so what kind of swiftboat will HOJO send out to sink Lamont

we saw a bitter bitter Joe on the Today Show spewing lies

perhaps he can get the Wylys to pay for an ad

they have all the money they got back from McCain
and I 'm sure their buddy W will put in a good word for joe

Good for Reid and Schumer.

And Joe, just keep talking. Please. Keep telling everyone your views on why you lost. Your mouth is Lamont's most potent weapon.

Joe's campaign strategy for the general is what's really going to kill him. He's been trying to beat Ned, in his own way, for these last few weeks -- not talking about the war, emphasizing his Democratic credentials. What do you think is going to happen to that when he starts trying to appeal to Republican voters instead? Something tells me that when joe shifts to the message of support-the-President and the-war-is-great, his support will dissolve completely. Except, perhaps, for one loyal Moose...

Love child, never meant to be
Love child, (scorned by) society
Love child, always second best
Love child, different from the rest

Surely a name like Lamont is going to get many GOP votes. Even I know the name and I am not American.

WHAT'S NEXT FOR LIEBERMAN

Joe Lieberman is going to run as a petitioning independent democrat for the sake of Connecticut and the country. He has greater loyalties than the Democratic Party. His greatest loyalty is to America. He will run as a conciliator running against the old politics of partisan bickering who had won the day by voting for leftist Ned Lamont. As Republicans like Chris Shays support him, watch for the Democratic Party to be devastated in Connecticut as Joe Lieberman defeats the one issue leftist millionaire candidate Ned Lamont, and the rest of the Republican caucus soundly defeat the Democrats and their old style politics of political polarization.

Plus, the support of Lieberman voters for an independent run was no doubt in some part bravado, "He'll win today, but if he didn't, of course he should run as an independent."

Support for losers tends to evaporate overnight. Heck, polls conducted immediately after results of elections find generally find a significant smaller share of the electorate admitting to having voted for the loser than actually did.

But the Kiss was worth it.

shush Al. it's old. old, tired and boring.

I hope he does, anyway. At this point, there's nothing more he can do except hurt the party.

Even during the primary Lieberman's message boiled down to "vote for me or the Democratic Party gets it!"

He'll find himself with precious little love from his former friends if he goes down that road too long.

And precious little love from his former friends at Fox and the GOP once his use to them as a lapdog is over.

So exactly what positions would Lamont have to take to become more moderate?!?

Hillary ran against the entire GOP, won and has only solidified her hold on NY. I can't see why Lamont won't do it too. There are a lot of people around this country who want to see government returned to the people.

(Blank) the GOP and the DNC. Go Lamont!

One strategy would be to send faxes to his Senate offece at (202) 224-9750 making these points:

1. Thank him for his eighteen years of service.
2. Highlight a few votes, stands, or issues that you deem praiseworthy.
3. Say that he fought a valiant fight in the Connecticut primary but . . .
4. . . . the voters have spoken, and it's time to accept their verdict.
5. Endorsing Lamont and campaigning for him now preserves his party status . . .
6. . . . which can lead to opportunities for future elected or appointed leadership.

Couldn't hurt to try.

Presumably, this means that 80% of Lieberman's supporters still support him and plan to vote for him as an independent in November.

Actually, it means they think it is OK for him to run as an independent. It says nothing about their intent to vote for him.

I sure hope you're right, Kevin, and that L&L don't split the Democrat vote and help elect a GOP senator from Connecticut for six years!

Surely a name like Lamont is going to get many GOP votes. Even I know the name and I am not American.

The odd thing is that twenty or even ten years ago a Northeast, Waspy, millionaire country-club type like Lamont would unquestionably have been a Republican. But the GOP, captured by its frothing Christianist base, has drifted so far to the rabid right that Lamont can no longer feel at home in that party.

CMDICELY: Support for losers tends to evaporate overnight.

If Lieberman does continue his run for senator, Lamont must paint him as a backstabber. Lieberman had backstabbed Connecticut Democrats and he will will backstab Connecticut's Independents and Republicans, too.

I would also urge Lamont to start investigating Lieberman's finances and ties to defense contractors. It would be wonderful if this warmonger were to be found criminally corrupt, which I am certain he is, but if he is not, smear the backstabbing fucker anyway.

Plus, with an eminently bloggable nom de choke like LOSERMAN, it's going to be that much harder to shake the meme :)

Joe's painted himself into a corner. He can't be the sunny, optimistic, mainstream uniter candidate while simultaneously inveighing against blogger consipracy theories in a shrill and victimized tone. He can't claim he's doing this for the sake of "America" while giving his political party a colossal pain in the ass.

I agree with those who say that Joe's mouth is his worst enemy. There are a lot of toes for Joe to step on between now and November ...

Bob

"We're here to protect democracy, not practice it."

The new slogan of the Leiberman campaign

said while waving a purple finger

Thanks for articulating Lieberman's strategy Al. If that's the message they are going to use in Connecticut I'm sure Lamont will be fine.

You make a point worth noting that I won't dispute. Lieberman, and all of us, have a greater loyalty to America and Americans than we do to either party. Yet remembering that point is exactly what is going to help Democrats realize a tidal wave election in 2006.

Lefties such as myself have been disgusted with both parties for about as long as we can remember. But the rise of the blogosphere has allowed us to unite and begin to reverse the overwhelming, Orwellian body of lies that forms the political consensus in the United States. Shedding light on government can only help us turn out the radicals on the right-wing who believe war is the only answer. War can be an answer and can be necessary. I hold up Afghanistan as a recent example. But mindless violence from the U.S. will not heal the Middle East and will not protect America. That message is getting out.

Immersed in a red state such as I am I'll assure you that I am surrounded by both rabid partisan Republicans and a good many ideological conservatives. The partisans, such as yourself, are still wearing their blinders, but with less enthusiasm. But the conservatives my friend are disgusted with Bush, and disgusted with their Republican representatives. Democrats are newly energized and have begun to speak their mind more freely about the authoritarian country that the Republican hammer-lock on the three separate branches of national government has given us.

Change is coming. Change is here. It's time for the warmongers, theocrats, and corrupt authoritarians to move aside.

If he goes with his political instincts, Lieberman will be forced to bow out before October.

Better than demonizing Lieberman, Lamont would do better to praise and thank Lieberman for 18 years of leadership and for fighting a valiant campaign, and say something like, "the voters have spoken, and I thank them for selecting me, and I invite people who voted for my opponent in the primary to unite behind me in defeating our Republican opponent in November."

Hostile:

If we started believing that the ends justify the means, we may as well be Republicans.

A loud NIX on any lying smear jobs, thanks.

The truth shall set us *all* free.

Bob

Joel Rubenstein, your suggestion for what Lamont ought to say is almost precisely what he did say in his acceptance/thank-you speech last night.

Stefan: The odd thing is that twenty or even ten years ago a Northeast, Waspy, millionaire country-club type like Lamont would unquestionably have been a Republican.

I have no idea what you're talking about. According to such experts as Fox News, Cokie Roberts and our own Jay-Jay, long-haired hippie freaks like Ned Lamont, who was spotted last weekend doing bong hits while hugging trees, wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt and engaging in some very free love with Cindy Sheehan, are a historical mainstay of the Democratic party's radical wing. We all know that Greenwich is a hotbed of wild-eyed communism.

(Hey, anyone else remember the TV Nation episode in which Janeane Garofalo and friends landed on Greenwich's private beach? Seems especially funny now.)

Katherine Graham Cracker:

Joe says while *giving us* the purple finger.

Bob

"unless Lieberman is even less tethered to reality than it seems"

In honor of our dear chuckles...

hehe...

he can actually be less tethered to reality than he is now?

If he goes with his political instincts, Lieberman will be forced to bow out before October.

The shoddy quality of Lieberman's political instincts is what got him into this mess to begin with. And this and ego are what will likely keep him in.

I don't know. A three way race with two people in it who Democrats have voted for in the past sounds like a Republican victory to me.

What improves Lieberman's prospects for Secty of Defense? Waging a vigorous campaign and losing or bowing out before he's tagged twice with being a "loser"?

We're all assuming Senator Lieberman is motivated by self-preservation. That might be correct, it certainly matches his clueless recent rhetoric and his non-concession speech.

But let's not misunderestimate him as an incompetent solipsist. If he runs as an independent or Repub, he is an adversary and must be confronted as such. He can't be allowed to position himself as a Democrat to keep pissing in the tent.

And Joe, just keep talking. Please. Keep telling everyone your views on why you lost. Your mouth is Lamont's most potent weapon.

Well said. And just the kind of spot-on observation that you'll never hear from the TeeVee "political analysts".

I agree with Joel. The more gracious we all appear in opposition, the more Joe's persecution complex comes to the fore. He's got a huge load of cognitive dissonace to resolve running a campaign to split the Democratic Party under the rubric of non-partisanship -- and nothing resolves it like projected hatred at those dark forces behind the Lamont phenomenon.

Yeah, well, those dark forces are called Democracy. This really is a recipe for meltdown ...

Also, Stefan's point is as true for Howard Dean as well. 30 years ago, the stockbroker-turned-MD would have been comfortably ensconced in the GOP's Rockefeller wing ...

Bob

I have to say, I'm disappointed in Lieberman for cheating. If he planned to run as an independent he should have not even participated in the primary and declared his candidacy for his Lieberman Party.

I say this as someone who would have, before today, voted for Lieberman had I lived in CT. Now, I don't think I would vote for him and would have reluctantly voted for Lamont--who doesn't strike me as phenomenal as many others in the blogosphere seem to think.

If Lieberman is so strong on defense, why couldn't he save this kitten? Other people had to do Joe's work for him.

That's why he lost.
.

A couple of years ago, jockeys in horse racing were allowed to wear corporate logos on their racing silks, ala, the logos on NASCAR racers.

Shouldn't Joe be allowed to run as an Independent with AETNA and other insurance logos as well as defense industry logos on his clothes?

"Untethered from reality" is exactly right ... watching Lieberman's speech last night, it seemed clear to me that he actually envisions a groundswell of national support for his brand of wonderfulness that will propel him to yet another Presidential run. The man is so delusional that not only does he not "get it" that CT democrats are sick of him, he believes this loss will actually help him attain his real goal of running the entire country.

The most recent general election polls show an independent Lieberman either leading the election or tied with Lamont. There's no scientific evidence of a snowball effect in Lamont's favor at this point.

Jeremy:

At *this* point.

Give it time for the LOSERman meme to settle in ...

Bob

I have often said the Democratic Party should be abolished and replaced with a more liberal social democracy party. So put me down as a nihilist and destroy Joe Lieberman and the party that has allowed fuckers like him to flourish.

shortstop >"...Your mouth is Lamont's most potent weapon."

The most accurate comment I`ve heard about all this in a long time & I am hoping that Joe keeps it operational

Here come da Tsunami...

"...Democrats are for people, Republicans are for things..." - Oilfieldguy-firedoglake.com

Hostile:

Just do all of us a favor then and try to avoid being quoted by the likes of Lanny Davis, k?

I dunno if we're really helped by a poster boy for Lieberman's dark fantasies about blogs ...

Bob

L * O * S * E * R * man ....

Has a nice ring to it :)

Bob

Jeremy >"...There's no scientific evidence of a snowball effect in Lamont's favor at this point."

The vast majority of voters do not pay attention to the details of politics & candidates until after Labor Day so give it a rest for the next month

"...I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is--an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate..." - Edward R. Murrow

This assessment is incomplete. The largest bloc of voters in Connecticut are registered as Unaffiliated: 867,761 active, as of Oct. 2005. They were not allowed to vote in the primary. If they turn out at, say, 35%, and trend even 55% to Lieberman, that's a pick up of over 15,000 votes for him.
But what if they trend 60% or more to Lieberman?

Can Lamont nuetralize that with Democrat support? I hope so. But it's not at all clear at this point.

The curious thing about many of these responses is how patronizing they are regarding Ct voters. Ct Democrats are obviously capable of understanding all the game-theory arguments about Lieberman splitting the D vote (think Iowa caucuses and Kerry). And if they haven't factored that into their decision making yet (which they don't have to for a primary election), Ned's campaign will explain it carefully. I suspect that about half of the people who voted for Lieberman will vote for the D candidate in November, resulting in an easy Lamont victory.

Just as a point of discussion, does Lamont's success continue a trend of NE states becoming increasingly less interested or engaged in defense issues as a whole?

WHAT'S NEXT FOR LIEBERMAN?

Retirement?

Looking out my office window at a large hole in the ground in lower Manhattan where a couple of 100+ story towers used to be, I wonder who has the cojones to say we northeasterners aren't "interested or engaged in defense issues?" We want defense that WORKS, not schoolyard posturing.

Oh, Trashhauler, New England Democrats are very interested in national defense. The instability that the Bush administration has encouraged in the Middle East is not making America - or anywhere else - safer.

On top of that, New England Republicans - like my husband's whole family, none of whom support George W. Bush - are pretty sick of the whackjob Republicans who have seized control of the federal government and spending our tax dollars (and CT contributes plenty of tax dollars) like Imelda Marcos at a Nordstrom shoe sale.

As usual, the right-wing is all about projection. CT Democrats voted for a moderate Democrat who represents the majority of us. It is the Republican party that sends its radical fringe into National Office.

Lieberman, the Republican Party, and the submissive Democrats who failed to stand up to the radical right-wing have been served notice.

Trashhauler:

"Defense issues as a whole?"

This is about a lessening interest in staying the course in *Iraq* -- not a wholesale regional conversion to peacenikism.

You can be a hardcare realist Republican and oppose the Iraq war on anti-nation building grounds.

You know, the way the GOP fought our involvement in Bosnia and Kosovo every inch of the way ...

Bob

The real moral sickness in Lieberman's run as an independent is that the only way he will win - and it is a very real possibility - is by gaining a majority of Republican votes. So we have the specter of a supposedly "good, mainstream Democrat" in the November election putting together a winning coalition of a small minority of Democratic votes, a large minority of independent votes, and a majority of Republican votes. What hypocrisy and self-infatuation! If he wins under these circumstances, I hope he gets assigned to a sub-sub-committee on the fish industry in outer Burundi.

According to some of Lieberman's rhetoric, Lamont is simply a Republican who opposes the war. And maybe the bankruptcy bill. And maybe wouldn't have supported the accounting bill which enabled Enron and Global Crossing to flush so much money down the crapper. But Lamont is a Republican who is a dangerously left wing extremist. Unlike Joe "Smoochy" Lieberman who thinks only of the good of the country and who toyed with being George Bush's Sec. of Defense.

The world is ugly and the people are sad.

He's really re-earning his old nickname, "Sore Looserman"

thethirdpaul: Shouldn't Joe be allowed to run as an Independent with AETNA and other insurance logos as well as defense industry logos on his clothes?

Hah! That made me laugh really, really hard....

The most recent general election polls show an independent Lieberman either leading the election or tied with Lamont. There's no scientific evidence of a snowball effect in Lamont's favor at this point.

And it wasn't too long ago that Lieberman led Lamont by 20 points. Now, he's behaving like a goop.

You want to make God laugh? Tell her your plans.

Looks like there is a Perot in the Connecticut race.

This should be fun to watch.

When do Liberals and Leftits unleash their hostility on the warmongers like Lieberman? I am not going to wait until Lieberman wins in November to begin venting about our decrepit political system and the type of scum it allows to become our leaders.

Looking out my office window at a large hole in the ground in lower Manhattan where a couple of 100+ story towers used to be, I wonder who has the cojones to say we northeasterners aren't "interested or engaged in defense issues?" We want defense that WORKS, not schoolyard posturing.

Hey, CJ, we have the same view. I'm looking at the pit right now.

I prefer the left tit, but I meant Leftists.

PLEASE Democratic Leadership:

• Strip Lieberman of all committee assignments.

• Get all Democrats to publicly back Ned Lamont.

• Get all Democratic interest groups to back Ned Lamont.

I think everyone should call him "LOSERman"

No one likes a sore loser!

He screwed the Dems when he was VP candidate -
spending more time on his Senate race than
winning the Executive office.

He couldn't even deliver Florida -
seems to me, he has working with the republicans then.

Other fatal flaws:
Bill Clinton Empeachment
Terri Scheivo
Bush kiss
Scolding democrats - that not supporting Bush in embolding the enemy
Social Security
2 Supreme Court - right wingers
... ... ...

Would have been nice if Lieberman were smart enough to have figured this all out before the primary. I think Lamont would have been.

THETHIRDPAUL: Shouldn't Joe be allowed to run as an Independent with AETNA and other insurance logos as well as defense industry logos on his clothes?

All's not lost for Lieberman, though. He's just gotten the support and a promise to campaign at his side if asked from Republican Michael Bloomberg, mayor of NYC. The day that happens would be a good day for Bill Clinton to show up again -- at Lamont's side.

Well I guess that kiss from Bush wasn't real love after all if Libo could even even get diebold to help him out in the end.

And is it just me that has noticed that everyone Bill Clinton has campaign for has lost in their re-election, from the old governor of California to libo-man or is it limbo-man, lost as he seems to be?

And for Howard Dean, it appears Lieberman is now in his "spider hole" of denial. Lieberman was so sure he would be next presnit but now he's not even the next senator. I can certainly see why McCain never throw his hat into Lieberman's campiagn ring - despite that Lieberman beg McCain so badly over and over again.

Orwell:

No, this is not a typical third-party dynamic here, a la Nader or Perot. For one thing, the GOP candidate barely registers in the polls.

It's essentially going to be a fight between Lamont as Democrat and Lieberman as proxy Republican. It's going to test Lamont's mettle to the fullest to see how far he can spread his appeal -- but it looks much worse for Lieberman.

The effective spoiler here is the *Republican* candidate who takes away *Lieberman* votes.

If Lamont can cover all the Democratic bases and get some strong, unequivocal support from the leadership, then Joe's going to have one helluva time.

Of course the real satisfaction is that after Joe loses this one, he'll be known as JOE LOSERMAN probably even in the Who's Who of American Politics :)

Bob

I mourned the loss of Al and Joe in 2000. This time, all I can say is: I will lose all remaining respect for Joe Lieberman if he runs as an independent. He will be a stuck-up traitor to the Democratic Party and to the Nation (by enabling the Republican machine.) Another self-important Ralph Nader, even if at a less critical juncture.

Everyone: Call his office and whoever else might have leverage, and say, "Please, Joe, please, for the sake of the Party and your Nation, do not run as an indedendent."

Marshall Wittman will fellate him if he stays in and gets 15%--that has to be worth SOMETHING.

Thanks for dumping Lieberman. Please pass the moderates because we would like another helping.

No place for them to go but to the right.

(Don't tell the rest of the moonbats that they just bought a candidate from WALMART.)

I totally agree with you on this. I really don’t think the 3-way candidate polls reflect much reality at all about what will happen down the road. Unlike he himself, I find it hard to believe that democratic voters in Connecticut will so easily abandon their party once it becomes clear that key democratic party figures are not willing to do the same, particularly for someone who can so easily be dubbed a “three time loser.” I think he’ll be forced to realize this fairly quickly (and maybe even abandon the effort by Friday). The longer he waits, the less likely he will be able to walk away from this with some shred of dignity, and the more likely he will seal his fate as a pathetic figure.

Maybe there's an job opening in the Bush admin for the annoying nudnik with a grotesque cheshire cat grin. Joe as Middle East Envoy? Peace envoy? Seems like something the bushies would cook up.

Kev Star,

Yah, speaking of Wittman... What's going on there. The Bull Moose site has turned into the roman bath scene in the uncut version of sparticus...

I never seen that kind of man love in politics before. Maybe its because they've both lost touch with their parties... Centrists... With no center.

Bundle up boys. Its cold out there. And you're going to need eachother to stay warm.

Someone was telling me organized labor has already given Loserman it's endorsement to his independent candidacy. Is that true?

razorboy:

What is "organized labor" in a world where the SEIU has split from the AFL/CIO?

The American Federation of Asskissers and Sycophants Local 402? :)

Bob

Joe is counting on a groundswell of independent voters to rescue him, just like when he tied for third in the New Hampshire primary in 2004.

Maybe there's an job opening in the Bush admin for the annoying nudnik with a grotesque cheshire cat grin. Joe as Middle East Envoy? Peace envoy? Seems like something the bushies would cook up.

Ambassador to Iraq, if there's any justice. There Joe can idle away his days blithely marvelling at the profusion of cell phones and satellite dishes....

Hehe. I know labor doesn't have the clout it used to. If if endorses Jofo it'll have a lot less in the eyes of many of us democrats.

Just as a point of discussion, does Lamont's success continue a trend of NE states becoming increasingly less interested or engaged in defense issues as a whole?

Are you suggesting such a trend exists? If so, do you have any evidence for this assertion, or are we just engaging in fantasy? And how do you construe an election in which Iraq was a major issue as evidence of "becoming increasingly less interested or engaged in defense issues"?

I would be very, very surprised if labor doesn't come out for Lamont overall.

Democrats will all fall in line behind Lame-ont because they want power more than anything else. Liebermann occasionally undermined the party (though he voted liberal 90% of the time) and for that reason he was dumped.

But it will still be fun to watch the fur fly among the true Liebermann believers.

And how do you construe an election in which Iraq was a major issue as evidence of "becoming increasingly less interested or engaged in defense issues"?

The same way Fox came up with its headlines yesterday: "Lamont Win a Blow to Middle East Democracy?" and nonsense like that.

Mindlessly.

Apologies, for those of you who don’t know.

The Bull Moose, (Marshal Wittman) is a guy who claims to be a Teddy Roosevelt Republican. He lays further claim to being the TRUE middle of the road, bipartisan and sensible creature that all politicians should aspire to. But as far as I can tell you can’t see any daylight between his opinions and Bush’s on Iraq. He’s spent the last few weeks opining about how bipartisanship is dead, and the Dems have lost their way in a the valley of hate, because they’ve turned on his good friend Joe.

I read the guy on and off for a year. He talks a good talk, but he’s John McCain meets LOSERman in one body.

Fairly twisted Frankenstein beast indeed.

If you care to take a look at what REAL centrists think. Take a gander.

http://www.bullmooseblog.com/

Oh, and on another note, while I'm posting. I've got one word I've been sniggering over all night.

Joementum

No wonder he lost this primary. If that was what his CRACK political team thought up for his presidential bid. Imagine what they're working on for the Senate bid?

“What if the “Hokey Pokey” really IS what it’s all about?” Vote Joe. He’s a deep thinker.

I love how "Middle East democracy" has become Fox-speak for "Israeli paranoia" :)

Bob

Hmm, looks like this time Lieberman has to fight for himself. Ok, maybe Coulter and Malkin well support him, but almost every important Dem is running to the ither side like hell. Another example here:

"The events of the past months make even more clear," Kerry added, "the differences Democratic leadership would make for our country on Iraq, in making America safer, in having an economy that works for everyone, and in achieving energy independence. That’s who we are as Democrats, and that’s what we’ll be fighting for. It’s time for all Democrats to come together to support Ned Lamont. It’s time for Democrats to unite.”

Well, maybe this is only hollow brouhaha, but at first sight, it looks like the Dems are on the move. In these gloomy times, we have to be glad about every spark of reason in the darkness that surronds us...

"He’s a deep thinker."

Uh, isn't the correct term 'deep throater'?
We should ask Bush, he ought to know...

Orwell:

Well, to reiterate:

Joe wasn't rejected on ideological grounds. He's clearly more liberal among all senators and not even that far out for neoliberal, pro-business Connecticut. Even when you can rightly call him a corporate whore, at least he's pimping for quintessentially Connecticut industries. And his League of Conservation Voters 100% rating remains a genuine feather in his cap.

Myth #2: Joe wasn't rejected over the Iraq war, either. Hillary Clinton has been at least as much as an insufferable defender of it, and the Empire State GOP is in even worse disarray than the state GOPs in NY or NJ -- yet she has no credible antiwar challenger.

Joe was rejected because he relentlessly made the argument that to oppose Bush during time of war was tantamount to disloyalty.

And that's simply unacceptible. Imagine anybody from the GOP trash-talking their own extremists like that.

Party loyalty and party discipline are too imporant to let that slide.

Simple as that.

Bob

Plus, with an eminently bloggable nom de choke like LOSERMAN,

Awww, I kinda liked Liarman myself.

NY or NJ = CT or NJ

Plus, with an eminently bloggable nom de choke like LOSERMAN

Yeah, now that's a name! Looking great on all signs, banners and T-Shirt:

Veto Sore Loserman!

All Lieberman has been doing since the late 1990s is hurt the Democrats. At least now, when he sticks his shiv into whatever Dem he doesn't think measures up to his smugnicity, he can't be labeled a Dem.

Judged by the company you keep ...

National Review just endorsed Lieberman, in an Editorial entitled "A Friend In Need".

And Karl Rove is reported to have put in a call today to help the next phase of the Lieberman fundraising effort. (see TPM)

Hey Marshall Whittman & company in DC, is there anything in the real world that could wake you up to what the Lieberman campaign is all about now, and prompt you do what is unambigously the right thing for the cause you purport to support? (i.e., do what it takes to put an end to Lieberman's ongoing campaign of using Republican talking points to trash the Democratic party)

Well, I didn't think Lamont could win the primary a few months ago, so my opinion may not matter much, but I still think Lieberman wins a 3 way race. You have to remember that yesterday's vote was for registered Democrats, so Kevin's analysis understates things a bit.

However, as CMDicely points out, losers in elections find support slips away in the night. I am not sure how this plays in this particular situation since it is rarely seen, but it is a factor to consider.

It will be an interesting 3 months here in Connecticut politics. Most races here are unexciting.

"Hey Marshall Whittman & company in DC, is there anything in the real world that could wake you up to what the Lieberman campaign is all about now, and prompt you do what is unambigously the right thing for the cause you purport to support?"

Afaik no. At his blog he delared that he would have some holidays. I guess he was awful depressed because he couldn't persuade anybody that Lieberman is going into the right direction and that the whole party should follow. I wouldn't be too surprised if he would suddenly become Joe's new campaign manager, thus boosting the party of one by 100%.

Never forget New York in 1980!

The Lieberman/Lamont race is setting up to be a repeat of the Jacob Javits/Elizabeth Holzman showdown. Remember who won that Senate race?

Al D'Amato.

That's why Bush is offering to throw his support behind Lieberman's independent candidacy. Bush stands a two out of three chance of winning.

More fresh air from Josh at TMP: Forget about being a Democrat. Just be a man. It's time.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009371.php

From Billman at Whisky Bar:

Loserman Quote: "I worry that this victory by Ned Lamont . . . will send a message across our state and our country that the Democratic Party has been taken over by people who are not from the mainstream of America. And they are going to make this not Bill Clinton's party anymore."
Joe Lieberman

Billmon: "But I thought that was a good thing -- because then we won't have to explain to the children why their president is getting blow jobs from interns.

"Is Holy Joe now saying he was for blow jobs after he was against them?

http://billmon.org/

By the way, Billman, from Whiskey Bar has been smoking hot for weeks. You're not likely to get more redmeat chewing insite into Lebanon / Israel conflict than here.

Wise are the learned...

http://billmon.org/

Gregory wrote:

"Are you suggesting such a trend [of disinterest in defense issues] exists? If so, do you have any evidence for this assertion, or are we just engaging in fantasy? And how do you construe an election in which Iraq was a major issue as evidence of 'becoming increasingly less interested or engaged in defense issues'?"

Not really, sorry for the poor wording. Military planners are certainly concerned about servicemembers increasingly coming from the Midwest, South, and Southwest. And there are many fewer military bases in NE than when I first joined the military 37 years ago. Many BRAC actions, of course, but it's always easier to cut where the things aren't really wanted anyway. Plus, there is an historical trend towards NE being more isolationist, though that's been some time ago.

But my interest was really about Lamont's background and knowledge. There doesn't seem to be much in his work or family that would show any interest in defense issues. Rather the contrary.
Does he have a national defense advisor? What's he say about the military, besides it ought to be out of Iraq?

Could be the wrong thread for this question....

Billmon: "But I thought that was a good thing -- because then we won't have to explain to the children why their president is getting blow jobs from interns.

Why? Because I could.

Yancey:

It's going to be interesting, indeed.

One of the big things that's going to but distate in the average voters' mounts is all the wailing neocon support for Lieberman -- not just in the magazines and blogs, but on Fox News and ClearChannel radio especially. All the Republican pro-warriors are going to be rhetorically French (eww!) kissing him so vigorously that Lieberman's claims of being a lifelong, loyal Democrat are going to ring hollow and set up a tremendous potential for charges of flip-flopping.

Which way, after all, does Joe tack in the general race? If his "base" is solid pro-war Republicans, does he need to reach out to center/liberals to undercut Lamont -- and how disingenuous does *that* look? Does he go with his gut and preach responsible centrism against the "Kos extremists" -- how seriously can anybody take that with the likes of Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes his biggest cheerleaders? And how does he show steely-spined principle on Iraq when he has to both vigorously criticize Bush policy *and* support an open-ended committment? Wasn't that kind of equivocating, have-it-both-ways crap precisely what killed enthusiasm for John Kerry?

There's just no way that his message is not going to become confused.

And this undermines the National Noodge especially, since Lieberman has hung his hat on "firm committment to principle." When voters see a pol like this desperately casting about for issues or voters, they quickly become disillusioned. That "principle" stuff is great when you know you're coasting to victory and you can afford to alienate this or that group. Joe no longer has that luxury. To turn into a interest group checklist Democrat sticking his finger in the wind scrounging for votes is absolutely going to destroy his appeal as Mr. Integrity.

No question about it: Joe's going down in a blazing IED of vainglory ...

Bob

Yancey Ward: Well, I didn't think Lamont could win the primary a few months ago, so my opinion may not matter much....

True.

Plus, there is an historical trend towards NE being more isolationist, though that's been some time ago.

Yes, at the time of the War of 1812. Within the last hundred years it's been the Midwest that's been the most isolationist.

Stefan:

Heh, indeed. Jesus, Woodrow Wilson was from New Jersey :)

And Robert "Mr. Republican" Taft was from Ohio.

Bob

Military planners are certainly concerned about servicemembers increasingly coming from the Midwest, South, and Southwest.

Yes, if only the economy in the blue states was as poor performing and restrictive of educational and employment choices for young men and women as that in the red states, than maybe there would be more military recruits from New England.

This does suggest the direction GWB's domestic economic policy may take in the next two years....

Bill Clinton,

No one who did more “moralizing” about the Bill’s BJ (except perhaps you and you’re ilk) than LiberDork regarding Clinton. For those who thought the 90’s where great years of leadership… You know, great economy, surplus in gov’t, success in Kosovo… Competent leadership from a talented and diplonatic president.

It just seems a little Bill Clinton,

It’s just funny that is no one who did more “moralizing” about the Bill’s BJ (except perhaps you and you’re ilk) than LiberDork. For those who thought the 90’s where great years of leadership… You know, great economy, surplus in gov’t, success in Kosovo… Competent leadership from a talented and capable president.

It just seems a little funny to see Loserman Bill like they’re best friends. Rats. Sinking ship. Grab the best living politician in living memory kind of thing. I'm a dead man kind of thing. Irony is funny. Read the Billmon post for more...

Nevermind. I’m sure you wouldn’t understand. You love Loserman. He's you're last fig leaf you've got in the in the Dem side of the Senate.

Why bother...

....Lefties such as myself have been disgusted with both parties for about as long as we can remember. But the rise of the blogosphere has allowed us to unite and begin to reverse the overwhelming, Orwellian body of lies that forms the political consensus in the United States.
Posted by: LaughingAtAl'sMessage on August 9, 2006 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

Don't look now, Laughing, but there goes Net Neutrality, and with it, your precious blogosphere.

rmck1,

Lieberman just has to be himself. On most other issues outside of the Iraq situation, he is decidedly liberal. I don't expect any tacking from him to win any more Republican support.

Part of his problem in the primary was that he didn't take Lamont seriously enough and waited too long to mount a real campaign. He needs to start his independent candidacy by continuing the vigorous campaign he has run the last 3 weeks.

However, you are right, there will be a lot of vocal support from right-wing media sources that could turn off Democrats and Independents leaning towards him at the moment. I am not sure of the best way for Lieberman to handle this. Probably ignoring it is the route he will take.

Hoooooooooooooops!

That’s what I get for reading 6 blogs over breakfast and posting. Tear it apart… You’ll be very justified. I actually have bits of French toast and syrup on my monitor. And I’m going to leave it there for my posting sins.

No CT Democrat is going to want to be the vote that sent a republican to the Senate from CT. They will almost without exception fall into line behind Lamont. Conversely No CT Republican is going to be the one that cost the R's the CT Senate seat by voting for Lieberman instead of the republican.

Yancey Ward wrote: On most other issues outside of the Iraq situation, he is decidedly liberal.

Not really. Consider what Ralph Nader had to say this morning on Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now radio program:

Senator Lieberman would have lost even bigger last night if Lamont's people actually expanded their criticism of Senator Lieberman as big business’s favorite Democratic senator, not just George Bush's favorite Democratic senator.

The most aggressive, cruel and insensitive business lobby and the most powerful in Washington is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and they have enthusiastically endorsed Senator Joseph Lieberman, one of only two Democratic senators they've endorsed out of 46 Democratic senators. And they have given him the highest cumulative score in their ranking of any Democratic senator in the Northeast, and for good reason.

He has supported the U.S. Chamber of Commerce positions, not only on capital gains tax cuts, he supported NAFTA and WTO and CAFTA, which have depleted jobs here, high-paying jobs here in Connecticut. He has supported the Chamber's drive to weaken the rights of injured workers and consumers and defrauded investors from having their full day in court against the perpetrators of their misery.

He has supported the Exxon-Cheney energy bill, that notorious energy bill that was signed into law last year that subsidized big oil’s profiteering, weakened environmental standards in a variety of ways and made sure that there were no further advances in fuel efficiency for motor vehicles. And here in Connecticut, like everywhere else, they're paying $3.40 - $3.50 a gallon, and it's going up. So he hasn't done anything on that.

And then, finally, on the labor issue, he's not been outspoken on the minimum wage like Senator Kennedy. He has not pushed for labor law reform to give workers a chance to organize. He has not gone after OSHA because of its weak enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health laws. 58,000 American workers die every year, according to OSHA, from worker-related diseases and trauma.

So, in many, many ways, including never challenging the military budget -- that's the Chamber of Commerce position, as well -- never really in 18 years advancing universal health insurance. That's a Chamber of Commerce provision.

So, you know, the question I ask Joe Lieberman is, is he going to repudiate publicly the Chamber of Commerce's endorsement and campaign support -- lots of money from businesses in his campaign -- and is he going to challenge the Chamber of Commerce's drive all over the United States in hundreds of campaigns, working overtime to undermine his own Democratic Party and its more progressive candidates? Well, calls to four Lieberman offices in Washington and Connecticut last week received no answer to the question: Joe Lieberman, are you going to reject the Chamber of Commerce's endorsement of you?

So, he goes around, including this morning, saying he's a progressive Democrat and a progressive independent Democrat. So I think the struggle is going to be between the progressive Democrats and the corporate Democrats, who for years have dominated the party and has had Joe Lieberman as one of their charter members.

Lamont can't lose CT for the Democratic Party. Lieberman gave the seat to the GOP a long time ago. Either the status quo is maintained with a Lieberman or GOP candidate victory or the Democrats pick up a seat.

SecularAnimist,

So one cannot be liberal and be pro-business at the same time?

And no one has yet explained to me how any senator or politician is supposed to deliver lower gas prices.

I respect Joe. He had principles that he observed to the end. Most of the Democratic voters of Conn. disagreed with his judgement and decided to vote for someone that represented their ideas more closely. He lost fair and square. If he wants to run as an independent or any other party, so be it. It doesn't make him "Evil" Why do we feel the need to destroy those with whom we disgree. Attack ideas, not the people who hold them.

Yancey Ward: So one cannot be liberal and be pro-business at the same time?

Consistently putting the profits of corporations ahead of the interests of human beings -- indeed, to the detriment of human beings -- is not what I think of as "liberal".

Who pays the price for idealism?

ArchMod:
Speaking ill of a politician is not destroying them. Voting for someone else is not destroying them. The "principled" moderate looking down on everyone else is a tired and cliched MO. Please tell us your "arch moderate" positions that are so at odds with Democrats, and I'll tell you if you are a moderate.

-Stu

When a politician's ideas, policies and voting records are challanged, I agree that shouldn't be considered politics of personal destruction.

The only principle that I have expressed in this entire exchange is my feeling that we no longer allow the power of our arguements carry the day politically. It has become more convienent and effective to attack candidates personally. This is something both political parties do with equal enthusiasm.

In an effort to gain power, both parties will gladly polarize the electorate as widely as possible. Party politics has become a tool to isolate and separate for the purpose of using one against the other.

I think Joe is an honorable man. He supported the war. It put him out of step with the democratic voters of Conn, it does not make him neo-con hawk in the pocket of W. I do respect him having the guts to stick to him values when it would have been more politically wiser to say what everyone wanted to hear.

ArchModerate2006 wrote: It has become more convienent and effective to attack candidates personally. This is something both political parties do with equal enthusiasm.

That is demonstrably untrue. The Republican Party under the political leadership of Karl Rove has "attacked candidates personally" to a degree that the Democratic Party has not.

Pretending that "both sides do the same thing" when that is demonstrably untrue is not "moderate". It is dishonest or ignorant or both.

It put him out of step with the democratic voters of Conn, it does not make him neo-con hawk in the pocket of W.

Supporting the invasion and occupation of Iraq is a "neo-con hawk" position, and indeed Lieberman's own stated reasons for supporting the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and his inaccurate rosy depiction of conditions there in his WSJ op-ed, directly echo the statements of the avowed "neo-conservatives" in the Bush administration.

Publicly admonishing other Democrats that they should not criticize Bush or his conduct of foreign policy "in time of war" because doing so aids the enemies of America legitimizes the Bush administration's reprehensible propaganda and put Lieberman squarely in the pocket of W.

I do respect him having the guts to stick to him values when it would have been more politically wiser to say what everyone wanted to hear.

Consistency in the support of bad values isn't worthy of respect (I don't respect someone who is unwavering in their commitment that, say, blacks should be exterminated), neither is consistency in adherence to poor judgement in the face of facts that increasingly demonstrate the error of that judgement.

Animist nails it!

POLITICAL MOVEMENTS MEASURED BY STATS NOT SPIN

As predicted, Joe Lieberman lost the Connecticut Democratic primary yesterday. I am sure today Joe is receiving a bevy of calls from Dem leaders attempting to dissuade him from running as an independent. I hope they do not succeed.

Maybe my math is wrong but I show Lamont’s great victory was secured by amassing a whopping 20 percent of the state’s registered Democrats. Lamont’s campaign was very successful in morphing Lieberman into George Bush. Truth be told, Lieberman is no George Bush. Joe is a centrist Democrat, the type of elected official our party sorely needs.

The literati-glitterati, "bloggerphiles" believe wholeheartedly leftist candidates can be elected in November, and by running these candidates red states will turn blue. I’m sorry but that’s pie-in-the-sky.

Democrats have a winning ideology and message it’s called “Clintonism”. When we advocated ‘”end welfare as we know it” “make sure government works for those who work and play by the rules,” and by putting 100,000 new cops on the street; we won elections.

Lamont’s victory in Connecticut sends a clear message to centrist in the Democratic Party; you are not wanted. Howard Dean expects to win majorities in the House and Senate by employing a 50 state strategy. If I were Rahm Emmanuel and Chuck Schumer, I’d be apoplectic.

I’d ask”bloggerphiles”, like any other “political movement,” show me numbers. How many registered and likely voters own personal computers? How many use their computers to assist in voting decisions? How many participate in “blog politics” either by reading posts or writing comments. This number I am sure is miniscule, reflecting only participation by party activists.

If I am incorrect, show me numbers. Show me quantifiable statistics. Show me how this phenomenon influences particular election outcomes. That’s how we measure the viability of “political movements” not by spin but by quantifiable statistical analysis. I may be incorrect, but up until now I haven’t seen any material to alter my conclusion. If any of you have such an analysis, please share these stats with me.

joe garcia:

Joe, your thinking is antediluvian. "Clintonism" hasn't delivered us a clean victory in a decade. Clintonism also handed our Party poobahs the doctrine of triangulation -- splitting the difference with Republicans, relentless compromise in the interest of a "pragmatism" verging on the unprincipled -- and it's that and hardly some alleged wild-eyed resurrected 60s leftism that's led us into the wilderness.

Like Howard Dean said, you can't beat Republicans with Republican Lite.

What you miss -- buying into the Lieberman spin (WTF is a "bloggerphile," btw? Did you make that word up?) -- is what the NYT lead editorial today gets. This is not a revolt led by elitist hard-left liberals, this is a revolt of the Angry Center. Cynthia McKinney -- nobody's idea of a pragmatic Clintonian centrist -- got the boot yesterday as well. Voters are fed up with preening grandstanders in love with their sense of entitlement.

In many ways, the revolt against Lieberman -- like the '04 Dean insurgency as well as the molecular-level rejection of McKinney -- is quintessential populism. People want their country back from out-of-touch politicians.

Now what you miss about "bloggerphiles" is pretty extraordinary. Every party has to have a vanguard of active supporters who care more deeply about the issues and are willing to put their resources where their convictions are. The Republicans had the Christian Coalition -- likewise a tiny minority even among GOP primary voters -- and yet they nonetheless managed to drive the agenda. Can bloggers do likewise? Potentially yes -- but only if they extend their activism beyond the blogosphere.

These are the hard lessons that bloggers are beginning to learn since the Dean campaign -- and it's significant that Howard's brother Jim's group Democracy For America -- spun off from Howard's primary campaign -- played a major role in the Connecticut race. And they didn't do this by hifiving each other in front of computer screens.

They did it by getting off their butts and into campaign offices.

Now what we object to about Joe's so-called Independent Democrat bid is that it seems to be driven more by ego than anything else. Save for the war, Joe's positions aren't so far from Lamont's that he should feel some strong compulsion to stick in the race as a voice for them. Does Joe believe in staying the course in Iraq -- is that what this is about? Because if he does -- he's dead-ass wrong. Other than that -- why is Joe trying to stick around?

Because he feels "stabbed in the back" by all his Democratic buddies? Is it all really this exquisitely *petty* for him?

If so, then Joe needs to go. If not in the gentlemanly fashion -- through recognizing reality and bowing out gracefully -- than forcefully at the polls in November.

Bob

The Dems are being too paranoid. Lieberman knows that Dems won't vote for him, but he's perfectly poised to be Connecticut's kind of Republican.

Is Schlesinger dropping out or will _he_ be the spoiler, splitting Connecticut's Republican vote?

Let's be honest here. No one knows what will happen in this highly unusual, if not unique, situation. But Kevin's statistical analysis is superficial.

There likely will be at least one million voters in November. Lamont has demonstrated the ability to get 150,000 votes. He needs at least another 250,000 to win. Lieberman secured about 140,000 votes and, according to this survey, will keep about 110,000 of them. So the "score" is 150,000 to 110,000, with at least about 750,000 in play. At this point, isn't Lieberman likely to have a a 40,000 lead over Lamont amoung those 750,000 voters? Isn't the most likely result still that Lieberman wins?

- Joe is a centrist Democrat, the type of elected official our party sorely needs.

- ...sends a clear message to centrist in the Democratic Party; you are not wanted.

- If I am incorrect, show me numbers.

- Posted by: joe garcia

What need of numbers, bilge-ass?

Go read this morning's news. Lamont won, Lieberman lost. It was a fair fight. Now the loser wants to ditch the rules and see if he can spoil his party's chances. Wounded vanity or subservience to the ultra-right cabal? Whatever it is, it should make you sick in your so-called centrist heart.

Real liberalism just may be ascendant again. Embrace it. If you really are a Democrat.

Anyone see Larry King tonite? Poor Joe......here's a good read on what is and what to expect...

Sealed with a Kiss: Lieberman's `Roving´ Independence?

http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2006/8/9/221126/7489

I get a little tired of sore losers......I live in Tom DeLay's district here in TX...it's endless!!!

If Lamont doesn't find some way to get rid of Sharpton, you can just bet that Rove & Co. are going to remind everyone that he's in the Lamont camp. For those of you too young to remember or with overly convenient memories, the most famous things Sharpton ever did, aside from his speech at the 2004 convention, was trying to frame a bunch of white guys for a rape that never happened (for which he was successfully sued for slander) and referring to Harlem store owners as "Jewish interloppers" thus inspiring a lunatic to set one of the stores on fire which burned some employees alive. Don't think for a moment that Jewish voters have forgotten about that one. Sharpton's 2004 presidential campaign was financed by Roger Stone, Jim Baker's right-hand man in stalling the 2000 Florida recount. Frankly, I dont' see how the potential toxicity of Sharpton's support could possibly be any more in our faces than that.

Everybody laughed when Goodstein asked Lamont "Are you a Bill Clinton Democrat or an Al Sharpton Democrat?" I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Lamont's lead started collapsing right about then.

If Lieberman holds on to his supporters, throws Sharpton in Lamont's face in the last weeks of the campaign and if the Republicans back him in favor of their ostensible candidate, not only will Lieberman win, in all likelihood he'll do it in a walk.

cmdicely - "Consistency in the support of bad values isn't worthy of respect (I don't respect someone who is unwavering in their commitment that, say, blacks should be exterminated), neither is consistency in adherence to poor judgement in the face of facts that increasingly demonstrate the error of that judgement."

People of good faith can disagree on the most important issues of the day. Racism or any other strongly held bias is not defeated with slogans, smears, or personal attacks. It is the power of ideas, effectively communicated that will change the world.

Perhaps Joe is wrong in his strongly held view that the war in Iraq is just, but if he were to abandon his beliefs, he would not be worthy of leadership.

Without respect for your opposition, there is no hope for change.

We must win their hearts and souls with ideas!

"Clintonism" hasn't delivered us a clean victory in a decade. Clintonism also handed our Party poobahs the doctrine of triangulation -- splitting the difference with Republicans, relentless compromise in the interest of a "pragmatism" verging on the unprincipled -- and it's that and hardly some alleged wild-eyed resurrected 60s leftism that's led us into the wilderness.

Yeah; Clintonism worked, insofar as it did, because the actual Bill Clinton team included just the right balance of idealism and pragmatism for the time; those currently attempting to ape it have all self-serving pragmatism and no idealism. The problem is that they fail to understand that the pragmatic compromise only worked because it was balanced with knowing when to draw the line in the sand because the issue was important.

Clinton wasn't afraid to go to the wall with the Republicans, even though he conserved his ammunition. Those who've adopted triangulation and surrender alone as the lesson of Clintonism just don't get it.

SecularAnimist - "The Republican Party under the political leadership of Karl Rove has "attacked candidates personally" to a degree that the Democratic Party has not."

The Republican Party is quite good at personally attacking their opposition. The person you mentioned is probably the best at his craft in the country today. However, the Democratic Party does not have its hands clean. The Clinton Machine was as good at personal attacks as anyone in history. It has become a fight fire with fire environment. In that type of environment, everyone stops listening to anyone that expresses an opposing view. The minds of America are closing.

SecularAnimist - "Publicly admonishing other Democrats that they should not criticize Bush or his conduct of foreign policy "in time of war" because doing so aids the enemies of America legitimizes the Bush administration's reprehensible propaganda and put Lieberman squarely in the pocket of W."

Criticizing the position of other Democrats or the position of the Bush Administration is perfectly justified. Attacking them personally for holding views is just elementary school abuse.

Say what you will, President Clinton was loved by the American People. I recently visited Mt. Rushmore and visitors were asked who was the "Greatest American President," if my memory serves me correctly he was third, just behind Lincoln and Washington.

Not very scientific, but worthy of notice.

People of good faith can disagree on the most important issues of the day.

Define "good faith", and tell me what this has to do with what I said.

Racism or any other strongly held bias is not defeated with slogans, smears, or personal attacks.

What does that have to do with anything I said?

It is the power of ideas, effectively communicated that will change the world.

What does that have to do with anything I said? You've got a nice repetitive script there, but your "responses" are often quite, well, nonresponsive.

Perhaps Joe is wrong in his strongly held view that the war in Iraq is just, but if he were to abandon his beliefs, he would not be worthy of leadership.

No, if he were to abandon his poor judgement in light of manifest facts that demonstrated that it was misguided, then, and only then, would he be worthy of leadership.

Merely being boneheaded does not qualify you for leadership.

Without respect for your opposition, there is no hope for change.

Without the courage to say that some courses of action, and some judgements, are wrong and deserve to be rejected, there is no hope for change. Because there is no hope to effectively communicate ideas in such an environment, which as you have correctly identified as the key element in change.

Tonight on ArchModerate v. ArchModerate:

Archmoderate says: The Republican Party is quite good at personally attacking their opposition. The person you mentioned is probably the best at his craft in the country today. However, the Democratic Party does not have its hands clean. The Clinton Machine was as good at personal attacks as anyone in history.

Archmoderate responds: Say what you will, President Clinton was loved by the American People. I recently visited Mt. Rushmore and visitors were asked who was the "Greatest American President," if my memory serves me correctly he was third, just behind Lincoln and Washington.

Not that anybody cares by this time but, to correct an error, Sharpton called a bunch of Jewish businessmen "white interlopers" and not a bunch of white businessmen "Jewish interlopers."

White interlopers is, of course, so much better and changes everything.

Connecticut has a voter-eligible population of roughly 2.4 million. The Connecticut Secretary of State reports 1.95 million active registered voters as of last year, of whom 653,055 were registered as Democrats. That leaves 1.3 million registered non democrats in CT. and with 48% who like Lieberman....... and with a republican approval rating of 65+ %
http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/2006/07/ct-sen-lieberman-down-with-dems-but.html

cmdicely -

President Clinton was/is well loved and his political machine was a dirty as any we see today. Being loved does not imply leadership. It could mean that you dodge every significant issue and tell everyone what they want to hear.