Fuck the NYT

Fuck Federer.

Roddick.

Somehow I think the big mo is finally with Andy. After watching the "J-Block" annoy and disturb Federer's concentration I can imagine a whole stadium rooting for Andy and giving him a weapon that Roger does not have at the Open.

(or it could be Pong vs Federer, which may be the only machine able to match Roger)

when Scheid said they ought to think about doing some postwar planning in Iraq: "I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that."

Not really surprising Scheid would say that Kevin. Liberals like Scheid have selective "memories" of what Rumsfeld said. In fact the White House has refuted Scheid's liberal biased lies.

Link

""There was significant post war planning," said spokesman David Almacy."

The problem with liberals like Scheid and Kevin Drum is they can never admit they might be wrong. As even the liberal New York Times admits, the current ABC documentary Path to 9/11 points out that "the Sept. 11 commission concluded that the sex scandal distracted the Clinton administration from the terrorist threat." Yet liberals are now lying about the fact that Clinton was the one who was to blame that 9/11 happened. It is lies like this that make liberals untrustworthy and lack credibility. That's why ABC is correct to ignore the lies of the leftwing blogosphere. They and other liberals can never tell the truth.

Great fake Al. Quoting from the China Daily is brilliant.

Btw, just clicked on the link to the NYT article. Couldn't get beyond the paragraph that described Lemont's refusal at the dinner/interview to drink wine and what his dessert choice was.

This is the f-ing paper of record in this country?

God help us all.

"Yes, that's the Monica Lewinsky scandal that the stars of the Times "repeatedly" asked Ned Lamont about at a dinner on Wednesday. The mind reels."

No. The mind doesn't reel. It's a reporter doing a good job.

Of course, he's being asked about it repeatedly because L'affair Lewinsky has long been a standard part of Lamont's attack on Lieberman.

And since it's basically a false charge, I don't blame a reporter for wanting to pin the candidate down on the basis of the attacks.

The Times story is hilarious. It reflects in part that the Clinton story is so good that even 8 years later, people find it interesting to talk about [and to read about and to help sell newspapers].

But I wonder if discussing it reflects any strategy by Lamont or simply a misstep by a rookie. Since he fled the dinner early, it sounds like a misstep. I can't figure out what his calculation would be in criticizing Leiberman for his speech about Clinton. Lamont presumably already has the votes of people who feet that way.

The Times story also includes the hilarious story of Bill Clinton switching from an ardent Leiberman supporter to someone supporting Lamont and critical of Leiberman for agreeing with Bush's rationale when "almost no democrats agreed." These politicians live in such an isolated world that they do not realize how ridiculous and phony they look to real people when they do stuff like switching from Leiberman to Lamont. I guess it was a highly unusual situation where they operated on their normal support the nominee instinct without considering how they would look in doing so, but it certainly reinforces the image of lack of credibility and principle.

It also still looks like Lamont will lose rather handily. Looking at the numbers from the beginning, I never got how peole thought he could win. At most, he gets about 75% of democrats and Leiberman gets most of everyone else. I think Lamont ultimately will be lucky to get 40%, Leiberman gets more than 50%, and then the democratic politicians again will look like phony fools in welcoming Leiberman back. Great entertainment and, for those who care, great for the GOP.

Al has already refuted the first part of your talking point, but why SHOULDn'T Lamont be asked about Lewinsky? A sitting president commited perjury, and was properly impeached. He should be asked to take a stand, either for or against perjury. Do we have two anti-perjury candidates in the Senate election, or is it a split?

I just saw Petey's post. Lamont has been attacking Leiberman for that speech? I guess that might have made some sense in the primary, but if he had been using it, he certainly should have shut up about it once he won the primary.

a pretty[sic] good football game later this evening

A very good game

Go Buckeyes!!

he certainly should have shut up about it once he won the primary.

That might depend on how Clinton is viewed in Conn.

Hook 'em Horns!

"I just saw Petey's post. Lamont has been attacking Leiberman for that speech?"

Yup. And doing so while twisting the facts a bit to make Lieberman look bad.

So the fact they're discussing it 8 years out has more to do with the contours of one local race than it does with a societal trend.

"I guess that might have made some sense in the primary, but if he had been using it, he certainly should have shut up about it once he won the primary."

The post-primary strategy out of the Lamont camp seems to be obsessed with winning as high a percentage of Dems with a strong partisan identity as possible.

I understand the rationale for beating the drums for those folks in the abstract - they need to bring a very high percentage of those folks home to even have a chance of winning. But that emphasis of focus seems crazy to me given the contours of the race.

It seems to me that the Lamont camp hasn't adjusted to it being a de facto 2 man race. They seem to be playing a strategy better suited for a race where Gamblin' Man (R) is getting 25%, and Lamont can win with a pretty low total percentage.

Oh btw AH, stop being a moron if that is possible.

SHOULDn'T Lamont be asked about Lewinsky?

That makes as much sense as asking Lamont about Nixon being forced out of office in disgrace or about Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal or even Sen Bob Packwood's Tongue-gate.

Is being an irrelevent hack part of your genetic make up?

Don't forget about the deciding game of the WNBA final. There ought to be one or two of your readers who are going to watch that.

brian nailed it. Lamont made a huge mistake bringing up Lieberman's criticism of Clinton during Monica-gate. We have enough incompetent Senators on both sides of the aisle; it's good to know that Lamont is ulikely to add to that number.

Will the Republicans really only get 4% in CT? How fucking pitiful is that?

Damn. Washington Monthly's infested with moonbat wingnuts.

Just out of curiousity, has anyone on here actually READ the letter that the NY Times is characterizing as Lamont's hypocritical support for Lieberman in the wake of Lieberman's speech?

Yeah. That's what I thought.

Hint: The NY Times is being more than a little disingenuous by claiming the letter supports Lieberman. Lamont actually ripped Lieberman a new one and essentially called Lieberman a drama queen.

The actual letter is posted at Atrios, if you're willing to look at some, y'know, facts instead of your feelings.

Tennis is a good example of a sport that has both women and men playing for an appreciative audience that is also mixed sexes. Sports that were developed by both sexes, like tennis, allow both sexes to participate at the highest level of achievement and compensation.

Women's basketball, on the other hand, does not entertain like men's basketball, nor does men's figure skating entertain like women's. Neither pays as well to the lesser developed/appreciated player.

I don't know much about the historical development of sports, but it seems to me most 'sports' games came about through the spontaneous play of children. Baseball and football have a lot of elements of tag and keep away. Over time rules were developed for more organized play that allowed the participation and competition of a growing sample of players, becoming the great games we enjoy today. I think basketball's legend is it was created on purpose, but even ancient Americans had a game whose goal was to put a rubber ball through a raised circle.

That is why I think some sports just do not accommodate the opposite sex, like basketball. It is a boy's sport developed by boys for boys. Figure skating is probably the wrong analogy, since men and women probably skated equally, but it was Sonia Heine who made figure skating popular. Women's figure skating is the main draw of the Winter Olympics. Men were better at barrel jumping, but it did not translate into a popular sport. Most women are at a disadvantage in the modern sports industry because ancient girls were probably not permitted to spontaneously develop games from play, like boys, or were playing house, which was has not become part of a spectator economy. Tennis, on the other hand, was developed and played by both sexes, I think, in the aristocracy of Europe, and today the women may even be the bigger draw.

I dunno. It's fair game in the sense that Lamont was attacking Lieberman in the primary for scolding Clinton at the expense of party unity -- but now Lieberman has produced letters from Lamont supporting him at the time on the merits of the issue.

That does indeed make Lamont look hypocritical -- or at least forces him into the position of having to parse his position: well, it's not the *principle* of Joe's critique, it's that he didn't do it privately, etc. Whether a fair perception or not, that makes Lamont look like he's trying to have it both ways.

The biggest fear I have for Lamont is his clinging on to Tom Swan like a talisman. He was a great organizer for the primaries, but I think now he's in over his head.

Tom Swan's a Citizen Action organizer. I've worked for and partied with CA organizars; they're great people and fun to be around -- but they do tend to live in a righteous left-wing bubble. The more I learn about Swan, the more I get a distinctly Joe Trippi vibe.

There are definite parallels to the Dean primary campaign. Like Dean, Lamont's a well-to-do "accidental politician" in a bit over his head. In the interest of expanding their limited personas, they both hire unconventional campaign managers who are their tempremental and behavioral opposities (like Trippi, Swan's a complete coffee-stained slob with a massively unorganized workspace). Like Trippi, Swan performed early miracles; Trippi raised whopping cash, Swan won the primary. This generates a loyalty that has passed rational evaluation.

Like the Dean campaign, Lamont thinks he's going to win by inspiring a grassroots citizen movement. They watch Lieberman thrashing around for an organizational base and making Jesse Ventura noises, and they laugh. Joe *Lieberman's* gonna inspire grassroots excitement in lieu of a Party-driven GOTV operation?

Because Lieberman is so antithetical to all the things Tom Swan does well -- because Joe's the poster boy for an undeserved sense of entitlement, because people don't vote for Joe out of any real sense of enthusiasm -- he's blinded to Joe's heavy structural advantage -- not just name recognition, but pork delivery to the state.

In order to win, Lamont *has* to reach beyond the Democratic base; that's just Connecticut Politics 101. And I don't think Tom Swan's the guy who's gonna concoct a viable way to do that -- since it's completely beyond his experience as a lobbyist for left-labor causes.

I'm hoping like hell Lamont is beginning to acknowledge this ...

Bob

this is hilarious - you've got to check it out. I especially like Clinton laughing in the cockpit

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/09/08/090806-950x316-badreporter.gif

I am exhausted from fighting crowds - the Pope is visiting Munich.

"Just out of curiousity, has anyone on here actually READ the letter that the NY Times is characterizing as Lamont's hypocritical support for Lieberman in the wake of Lieberman's speech?"

If you wanna get down in the weeds on this...

Yup. I've read the WHOLE letter and the NYTimes article. And Lamont said he reluctantly supported Lieberman's speech in '98, but has a far more negative characterization of it today.

------

This is a minor skirmish. You win some of those and you lose some of those. Camp Lamont doesn't have the facts on their side to win this particular skirmish.

The actual letter is posted at Atrios, if you're willing to look at some, y'know, facts instead of your feelings.

They are Republicans. To them, facts are funny things. You know, like laugh at them and move on? So dont go impinging on their tiny little minds with facts. If they really wanted to read the mail, they would have. No, it was more fun to rush over here and hang their asses out in public.

They are truly stupid people, and proud of it.

And Lamont said he reluctantly supported Lieberman's speech in '98, but has a far more negative characterization of it today.

Wrong idiot. Lamont blasts Leiberman for being a sanctomonious prick and a traitor. Same as today.
His complaint about his young daughters seeing all that was specifically about the Starr report.

When are you idiotic gits gonna realize nobody else live in your special place but you.

Like I said, stupid people.

"The biggest fear I have for Lamont is his clinging on to Tom Swan like a talisman. He was a great organizer for the primaries, but I think now he's in over his head."

Yuperooo.

Swan ran an amazing primary race, but he doesn't seem to be making good general election decisions so far.

As I mentioned upthread, it's like the Lamont camp hasn't adjusted to it being a de facto 2 man race. They seem to be playing a strategy better suited for a race where Gamblin' Man (R) is getting 25%, and Lamont can win with a pretty low total percentage.

In a 3 way race where Lamont can win with a pretty low vote total, it makes sense to scoop up every single Dem with partisan concerns. But that's not the race we're in.

Something tells me that Petey is not the person Lamont should be seeking advice from. What the wingers here seem to be missing is pretty simple: the list of things that are important now is pretty long, and the Lewinsky matter is not one of them. The article says a great deal about the bankruptcy of the media, and little about Lamont.

I always thought the thrust of Lamonts criticism was not that no Democrat should have rebuked Clinton, but that it was hypocritical to rebuke Clinton and let far worse transgressions by others slide.

"Wrong idiot. Lamont blasts Leiberman for being a sanctomonious prick and a traitor."

The dark valley of the benighted dittoheads...

You must have a very special version of the letter with the traitor charge that no one else can see. Do you have to rub lemon juice on that "traitor" section to be able to see it? Or does it just come to you in visions?

Mouth-breathers often have trouble distinguishing the words on paper from the made up words, I suppose...

Petey:

You have the math on that precisely correct. If Shleshinger (sp?) had any institutional support from the GOP and was pulling numbers, then a Swan-organized citizen movement-style partisan campaign would make perfect sense.

The problem with the letter is that Lamont took a nuanced position. He 1) agreed with Lieberman on the *moral principle* of his chastisement (not merely over disgust at the purient content of the Starr Report like so many Democrats who otherwise thought impeachment was a crock), he 2) strongly chastised Lieberman for the *tactical* approach of making a divisive speech in the well of the Senate and 3) reluctantly concluded on balance that the speech was still worthy of support.

Not exactly a position you can sum up on a bumper sticker.

If Lamont had been simply citing 2) without giving any acknowledgement of 1) and 3), then the Lieberman camp has every business in calling attention to the broader context.

I agree with Petey: it's a minor skirmish that Lamont seems to have lost through losing his moral clarity by parsing his position.

Bob

"Something tells me that Petey is not the person Lamont should be seeking advice from."

I'd be voting for him in the general, were I a Nutmegger. And as an out-of-state Dem, I'd really like to see him win. (Although I would have supported the other guy in the primary.)

Petey == Charlie

Mnem,

I read both the Lamont email and the Times article. The email actually is a pretty thoughtful assessment by a partisan democrat (i.e., cannot resist the shot at how Reagan allegedly treated his kids) and actually offers advice and a formula that probably would have been better for democrats and the country -- censure the president for bad behavior and lying, then move on. It is interesting that as a private citizen (was he an active democrat player at that time?) he would take the time and effort to write such an email to "Dear Joe."

But I also read the Times story and it is pretty accurate (especially since it apparently also posted the email for review by readers). Lamont's email certainly did not rip Leiberman a new one or call him a drama queen, as you claim. It expressed agreement with Leiberman's eloquent statement but distress at what had since happened and offered a way to bring it to a conclusion.

In any event, this is all bad for Lamont now. He should have kept his mouth shut. He needs a miracle to win. This is a distraction that will hurt him a bit and burn some time.

By the way, I heard a bit of Rush Limbaugh the other day and he is calling Lamont "Ned Lament," referring to how democrats now and in the future will lament his victory in the primary. I know Rush likely does not have many fans here, but he can be a clever and funny guy.

Petey:

Well, I disagree with you there. I surely would have supported Lamont in the primary for a whole host of reasons it's pointless to enumerate.

At this historical moment, party loyalty has to be Job One for the Democrats.

You know -- what the GOP learned in the post-Goldwater wilderness.

Bob

Goran:

Charlie isn't quite clever enough to use "Gamblin' Man" as a sorbiquet for the Republican challenger.

brian:

Experts agree: Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot.

Bob

Boronx nails it; Petey's an idiot.

"the list of things that are important now is pretty long, and the Lewinsky matter is not one of them. The article says a great deal about the bankruptcy of the media, and little about Lamont."

But Camp Lamont has been bringing up L'Affair Lewinsky over and over and over again this spring and summer.

If you really think it's not an important matter, take it up with Tom Swan, not the NYTimes.

The charges that have been made are arguable somewhat fact-free and/or distorted. The press is doing its job correctly when it tackles something like this.

Based on Scheid's statement, Rumsfeld should be fired and tried on charges of criminal negligence.

For the record I don't think Petey's an idiot. I think Lamont is in serious jeopardy with Tom Swan as his campaign manager.

It took until the Iowa fiasco for the scales to fall from Howard Dean's eyes about Joe Trippi.

As a fervent Dean supporter and campaign volunteer -- I don't wish to see history repeat itself here.

Bob

When we went into Iraq I remember clearly that Bush was very keen on the details of our advance across the desert, bridges taken, etc. It was chilling to realize how blood thirsty our Commander in Chief was. Then the memorable "mission accomplished."

27 permanent bases and no PLAN for post war rebuilding.

God Bless 'merica!

Who do you think will face Federer in tomorrow's final?

The eventual runner-up.

"It took until the Iowa fiasco for the scales to fall from Howard Dean's eyes about Joe Trippi. As a fervent Dean supporter and campaign volunteer -- I don't wish to see history repeat itself here."

Trippi is a full-on megalomaniacal loony tunes who I wouldn't trust with anything.

Swan seems like he's a very solid guy (and good guy) who's just never tried to play at this level of ball.

Add to that the fact that Camp Lamont needs to execute some rather intricate and sophisticated moves to get on the right side of this deeply unusual race. Swan doesn't seem like he's been up to it so far, but remember that the ending matters more than the beginning (as long as Lamont doesn't fall too deep down the well in the meantime).

Well, one thing about Rumsfeld. He advocated a timetable for withdrawal, something we all have been bitching about.

Shall we quote a relevant paragraph, Petey and Brian? This is paragraph three (3) of Lamont's letter:

"Unfortunately, [Lieberman's] statement was the beginning of a process that has turned more political and morally offensive. I'm the father of three and the thought that Clinton testifying about oral sex before the grand jury may be broadcast inot my living room is outrageous. The Starr report read like a tabloid, not a legal recitation, and that streamed into my home via every medium available.

Wow, yeah, that sure sounds like Lamont appreciated and supported Lieberman's statement at the time, especially if you ignore that he repeatedly uses the word "reluctantly supported" in the previous two grafs.

And why is Lamont stressing that Lieberman didn't support Clinton when he was down? Um, maybe because about 70% of the country thought that the impeachment was a partisan witchhunt at the time? Ya think?

Putzes.

"Shall we quote a relevant paragraph, Petey?"

Why not quote the whole speech, Mnemosyne, rather than using exerpts to make a sophistical point?

If you do look at the whole speech, I think my one line summation from upthread still works pretty well:

Lamont said he reluctantly supported Lieberman's speech in '98

This conflicts somewhat dramatically from what Lamont has been saying on the trail. So we have a minor skirmish where Lamont loses. No big deal. As Ned said in the letter, move on.

------

What I've found the more disturbing part of this is separate from the new letter. Lamont has been repeatedly saying that Lieberman's actions in '98 were designed to hurt Clinton, when both Clinton and rest of the Dem CongressCritters thought the opposite about Lieberman's actions.

------

"Putzes."

You benighted dittoheads don't have much use for the reality-based community, do you?

As a CT resident I can say I started tuning out campaign crap about 6 months ago. Lewinsky? I skimmed the news today and at this moment the only apparent lasting effect is a foreigner song that is stuck in my head.

Petey:

I think at the beginning you could say the same about Trippi. Trippi was a Shrum acolyte who did some very counterintuitive tactical maneouvers which allowed Gephardt to win the Iowa caucuses in '88. Taking him on with such a middling resume was a gamble -- but at the time, Dean was running as a protest candidate and didn't have much to lose. It wasn't until his famous speech at a Democratic conference in January (IIRC) of '02 that Dean was even on the political radar.

What happened to Trippi is a classic tale of tragic hubris. As the campaign's internet guru, he got caught in the hot lights as Dean's fundraising took off in a major way. Since the press had no yardstick by which to judge an insurgent campaign out-fundraising the party insiders, naturally they looked to Trippi as some sort of savant -- and Trippi did nothing to disabuse them of that notion. He was a moth consumed by the flame ...

The Lamont campaign is, in its own way, just as unusual as the Dean frontrunner phenomenon. There are no convenient yardsticks. Swan may well be a good and solid guy, but his experience is entirely with left-wing grassroots lobbying campaigns (I've worked professionally for CA groups). Maybe he won't go down through a gross hunger for press attention the way Trippi did -- but his entire experience is with quixotic battles against big corporations. He's entirely too used to being the counted-out underdog -- and while that can be an under-the-radar advantage in an insurgent primary campaign, the dynamics are entirely different in an effective two-man race in the general election, where passionate partisanship simply won't gather enough votes.

I agree with you that this may not be Swan's *fault*, per se, the way it clearly was Trippi's, as he shot the whole load in Iowa. It's more like a lack of the relevant experience for a statewide campaign against an entrenched incumbent.

Bob

Don't think it makes too much difference who Federer plays given his straight sets victory over DavyD. Expect a non-nail biting 4 set victory tomorrow over....other match is tied in the 3rd set now, so not ready to make a prediction on who will come in 2nd.

Do hope that UT-OSU is a better game than the Notre Dame snooze fest. Obviously over rated at #2 - don't expect them to end up in the top 15 this year.

At least mnem is no longer claiming the Lamont email ripped Leiberman a new one and called him a drama queen. Progress toward truth moves in slow steps, but this thread is a good example of how intelligent people can read the samme one page document and see it through their biased eyes as meaning what they want it to mean.

Petey is correct. As stated in Lamont's own words in the email, he supported Leiberman's speech and then was distressed at what followed and was suggesting a new approach.

The whole episode is a distraction caused by rookie mistakes. It will not significantly affect an election that Lamont is likely to lose pretty decisively absent some new damaging information about Leiberman. Otherwise, I think voters are pretty well set on this one.

brian:

I'm nowhere near as inclined as you to write off the race for Lamont. The other piece in the NYT about Lieberman's performance on the stump, makes him sound more uncertain than he's ever been. He's had to backtrack on a few things, and he's uncertain about how he should refer to fellow Democrats running for Congress who haven't endorsed him in the general.

The whole problem with a politician who's known for "stubborn committment to principle" is that he can be hoisted on that petard easily when he's put into a hopelessly ambiguous situation. A lot will depend on how motivated Republicans are, generally. Clearly hardcore conservative Reps aren't going to come out in droves for a guy who supports expanded government and is pro-choice.

Finally, there's the problem of GOTV operation. Who is Lieberman going to look for for his base? The party's dead to him; organized labor is sitting on its hands when it's not in Lamont's corner. In a race like this, with a depressed turnout from conservatives and an energized turnout from liberals -- you'll die if you don't have a ground game. Both candidates have plenty of outside support -- but Lamont's got a lock on the in-state organization. And he has no money restrictions for advertisement, being willing to self-finance.

Is Lieberman going to have to set up local committees all around the state so he can have a base for volunteers on Election Day? That's a Herculean organizational task ...

I still say it's much closer than the polls right now are indicating.

Bob

Bob,

Leiberman is so well known that I don't see people changing their vote absent new information. You may be right to some extent on the ground game, but at most that might move the numbers a few points. So if Leiberman polls at 51/40, it might wind up 48/43 or so.

Regardless, I find the politicians switching from Leiberman to Lamont farcical. To any intelligent observor other than partisan democrats, they look like total phonies and it is an image that will stick. The Leiberman backers should have had the sense to sit out the election, if they did not have the principle to continue to support Leiberman.

Bill Clinton in particular should have led the way after his enthusiastic endorsement of Leiberman, but with him there is always something standing in the way of principle. In this case, his wife's desire to be president.

brian:

What's farcical, brian, is how incredibly partisan your analysis is. Put the shoe on the other foot: Conservative challengers defeat GOP incumbents in primaries all the time -- and then the party coalesces behind the primary winner. What you're seeing isn't "flip-flopping" -- it's precisely how a well-organized and disciplined party works.

People look at this with a superficial understanding of politics and they become disgusted at "party politics." It's behind so many brain-dead registered Independents -- ever hear them interviewed and it becomes pretty quickly apparent that they really have no clue of how politics function and they're too impatient to learn.

The message of the Lamont dynamic at the end of the day is that party is more important than any given candidate. If the party stalwarts want a candidate more liberal or more conservative (or more moderate) than the incumbent -- then it behooves the party to respond to its supporters. This is taken as gospel by the GOP.

And it's a lesson the Democrats very much need to learn if they have any hope of regaining power. The whole purpose of parties is to concentrate the political power of a bunch of folks who share the same basic principles.

Unity, as they say, is strength.

Bob

brian:

What's *also* farcical (and which betrays the fundamental either dishonesty or idiocy of your comment) is to imagine Democratic politicians throwing their party's nominating process under the bus.

What kind of message would it send to the *other* Democrats running in Connecticut if the party big guns decided it was perfectly okay for Joe Lieberman to take out an insurance policy by getting on the ballot on his own line?

What kind of message would it send to the Democratic *base* who elected Lamont that members of their own party think they're "extremists" for expressing their wills at the ballot box?

Clearly, big-gun Democrats would be self-destructive idiots to endorse anyone but the victor of their own primary election.

The Democratic Party is more important that Joe Lieberman's incumbency -- end of story.

Bob

I've never been impressed by either Lamont or Lieberman. I'd be happy to replace an egomaniacal pro-war hack with a lightweight anti-war hack, but I'm not going to get worked up about this race.

Here's the thing... we've got a situation in CT where the Republicans have thrown their own candidate overboard to campaign for a former Democratic VP candidate in an election that's more or less a Democratic primary rematch. Meanwhile, all over the country, some of the most noxious Republican incumbents in both houses are taking a long walk off a short pier. Santorum? Toast. Katherine Harris? Crashed before take-off. Conrad Burns? Barely breathing. John Hostettler? Packing his bags. Tom DeLay? Fighting a legal battle to stay OFF the ballot.

Not to mention Rhode Island, where the GOP has been forced to spend large sums of money defending an anti-war Republican Senator who didn't even vote for President Bush, to prevent a right-wing insurgency from putting an unelectable candidate on the November ballot.

Hey, if they want to talk trash about Lamont, let them. Let them toss their own guy overboard to keep a prominent Democrat in the Senate. It's going to be a very, very hollow victory for the Republican Party.

You don't need a weather vane to know which way the wind's blowing this year. Better huddle close for warmth, wingnuts.

Bob,

Your point is true from the narrow perspective of the party. The democratic party could never abandon Lamont after he won.

What I am talking about are the individual politicians who decided that Leiberman was the better choise for senator than Lamont and then, when Lamont wins the primary but Leiberman continues to run (something they knew he would do back when they were supporting him), they switch to Lamont.

To you and other party loyalists, as you say, the party is more important than any given candidate and you think the switchers did the right thing. Fine. But to the rest of us, the switchers are phonies and not credible. You are obviously smart and have to be able to see how the non-party loyalists see a guy like Bill Clinton enthusiatically supporting Leiberman one day and then the next week supporting the other guy WHEN LEIBERMAN IS STILL RUNNING. He, and others like him, should have gone silent out of respect for the party, but not switched sides.

You should not expect folks who do not share your commitment to the democratic party to see the switchers the same way you do. In the end, I doubt if the switchers are going to make a difference in the election results, so going silent would have allowed them to maintain their integrity.

One final point. You cite conservatives falling in line and supporting the primary winner. Of course, that is true for both democrats and republicans virtually all the time. What is different here is that Leiberman continues to run as a credible candidate. The switchers faced with such an unusual situation did not appreciate how they would look, so they applied blind party loyalty and now look very bad to non-democratic partisans. What will be funny is that as it gets closer to election day and it becomes more clear Leiberman is going to win pretty handily, you will see the switchers going quiet.

I don't think Edwards is a switcher (maybe so), but I doubt that you see him in Connecticut the last few weeks of the campaign and you certainly will not see any switchers like Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton campaigning with Lamont near the end of the campaign.

brian:

Okay, a final set of points and then I'll stop monopolizing this thread:

First, what you're doing is propogating the exceedingly odious GOP meme that, in the guise of a thoroughly disingenuous "concern," is attempting to tell good Democrats to smack back their "extremists," lest they'll never win anymore elections, blah blah blah.

This is entirely bullshit. It's not whether a candidate is more ideologically extreme than the electorate. If that were the case, you wouldn't see so many crazy frothers in Congress. What makes for a winning candidate is a highly energized core group of supporters coupled with salient issues that can be painted to resonate with the wider electorate.

Lieberman has two issues he's hung his hat on. The first is incumbency (the reason all those big Democratic guns endorsed him in the primary). That's going to be the hardest argument for Lamont to counter. Secondly, it's Iraq and the GWoT. Now, much is going to shake out in the next few weeks, especially after the anniaversary. Do the American public have "9/11 fatigue," or do they buy all of Bush's new arguments that Islamists are Nazis, torture is good and unregulated "terrorist surveillance" is necessary. Will there be any more scary Osama videos? Will there be an October Surprise? We're not going to know about these things until they start shaking out in the final weeks. It's fair to say, though, given all past experience, that Iraq is likely to continue getting worse.

Finally, I think you vastly underestimate the significance of the ground game. Remember how in the final week before Iowa, Howard Dean was 10 points up in the polls? And he didn't just lose -- he got slaughtered. Why? In a nutshell, Kerry imported some extremely savvy veteran organizers into Iowa and ran a superb (and brutal) ground game. Many elections have seen polls collapse at the last minute. Some of Lieberman's support is doubtless soft and based more on name recognition because people haven't started paying attention yet.

Don't be so sanguine about a blowout election. It's going to be down to the wire.

Bob

brian:

You're wrong on a couple of levels. First, the endorsements for Lieberman by the big dawgs was *also* based on party loyalty. You'd expect prominent Democrats to endorse a veteran of the Senate unless he was, I dunno, facing indictment.

Secondly, all those big dawgs who "switched" hardly contradicted themselves. They ALL said that while they endorse Lieberman in the primary, THEY WILL SUPPORT THE VICTOR.

Had they endorsed Lieberman, *then* they would have to answer for flip-flopping on their own stated committments prior to the primary.

By Lieberman running on his own line -- something only an incumbent with a ton of name recognition could have done -- he disgusted a lot of voters in Connecticut, because they see him not wanting to abide by the rules of the game.

Americans don't like mulligan-takers or little kids who insist on do-overs anymore than they liked it when Clinton did it all the time on the golf course.

Only Lieberman was craven enough to pull a stunt like running as an Independent after he lost his own primary. And people see it for exactly what it is. An entitlement-mad politician who *just can't believe* he could possibly lose.

That's profoundly offensive to traditional American ideas of fairness -- and it will start to sink in more broadly as more people start tuning into the election.

Bob

Bob,
You've changed the subject to who will win, so I take it you agree with me that to non-democratic party partisans, the switchers look phony and lack credibility.

I think your "ground game" and "down to the wire" comments reflect mostly wishful thinking. Personally, I don't care much who wins. Lamont winning is probably best for Republicans. Leiberman winning is probably best for Connecticut and the country, so that is my preference. At this point, I don't see how either result is good for democrats -- tossing your popular VP nominee from 6 years ago will be noticed by the electorate nationally in a negative way and Leiberman winning will be a defeat of the democratic party. This is very odd since democrats are certain to keep the seat, but still will get a bad result.

I assume you and others think a Lamont win will be part of an onrushing gathering of liberal democrat political power. I doubt it, but we shall see. Thanks for the dialogue.

Bob,
Sorry. I had not read your most recent post. You had not abandoned the switcher issue. I still think you're wrong. People don't like sore losers, but that does not seem to be adversely affecting Leiberman, and I think that baggage would be more heavy right after the primary than on election day.

Also, people don't like phonies or "Indian givers," (sorry if anyone is offended, but I could not think of a better term), like the dems who gave Leiberman support and then took it back.

All this supports my theory that this mess is bad for dems -- a lightweigh limosine liberal, a sore loser, and a bunch of phony Indian givers. I don't really mean to get anyone mad, just trying to show how it looks.

Kevin is one of the best, most reasonable Leftie bloggers. As it happens, I posted the Scheid/Rummy story myself just now.

But on the Lamont/NYT issue. It seems, if I understand Kevin and his commenters correctly, they are annoyed/outraged that the NYT has dredged up 8 year old news. ... umm ... Didn't Lamont raise this a few days ago? Isn't Lamont's dredging up Lieberman's stand on this 8 year old ancient history the ONLY reason it has made the pages of the NY Times?

Regardless, I find the politicians switching from Lieberman to Lamont farcical. To any intelligent observor other than partisan democrats, they look like total phonies and it is an image that will stick.

Brian, that’s a foolish statement. You totally miss the purpose and dynamics of party politics. Party leaders will support the winner of their primary every time. To do otherwise is to self-destruct.

Note that it’s difficult to get anything significant done without the support of a political party. That’s one reason that there are few effective politicians who exist outside the context of one of the major political parties.

Also note that party members expect that you participate in their primaries in good faith, i.e., that you will support the winner. Of course this is not a hard and fast rule; such a rule would be arrogant like Lieberman himself. He has the right to run as an independent.

But to expect Democrats to support him is foolish when he was just defeated in their primary. Democrats are trying to succeed as a party. You sound very naive when you call Democratic Party leaders phony when all they are doing is supporting the winner of their primary. That’s normal, logical behavior.

brian:

Well, in my view you're not really thinking for yourself. You're propogating so many false GOP memes it's really hard to know where to begin, and you're remaining obstinate on points which I had clearly refuted. Let's try this one more time:

1) Your "concern" is entirely disingenuous. It would be much worse for the Democrats if a thorn in the side like Lieberman remained in office. The internal divisivness would be far better for Republicans than a freshman Democratic Senator.

2) Lieberman was *not* a "popular VP nominee." Lieberman is one of the main reasons Gore lost, by propping up Nader's argument that both candidates were the same. When Gore abandoned his consultants and started running hard as a populist in the final weeks of the campaign, it bolstered his support. It was Gore's caution and studied centrism -- exemplified by the Lieberman pick -- that disenchanted so many people in that race and suppressed the turnout.

3) There's a silver lining beyond the fact that the Dems will keep the seat regardless. If Joe comes back, he may well be chastened and take his base less for granted. It isn't that Democrats opposed him for ideological reasons (there are much more conservative Democrats in the South) as he stabbed the party in the back. He's not incapable of learning and neither is the national party. If Lamont wins, it's just gravy -- but a chastened incumbent might even be a marginally better outcome for the sake of building spirit and coherence in the party.

4) Lamont isn't some sort of flaming liberal. That is just out-and-out bullshit. While he ran to the left in the primary (a good tactical decision) he isn't fundamentally that far away from Lieberman on any issue save the war. And being against the war isn't necessarily "liberal" -- as it can be done with those hoary conservative principles of isolationism and a clear-eyed prioritization of our national defense. To support the war is actually liberalism run amok.

5) You're completely obstinate about the aftermath of the primary. First off, the universe of polling is entirely different now, so you wouldn't expect the issues that had so embroiled the primary would reflect in the statewide polls until the race got down to the final two weeks. The polls are reflecting name recognition, as many likely general voters paid little attention to the primary.

6) The "Indian giver" meme (and I don't think you need to be chided for the use of that term) is something you pulled out of your butt. *Nobody's* going to get angry at a Democrat for supporting the Democratic Party nominee. Nobody. Nobody who's doing that "withdrew their support" from Lieberman. And no Democrat should be held accountable for shitting on their party's nominating process -- not to mention the other down-ballot Democrats in Connecticut who won their primaries fair and square. The idea is just ridiculous. Also, you'll notice that very few national Democrats are supporting Lieberman. Lieberman's GOP support is radioactive and they know it. Daniel Inouhe (sp?) from Hawaii actually changed his support *to* Lamont *after* backing Lieberman for the first week after the primary. He might suffer for that -- but he's the only Democrat to do so. Obviously he made that choice fully considering the downside of being perceived as an "Indian giver."

7) Finally, you are showing how this looks to the GOP, not the universe of likely general election voters. Doubtless all of your "concerns" are floating around right-wing blogs where you picked them up from.

At the end of the day, it's going to come down to the ground campaign -- and that's Advantage Lamont.

Bob

I wonder what brian will say when Laffey beats Chafee and all of the Republicans who have been backing Chafee will immediately switch their allegiance to the party's new nominee? Just as has been done in damn near every other occasion like this throughout history. Brian's point is simply nonsensical.

Oh, and I don't think Roddick will beat Federer. I think the title is Federer's unless something extraordinary happens tomorrow. I'd like to be proved wrong, though.

PaulB:

LOL !

Definitively excellent point :)

Bob

little ole jim,
I understand perfectly why democratic party partisans would want their "leaders" to support Lamont and, for that matter, why you see nothing wrong with the switchers.

The point I was trying to make was that to everybody else, the switchers look like phonies and lose credibility, which in turn hurts the switchers and the democratic party with all but the partisans. I think the switchers instead should have just expressed respect for the voters and gone silent.

Jim, you are correct it is "normal" for democratic leaders (and even the loser) to support the primary winner even if they backed someone else. What is abnormal, and seen as phony and not credible, is for leaders to back a primary loser and then when the loser continues to run, switch their support to the primary winner. If Bill Clinton thought Leiberman was a good democrat and the better person for senate the day before the elections, he is not credible when he tells the voters the day after the election "never mind, now Lamont is the best person for the job - forget what I said about voting for Leiberman."

This was an unusual situation. I don't know if that such switching has ever happened previously and these guys when faced with a new situation made a choice that makes them look like they are phonies and cannot be believed. So you are not correct when you argue it happens all the time. Leiberman continuing to run as a credible candidate makes if different, if not unique.

Let's see if we can clear things up a bit for brian, since he still seems to be confused.

1. Prior to the primary, a few Democratic politicians made their preference known in this race. This isn't all that common an occurrence, since most politicians prefer to stay out of local races like this, but then this wasn't exactly a common race, just as is the case with Chafee and Laffey, which is seeing similar pronouncements.

2. Once the Democratic voters in Connecticut had spoken, it behooves those same Democratic politicans to respect their wishes and to back the candidate they had chosen. To do otherwise would be to disrespect those voters -- the backbone of the party. That is precisely the same thing that will happen in Rhode Island, and that has happened everywhere else throughout the years.

3. Precisely which voters are going to care about this? Connecticut voters? They are going to somehow care that, e.g., Barbara Boxer now supports Lamont? Why on earth would this make an iota of difference to them? Barbara Boxer's voters? Why on earth would they care about an event that is completely irrelevant to them? The only voters who will care about this are those like yourself who don't like Democrats anyway and are looking for any excuse to attack them.

brian wrote: "The point I was trying to make was that to everybody else, the switchers look like phonies and lose credibility,"

Since you have no basis for this remark and have provided zero evidence to support it, forgive us if we treat this as the partisan nonsense that it is.

Okay,none of you guys agree that Leiberman continuing to run makes this a different situation that affects how the swtichers are viewed. I think it is obviously different, but we can agree to disagree.

On the larger issue of Lamont/Leiberman, I think it is a negative for democrats because of all the attention it has received (and will contiue to recieve) and, at least in terms of national politics, the downside of it looking like democrats are throwing overboard or trying to throw overboard a popular VP nominee from 6 years ago. But I guess you guys don't agree with that either.

Is Brian one of the astro-turf commenters from the Lieberman camp?

PaulB:

Once again -- completely on the money.

brian:

You're claiming this is an issue of integrity -- that somehow big guns like Clinton flip-flopped by supporting his Party's nominee rather than his preference in the primary.

Now, PaulB is entirely correct that this isn't going to amount to a hill of beans to anyone save Democrat-haters -- but how, exactly, is it a flip-flop?

Every national Democrat who made their preferences known before the primary (and, as PaulB pointed out, this is in itself quite unusual and it was based on Lieberman's long incumbency) ALSO made it entirely clear that they'd support their party's nominee.

See the point of elections, brian, is to let the voters choose. Lieberman pulled an almost unprecedented end-run around the primary process. By doing so, he's lost most of his advantages as an incumbent. He has no ground organization he can count on; he has to build his own from scratch now. He has very little institutional support. This would be career suicide for virtually any other politician -- but Lieberman thinks he can pull it off because he's been in office so long and because he has a quasi-religious belief in the rightness of the Iraq war and the GWoT.

But to other Democrats -- he looks like a suicide bomber.

Why -- unless they shared his fervent beliefs in the rightness of the war -- would any Democrat support a pol who just stripped himself of all the structural advantages of an incumbent party nominee in an election?

If you think the voters are going to hold politicians accountable for abandoning a primary loser after he jiggered the system in a way that happens about once every four election cycles and looks entirely unfair to boot -- you really understand very little about politics.

Bob

Bob,
You look at this entirely from the party persepctive. But answer me two questions:

Wasn't Bill Clinton (and the other switchers) telling people the day before the election that Leiberman was the better person/candidate to be Senator?

Even you would say yes. So putting party issues to one side, which post elections position makes Clinton (and the others) more credible and less of a phony: (1) out of respect for the primary result, I will no longer actively campaign for Leiberman; or (2) I support Lamont as the better person/candidate for the Senate and urge you to vote for Lamont rather than Leiberman.

Look, I know politicians already have a horrible image as phonies, but for the switchers and to a certain extent for democrats, this makes the image worse.

"this makes the image worse."

If it were the case of a Republican apostate who lost his primary because he didn't "get it," you'd have no trouble understanding why party loyalty enjoys priority.

Playing dumb doesn't fool anyone here, brian, and only makes you look disingenuous. Please spare us your dopey attempts at party politics. You are a phony.

brian:

Man, oh, man you just don't get it ...

This is not from a "party perspective." This is from the perspective of Joe Submarine Sandwitch. I've worked in elections, brian. I've canvassed literally hundreds of thouseands of people in their homes (I used to do it professionally in the 80s.) I can speak a little bit about the psychology of the average, not-too-ideological, not-party-driven voter.

The main thing you're missing (or deliberately ignoring) is that the context is entirely different. Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont, like all political opponents, don't exist in some sort of contextual vaccuum of judgment. All other things being equal, you could make a damn good argument that Lieberman would have been a better choice than Lamont. Sheesh, I might have pondered a little bit in that polling booth had I voted in that primary.

And *mainly*, that's because Lieberman had all the advantages of incumbency. Not because they were all that different on the issues -- even on Iraq. Both are critics of the Administration on that score, and Lamont is no let's-bring-the-troops-home-immediately right wing straw-man caracature of a war opponent.

But then the primary happened, and the context changed. Joe Lieberman no longer has the institutional advantages of running as a Democrat. He has no union support, no base of Democratic activists to organize volunteers, no help from the DSCC. He's thrown back on his personal networks and has to spend the time and money to build an organization *from scratch* that would have been already there for him had he won the primary.

All of a sudden, the advantages don't look so strong for Lieberman. He's left with his incumbency argument -- but that cuts both ways to an electorate in a "throw the bums out" mood. You know -- incumbent = a self-obsessed Beltway insider.

So Clinton (like any thinking person) sees an entirely different context when it's between the clear Democratic Party choice and a guy who's basically winging it with his Rolodex of political insiders (including many Republicans) and close friends.

Jesus, if you were still considered by most regular folks as an important standard-bearer of the Democratic Party -- which pick would hurt *your* reputation more?

That one's really and truly a no-brainer, brian.

Bob

brian wrote: "Okay,none of you guys agree that Leiberman continuing to run makes this a different situation that affects how the swtichers are viewed. I think it is obviously different, but we can agree to disagree."

Not really. You have made the assertions, brian. It's up to you to back them up. You have entirely failed to do so. So go ahead, brian -- describe the campaign commercial you're going to run: "Don't vote for Barbara Boxer! She supported Lieberman in the primary but now supports Ned Lamont!" "Don't vote for Ned Lamont! Barbara Box supported Lieberman in the primary but now supports Lamont!"

Do you really not see just how idiotic your assertions are? The only people who are going to pretend to care are those like yourself who have already made up their mind and are simply looking for a pretense with which to attack the candidate.

Show us the opinion polls that support your assertions, brian. Show us the historical examples that support your assertions (free clue: this isn't the first time this situation has happened). Show us the evidence. Otherwise, you're simply making shit up.

Once more, since you still don't get it: there is only one Democratic candidate on the ballot in Connecticut. One. That Democratic candidate was chosen by the Democratic voters in Connecticut. As is true of every party in these situations, the Democratic Party members are uniting behind that Democratic Party candidate. It's that simple.

This happens all the time, regardless of whether it's the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, or whatever. Once the voters have made their choice, you honor it. You have no choice. The sole exception to this rule is when the party nominee is batshit insane or has committed acts that render them no longer a viable candidate (e.g., David Duke for the former, any candidate caught committing a serious crime for the latter). This simply does not apply in this case.

Joel,
You're tough on me. But give me an example of a comparable republican situation there were "switchers" after their guy lost and then continued to run againt the primary winner. You can't.

Part of the point I'm making here is that Leiberman is a very unusual situation where switchers did what I suppose they thought they had to do, but in the process, they look to non democratic party partisans as phony and not credible. I don't understand why you guys don't just say of course they take a hit on credibility and look like phonies to some people, but you still think they are doing the right thing because of the value of loyalty to the primary winner.

NeoDude wrote: "Is Brian one of the astro-turf commenters from the Lieberman camp?"

Nah, just a clueless conservative.

brian:

You keep repeating this "they look to non-partisan voters like they're phony and non-credible ... "

Brain ... this is becoming exasperating. I have to echo PaulB here and *insist* that you source this statement.

Show us the polls that demonstrate this contention of yours.

Because otherwise, it just ain't credible.

Polls would show, however, that many people felt Lieberman's circumvention of the primary process to be, on its face, unfair and inapproprate in itself.

And you'll have just as easy a time refuting *that* contention.

Bob

"I don't understand why you guys don't just say of course they take a hit on credibility and look like phonies to some people"

Mostly because it's a nonsensical statement that is unsupported by anything resembling logic or evidence.

PaulB:

Not to mention the fact that even if a few voters *did* feel this way, they'd be more than balanced out by other voters who felt Joe's primary "do over" is dirty pool ...

And I'll source that contention the minute brian sources his :)

Bob

While two wars are going very badly, and conclusive evidence emerges from the Senate Intelligence Committee that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's purported ties with al Qa`eda, the New York Times anf the GOP continue to obsess about a series of presidential blow jobs that happened ten years ago.

I'm going to break out the bong and get stoned.

And, of course, by brian's "logic," if Joe Lieberman had switched to the Republican Party, which he could quite easily have done, then folks like Boxer and Clinton would have been required to continue to support him or else face the wrath of brian for being "flip-floppers."

The fact that this is essentially what has happened in this case still seems to have escaped brian, who somehow seems to think that Joe Lieberman is still running as a Democrat.

I wonder if brian has figured out yet that this isn't the first time this has happened?

"Yes, that's the Monica Lewinsky scandal that the stars of the Times "repeatedly" asked Ned Lamont about at a dinner on Wednesday. The mind reels." - Kevin

Hey I am curious how the Plame scandal turned out? Surely Rove or Cheney are on their way to trial, considering the bullet proof evidence you all had on them. What happened to Fitzmas?

I just am shocked that all of you liberals who believe in decent treatment and fair trials for all, would've jumped the gun on this and betrayed your core values.

And I'm still wondering just which set of voters brian is referring to! Does he honestly believe that California voters are going to give any thought at all to Barbara Boxer's support, or lack thereof, of a Senate candidate in Connecticut? That thousands of independent voters are going to rise up against her because she's a "phony" for supporting the Democratic Party candidate in Connecticut?

The mind boggles....

The New York Times: racing to the bottom. They are becoming the Washington Times without the mass weddings. . .

Uh, Jay, you're on the wrong thread. Nobody is talking about Plame here except you, which makes your comment irrelevant. Don't you feel stupid? Or are you too thick to realize how irrelevant you are?

No, I don't have poll or other sourcing for the proposition that an objective observor would question a politician's credibility and sincerity when on Tuesday he says "Joe is the best man for the job" and on Wednesday he says "don't vote for Joe, Ned is the best man for the job." I thought is was self evident.

You guys seem to think there has been a past comparable situation where a primary loser went on to wage a credible independent campaign and there were lots of "switchers." I don't remember one, so someone please educate me.

brian:

If Clinton said he's endorsing Joe in the primary, but will also endorse the primary winner, how is that "switching"?

Why do you think Clinton would get props from anyone other than Democrat-haters for shitting on his party and going back on his word?

Why do you refuse to see that there has been no flip-flop here?

Clinton said he'd support his party's nominee. Clinton is supporting his party's nominee.

Just what part of this don't you understand?

Bob

Leiberman continuing to run as a credible candidate makes if different, if not unique.
Posted by: brian

It makes lieberman look like a loser unwilling to do what's best for dems ... he looks like a selfish, whiny republican bitch ... like blair, actually.

the major dems' position has been entirely consistent ... the fact that joe is being selfish doesn't obligate their continued support.

you're either being willfully obtuse or a partisan hack.

Nads:

Word.

Bob

brian:

Okay, brian -- let's try this new brain-teaser on for size:

Let's say that Clinton endorses Lieberman in the primary and then said -- as would be expected of him -- that he would support his party's nominee.

And let's say that Lamont wins the primary. And Lieberman decides to go for an Independent bid. With me so far?

Let's say that Clinton now says that since he called Lieberman the best candidate on ths stump, he'd feel wrong to endorse Lamont in the general because that'd be a flip-flop. That he's sticking with his ol' friend Joe Lieberman.

How do you think people would have responded to that?

They would have called Clinton a backstabbing, flip-flopping, obfuscating, disloyal asshole -- and rightly so.

Bob

"They would have called Clinton a backstabbing, flip-flopping, obfuscating, disloyal asshole -- and rightly so."

Only if they behaved rationally.

just to toy with brian a little longer ...

the fact that lieberman is being a little bitch and continuing an independant run lacks an adequate comparison amongst repubs.

however, a parallel might be drawn to the california 2003 recall, where longtime repubs supporting issa, then McClintock, RAPIDLY switched support once arnold announced his candidacy ... even McClintock's own county withdrew their support for him in favor of arnold.

I would argue that clinton's support for lamont is a principled, reasonable, and ethical position entirely befitting a senior democratic politician ... whereas the philandering of the california repubs in 2003, swarming to suck swarzernegger cock, is typical of republican whores, who never looked more like opportunistic bitches.

Nads:

This is especially true if Clinton knew beforehand that Joe would try an Independent run.

Surely he'd know that if he stuck with Lieberman, he'd most likely be picking a winner.

Instead he backed the Party.

Why? Out of loyalty, both to the Party itself and its nominating process, and also to the Democratic voters who chose Lamont over Lieberman.

Much, much different than dropping loyalties to longtime politicians to suck Gropinator cock only cuz glamourpuss looked like a sure winner.

Bob

Guys, I realize the democratic politician (or at least most them) said before the primary they would support the nominee (although it had to be dragged out of some), so technically they are not switching "positions."

But they didn't go around pre-primary giving speeches saying they would support the nominee -- they gave speeches gushing over Leiberman and saying he was the best man for the job. What the public heard was Clinton (and others) telling people to vote for Leiberman and he was a great senator/democrat/public servant. All those people (except for deep democratic party partisans) are going to see the swich to Lamont as phony, as does everyone else who can look at the situation objectively. Bill and Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Harry Reid and others don't really think Lamont is a better candidate for senate than Leiberman, and it is silly to think that objective observors don't know that.

brian ... your head is obviously made of cement.

Dried cement. Long since dried. Look, see the pawprint? That'll never come out now ...

As patiently as I can ...

Lieberman, as a Democrat -- all other things being equal -- was felt by his primary endorsers to be the best man. I already explained this to you. Despite my rep here for logorrhea, I really *do* hate repeating myself.

Lieberman, as an Independent -- is an entirely different kettle of fish. No more seniority. An alienated relationship with the Democratic establishment. And nothing holding him back anymore from selling out Democratic values even more than he's *already done* on issues like the bankruptcy bill.

brian ... context is your *friend*.

It will stand you in good stead if you always keep that in mind.

Bob