S. and international nuclear non-proliferation regimes to acquire nuclear technologies."


For decades, Kerry has pursued a persistent and cumulative investigation into the underside of national security and terrorism. If the Democrats had held the Senate for a sustained period of time, Kerry's work would have borne more fruit, and it is even conceivable that his proposal to regulate the netherworld of money laundering, which was not enacted, would have helped stymie al-Qaida.

From Vietnam onward, Kerry has probed the inner recesses of government, grasping that good intentions are never enough and that the system doesn't work automatically. He has experienced the abuse of justice; had his patriotism impugned; battled enemies foreign and domestic; tried to restore accountability; and fought on, down to today, which is why he is running for president.
>>>>>>>>


NOTE Blumenthal's statement:

Kerry's 1992 report "pointed to new areas that SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED. Further investigation is NEEDED to understand the extent to which BCCI and Pakistan were able to evade US and international nuclear non-proliferation regimes to acquire nuclear technologies."

He further states clearly:

For decades, Kerry has pursued a persistent and cumulative investigation into the underside of national security and terrorism. If the Democrats had held the Senate for a sustained period of time, Kerry's work would have borne more fruit, and it is even conceivable that his proposal to regulate the netherworld of money laundering, which was not enacted, would have helped stymie al-Qaida.

>>>>

NOW you want to claim that BCCI had no relevance to what was going on past Jan 1993 so Clinton had no reason to even factor it into his 8 years of policy? And it never rose to the level of deserving ONE MENTION in his entire book?

That's just a laughable assertion.

[blm]

52. LIST of questions left pending (92) that warranted further investigation

according to Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Hank Brown.


Matters For Further Investigation

There have been a number of matters which the Subcommittee has received some information on, but has not been able to investigate adequately, due such factors as lack of resources, lack of time, documents being withheld by foreign governments, and limited evidentiary sources or witnesses. Some of the main areas which deserve further investigation include:


1. The extent of BCCI's involvement in Pakistan's nuclear program. As set forth in the chapter on BCCI in foreign countries, there is good reason to conclude that BCCI did finance Pakistan's nuclear program through the BCCI Foundation in Pakistan, as well as through BCCI-Canada in the Parvez case. However, details on BCCI's involvement remain unavailable. Further investigation is needed to understand the extent to which BCCI and Pakistan were able to evade U.S. and international nuclear non-proliferation regimes to acquire nuclear technologies.


2. BCCI's manipulation of commodities and securities markets in Europe and Canada. The Subcommittee has received information that remains not fully substantiated that BCCI defrauded investors, as well as some major U.S. and European financial firms, through manipulating commodities and securities markets, especially in Canada, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. This alleged fraud requires further investigation in those countries.


3. BCCI's activities in India, including its relationship with the business empire of the Hinduja family. The Subcommittee has not had access to BCCI records regarding India. The substantial lending by BCCI to the Indian industrialist family, the Hindujas, reported in press accounts, deserves further scrutiny, as do the press reports concerning alleged kick-backs and bribes to Indian officials.


4. BCCI's relationships with convicted Iraqi arms dealer Sarkis Soghanalian, Syrian drug trafficker, terrorist, and arms trafficker Monzer Al-Kassar, and other major arms dealers. Sarkenalian was a principal seller of arms to Iraq. Monzer Al-Kassar has been implicated in terrorist bombings in connection with terrorist organizations such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Other arms dealers, including some who provided machine guns and trained Medellin cartel death squads, also used BCCI. Tracing their assets through the bank would likely lead to important information concerning international terrorist and arms trafficker networks.


5. The use of BCCI by central figures in arms sales to Iran during the 1980's. The late Cyrus Hashemi, a key figure in allegations concerning an alleged deal involving the return of U.S. hostages from Iran in 1980, banked at BCCI London. His records have been withheld from disclosure to the Subcommittee by a British judge. Their release might aid in reaching judgments concerning Hashemi's activities in 1980, with the CIA under President Carter and allegedly with William Casey.


6. BCCI's activities with the Central Bank of Syria and with the Foreign Trade Mission of the Soviet Union in London. BCCI was used by both the Syrian and Soviet governments in the period in which each was involved in supporting activities hostile to the United States. Obtaining the records of those financial transactions would be critical to understanding what the Soviet Union under Brezhnev, Chernenko, and Andropov was doing in the West; and might document the nature and extent of Syria's support for international terrorism.


7. BCCI's involvement with foreign intelligence agencies. A British source has told the Bank of England and British investigators that BCCI was used by numerous foreign intelligence agencies in the United Kingdom. The British intelligence service, the MI-5, has sealed documents from BCCI's records in the UK which could shed light on this allegation.


8. The financial dealings of BCCI directors with Charles Keating and several Keating affiliates and front-companies, including the possibility that BCCI related entities may have laundered funds for Keating to move them outside the United States. The Subcommittee found numerous connections among Keating and BCCI-related persons and entities, such as BCCI director Alfred Hartman; CenTrust chief David Paul and CenTrust itself; Capcom front-man Lawrence Romrell; BCCI shipping affiliate, the Gokal group and the Gokal family; and possibly Ghaith Pharaon. The ties between BCCI and Keating's financial empire require further investigation.


9. BCCI's financing of commodities and other business dealings of international criminal financier Marc Rich. Marc Rich remains the most important figure in the international commodities markets, and remains a fugitive from the United States following his indictment on securities fraud. BCCI lending to Rich in the 1980's amounted to tens of millions of dollars. Moreover, Rich's commodities firms were used by BCCI in connection with BCCI's involving in U.S. guarantee programs through the Department of Agriculture. The nature and extent of Rich's relationship with BCCI requires further investigation.


10. The nature, extent and meaning of the ownership of shares of other U.S. financial institutions by Middle Eastern political figures. Political figures and members of the ruling family of various Middle Eastern countries have very substantial investments in the United States, in some cases, owning substantial shares of major U.S. banks. Given BCCI's routine use of nominees from the Middle East, and the pervasive practice of using nominees within the Middle East, further investigation may be warranted of Middle Eastern ownership of domestic U.S. financial institutions.


11. The nature, extent, and meaning of real estate and financial investments in the United States by major shareholders of BCCI. BCCI's shareholders and front-men have made substantial investments in real estate throughout the United States, owning major office buildings in such key cities as New York and Washington, D.C. Given BCCI's pervasiveness criminality, and the role of these shareholders and front-men in the BCCI affair, a complete review of their holdings in the United States is warranted.


12. BCCI's collusion in Savings & Loan fraud in the U.S. The Subcommittee found ties between BCCI and two failed Savings and Loan institutions, CenTrust, which BCCI came to have a controlling interest in, and Caprock Savings and Loan in Texas, and as noted above, the involvement of BCCI figures with Charles Keating and his business empire. In each case, BCCI's involvement cost the U. S. taxpayers money. A comprehensive review of BCCI's account holders in the U.S. and globally might well reveal additional such cases. In addition, the issue of whether David Paul and CenTrust's political relationships were used by Paul on behalf of BCCI merits further investigation.


13. The sale of BCCI affiliate Banque de Commerce et de Placements (BCP) in Geneva, to the Cukorova Group of Turkey, which owned an entity involved in the BNL Iraqi arms sales, among others. Given BNL's links to BCCI, and Cukorova Groups' involvement through its subsidiary, Entrade, with BNL in the sales to Iraq, the swift sale of BCP to Cukorova just weeks after BCCI's closure -- prior to due diligence being conducted -- raises questions as to whether a prior relationship existed between BCCI and Cukorova, and Cukorova's intentions in making the purchase. Within the past year, Cukorova also applied to purchase a New York bank. Cukorova's actions pertaining to BCP require further investigation in Switzerland by Swiss authorities, and by the Federal Reserve New York.


14. BCCI's role in China. As noted in the chapter on BCCI's activities in foreign countries, BCCI had extensive activity in China, and the Chinese government allegedly lost $500 million when BCCI closed, mostly from government accounts. While there have been allegations that bribes and pay-offs were involved, these allegations require further investigation and detail to determine what actually happened, and who was involved.


15. The relationship between Capcom and BCCI, between Capcom and the intelligence community, and between Capcom's shareholders and U.S. telecommunications industry figures. The Subcommittee was able to interview people and review documents concerning Capcom that no other investigators had to date interviewed or reviewed. Much more needs to be done to understand what Capcom was doing in the United States, the United Kingdom, Egypt, Oman, and the Middle East, including whether the firm was, as has been alleged but not proven, used by the intelligence community to move funds for intelligence operations; and whether any person involved with Capcom was seeking secretly to acquire interests in the U.S. telecommunications industry.


16. The relationship of important BCCI figures and important intelligence figures to the collapse of the Hong Kong Deposit and Guaranty Bank and Tetra Finance (HK) in 1983. The circumstances surrounding the collpase of these two Hong Kong banks; the Hong Kong banks' practices of using nominees, front-companies, and back-to-back financial transactions; the Hong Banks' directors having included several important BCCI figures, including Ghanim Al Mazrui, and a close associate of then CIA director William Casey; all raise the question of whether there was a relationship between these two institutions and BCCI-Hong Kong, and whether the two Hong Kong institutions were used for domestic or foreign intelligence operations.


17. BCCI's activities in Atlanta and its acquisition of the National Bank of Georgia through First American. Although the Justice Department indictments of Clark Clifford and Robert Altman cover portions of how BCCI acquired National Bank of Georgia, other important allegations regarding the possible involvement of political figures in Georgia in BCCI's activities there remain outside the indictment. These allegations, as well as the underlying facts regarding BCCI's activities in Georgia, require further investigation.


18. The relationship between BCCI and the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro. BCCI and the Atlanta Branch of BNL had an extensive relationship in the United States, with the Atlanta Branch of BNL having a substantial number of accounts in BCCI's Miami offices. BNL was, according to federal indictments, a significant financial conduit for weapons to Iraq. BCCI also made loans to Iraq, although of a substantially smaller nature. Given the criminality of both institutions, and their interlocking activities, further investigation of the relationship could produce further understanding of Saddam Hussein's international network for acquiring weapons, and how Iraq evaded governmental restrictions on such weapons acquisitions.


19. The alleged relationship between the late CIA director William Casey and BCCI. As set forth in the chapter on intelligence, numerous trails lead from BCCI to Casey, and from Casey to BCCI, and the investigation has been unable to follow any of them to the end to determine whether there was indeed a relationship, and if there was, its nature and extent. If any such relationship existed, it could have a significant impact on the findings and conclusions concerning the CIA and BCCI's role in U.S. foreign policy and intelligence operations during the Casey era. The investigation's work detailing the ties of BCCI to the intelligence community generally also remains far from complete, and much about these ties remains obscure and in need of further investigation.


20. Money laundering by other major international banks. Numerous BCCI officials told the Subcommittee that BCCI's money laundering was no different from activities they observed at other international banks, and provided the names of a number of prominent U.S. and European banks which they alleged engaged in money laundering. There is no question that BCCI's laundering of drug money, while pervading the institution, constituted a small component of the total money laundering taking place in international banking. Further investigation to determine which international banks are soliciting and handling drug money should be undertaken.

[Armstead]

53. Soiund of silence after request for facts is fulfilled

Why does that always seem to happen with such requests?

"Give me the facts."

"Okay here."

"Those aren't the facts. Give me the facts."

"Okay here's some more."

....silence

[blm]

56. Reading that list of questions, they're even MORE RELEVANT today post 9-11

and I can't see how anyone even TRIES to deny it, or how Clinton did not even mention BCCI one time in his entire book about his terms of office.

The only reasons that make any sense - Clinton was either forced to cover it up or made a deal with Bush in exchange for covering it up.

Because it was CERTAINLY NOT because BCCI was irrelevant to the issues Clinton faced in his 8 years in office.

[BootinUp]

64. The way I see it

The recommendations for the most part involve corruption in foreign governments with a foreign bank and the Senate investigation could not resolve the questions because of that fact. There is only so much our government can do, there are limitations as the report states. This starts to sound more and more like the LIHOP MIHOP bullshit that pisses me the fuck off. I think you can take your conspiracy theory and run with it and see how far you get. Forget what Clinton did do to work against terrorism. Where is the fucking legislative branch on this problem?

[blm]

70. Kerry crafted alot of the terror legislation Clinton did sign. But the

greater point is STILL that there were avenues to pursue in Jan 1993 that were not given the go ahead financially or documentation-wise. And that had to come only from an agreement between the President and the Senate Majority leader - George Mitchell.

How can anyone read those questions and not believe the answers mattered? Why was funding denied for further investigations? Why were documents denied?

We know they WERE denied, because they were never added to the National Security Archives record of the case.

[BootinUp]

71. Which Documents were denied? n/t

[blm]

77. The ones that Clinton couldn't seem to obtain from our ally nations

involved and we know this because no documents were added to the files, and if Clinton HAD tried to make it happen, the story never made it into his book.

[BootinUp]

79. I didn't see where Kerry said he thought

the Executive branch could get those documents. You're making that shit up.

[blm]

83. Uh -since Bush had blocked alot of the document gathering, then it stands

to reason that the next president could have acted differently.

You really don't know what happened then, do you? Never read any of the books about BCCI or recall any of the extensive reporting at the time that covered the struggle Kerry went through to get documents from Bush administration, including taking him to court a few times...none of that rings a bell for you?

[BootinUp]

84. Bush blocked foreign documents? How?

I guess we are back to which documents are you saying Clinton could provide.

I think the ones you are talking about now were withheld becuase there was another investigation already under way by the Justice Department in Tampa Fl. I think that problem was over by the time Clinton got there.

[BootinUp]

65. I asked for specific actions Clinton did or did not take.

I don't consider that list to answer the request. Why didn't Kerry follow up on it if there was something he wanted done?

[blm]

67. He said further investigations needed financing and DOCUMENTS that

were being withheld. Clinton, as president, could have facilitated the access to those documents.

Since that never occurred, and Clinton's book already states that he wanted to move on and let Bush1 have a peaceful retirement - what do you EXPECT we are to conclude?

I submit that Clinton and Mitchell decided against any further investigation, so there was no funding provided by the Senate, and no documents made accessible by then Pres. Clinton.

WHY is anyone's guess. The shame is that it IS a question that has no definitive answer.

[BootinUp]

68. You mean these documents?

according to Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Hank Brown.


Matters For Further Investigation

There have been a number of matters which the Subcommittee has received some information on, but has not been able to investigate adequately, due such factors as lack of resources, lack of time, documents being withheld by foreign governments, and limited evidentiary sources or witnesses. Some of the main areas which deserve further investigation include:

-----------------------

How exactly was Clinton to provide those foreign documents?

Basically I answered your desire to look up American citizens orifices in another post. My feeling on the BCCI thing is it was an example of greed run amock and largely due to poor regulation by a foreign banking agency not ours. Auditors of BCCI and the European banking regulatory agency involved should take most of the blame. The CIA involvement sounds mysterious. But then why wouldn't they be involved there? I'm sure it was a great way to carry out clandestine operations and gather intelligence. If there were unethical people that got away with shit it in the US, thats a shame, but I submit that it is more important to make sure it doesn't happen again by correcting systemic problems and that responsibility lays with the legislative branch and the people as much as it does with the President.

[blm]

74. Bush1 would not facilitate the access of the documents needed - neither

did Clinton. A President can get the documents he needs from allied governments, and some of these purported to be our allies, including England.

Then here's the question - we KNOW Kerry wanted the investigation to continue - we KNOW the investigation was not given the FUNDING to continue - we KNOW Clinton through Clinton's book that he wanted Bush1 to have a "peaceful retirement" and never included one mention of BCCI in that book - who had the clout at that time to influence Mitchell to deny the funding for further investigation?

Nothing just happens in a vacuum, and certainly nothing of THIS MAGNITUDE. As Blumenthal admits, the furthering of those investigations would have prevented an al Qaeda movement, and a 9-11 would never have happened.

[BootinUp]

75. Ok I'll have to file this under fantasy/blm.

I really don't know why Clinton left BCCI out of his book other than it happened before he took office. I don't accept your explanation. No, I don't know that Kerry wanted the investigation to continue. How hard did he try anyways? How hard did he try to convince the Senate and the American people that the investigation should be further funded? I assume there were still other legal matters pending in the matter and that no one including Kerry was compelled to take the case to the public and press for more investigation.
I haven't read Clinton's book. I'd like to see the comments in context.
Nothing happens in a vacuum? I don't give that argument any more weight than it deserves.

[blm]

76. Kerry worked on it for FIVE YEARS - you think he just tossed those

questions out there for EXERCISE?

He continued to be concerned about the issues involved, concerned enough to write a book about it in 1996 that was published in 1997 - The New War - but according to YOUR preferred storyline, Kerry was no longer interested in the investigation.

You never say exactly what part IS fantasy, you just toss it out there as if there is nothing that has been posted that is even plausible.

How sad that reading about the relevant aspects of BCCI to what is going on today causes you such discomfort that you have to deny what happened.

But then, so did Clinton when he avoided it like the plague in his book.

[BootinUp]

78. Its a fantasy

to think Clinton intentionally covered up something in the BCCI matter that led to 9/11. You and Blumenthal have not made that case. Just becuase there are other banks that service terrorists in foreign countries does not lead to a conclusion that we should have spent more time on the BCCI matter specifically. That bank was closed.

In his book -Against All Enemies- Richard Clarke says this on pg 195:

...the Clinton Administration had sought tougher money laundering provisions, only after 9/11 did Congress muster the political will to strengthen the U.S. laws to fight terrorist financing and money laundering.

-----------
And I don't see anything of substance in terms of resistance from the Clinton whitehouse. I assume they used information learned from the investigation when it was useful.

So the book in 96...Kerry said something about resistance from the Clinton whitehouse to further investigations, or other actions?

I note that BCCI does not appear in Richard Clarkes book either.

I applaud Kerry's efforts to investigate BCCI. If you have excerpts form Kerry's book that add something to the discussion of how Clinton handled the terrorism financing problem I would be interested to see them.

[blm]

80. The legislation Clinton signed re terror finances was crafted by Kerry.

Listen - I think Clinton tried to move on in 93 for the RIGHT reasons - and there is also heavy rumor at the time that Greenspan told Clinton if BCCI was reopened and revealed that the entire world economy could collapse, because it really involved the biggest international banks operating at the time.

So, I want to believe Clinton thought he was dong the prudent thing at the time. But once you make a move like that, you are also taking on the responsibility of having covered up for the administration before you. And if you check into the CIA drugrunning story that came out in 1995, you will see that Clinton administration was in the position of having to downplay the discovery and the investigative reporter who covered the story, Gary Webb, was raked over the coals, called a fabricator and was ostracized as a reporter. But then a couple years later CIA documents came out and proved his report was accurate.

At the point he decided to let BCCI lie in a state of limbo, Clinton put himself in the position of being unable to be as forthcoming as the inner Clinton may have wished he could be.

[BootinUp]

85. Apparently a lot more people than

just Clinton wanted to move on. Maybe cause that Bank was closed and it wasn't a threat to us anymore. You keep saying he was covering something up for Bush 1 but you are just pulling that out of your butt.

[Armstead]

87. Whatever the motivation, it's come back to bite us all in the butt

Whether Clinton was motivated by the right reasons, the wrong reasons or a mix of them, IMO it is symptomatic of the larger picture. And it's why so many progressives (for lack of a better word) are so frustrated now, in 2006.

The country swept too much under the rug in the 1990's, and we are experiencing the payback for that now. This mess didn't start in 2001 with Bush. Rather it is a continuation of a chain that should have been broken but wasn't, from Nixon/Ford/Reagan/Bush 1. The present mess is merely an extension of all of that on many levels.

The 1990's were just a brief interruption. We could have been setting a new and better course and clearing out the crap. But we didn't, and our rewards was the return of Bush Inc., bigger and badder than ever.

Looking to the prsent and the future, it's also why it is important to start looking for answers to actually move ahead, instead of trying to stay entrenched in behavior that isn;t working.

Maybe too many of us on the "left" are too eager to jump on "centrists" too hastily. But it works both ways. It's just possible that those who have stood outside the conventional wisdom are making valid points. After all, those on the "anti-war fringes" turned out to be absolutely correct about Iraq. Things that critics of the rush to war said in 2002-03 were dismissed as naive and unrealistic, but have been proven to be absolutely correct.

Whether you want to agree or disagree, at least you ought to be more open-minded, and acknowledge that the "fringe left" may not be so fringe after all.

[blm]

90. Sure more than Clinton wanted it over - entire GOP and establishment Dems

who were caught up in it.

Do you really want to try and make the case that BCCI was no loinger a threat and Clinton could ignore ALL the fallout from it and the network of operatives involved and all the questions that needed answers? That would be criminal negligence considering what we now know about terror networks and their targets.

How you can read those 20 major outstanding questions and believe they were completely irrelevant in 1993...well...that is just YOU willing to say anything to EXCUSE a major mistake made by Bill Clinton - - a mistake SO MAJOR that Bill Clinton would not even mention it throughout his book.

That satisfies you because you don't happen to care about the issue and don't grasp its relevance - but, do you think historians are going to agree with you or those of us who SEE the relevance of BCCI to just about everything occurring today?

[BootinUp]

91. Its not a question of whether something had to be done.

Its a question of how to do it. I believe Clinton took the right approach, and you are claiming he did nothing. That is a cheap political attack.

[blm]

93. The right approach for a CLOSED GOVERNMENT advocate. The WRONG approach

for someone who is an OPEN GOVERNMENT advocate.

[BootinUp]

94. I don't think you have the first clue

about how to deal with the open issues recommendations from Kerry's report.

[blm]

95. And I shouldn't. Because I voted for Clinton to do it.

And he failed.

[BootinUp]

96. To do what? Establish the first anti-terror program? He did.

Kerry let his investigation die. Live with that.

[blm]

97. Wrong. Kerry recommended investigation be funded for FURTHER investigation

and the funding was denied. And if you knew what the heck you were even talking about reBCCI, you would know that though the govt. wanted it shut down, Kerry took the case to a NY prosecutor to keep it going - AND kept an investigatory office open ON HIS OWN after the funding was cut off.

Unbelievable that you would try to spin it as if Kerry is to blame. Yeah - he so wanted it over that he wrote a book about what he learned about terror networks and their funding methods just t make sure it was dropped completely. feh.

[BootinUp]

99. Seems you are confused.

Kerry did not do those things after 1992. Thats when he let it die.

[Imagevision]

33. Lamont: - someone has pulled some serious clout?!!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

39. All I'll Say, Is Let's Cross Our Fingers Hard That Lieberman Will Still

caucus with the Dems.

[Nutmegger]

41. LIEber/LOSERman is not going to win!

While it's true that I'm slightly concerned, I believe the GOTV effort will be successful on Lamont's behalf. LIE is also number five on the ballot... What is that going to look like?

1. Alan Schlesinger (R)
2. Ned Lamont (D)
3. Green Party
3. Another Party
4. Another Party
5. LIE (CT for LIE)

I think, for once, ballot placement would work in our favor. :)

[CTyankee]

48. I'm sure Joe's ads will soon have a little "how to vote for Joe"

piece, to take care of any ballot placement confusion.

I thought the same thing, tho. It can only help Ned. But I'm hearing some "time to leave the Dem party if it won't___ "(whatever - recently it was "support Israel").

Just a few days ago I was calling at Ned's hq in New Haven. I spoke to one registered Dem who was voting for Joe. She knew him well and was a personal friend and she was unequivocal about her support for Joe. She added that she was also strongly against the Iraq War. That kind of disconnect means that people value an assortment of other things over their feelings about the war.

[Nutmegger]

49. Yeah better get ready for some more LIE ads

Which means Lamont will have to counter those. I'd start with LIE's support for the torture bill.

How's the overall response to your calls? If we can't better illustrate why LIE is undercutting the overall Dem message (among other things), then we shouldn't have high hopes. So far, I think Lamont is doing a great job but I would like to see more ads. We may not be able to convince the die-hard LIE supporters but we can convince those who are on the fence.

Hope things are well in your neck of the woods!:hi:

[CTyankee]

51. Thanks. To be honest, I think it's going to be damn hard at this point

for Ned to overcome a 10 pt lead. Alan Schlesinger is such a bonehead Republican he is a joke. So "moderate" Repubs which we have no shortage of in CT feel comfortable moving over the Joe (not much of a move). And don't get me started on the Dems who I talk to that are going to vote for Joe.

Since I typically have time to call in the mid afternoon weekdays I don't reach a lot of people. Of those I do reach it is slightly more Joe than Ned, but realize that you can't draw any conclusion about my sample. Unfortunately, tho, that pattern has been the same week after week.

Ned hasn't gotten an ad out answering directly the "experience" thing. Joe is really beating that drum; it must work in his focus groups. I almost think some people just don't want a fresh face. They want the same old, same old. It's just more comfortable for them.

BTW, I think Ned's black and white ad with the woman screaming at her medicine cabinet is terrible. It's jarring and makes people think Ned is a little odd, IMHO.

[blm]

50. So - who is the candidate representing the LIE Party?

;)

[Cha]

62. Wondering why the repuke is

first?

[Nutmegger]

69. Not sure why

but all Repukes will be on line number one this November.

http://connecticutlocalpolitics.blogspot.com/2006/09/lieberman-no-higher-than-fifth-on.html

[WI_DEM]

44. A general election victory takes more than just "bloggers" to make

a candidate win. Obviously they were important in a primary where there is limited turnout--and certainly Lamont's 10,000 vote victory in the Democratic primary was due to the efforts of bloggers and the money they raised, ect. However, Lamont needs to enhance his base and according to polls he hasn't. Look at it this way, Lieberman held 48% of the Democratic vote in the primary. He is holding, according to the polls, still a third or more of the Democratic vote in his Independent bid for the Senate. For Lamont to win he needs to get at least 80% or more of the vote of his fellow Democrats. It doesn't help when somebody like Bill Clinton says "CT is a win-win" becuz both Lamont and Lieberman would vote to organize the Senate with Democrats. Clinton is in effect saying "see it's ok to vote for Joe." Lamont and these other Democrats should be saying "Can we really trust Lieberman to vote with the Democrats especially since he is running as a third party candidate because he didn't win the primary."

As far as why there aren't more pro-Lamont posts I guess it's because the vote against Lieberman was always more anti-Lieberman than pro-Lamont. These people won't be voting for Joe, but Lamont in the next month has to get a bigger share of the pie and convince some wavering Democrats and Indeendents that a vote for Joe is a vote for a continuation of Bush policies in Iraq and possibly for a GOP congress.

[Ignacio Upton]

47. Because there are other races to worry about in November

Kos, for example, spends more time on other Senate races than he does Lamont, because what happens in FL-16 or VA-Sen is more important than CT-Sen (I hate Lieberman too, but he's still going to caucus with the Democrats. If we are close to flipping the Senate, he won't be stupid to give up his seniority to switch parties and lose his potential Committee Chairmanship.)

[WHAT]

54. I suspect a lot of people are paid to blog...

blog hos?

Witness the contributions, tag-teaming, re-directing...attacks and consensus by number as in volume, not in voice. Without accurate polling or transparent elections, it's a playground.

Anyway, this whole system of presentation, editing, and directing is an education in itself.

Then there are the real people...

[Caro]

73. Interesting point.

I hope it's not a problem of DC consultants taking over his campaign.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[Cha]

55. KNR...What the heck?

There's gotta be an explaination.. I've seen threads with Lamont responding to issues and "writing himself a $500,000 check to help the campaign.

And Wes Clark was just in Connecticut to help our guy, Ned Lamont!

Has anyone been emailing the Lamont campaign and asking them what's going on? The same with the Angelides campaign?

[JNelson6563]

59. Because Ned Lamont has a messy desk

:shrug:

[Swamp Rat]

72. LOL!

:thumbsup:

[JNelson6563]

92. I knew some bright DUer would get that!

:toast:

[Arugula Latte]

88. Good question.

What a disappointment. I don't get why there was so much noise before the primary, then everything (from my perspective) went silent. It infuriates me that that piece of shit Lieberman is still running.

[Armstead]

100. A serious answer to your original question

I think one reason the blogosphere is less focused on Lamont has something to do with circumstances.

People tend to have short attention spans sometimes. When Lamont was running, he attracted a lot of attention because it was a test case and harbinger of internal tussles within the Democratic half of the spectrum.

But since then the focus has shifted and become more diffused. Now, as the general election approaches, the attention is all over the map (literally) in terms of whether the larger balance of power will shift from Republicans to Democrats. Thus, the races between Democrats and Republicans become part of the larger picture. Also, regardless of whether Joe or Lamonte is elected, Ct. is a safe Democratic seat, in terms of the numbers, and Joe will probably remain a Democrat on the procedural matters that determine control).

Also, there's a taste of victory in the air, regarding the possibility of a democratic win overall. That seems to be overriding the internal divisions on our side.

So the symbolic importance of the Lamont/Lieberman race has diminished, at least temporarily....The schism it represents will likely resurface after November. But for now, the stakes are much bigger than who wins a predestined Democratic seat in one state.

I believe all of those factors have overshadowed that race in Ct. for those outside the state.

[Armstead]

101. Duplicate post

nt