Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

CT Senate: Joe's Last Stand?

NEW HAVEN, Conn. -- Sen. Joe Lieberman made two mid-day stops here Tuesday in the final hours of a campaign that morphed from reelection cakewalk to battle for political survival.

Sen. Joe Lieberman
Sen. Lieberman gives a thumbs up after casting his vote Tuesday in New Haven. (Reuters)

Neither of Lieberman's events drew much of a crowd -- the first was at a gourmet food store named Nica's Market, the second at Claire's Corner Copia, a vegetarian restaurant. But turnout for the rallies wasn't the goal. The two stops were little more than photo ops for the assembled media to get in a final question or two before Lieberman sequestered himself in Hartford to monitor the election results.

At Nica's, the Lieberman bus -- with "Joe's Tomorrow Tour" emblazoned on its side -- pulled up 45 minutes late but was still greeted by a small group of supporters sporting "Vote Joe Today" T-shirts and Lieberman signs. As Lieberman stepped off the bus, he was greeted with a chant of "two, four six, eight, vote for Joe, it's not too late!"

Many of Lieberman's backers wore buttons that depicted the senator and former President Bill Clinton in an embrace. The buttons carried the tagline "The Hug" -- a direct response to buttons sported by Lamont supporters showing Lieberman President Bush embracing and entitled: "The Kiss."

In a brief speech before entering the store, Lieberman said there was a "real surge occuring" in the race, saying that voters were rejecting the idea -- propagated effectively by businessman Ned Lamont's campaign -- that a vote for Lieberman was a vote to support President Bush. "George Bush ain't on the ballot," said Lieberman. "It's me and the other guy."

Lieberman quickly moved through the store and accepted a jar of spaghetti sauce as a gift from the market's owner. One man told Lieberman his mother was a big fan but that she lived in New Jersey.

As he was leaving the store, Lieberman ran into a man who told him that he had gone into the voting booth planning to vote against the incumbent but had changed his mind. That seemed to energize Lieberman, who retold the story to a gaggle of reporters before hopping back on his bus.

The next stop was at Claire's for a lunch with Lieberman's wife, Hadassah, and several other family members. He was scheduled to make stops in Waterbury and Bristol before making his way to Hartford to await the results.

Four and a half hours until polls close...

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 8, 2006; 4:21 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: CT Senate: The Five Questions
Next: CT Senate: The Wait Is On

Comments

I think that The Fix is wrong when it says that Allen's comments won't hurt him. This story will play to the entire South Asian Community in community news publications like India West or India Abroad. Many South Asians will be offended and GOP fundraising will be hurt by it unless a more forthright apology is received. The DNC will benefit, conversely, and so will Jim Webb.

The national Indian newspapers and the Indian Ambassador to the US will hear about it too, which could elevate this to an international incident. The GOP has a negative image in the minds of minorities as a party that coddles and accepts racists. This will only play into that image and convince many Republican leaning South Asians to stay away from Republican politics until the party becomes sane again. With Demographics showing that the country is almost one-third minority, comments about skin color will not endear Allen to anyone outside of his narrow base.

Posted by: Khyber | August 15, 2006 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Forgot to add...google "Trans-National Republic"...the forth estate...err Reich.

Posted by: W.C. | August 8, 2006 11:47 PM | Report abuse

---err that's haliburtin

Posted by: Anonymous | August 8, 2006 11:39 PM | Report abuse

So now Joe is going to run as an independant and split the democratic vote. It just goes to show you where he stands. He would rather have a Republican in office then honor the wishes of his anti-war constituents...what a toad. Do any of you from connecticut still think we live in a democracy? Who OWNS the american dictatorship-
The war-profiteers (halibutan, et.al.), drug cons (anyone got any "head-on"?), insurance frauds (we will never have a universal healthcare plan...cuba has better healthcare then we do), bank thieves (who prints the money anyway? The government?...no it's the fed..private companies who have all the money then can print Your a slave...learn to live with it.

Posted by: W.C. | August 8, 2006 11:34 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman is a horrible person. He cant do the job, he hasnt done the job, but he'll always tell you he will do it next time before an election.

Typical politician.

Kick him to the curb and get some fresh blood in there. For for Ned Lamont. If he turns out to be a lame duck, vote for someone else next time.

Politicians need a nice kick in the ass. Now's your chance to nail Joe the Liar Lieberman.

Posted by: lie-ber-man | August 8, 2006 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Karen/Tina doesn't drink Kool-Aid. She IS the Kool-Aid.

128 of 748 Precincts Reporting - 17.11%
Name Party Votes Pct
Lamont, Ned Dem 30,219 56.34
Lieberman, Joe (i) Dem 23,414 43.66

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | August 8, 2006 9:08 PM | Report abuse

"Joe's Terminal Tour". Catchy.

Posted by: Mark F. | August 8, 2006 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Ok, now this is weird.... Doing a little poking around teh interwebs and found an intriguing little bit about Myhostcamp.com, the Joe2006.com web host.

Try to follow along............

Heres a google search of "myhostcamp":

www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=myhostcamp&btnG=Search

One of the 7 links that shows up is:

Geometry.Net - Religion: Evangelical Free Church Of America

God only knows what THAT is.........

It gets better.

The same google search brings up a post on a forum by:

Sam Hubbell - MyHostCamp

According to multiple sources, including National Review Online, Dan Geary from Geary Interactive runs or set up Joe2006.com.

"The site was designed by Geary Interactive, based in Las Vegas, Steinfels said. Efforts to reach company president Dan Geary weren't immediately successful."

Dan Geary is quoted like crazy here:

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14245779/

And yet, Geary Interactive had this to say:

Please note that Geary Interactive has had no involvment with the official website for Senator Joseph Lieberman, www.Joe2006.com. We have never contracted or provided services for the creation, or hosting of this website.

And a google search of Sam Hubble (as mentioned above in affiliation with myhostcamp)......... yields this:

On 3/13/03 9:15 AM, "Sam Hubbell" sam at gearyi.com

chattyfig.figleaf.com/pipermail/flashcoders/2003-March/067059.html

Sam Hubble........ the missing link between Myhostcamp and Geary Interactive?

*** Cue Twilight Zone theme ***

Posted by: F&B | August 8, 2006 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Got that at this site which I stumbled upon the other day: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/ It tracks the 2006 elections.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | August 8, 2006 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Nor'Easter | August 8, 2006 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Loved that movie, Steve.

Posted by: Drindl | August 8, 2006 8:00 PM | Report abuse

"Lieberman's lead in general election polls with him running as an Independent tells the real story. Even in the liberal Northeast a majority of general election voters would prefer a moderate incumbent over a liberal novice."

Independent Woman: This is the same thing the Lieberman backers said four months ago when Liberman led Lamont by 46 points in the poll. At first they were saying that Lamont was wasting his time by campaigning because Lieberman was so popular and such a shoo-in. Now that it is obvious that Lamont is for real, it's case of "Look at the general election polls that show Lieberman winning by 24 points," never mind that those same polls had Lieberman winning a three-way race by 45 points two months ago. The trend is going Lamont's way, and Joementum will be all negative after the primary with a Lamont win, because he will lose a lot of Democrats and a lot of funding, thus meaning that if Lamont holds in the primary, Lieberman is the equivalent of Dr. Crowe in "The Sixth Sense," because he is already dead and just doesn't know it yet.

Posted by: Steve | August 8, 2006 7:40 PM | Report abuse

If I had come in to this primary completely neutral, Joe's campaign would have made me vot4 for Lamont. How vicious and deceitful and incompetent he's been -- really ugly to watch. Actually, quite worthy of Atwater and Rove. All the projection, false accusations, manipulation of the weak-minded and compliant 'liberal' media -- ugh. How much do you want to bet Rove is involved?

Disgusting spectacle.

Posted by: Drindl | August 8, 2006 7:21 PM | Report abuse

According to the links below, Joe's site is being run on the cheap and they apparently don't have a competent systems administrator to fix what looks to be some extremely incompetent short-sightedness on the part of Joe's tech/campaign folks. There's no excuse for that kind of piss-poor tech-planning in this day and age.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/8/8/15236/66395

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/8/153827/3493

Posted by: J.P. | August 8, 2006 7:20 PM | Report abuse

Joe embodies the essence of weakness in the Democratic party. His friendliness to the forces that are ripping our country apart are a delight to the sociopaths in the right who want him to win.

Joe is a weak Democrat. We need a strong voice for change. The war in Iraq is based on lies and followed by wasteful incompetence - this needs to be repeated, loud, and long.

Joe isn't our man.

Posted by: trichloramine | August 8, 2006 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Aint this just rich:

Lieberman blames Rove-like tactics for Web site disruption
Tuesday, August 8, 2006; Posted: 6:01 p.m. EDT

"This type of dirty politics has been a staple of the Lamont campaign from the beginning, from the nonstop personal attacks to the intimidation tactics and offensive displays to these coordinated efforts to disable our Web site," said Smith in a statement e-mailed to reporters Monday evening.

---

I'm not posting the link b/c its not even worth reading. Same accusations despite the fact that you can read from multiple credible sources that this is a total disaster brought on by Joe's campaign. For example, the website is a $15/month shared host with a 10gig bandwidth cap. Not nearly enough for a nationally-watched election campaign. And not only that, despite the fact that the Lieberman camp is busy filing complaints, many tech bloggers have said that at most it would take an HOUR to get a new host and redirect the site.

The fact that the above MSM outlet has a headline where Joe Lieberman's campaign compares this totally avoidable calamity to "Rovian" tactics is just LOL funny. Kiss your career gbye Joe.

Better yet, apparently on Joe's FEC filings it says he paid almost $1500 for "Web Hosting and Web Changes"

http://cache.wonkette.com/assets/resources/2006/08/joehosting02.jpg

This just keeps getting better and better. How did this guy EVER get elected in the first place?

Posted by: F&B | August 8, 2006 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Hey - Pity poor Karen - Her only talking points are fed to her by Fox News, et al. Not only has she consumed the Kool Aid, she's also turned her brain over to the pundit class, and can't produce an original thought with a road map.

However, keep in mind, that these are the people that Dems have to win over to regain the reigns of government.

How do we do that?

Posted by: John In Houston | August 8, 2006 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Many of us registered and voter for Lamont...... Joe is a poor rep for us!
Gonzales and Roberts, the lack of voting fairness in Ohio, torture of suspects,, Joes silence is just too stupid ...makes me hope Joe will quit politics...Impeachment of Bush & crew is the answer. Truth about the invasion of a sovereign nation ....... Hope Lamont is a little better. Ben

Posted by: Ben | August 8, 2006 6:41 PM | Report abuse

The first elected official to be held accountable for the Iraq mess is a Democrat! Oh the irony.

Posted by: Jorge | August 8, 2006 6:30 PM | Report abuse

"Lamonts supporters are not exactly who you would want your daughter to date"

Ya who would want a millionare to date thier daughter? Better a politican.

Posted by: Charge Bush with treason | August 8, 2006 6:28 PM | Report abuse


For uncensored news please bookmark:
www.wsws.org
www.takingaim.info
otherside123.blogspot.com

http://www.unknownnews.org/060802-911.html

9/11 'investigators' knew they were being lied to, said nothing about it

by Dan Eggan, Washington Post

August 2, 2006
Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said.

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. ... It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

Although the commission's landmark report made it clear that the Defense Department's early versions of events on the day of the attacks were inaccurate, the revelation that it considered criminal referrals reveals how skeptically those reports were viewed by the panel and provides a glimpse of the tension between it and the Bush administration.

A Pentagon spokesman said yesterday that the inspector general's office will soon release a report addressing whether testimony delivered to the commission was "knowingly false." A separate report, delivered secretly to Congress in May 2005, blamed inaccuracies in part on problems with the way the Defense Department kept its records, according to a summary released yesterday.

A spokesman for the Transportation Department's inspector general's office said its investigation is complete and that a final report is being drafted. Laura Brown, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration, said she could not comment on the inspector general's inquiry.

In an article scheduled to be on newsstands today, Vanity Fair magazine reports aspects of the commission debate -- though it does not mention the possible criminal referrals -- and publishes lengthy excerpts from military audiotapes recorded on Sept. 11. ABC News aired excerpts last night.

For more than two years after the attacks, officials with
For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances.

Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington.

In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center.
NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington.

In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center.

Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but the commission determined that the airliner was not hijacked until 12 minutes later. The military was not aware of the flight until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania.

These and other discrepancies did not become clear until the commission, forced to use subpoenas, obtained audiotapes from the FAA and NORAD, officials said. The agencies' reluctance to release the tapes -- along with e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence -- led some of the panel's staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on Sept. 11.

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. ... This is not spin. This is not true."

Arnold, who could not be reached for comment yesterday, told the commission in 2004 that he did not have all the information unearthed by the panel when he testified earlier. Other military officials also denied any intent to mislead the panel.

John F. Lehman, a Republican commission member and former Navy secretary, said in a recent interview that he believed the panel may have been lied to but that he did not believe the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal referral.

"My view of that was that whether it was willful or just the fog of stupid bureaucracy, I don't know," Lehman said. "But in the order of magnitude of things, going after bureaucrats because they misled the commission didn't seem to make sense to me."

Posted by: che | August 8, 2006 6:25 PM | Report abuse

It's impossible to reason with people for whom every complex issue can be reduced to an idiotic dichotomy, such as..

"Let's face it, Joe's supporters have jobs and don't sit around coffee houses, Lamonts (sic) supporters are not exactly who you would want your daughter to date."

Bizarre ad hominem rhetoric. Lieberman = responsible, hard-working; Lamont = beyond the pale of what rational beings can accept, blogging in pajamas, hippie, McGovern, vegetarian, will-do-freaky-things-with-your-daughter.

"If Joe loses, it will ensure that republicans win in Missouri, Tennessee and Montana."

Who could doubt that one state's expression of its preference of an anti-war candidate will bring down all Democratic Senate candidates in close races around the country? Irrelevant are those candidates' beliefs, their campaigns, whether they themselves appeal to their states' voters, and the fact that none of these states are in the same region as Connecticut.

"The nutroots who are behind this hate US troops. visit (sic) their websites."

Ah yes, I almost forgot that I have to get out to burn an American flag this afternoon. Thanks for the reminder, Karen! But first, I'd better pray to Allah.

Bloggers may be "behind" Lamont in the sense of having his back. But they aren't responsible for his campaign, or for the enormous story (and very potential success story) that it's become. Not unless you believe that most Connecticut voters coming out to cast ballots for Lamont are troop-hating, Kos-brainwashees. Which I suppose is always a possibility.

"It will not play well outside the Amtrak zone."

Amtrak goes through a number of Southern cities. From their site:

Route Name Region Major Cities Served
Auto Train Northeast, South Lorton, VA (Washington, DC) - Sanford, FL (Orlando)
Carolinian / Piedmont South, Northeast New York - Raleigh - Charlotte
City of New Orleans Midwest, South Chicago - Memphis - New Orleans
Crescent South, Northeast New York - Atlanta - New Orleans
Silver Service / Palmetto Northeast, South New York - Washington, DC - Charleston - Savannah - Jacksonville - Orlando - Tampa/Miami
Sunset Limited South, West, California Orlando - New Orleans - Houston - Los Angeles
Texas Eagle South, Midwest, West, California Chicago - St. Louis - Dallas - San Antonio - (Los Angeles)

"The Party of Surrender does not play well during Hezbollah rocket attacks."

Which Democrats are pro-Hezbollah and anti-Israel? (That Representative whose full response to a question about Hezbollah was cut off when he was quoted in the Washington Times and by Rush Limbaugh?). I assume you're not referring to Lamont, who said on Colbert that there are no differences to speak of between his attitude towards Israel and Lieberman's.

"The dems (sic) told us Howard Dean was the grassroots candidate that would change the world. Are they ever tired of being wrong? Hope not."

Very tired.

Posted by: Max | August 8, 2006 6:11 PM | Report abuse

'Connecticut is an electoral backwater ' -- no, Connecticut is a state, dear. There are similar battles going on all over the country -- catch up on your reading. And sorry, but Bush IS on the ballot in '08. This is about Lieberman, but it's about Bush too.

Referendum, you might say...

'Even in the liberal Northeast a majority of general election voters would prefer a moderate incumbent over a liberal novice.'

I sincerely doubt that. Lieberman running as an independent is about Joe, nothing else.

Posted by: Drindl | August 8, 2006 6:11 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if this story isn't being blown out of proportion a bit. Would we be hearing about this as much if this weren't during a dry-spell in domestic political coverage? Would we be hearing about it as much if everyone weren't over-analyzing elections for signs of bellwethers (sp?) for '08?

Connecticut is an electoral backwater that bears little resemblance to the states Dems would need to pick up in '08 to muster a victory. The campaigning in a vegetarian restaurant is a perfect metaphor for the tiny slice of the U.S. electorate this election is about. Show me a similar struggle in the sunbelt or midwest and *then* we have a story of real national significance.

Lieberman's lead in general election polls with him running as an Independent tells the real story. Even in the liberal Northeast a majority of general election voters would prefer a moderate incumbent over a liberal novice.

I'm no fan of Bush's. Can't stand the frat-boy moron. But Bush won't be on the ballot in '08. Bashing him won't create a victory.

Posted by: Independent Woman | August 8, 2006 6:04 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if this story isn't being blown out of proportion a bit. Would we be hearing about this as much if this weren't during a dry-spell in domestic political coverage? Would we be hearing about it as much if everyone weren't over-analyzing elections for signs of bellwethers (sp?) for '08?

Connecticut is an electoral backwater that bears little resemblance to the states Dems would need to pick up in '08 to muster a victory. The campaigning in a vegetarian restaurant is a perfect metaphor for the tiny slice of the U.S. electorate this election is about. Show me a similar struggle in the sunbelt or midwest and *then* we have a story of real national significance.

Lieberman's lead in general election polls with him running as an Independent tells the real story. Even in the liberal Northeast a majority of general election voters would prefer a moderate incumbent over a liberal novice.

I'm no fan of Bush's. Can't stand the frat-boy moron. But Bush won't be on the ballot in '08. Bashing him won't create a victory.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 8, 2006 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Karen's obviously been drinking a lot of kool-aid.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 8, 2006 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Karen sed:

"visit their websites."

Oh, what a great idea. I do. Often. Thanks for the tip.

Posted by: F&B | August 8, 2006 6:01 PM | Report abuse

'Lamonts supporters are not exactly who you would want your daughter to date. If Joe loses, it will ensure that republicans win in Missouri, Tennessee and Montana. The nutroots who are behind this hate US troops. visit their websites.'

Another deranged dittohead. Wow, Karen you are nuts. Who you would want your daughter to date? What the hell are you babbling about? Is that a racist comment? Somehow I tend to believe it is... what a surprise.

Posted by: Drindl | August 8, 2006 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Oh Karen, what a thoughtful comment. Yes, OF COURSE Lieberman losing means that Conrad Burns will somehow come back and win in Montana, even though he's been losing in every poll taken since Tester won his primary. And OF COURSE Missouri will swing your way now too. How could it not, given that Iraq is a hugely unpopular war that a significant majority think was a huge mistake. I mean, with a war that popular how could SUPPORTING it possibly NOT be a winning proposition!!!!!!

Seriously Karen, it might be time to talk to some folks who aren't rock-ribbed republicans. You may find that most everyone who isn't to the far-right politically tends to agree that Iraq is a disaster. Sorry I had to be the one to tell you. :)

Posted by: Colin | August 8, 2006 5:56 PM | Report abuse

The "hate the troops" comment is sad. As a veteran with friends overseas, I'm going to tell you right out - if you believe that folks who oppose our going into Iraq and the management of the war equates to hatred of our military, you need to rethink things and ask yourself some hard questions. Remember that your duty as a citizen of any democracy is not to wave a flag, thats easy. Nor is it only to have guts, thats easy too. Your duty to those soldiers is to respect other people's views, to weigh the evidence, to make decisions that keep their well being in mind as well as our own.

Further, the DoS attack story is false. Anyone with even a rudimentary technology background can tell you it takes a number of minutes to switch website servers, which they have never attempted to do. Also, other sites on that server are functioning, DoS attacks are not website specific. Its a stunt to get PR, aimed at folks who aren't comfortable with internet technology.

I really wish more folks would realize that moderate views aren't about hippies. Being opposed to the war is not a radical view, no matter how you slice it.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 8, 2006 5:54 PM | Report abuse

The "hate the troops" comment is sad. As a veteran with friends overseas, I'm going to tell you right out - if you believe that folks who oppose our going into Iraq and the management of the war equates to hatred of our military, you need to rethink things and ask yourself some hard questions. Remember that your duty as a citizen of any democracy is not to wave a flag, thats easy. Nor is it only to have guts, thats easy too. Your duty to those soldiers is to respect other people's views, to weigh the evidence, to make decisions that keep their well being in mind as well as our own.

Further, the DoS attack story is false. Anyone with even a rudimentary technology background can tell you it takes a number of minutes to switch website servers, which they have never attempted to do. Also, other sites on that server are functioning, DoS attacks are not website specific. Its a stunt to get PR, aimed at folks who aren't comfortable with internet technology.

I really wish more folks would realize that moderate views aren't about hippies. Being opposed to the war is not a radical view, no matter how you slice it.

Posted by: Michael | August 8, 2006 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Is he dead yet? I figure the reason Lamont took the day off yesterday is 99 percent of his people voted by mail-in ballot. But Lieberman - worst excuse for a Dem I've ever seen.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | August 8, 2006 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Let's face it, Joe's supporters have jobs and don't sit around coffee houses, Lamonts supporters are not exactly who you would want your daughter to date. If Joe loses, it will ensure that republicans win in Missouri, Tennessee and Montana. The nutroots who are behind this hate US troops. visit their websites. It will not play well outside the Amtrak zone. The Party of Surrender does not play well during Hezbollah rocket attacks. The dems told us Howard Dean was the grassroots candidate that would change the world. Are they ever tired of being wrong? Hope not.

Posted by: Karen | August 8, 2006 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Let's face it, Joe's supporters have jobs and don't sit around coffee houses, Lamonts supporters are not exactly who you would want your daughter to date. If Joe loses, it will ensure that republicans win in Missouri, Tennessee and Montana. The nutroots who are behind this hate US troops. visit their websites. It will not play well outside the Amtrak zone. The Party of Surrender does not play well during Hezbollah rocket attacks. The dems told us Howard Dean was the grassroots candidate that would change the world. Are they ever tired of being wrong? Hope not.

Posted by: Karen | August 8, 2006 5:38 PM | Report abuse

They won't be eating their words on the "denial of service attack" as the media is using it to vilify Lamont and makes Joe look like a victim. They can sort it all out later.

Posted by: Sam | August 8, 2006 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Let's face it, Joe's supporters have jobs and don't sit around coffee houses. If Joe loses, it will ensure that republicans win in Missouri, Tennessee and Montana. The nutroots who are behind this hate US troops. visit their websites. It will not play well outside the Amtrak zone. The Party of Surrender does not play well during Hezbollah rocket attacks. The dems told us Howard Dean was the grassroots candidate that would change the world.

Posted by: Karen | August 8, 2006 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Yep CMo-Political Wire is refuting the "denial of service attack" story.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/08/08/random_items_from_connecticut.html

The last desperate gasp of the worst-run campaign I've ever seen.

Posted by: JoshA | August 8, 2006 5:28 PM | Report abuse

So sorry for the bad spelling--incumbents!!

Posted by: jenniferm | August 8, 2006 5:17 PM | Report abuse

I wish all incumbants have to work as hard as Lieberman has these past few months to stay in office--sadly, it doesn't happen often enough. (For the record, I would have voted for Lamont).

Posted by: jenniferm | August 8, 2006 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Props to The Fix for holding off on commenting on the joe2006 website story...a lot of people are going to be eating their words on this one.

Posted by: CMo | August 8, 2006 5:12 PM | Report abuse

CC, when you say that there were small crowds are we talking ten people (not including you and the media circus), or 100?
From what has been said here on the fix it seems like people are avoiding Liebermann like the plague.

Posted by: Andy R | August 8, 2006 4:30 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company