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

Lieberman Concedes Connecticut Primary to Lamont

HARTFORD, Conn. -- Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman came close but was unable to pull off a miracle comeback against challenger Ned Lamont in today's Democratic primary, losing 52 percent to 48 percent.

Ned Lamont
Ned Lamont joined the ranks of the giant slayers with his victory over Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic Senate primary. Above, Lamont casts his vote earlier Tuesday with his daughter, Lindsay. (Reuters)

In an emotional speech to his supporters here minutes ago, Lieberman pledged to carry the fight to November -- choosing to run as an independent for reelection in the fall.

"In this campaign we've just finished the first half and the Lamont team is ahead," Lieberman said. "In the second half our team is going to surge forward to victory."

Lieberman said he had called to congratulate Lamont on is victory, but there is clearly no love lost between the two men.

"The old politics of partisan polarization won today," said Lieberman. "I cannot and will not let that result stand." Lieberman is expected to file signatures to run as an independent tomorrow.

That decision was met with squeamishness among many within the party establishment who had signaled that they would not support an independent bid by Lieberman. Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh -- who, like Lieberman, has close ties to moderates within the party but is considering a 2008 presidential bid -- quickly announced he would support Lamont.

"Senator Bayh supported Senator Lieberman in the primary because of his respect for Senator Lieberman's service and their long friendship," said Bayh spokesman Dan Pfeiffer. "The Democratic voters of Connecticut have spoken, and Senator Bayh respects their choice and will support their nominee."

Expect many more announcements like Bayh's over the next day or two. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) will speak about the race tomorrow.

Although polling done prior to the primary showed Lieberman with a wide lead over Lamont and former state Rep. Alan Schlesinger (R) in a three-way general election, those numbers will likely change in the wake of the incumbent's defeat.

Unwittingly, Lieberman's son -- Matt -- evoked a painful memory when he told the crowd: "This is a campaign with exciting momentum going forward." Lieberman was widely ridiculed for calling his fifth-place showing in the 2004 New Hampshire presidential primary a three-way tie for third.

That's it for tonight, but check this space tomorrow for an analysis of the winners and losers from tonight's results.

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 8, 2006; 11:24 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: CT Senate: Halfway to an Answer
Next: Connecticut -- The Morning After

Comments

HARTFORD, Conn. -- Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman came close but was unable to pull off a miracle comeback against challenger Ned Lamont in today's Democratic primary, losing 52 percent to 48 percent.
I do not agree.For more info go to http://www.apartments.waw.pl

Posted by: warsaw hotels | September 27, 2006 6:26 PM | Report abuse

What's with all the comments on here about Lieberman being a "decent man". Does anyone still believe that, or are people just being polite?

What's with all the talk about party of FDR Truman and JFK. That's all in the past. Today situation is very simple. A** holes on one side and normal people on the other. Either you are with a** holes or with normal people. That's it. There are no compromises. If you vote with the a** holes, you are an a** hole. Simple. I think everyone knows what Lieberman is.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 12, 2006 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Jim--"Anti-war McCarthy" lost by a landslide? Are you perhaps referring to George McGovern, whom Nixon crushed in 1972? The late Eugene McCarthy was the fellow who narrowly lost the NH primary in 1968 and caused LBJ to drop out. You may want to borrow that history book from SR when he is finished with it...

Posted by: JC | August 11, 2006 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Sen. Eugene McCarthy ripped the Oval Office rug out from under Johnson in early 1968, and in March, Johnson decided to step aside and not run again. That opened the race and former US Attorney General, Senator Bobby Kennedy steamrolled over McCarthy and had the nomination wrapped up in June. That is when Bobby was murdered, and it was only 1 year after Martin Luther King had been murdered as well. By the time of the Chicago convention, with VP Humphrey trying to stand up for something, the mob outside in the streets were beaten by police. The Democrats suffered from black unrest, and the anti-war liberals/Democrats screwed up the election giving it to Nixon. In 1972, the anti-war Dems shoved McGovern on the ticket, and lost. Then with Carter and his wimpy ass in the White House in 1976, he got wumped by Reagan. Why is the party of FDR and Truman and JFK? If the Democrats don't rally behind a strong leader and stand up for national defense, they will wumped again in 2008.

Posted by: Sam | August 10, 2006 4:57 PM | Report abuse

It is to bad, that we elect men, and not candidates to represente state parties. If a state party controlled the seat when a candidate won, and not the man, then the state party could replace a man when the man strays too far from the state party's platform, program and rules they were elected to represent by the voters.

For example if Joe turns his back on the party by running as an independent after losing the primary, the CT dem party should be able to remove him now and replace him for the balance of his term due his abandoning his obligations to the party. Such a change would work on many levels, requiring the man to support the party position on an issues rather than to have 535 freelancers taking a their own position on an issue. The party representive can debate, and shape the postion ultimately taken by the party but the final vote should be party line. Their state party would have to concur if an office holder decided to stray from a party position.

The result would force parties to sharpen their programs and policies and hopefully stick with the their policy position. Voters could then pay attention to party programs rather than to have the annual popularity contest with candidates and get god knows what as far as a legislative program being supported by office holders once elected.

We need to move from electing the man to electing the party policy program. Only by doing this will we get more consistent policies by our government. It also will avoid keeping bad apples in office and allow creating a system which will allow voters to see if a man actually follows his parties program.

Face it our current system of electing candidates does not result in elected officals being fateful to party position or even loyal to position they took to get elected. With the complexity of government polices today (and the multitude of special interest pressures) we have to delegate policy setting to office holders. Only by requiring the man be fateful to the party program he was elected to support can we be sure the our choices of policies voted for are worked for by the office holder.

Posted by: danny boy | August 9, 2006 6:19 PM | Report abuse

All the commentary over Lamon over Lieberman is mostly just TALKING heads. Fact is that Joe is not notable for anything over three senate terms. The Iraq war support is one small issue that contributed to his primary defeat. Connecticut wants representatives that will champion real causes on some-what of a regular basis (i.e. global warming, lost of middle class society, hunger, genocide, etc.)

Posted by: Gman | August 9, 2006 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Squirt-

Fair enough. There's a difference between republicans posting reasoned arguments about the merits of a Lieberman indie bid and 'You dayum liberal terrorst luvin tree huggers dun gonna git a whoopin'!!! For those kind of comments, they should just go to freeper.org and circle-jerk.

Posted by: Will | August 9, 2006 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Will,

I disagree with the assesment that GOPers are trolls on this discussion. If that were true, then it would logically hold true that any democrat from somewhere else besides CT were also trolls. Because this contest is an election for the people of CT to elect a Senator.
What happened to Leiberman is significant. It's unusual for a Senator to be de-throned in the General, much less a primary. It'll have effects on both the GOP and the DNC. As it shows the power of "net-roots" something both parties are experimenting with. Or it shows the Anti-war movement is growing, which would obviously have an affect on the GOP.

Seeing as Senator Leiberman is now an independent, and will have the support of some GOP members (those who would rather elect a conservative (former) democrat rather than waste (in the sense that he will not be elected) a vote on the GOP candidate...it's very much a GOP conversation, just as much as a DNC.

Posted by: Squirt | August 9, 2006 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Will,

I disagree with the assesment that GOPers are trolls on this discussion. If that were true, then it would logically hold true that any democrat from somewhere else besides CT were also trolls. Because this contest is an election for the people of CT to elect a Senator.
What happened to Leiberman is significant. It's unusual for a Senator to be de-throned in the General, much less a primary. It'll have effects on both the GOP and the DNC. As it shows the power of "net-roots" something both parties are experimenting with. Or it shows the Anti-war movement is growing, which would obviously have an affect on the GOP.

Seeing as Senator Leiberman is now an independent, and will have the support of some GOP members (those who would rather elect a conservative (former) democrat rather than waste (in the sense that he will not be elected) a vote on the GOP candidate...it's very much a GOP conversation, just as much as a DNC.

Posted by: Squirt | August 9, 2006 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Crying anti-semitism? That's about as rational as Mel Gibson's excuses. False accusations of anti-semitism make it more difficult for those who have a legitimate complaint. But apparently that doesn't bother Joe, since Joe cares only about Joe. Joe's shameless selfishness is even more apparent when one considers that he'll run as an independent and split the vote in November. He'll kiss Bush one day, be a liberal the next, a poor oppressed Jew the next...whatever's expedient, no matter how insanely selfish. Get a life Joe, and stop crying wolf about anti-semitism.

Posted by: Frankly Realsch | August 9, 2006 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Michael-
Dirndl was being facetious, and using arguments oft used by republicans, who really have no business trolling in a discussion about a democrat on democrat election, to skewer them. I thought it was funny.

For the record, republicans posting here are trolling. They can make their statement in November by voting for the republican.

Posted by: Will | August 9, 2006 2:30 PM | Report abuse

DMS mentioned "the military card". I didn't mean to cynically trot out my fiance's experience to imply that all vets feel the same way, or just for the sake of weilding some card to win a debate...I was using his experience to make the point that withdrawing from Iraq is a lot more complicated than just sending everyone home.

Both fiance and I loathe Bush and loathe the war. The conquest of Iraq was not worth a single American life. However, once we've been there this long, you cannot just up-and-leave without doing even more damage (to Iraq, to the region, to our troops, to moderate forces in the country, etc.)

It seems to me to be a reality. "Just get out" is the same adolescent thinking that as "Woop their rears!".

Posted by: Independent Woman | August 9, 2006 2:15 PM | Report abuse

These were the last polls done with 3 way race and Joe running as an I.

Rasmussen
July 20
Lamont (D) 40%
Lieberman (I)* 40%
Schleisinger (R) 13%

Quinnipiac
July 8-12
Lamont (D) 27%
Liberman (I)* 51%
Schliesinger (R) 9%

They are a month old so it will be interesting to see the new numbers. Undoubtedly, Lamont should rise in the numbers after his primary victory bump kicks in.

Posted by: RMill | August 9, 2006 1:30 PM | Report abuse

"My fiance is a navy veteran of the US 'peace keeping' campaign in Lebanon in the early 80s. One of the things he points out is that the marine barracks bombing didn't occur until *after* his ship and others passed through a canal (the Suez?). Reducing numbers in Iraq will inevitably leave the remaining troops even more vulnerable."

My partner is a 20-year Navy vet who flew during the Gulf War. She just spent the last four days in Connecticut . . . campaigning for Ned Lamont.

IOW, playing the military card, as Independent Woman has tried to do, doesn't mean you inevitably win. There is disagreement even within the "military community," if I can call it that, about the Iraq war.

Personally, I was disgusted by Lieberman's callous statements that women seeking abortions -- even in the case of dire medical emergency -- who are turned away at the hospital can simply go to the hospital down the road. Low-income women don't have that option. Neither do women like Martha Mendoza, whose much-wanted child died in utero at 19 weeks, and who went through hell -- and risk to her own health -- trying to find a doctor who could and would remove the corpse from her womb. Read this story, and then see if you still think Joe is such a stand-up guy: http://www.msmagazine.com/summer2004/womanandherdoctor.asp

Posted by: DMS | August 9, 2006 1:24 PM | Report abuse

"Why do you hate America?

Posted by: Drindl | August 9, 2006 11:12 AM "


Troll.

Posted by: Michael | August 9, 2006 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Democracy happens.

So let's review a three term US Senator, former state attorney general, who still outspent a millionaire unknown and he acts like he is betrayed. There was a vote. Joe Lieberman is not a force of evil. But if you support democracy in the Ukraine, Lebannon, Iraq then support it in New Haven, Bridgeport and Hartford.
Elections happen. That the conventional wisdom that wrote off Lamont and democracy happened. There was an election and Joe lost. PS is not a pacifist and does foreswore military action like in Afghanistan. If Dems are bertrayed as cut and run is the Gop the crash and excuse party.

Posted by: Franco | August 9, 2006 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman is a NEOCON...of the neocon school of Wolfowitz, Irving Libby, Perle, Feith, Bolton, et.al. Try to find a sliver's worth of difference among them.

Posted by: eureka | August 9, 2006 12:43 PM | Report abuse

LIEBERMAN IS A NEOCON. He is a Wolfowitz, Cryatal, Irving Libby, Perle neocon.
How does he differ?

Posted by: eureka, have found it | August 9, 2006 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Liebermans behavior demostrates him to be more than just a regular centrist.

He's a self-centrist.

Posted by: Fides | August 9, 2006 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Why does everyone keep saying Lamont is leftist? Name one 'leftist' thing he has done or believes.

Because he opposes a war that 60% of the country opposes? Does that mean that 60% of the country is leftist?

Could you do me a favor and think before you open your mouth? And tell me how Leiberman is 'in the middle'. The middle of what -- the republican party?

One person, define for me what is 'left' about Lamont. You're just throwing around labels that have no meaning.

Posted by: Drindl | August 9, 2006 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Wow, so many of you folks are so angry that voters in Connecticut chose their own representative.

Why do you hate America?

Posted by: Drindl | August 9, 2006 11:12 AM | Report abuse

eschewing the sarcasm for a moment, what Lamont accomplished is a signal event in this country. Even if he does not go on to win the election, his defeat of Janus Lieberman is a sign of a shift in the Democratic party. My question to you posters on this blog is whether or not this will become a national trend to the left, or the beginning of a movement towards a third party in the middle, for moderates like Lieberman and Bayh. Thoughts?

Posted by: jterp | August 9, 2006 11:10 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes,

Another incorrect statement. Your previous post says, "Lamont will not win when all the NORMAL people get out to vote this November BECAUSE CHARACTER MATTERS". If that is not saying Lamont has no character, than I don't know what that statement says. I also like how you say NORMAL people. I've spent a lot of time in CT and find most people (save a couple of my relatives:)) to be very normal people. CT has the highest average IQ of any state in the country and if I'm not mistaken the 2nd lowest divorce rate, right behind Massachusetts. Oh those immoral, anti-family northeastern liberals!! They are going to destroy this country!!! Good thing 9 of the 10 states with the highest divorce rates all went for Bush, we really need those VALUES voters. bhoomes, what you still haven't acknowledged and come to reality with is that Lamont's position is in line with the majority of ALL AMERICANS!!!! And the "normal" people you talk about are now in the minority.

Posted by: Appalled | August 9, 2006 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Jiim wrote: "By the way... for all of you suggesting that Joe is going to be sidelined by the Dem leadership and have no influnce, I have two words. Jim Jeffords. He has gotten along just fine as an independent. Joe's annoucement may be the tipping point for unity08.com."

If I'm not mistaken, Jim Jeffords was very much sidelined by the party he abandoned. In fact, he was sidelined both before, and especially after, his personally heart-wrenching decision. Which is why he became an independant. Liebermann is no Jim Jeffords. Jim Jeffords did not leave the Republican Party with a mouthful of sour grapes to spit at his fellow party-members. Jeffords' decision was honorable, can the same be said for Liebermann's? I think not. I hope the Democrats DO abandon Liebermann and wholeheartedly support the Democratic candidate selected by the Connecticut voters. Then we're looking at democracy and loyalty.

Posted by: Vermont progressive | August 9, 2006 11:05 AM | Report abuse

The record primary turn-out seems to be a reason why Joe should not run as an independent...but I'm curious...polls (which I don't really care for) showed Lamont winning by a wide margin of likely voters in the primary. A likely voter being someone who voted in Last years primary, and the General Election (generally speaking anyways). Now the thing is, UN-likely primary voters voted, and Lamont had a narrow victory (2% isn't huge). So it would APPEAR that record turnout was in Senator Leibermans favor, not Lamonts. If this is something he feels he can carry over to the General Election (which polls suggest at worst he is tied with Lamont, at best he beats him by a wide margin) then I think he ought to do what's best for him, and (if he wins)what the people of CT want.

Posted by: Squirt | August 9, 2006 11:01 AM | Report abuse

I haven't read all of the above posts, but I'd like to point out how both the tv and internet media are headlining Lieberman's independent run and subordinating Lamonts victory. The headlines should have read Lamont wins; Lieberman loses. Instead, we get news of Lieberman's new energized campaign attempt.

Once again, somethings fishey in what gets reported and what doesn't and through whose eyes it is reported. All the news from the Middle East comes thru Bush's Christian fascist love of Israel, not from an Arab point of view. Freedumb of the press to carve up the world for us while keeping up the ratings.

Posted by: dirtycommiehippiecreep | August 9, 2006 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Time to think Chris, about what the word 'moderate' actually means. Words have meanings. And Joe Lieberman is now a radical right winger, just like the looneytunes radicals who support him -- bush, cheney, limbaugh, hannity, coulter, et al.

These people are insane and delusional. They imagine that God is on 'their side' and that they are going to crusade around the world, remaking it in their image. The world has other ideas.

Lamont is a moderate, pragmatic, sensible family man, community member, entrepreneur, who believes that we should invest in America first. He is, hopefully, the wave of the future.

I imagine the entrenched DC establishment is shaking in their boots, fearful that someone going to take away their cocktail weeinies. Good.

Posted by: Drindl | August 9, 2006 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Appalled: You must not be reading my postings, I said I don't know anything about the republican, if I had some concerns about his character I would vote for Joe. I never said Lamont didn't have character, so why are you so defensive? Do you know something? FB: Character is intrinsic with leadership, nobody is a leader withour character. But seeing you supported Bill Clinton, I do understand why character is very confusing and hard for you to understand.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 9, 2006 10:55 AM | Report abuse

First of all....for all you republicans you criticize Lamont for being a millionaire, you should look at the rest of the senate!! There is not a single senator (including your sweet hear hypocritical republican ones) who are not millionaires. And don't give us any of this smack about being out of touch because when it comes down to it, the vast majority of the corrupt congressmen we see are republicans!! Now tell me who is out of touch.

Second of all, all this dialogue about elected officials having to rethink their stance on Iraq is complete bogus. If anything, the only time people would have to do that is in a Democratic primary...and even then, Lieberman barely lost. So it seems that nothing much has changed except that a liberal state finally elected a liberal candidate for senate...wow...big surprise!

Posted by: MattS | August 9, 2006 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Character? That's what you base your vote/support on? Not leadership. Not representation of the electorate. Not ability to think critically about tough issues.

And does Lamont NOT have character? Have you seen him speak? The energy he brings is palpable.

As for Lieberman sharing your view on Iraq... What IS that view? How's it going over there in your eyes? Please at least acknowledge in your response that 6000 civiliians have died in TWO MONTHS in SECTARIAN STRIFE and we are approaching 2600 US dead.

And Drindl, you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. I am elated about the fact that CT finally did what nobody else would. Elect (or at least nominate) a DEMOCRAT. A true blue democrat. Its about friggin time, and I couldnt be happier.

Posted by: F&B | August 9, 2006 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Time to grow up Senator Joe-

Take your beating like an adult.

In other words, go away.

Posted by: Michael | August 9, 2006 10:43 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes,

For someone who posts so much on a political site, you know absolutely nothing about politics. The Republican candidate has character??!?? Up there with the most asinine things you've ever said, including that Dick Cheney is always civil to Democrats. The man has been thrown out of casinos where he was using a fake name. Lots of character there. And what are Lamont's supposed character flaws? That he is a successful entrepeneuer? That he has what seems from the outside to be a very happy and successful family? That he has given back to his community both financially and through his services? That he agrees with the majority of all AMERICANS (not CT residents, not DEMS, not CT DEMS) that the war in Iraq is wrong? Joe Lieberman may still win the general, but the R's have NO, I repeat, NO chance of picking this seat up. But I look forward to conservative luminary Bill Bennett campaigning with a man who seems to be cut from the same cloth:)

Posted by: Appalled | August 9, 2006 10:40 AM | Report abuse

It is painfully obvious we need to reverse the course instead of staying the course.

The GOP are too greedy to govern this great country and there must be a Democratic majority for accountability.

Let us return to only worrying about a President getting laid instead of more destruction of the world.

Conservatives stay home in November for your country, your party has failed America.

Posted by: getalife | August 9, 2006 10:24 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes -- Time will tell I suppose. However, I would note that (1) The Republican "candidate" has NO MONEY at present and was pushed to drop out of the race b/c he's apparently a gambling addict who has been thrown out of multiple gaming establishments; (2) A Rasmussen poll recently had a three-way race tied (40% each for Lamont and Lieberman); and (3) In the past, where an incumbant has lost a primary and then run as an independent they've lost ENORMOUS support after their loss (See Javits, Jacob).

Add all that up together, and I think that perhaps you are a little to sure that Lamont will lose.

Posted by: Colin | August 9, 2006 10:23 AM | Report abuse

The idea that Lamont's victory is evidence of the democratic party's radicalization and tilt to the left is laughable. This was not a victory by the radical left but a victory by pragmatic moderates who see the Bush administration for what it is - an unmitigated disaster that threatens American prosperity for generations to come. There is a cost for blithly defending the outrageous Republican policy decisions (such as an unnecessary and costly war or out of control spending). It is these things from which Lieberman could not run. His support of the war was well documented and his claims to having the seniority to benefit Ct. simply show he is out of touch with the concerns of his consituency. Most Americans don't care anymore how much pork their senators and congressman are bringing home because we recognize the bill for that is being passed to our children and to our children's children. To emphasize that is to simply reinforce one's lack of true courage or morals. So Lieberman has started to pay the cost of his support for these policies. What worries Republicans is that he will not be the last to do so. This is not leftward tilt - this is the rousing of the sleeping giant that is moderate mainstream America that sees the country headed in the wrong direction, knows whom to blame, and is finally moved to respond.

Posted by: James | August 9, 2006 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Chris --

"Miracle comeback?" What are you thinking? This was Lieberman's race to lose from beginning to end. Everything about his campaign was wrong-headed right down to the underfunded web site. His conduct in the debate alone could have been his undoing. Meanwhile, Lamont put together the sort of quietly competent campaign team and field organization you would have expected from a seasoned political veteran -- and not the "novice" you all have been talking about in DC. On campaign management alone, Lamont clearly came off as a much more qualified candidate.

Posted by: Disconnect-icut | August 9, 2006 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Colin you are engaged in a lot of wishful thinking if you think Joe will switch parties or drop out of the race. Joe or the republican will win, Lamont has no chance when all of the normal people get to vote this Nov. FB: Because character matters. Joe has character and maybe so does the republican but I don't know anything about him. So if I had any concerns about him, I would vote for a proven Senator who has tons of respect from the mainstream public. Maybe I am not as conservative as you think. You must know by now I am NOT a social conservative nor will I ever be. Plus me and Joe share the same views on Iraq.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 9, 2006 10:17 AM | Report abuse

OK folks.

103 posts on this one. Get over it. Too much computer memory wasted.

We are still a democracy until the Administration magically finds heretofore unknown signing statements to the Constitution saying the framers really didn't mean it.

Someone from the Democratic National Committee needs to take Joe aside and assure him of an ambassadorship in 2008 if he plays ball and doesn't run.

Let Lamont play out ths hand.

Posted by: zippy | August 9, 2006 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Connecticut is...well...*Connecticut*. It's not Ohio. It's not Florida. It's not sunbelt or mid-America. It's not a bellwether of anything except voting trends of liberal Dems in a tiny Northeastern state. Rich Hippies prefer a Rich Hippie. Duh.

The image capturing this perfectly: an extremist, divisive personality like Al Sharpton standing behind Lamont during the victory speech. That picture alone is any Republican candidate's dream. Democrats with a national election in mind adopt Lamont's style and substance at their own peril.

If insanity is doing the same thing, expecting different results, then post-Clinton Dems have been electorally insane.

Going beyond politics to policy, departure from Iraq isn't itself a sound policy.

My fiance is a navy veteran of the US "peace keeping" campaign in Lebanon in the early 80s. One of the things he points out is that the marine barracks bombing didn't occur until *after* his ship and others passed through a canal (the Suez?).

Reducing numbers in Iraq will inevitably leave the remaining troops even more vulnerable.

The responsible thing for our country to do is to own up to the "You broke it, you bought it" policy and do our best to somehow make the best out of a terrible deck the next President has been dealt.

It's like people have no sense of responsibility...we went in with an irresponsible war-frenzy-- let's not leave in an equally irresponsible manner.

Posted by: Independent Woman | August 9, 2006 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Just about everyone who has supported Joe on this site has nothing but contempt for Democratic voters-- just like Joe himself. Excuse me, a**holes, but we have a right to choose our own candidates -- and we did. Joe should stop whining and go home. What a loser.

And for republicans telling me how to vote -- no thank you.
As Dick Cheney would civilly say, go f*** yourselves.

Posted by: Drindl | August 9, 2006 10:07 AM | Report abuse

You know, I wouldn't have had a problem if Joe had decided to skip the Democratic primary and just run as an independent. That would have at least been the honest thing to do, and I imagine he might very well have won the general election that way. What I think is unforgiveable is running in the primary, which had RECORD turnout, and then refusing to abide by its results. That's just being a sore loser and shows that Joe has nothing but contempt for Democratic voters in his state.

Posted by: Colin | August 9, 2006 10:03 AM | Report abuse

RMill-

you're one cool m********. I respect somebody who can call their own errors. After all, we all get it wrong from time to time (me included). Good on ya.

Posted by: Will | August 9, 2006 10:03 AM | Report abuse

GO FOR IT JOE!
He has every right to run in a general election and let the entire state decide. McCain should have done the same thing in 2000. Running in a democratic primary is just a test between those who think Republicans are nazis or just wrong. What happened to the party of FDR, Truman, and Kennedy?

Posted by: me | August 9, 2006 9:58 AM | Report abuse

F&B, the wingers don't really want Leiberman as their candidate either. They're just accustomed to picking our candidates for us and they're really angry because this time we didn't do what we were told.

Posted by: Drindl | August 9, 2006 9:58 AM | Report abuse

My, the rightwing trolls and astro Dems are out in force, aren't they? Stamping they llittle feet and pounding they tiny fists on the table... just so mad their entrenched, entitled self-absorbed nobleman Holy Joe lost it.

Face it, folks, whatever Joe was in the past, he is no more... and hasn't been for a long time. He ran a filthy, slimy, incompetent campaign and he deserved to lose.

Posted by: Drindl | August 9, 2006 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Rmill, I think the way that the dems need to handle the Lieberman Indy campaign is to make him promise to caucas with the Dems on national TV.
Also I saw a poll a little while back that had Lamont and joe around 40% each and the Repub and around 15. Now this is before Lamont won the primary and the GOP guy got thrown out of Casino for cheating. I think that Lamont can ride this to victory in November.

Bhoomes, I know what the republican talking points are going to be, but I bet you that behind closed doors the GOP strategists are sweating bullets. This vote was more anti-incumbent then anything. Any republican (and democrat) who has forgotten the people is going to pay dearly in November. Also the HUGE turnout shows that the Democratic base is energized beyond beleif. That means that candidates just have to stay ahead of the eightball on the war, and placate the middle of the road with things like healthcare, minimum wage, and energy independence. That is a winning strategy.

Lastly, the three people who won the most today are Al Gore (look for him to come out for Lamont), Howard Dean (His movement put Lamont in power), and Russ Feingold. Three big losers Hillary Clinton, George Bush, and Bill Clinton (his power of the Democratic party is fading)

Posted by: Andy R | August 9, 2006 9:56 AM | Report abuse

I'll tell you why...pragmatism. Why cast a vote for someone you know is going to lose when you can cast a vote to stick one in the eye of your adversary.

Posted by: FH | August 9, 2006 9:56 AM | Report abuse

The idea that Lieberman is some kind of closet Republican is laughable. Have you people ever actually looked at his record? Other than being a foreign policy hawk his record has always been reliably left wing. The only way Lieberman is classified as Republican lite is in comparison to Lamont's extreme left wing supporters. You notice I said supporters. Do you really know how much of a lefty Lamont really is? He has never run for public office before so he has no record to indicate he's a liberal. He ran as the antiwar canidate but is that part of his core beliefs or will that last only as long as it takes to get elected. Lamont was the left wing blogosphere's opportunity to flex it's muscle. If Lamont gets voted into the Senate for the next six years you don't know what he'll really do. He is a multi millionare and therefore doesn't mind capitialism too much.

Posted by: Robert | August 9, 2006 9:55 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes, you still havent answered my question as to why you, an Extreme Conservative, would support a Moderate/Indep Democrat.

Posted by: F&B | August 9, 2006 9:49 AM | Report abuse

I was an independent for 6 years; the lack of platform and infighting for the Democractic party prevented me from registering their way. Well being out of Primarys and having the party pcik softies all day long changed in '94. let the partisan war begin.

Posted by: mike | August 9, 2006 9:46 AM | Report abuse

The Democratic Party didn't move left - Joe moved to the right. If Senator Lieberman were still the man who courageously fought for civil rights in the 1960's or who served as a progressive and crusading AG, then this election would have never happened.

My prediction -- polls will show Lamont winning over the next 10 days or so and Lieberman will withdraw from the general election. Only way this doesn't happen? If Joe essentially runs as a Republican, which would require even more of a swing to the right and would eliminate ANY argument that he's a principled politician. We will see I suppose.

Posted by: Colin | August 9, 2006 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Most of politics is charisma. People loved Kennedy and Reagan. What is amazing about Lieberman is that he is completely lacking in charisma. He is an insufferable bore with a muppet voice and a bland, centrist position on the issues. How he has survived this long is beyond me.

Posted by: J. Donne | August 9, 2006 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Joe in 2004: "In the end, my own feeling is, looking at the polls, but intuiting, based on people I talk to, is that, although Senator Kerry got a lot of votes, 56 million votes, more than any Democratic candidate for president in history, but there's no prizes for second place in American politics."
I learned in kindergarten that no one likes a sore loser. Loser.

Posted by: flounder | August 9, 2006 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Well, I for one am glad that he's out.
Even my 8 year old knows based on "playground politics" that when you lose, you don't go out and whine about it--much less try to disrupt the game because you lost. That's honest and decent.

And while "the people" may not have spoken, the voices of discontent with the status quo have won something today. I hope that the Democratic party is listening.

Posted by: Fed up! | August 9, 2006 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Joe thinks the rules don't apply to him, nor custom, nor the right thing. Poster boy for entitlement. Even if he should win the lustre is off that particular "servant". How would he be treated in the senate? And given his behavior, why is he called decent man? Want your democracy to run like that?

Posted by: no rules | August 9, 2006 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Lamont's victory is evidence of the Democratic party's ever-increasing leftward bent. Rest assured, the victory is not a sign of a monumental change in the political direction of the country, but rather of liberalism's sick and vain endeavor at senseless self-promotion and preservation. To risk Lieberman's clout and experience for an imbecilic, one-dimensional hack like Lamont (a millionaire, I might add--you gotta love the irony!), will go down in history as yet another thoughtless miscalculation that suppresses liberalism's viability and allows it to keep its title as the laughing stock of American political thought and philosophy.

Posted by: John | August 9, 2006 9:14 AM | Report abuse

How about a little truth here. LIeberman doesn't like Republicans, he loves Bush because Bush is giving the Israelis everything they want, including the Iraq war. It's all about Israel.
Last night on the net news there was a double sided sign up in a demonstration...one side was the Israeli flag. Watch for more of that.

Posted by: a little truth | August 9, 2006 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Is anyone else disturbed that these two represent the best that the Democratic Party had to offer, at least in CT? We can and should do better.

Posted by: John | August 9, 2006 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Poll Watch

CO-7
Survey USA

Lamm 37%
Perlmutter 49%
Rubenstein 8%
error +/- 4%

Actual
Lamm 37%
Perlmutter 53%
Rubenstein 8%

Called race correctly= 1 pt
Called margin within margin of error= 1 pt
Called vote total for two of 3 on the nose and one within margin of error= 7 pts
TOTAL= 9 pts
Quality pick= 4 pts

CT
US Senate
Dem Primary
Rasmussen
Lamont 51%
Lieberman* 41%

Quinnipiac
Lamont 51%
Lieberman* 45%

Research 2000
Lamont 53%
Lieberman* 43%

Actual
Lamont 52%
Lieberman* 48%

All called race correctly= 1 pt
Only Quinnipiac called margin of victory with error rate= 0,1,0 pts
All three called Lamont total within margin of error= 1 pt
Only Quinnipiac called Lieberman total within error rate- 0,1,0 pts

Rasmussen score= 2 pts
Quinnipiac= 4 pts
Research 2000= 2 pts
Quality pick= 4pts

MI
US Senate
Rep Primary

Survey USA
Bouchard 56%
Butler 33%

Strategic Vision
Bouchard 43%
Butler 37%

Actual
Bouchard 60%
Butler 39%

Both called race correctly= 1 pt
Only Survey USA called margin of victory with error rate= 1, 0 pts
Survey USA called Bouchard total with error rate and Research 2000 called Butler total within error rate= 1 pt

Survey USA= 3 pts
Research 2000= 2 pts
Quality pick= 4 pts

Posted by: RMill | August 9, 2006 8:52 AM | Report abuse

The hysteria of some of the people who have posted here is amusing. Connecticut voters have spoken, America has spoken, et. What a joke. The only people who have spoken are the voters in the Democrat primary in which Lieberman lost by only four percent. The voters of Connecticut will not speak until November. If Lieberman can win as an independent in November it will be because he has the support of the majority of the voters in all of Connecticut not just the radical left wingers who chose to participate in the Democrat primary.

Posted by: Robert | August 9, 2006 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Sandwich

You know the old saying- "Fool me once shame on you..."

I never let it get to fool me twice.

Not sure Lieberman can win in November. Once you lose a high profile race, it usually requires a cooling off period of several years unless you are an up and comer.

I will part company with your assessment however on how the situation needs handling.

If it comes down to ownership of the Senate, there will be a bidding war for Lieberman if he wins as an I (it has already started according to Hardball's Chris Matthews with R's promising committee chairmanship if they retain control).

Lieberman says he will caucus with Dems but if they are too overt and harsh in not just backing Lamont but trashing Lieberman, all bets are off. Be careful what you wish for.

Posted by: RMill | August 9, 2006 8:44 AM | Report abuse

did anyone catch anderson cooper on cnn last
nite dressed in flack jacket drag? if he was
in a really dangerous situation would he not be wearing a matching helmet? i wear a helmet
to ride a bicycle. scene seemed to be staged
in a studio with a war scene background.

Posted by: paul morris | August 9, 2006 8:42 AM | Report abuse

We have to wait on some polling to come in, but I bet Joe is still the odds on favorite to win in Nov. Connecticut has more registered ind. than dems or repubs. Plus has a history of sending Ind. to the Senate(Remember Lowell Weicker)It would be nice if Reid would be stupid enough to strip Joe of some committees, then we could offer Joe some treats to caucus with us. But that is probably asking for to much.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 9, 2006 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Lieberman should give up the race cos I dont get why he would want to divide democratic votes in a state like connecticut. If connecticut democrats dont want him and his a loyal democrat then he should honorably stand down or..........become a repubican!!!!!. I wish you sucess Lamont, Go for it, the senate sit is yours

Posted by: George | August 9, 2006 8:20 AM | Report abuse

I think Gandelman has a nice synopsis of a cross-section of opinion on his Moderate Voice site:

http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1155104339.shtml

I think that Lamont with his mix of netroots and grassroots support has made a start in redefining a new paradigm in American politics. To win in November he will need to broaden his base to moderates and independents. If he is successful in winning in November, he will show a formula useful for the party to follow in 2008.

The first thing Lieberman should be doing as an "Independent Democrat" is stating he will support all Democrats in CT, no matter what their past and future stand on Lamont. Also, he should make an iron clad assurance that he will stay in the Democratic Caucus in the Senate if elected in November.

Talk of stripping Lieberman of all his committee assignments seems vindictive to me at this point, if Lieberman does not agree to the two above conditions, there are real reasons to consider this more extreme alternative. Since Joe has hedged his bets, so should Democrats.

What disturbs me most about Lieberman is his lack of self-awareness. His irritation over the Lamont run shows a thin skin about important issues. If he hasn't learned something from his brushback loss and continues to echo ridiculous Republican charges about the folks who backed Lamont, he deserves to be permanently retired from American politics.

I watched Fox news coverage for awhile and they had really rightwing extremists spouting off as news commentators like David Horowitz (the anchors were not much better). Lieberman supporters like Lanny Davis and Martin Peretz had previously referred to Lamont supporters respectively as Liberal McCarthyites and American Stalinists. Er, these folks are about to teach folks about moderation-- time for them to retire, as well.

I watched the Hardball coverage on CNBC and Lamont supporters to a person refused to set a firm deadline for withdrawal, but indicated a willingness to withdraw at the earliest date possible-- necessary to give the Iraqis a chance for survival and protection of our troops. Hardly a radical viewpoint.

Wherever this caricature of extreme left-wingers came from (probably Karl Rove's overheated imagination) it certainly wasn't in evidence on the ground.
Some bloggers may have gone overboard on the Netroots (see Gandelman above), but the ordinary citizens in CT seemed sane, moderate to liberal, and decent. Supposedly, how Lieberman seeks to portray himself. Why would Lieberman think otherwise unless he himself has become self-deluded and has begun to believe Republican propaganda?

Also, the other primary elections were interesting in that a Republican moderate, Joe Schwartz was thrown out in MI and the loose canon Democrat McKinney lost in GA. Given that none of the other Senators who voted for the Iraq War Resolution (including Hillary) are being challenged, I find it disingenuous how the primary in CT is being spun. The Republicans seem to be doing damage to themselves either for past sins (DeLay and Ney) or for being too moderate (Schwartz).

Democrats are paying the price for allowing politicians like Joe Lieberman (to use Chris Matthews' words to become "too big for their britches"). If Joe isn't going to grow because of his loss, I say Good Riddance. If he starts showing some smarts, then Democrats might have a reason to hedge their bets.

I personally think that given the results in the Democratic primary, the honorable thing for Lieberman would be to withdraw. But, in the real world of politics, where the stakes are more important than Joe Lieberman's career, Democrats need to be flexible. I think that if Lamont can mount a successful campaign, drawing in blue collar Democrats and a large number of Independents, he can provide a positive model for the party to follow (getting the lessons of 1968 right after all these years). I just hope that the positive lessons that intelligent progressives get out of all of this isn't lost in all the over-heated rhetoric, which provides more heat than illumination.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | August 9, 2006 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Why would you even consider an independent Democrat?

Posted by: F&B | August 9, 2006 7:34 AM | Report abuse

There are two stories here, and neither of them is that Joe Lieberman almost came back. The first story is that Democratic revulsion with the president propelled a virtually unknown challenger to victory over the president's Democratic sycophant. The second story is that that Democratic sycophant in the face of the people's will does not bow but continues the same kind of arrogance in the face of the people's will that the president displays in his own governance.

Posted by: Mike Meyer | August 9, 2006 7:32 AM | Report abuse

Probably would vote for the republican, but can't say for sure because I don't much about him. If I had some concerns about his character, I would vote for good old Joe.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 9, 2006 7:22 AM | Report abuse

Hey bhoomes, would you vote for Lieberman as an Indep, or the Republican candidate?

Posted by: F&B | August 9, 2006 7:12 AM | Report abuse

How anyone could not see the writing on the wall when Joe started getting sigs. for the Ind. run in Nov. is beyond me. The people in Conn., Dems to be sure will have another mud-slinger to contend with, to the delight of the LIBERAL media.

Posted by: lylepink | August 9, 2006 7:11 AM | Report abuse

A lot of the left wing fruitcakes are happy today, but not as happy as us republicans. With Joe staying in the race, that should mean the three republican congressional districts in Co. are now safe and either Joe, who I respect, will win or the republican will win. Lamont has no chance as long as Joe stays in the race. Thanks you left wing kooks for unwittingly helping us to victory in November.

Posted by: bhoomes | August 9, 2006 6:54 AM | Report abuse

Dear concern trolls and Republicans masquerading as "Democrats for Joe":

We've got your number now. And your number is up.

Posted by: darylj | August 9, 2006 6:42 AM | Report abuse

ALL residents hired him --but he serviced insurance companies, huge accounting firms, fat cats; ignored working -middle class, non-wealthy. "Good" "decent": utterly irrelevant. "Right wing" in off years and "left-wing" during campaigns: He did not understand requirements of the job. Bullets, bombs, severed limbs, bloated 'war' contracts; stolen jobs, pensions, rights, ala "Patriot" Act: Not Good things for Americans. HE Personally responsible: HOW Enron pigs able to pull off biggest theft in history, his 'work' in 1990s. Residents Fired him. Period. HE does not want to stay fired??? Too damn bad. He'll keep going??? --His Arrogance; will be humiliated twice. Hey Joe: YOU'RE FIRED. Get Out. Your services no longer wanted. Ask your fat cats who wrote big checks for a job. You're D-O-N-E.
I've waited since 1993 to see justice leveled on Joe Lieberman. Yipee.
Next: thug in California's governorship, right-wingers in Senate, House.
http://cancer-politics-remedies.blogspot.com

Posted by: Poppy | August 9, 2006 6:34 AM | Report abuse

If you were ambivalent about Senator Lieberman, his participation in the revolting Schiavo fundamentalist stunts and public posturings should disqualify him from any public office.

And then there is Iraq and all the other neo-con, Likudnik adventures, domestic and foreign.

He is contemptible -- and he has plenty of company in the worst Administration and Congress in US history.

Posted by: drslop | August 9, 2006 6:21 AM | Report abuse

ALL residents hired him --but he serviced insurance companies, huge accounting firms, fat cats; ignored working -middle class, non-wealthy. "Good" "decent": utterly irrelevant. "Right wing" in off years and "left-wing" during campaigns: He did not understand requirements of the job. Bullets, bombs, severed limbs, bloated 'war' contracts; stolen jobs, pensions, rights, ala "Patriot" Act: Not Good things for Americans. HE Personally responsible: HOW Enron pigs able to pull off biggest theft in history, his 'work' in 1990s. Residents Fired him. Period. HE does not want to stay fired???
Too damn bad. He'll keep going??? --Wants to be humiliated twice??? His Arrogance. Hey Joe: YOU'RE FIRED. Get Out. Go home. Your services no longer wanted. Ask fat cats who wrote big checks for a job. You're D-O-N-E.
I've waited since 1993 to see justice leveled on Joe Lieberman. Yipee.
Next: thug in California's governorship, right-wingers in Senate, House.
cancer-politics-remedies.blogspot.com

Posted by: Poppy | August 9, 2006 6:20 AM | Report abuse

Joe -- be a man. Step aside, support Lamont and do what's right for Connecticut and the U.S.

If you run as an Independent, your name is tainted forever.

Posted by: Jayne | August 9, 2006 6:20 AM | Report abuse

It is difficult for me as a non-theist to conclude that Mr. Lieberman has any right at all to the descriptor "moderate" when he himself concluded that my lack of faith made me incapable of morality.

"[We shouldn't] indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." - Joe Lieberman, New York Times Magazine, January 14, 2001

As we struggle - as a nation and a culture - down the path that has continued for these many years towards theocracy and rewarded those who speak such words of hatred and dismissal with the accolades of the chattering classes, a tidal wave of capital, and the blood of innocents which even now stains the sand, I fear that those who rejoice in the tactical victory of Mr. Lamont are ignoring the underlying sickness.

Posted by: PaxChaosium | August 9, 2006 4:49 AM | Report abuse


You Dems are becoming a far leftist party which will never win a national election. You say the Republicans have a far right out of main stream neo-conservative base, well I guess you have your own neo-liberal out of the main stream base that appears to hate anyone that disagrees with a single point in your ongoing tirade. Not only do I support Lieberman as a candidate, but I'll give him a ton of money to see him win as an independent. It appears that the Republican "base" is actually more independent then you ever thought possible. Perhaps that is the problem, the far left rarely thinks as it just uses emotion to drive its meaningless point's home to a very small but unfortunately vocal minority. Good luck ever winning a "real" election, as you haven't won this one as long as Lieberman keeps to his commitment to run as an independent.

Posted by: Daren | August 9, 2006 4:27 AM | Report abuse

"The people of CT have spoken. Lieberman does not listen to the people of his state. He is in this for himself; has been for a long time."

Again, let me reiterate. The people of Connecticut HAVE NOT spoken. Democrats make up around 34-37% and Indepedents make up almost 45% while Republicans make up the rest. On top of that, there was a 30% turnout. So if you're going to argue that Joe Lieberman doesnt, "listen to the people of the state," keep in mind that barely 10% of ELIGIBLE VOTERS even voted, talk less of the entire population.

Oh and yeah, Joe is listening to the Voices of the state. Polls show him trouncing Lamont in a general election by what, 20 point? I dont remember, could be less. But my point is, is that if that pool said that Lieberman would lose by 20 points, then he wouldnt be running as an independent. Any why people couldnt see that is beyond me. Again, let the people of Connecticut be the judge. It's their senator. If they want Joe Lieberman to be elected as an Independent, who are peopel from outside of the state to criticize Joe simply for not running as a Democrat.

P.S. You can be an independent and be liberal. Last time I checked, Independent candidate for the Senate in Vermont is Bernie Sanders, a self admitted Socialist.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 9, 2006 4:18 AM | Report abuse

Frederik,

Its interesting you posted about "Joe's" simultaneously running for Vice-President AND Senator in 2000. The fact he didn't have the courage to go all-out for Vice President, but had to hedge his bets with Senator as backup, forever defined the man for me.

Its history now, but its clear his candidacy in 2000 was a dud (even with Gore's shortcomings), and that if it weren't for him, we would not have gone through the horror of this GWB presidency these last 6 years.

Posted by: Thomas Walters | August 9, 2006 4:14 AM | Report abuse

I find it rather arrogant that people feel that a person running for office in a primary has to abide by the wishes of the people in their party. Joe has extremely broad appeal within the Republican Party, and Independents, and many Democrats. If he has a better chance winning as an independent then as a Democrat, why shouldn't he run as Independent? It's his right. It's the people of Connecticut who will be the judge in the end. It's not about Joe, "having it both ways." And to all of you who have the gall to go around putting down Joem I would tell all of you to get a life. As a Republican from New York, I can definitely understand of that anger is pointed out President Bush. But Lieberman has constantly delivered for his state for the last 30 or so yrs, and he has often put principle before politics.

His critics could learn a thing or two about civility. Especially since it was Lamont, not Joe who lead a smear campaign reminicent of Max Clelands 2002 defeat in his case for re-election.

Posted by: Dorian | August 9, 2006 4:08 AM | Report abuse

Joe Lieberman is the typical me me me politician.

He only thinks of himself. Way back in 2000 he ran simultaneously for vice president and senator from CT, meaning that had Gore won the Dems would have lost a senate seat as CT GOP governor Rowland would have filled the seat with a GOPer. He is only interested in his own position and thus made sure he had a fallback position should the national ticket lose (as it eventually did).

Now the same happened, he bet on two horses by simultaneously running in the primary and even before the primary vote took place, announcing that he wouldn't abide by the result if it was disadvantage to him and thus would mount an independent campaign...

Are these the actions of an honorable man? No, they're the actions of a sanctimoniously arrogant egocentric man.

*snark* Perhaps we should try to entice Chafee to run as an independent in RI too should he lose his primary...

Posted by: Frederik | August 9, 2006 3:35 AM | Report abuse

For the history buffs, read up on Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill and compare their levels of wisdom. A similar comparision could be made regarding liberals and conservatives as we face the growing threat of Islamic Fascism. Of course when emotional knee-jerk reactions is your main source of dialog, it is hard to gain wisdom.

Ignorance is only bliss in the short-term.

Posted by: Think, Don't Emote | August 9, 2006 3:24 AM | Report abuse

Joe will be back and will Win. His party will look like hell again. Just what the Rep.s want. Too back - but the Dems are a split party. A no-win picture. Rats!

Posted by: Joe | August 9, 2006 3:06 AM | Report abuse

I hope it become's a referundum on who can create, and lead a better vision.......

BTF

;)

Posted by: Talcott | August 9, 2006 3:01 AM | Report abuse

Concession? What concession.

Sore Loserman did *NOT* concede. He literally announced told the voters of CT to screw themselves and that he wants a redo.

Watch the Democratic Party leaders start lining up for Lamont. So far, they have.

* Lautenberg
* Edwards
* Clinton (Hillary)
* Bayh

Tomorrow Reid (NV) and Schumer are going to make announcements. Watch Harry Reid announce that Loserman's Senate committee positions will be forfeit if he opts to run against the Democratic Party nominee.

Posted by: Longship | August 9, 2006 3:01 AM | Report abuse

For those who care about Joe, go to the previous post to see my comment. It will wise you up.

Posted by: lylepink | August 9, 2006 2:30 AM | Report abuse

What?? Exactly what did Gene McCarthy lose in a landslide?? He forced Johnson into retirement! If you think "McCarthyism" refers to Eugene, and not Joe, you are deeply misinformed. RFK easily had that election if he'd lived. As it was, with 18 year olds not having the vote as they do now, Nixon beat Humphrey by 0.7%. And what severe losses in 1968? There is no one around as liberal as McGovern or as incompetent at running a campaign.

Bush is toast. The Republicans are toast. THE WAR is toast. The times, they are a-changin.

Don't eat with your hands, son! Use your entrenching tool.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | August 9, 2006 2:10 AM | Report abuse

I was astounded at the depth of sheer arrogance in Whining Joe's "concession" speech. Apparently, losing a primary election with a record turnout means only that he'll jump ship to start a Lieberman for Lieberman Party.

The worst that can happen if Sore Loserman does run as an independent is that the Democratic vote will be split and he or the official Republican candidate will be elected in November. This will change the Senate how? Connecticut will continue to have a senator who votes with the Bush administration on every major issue.

Such self-centered lust for power is not what we tell our kids the democratic system is all about.

Posted by: Isaac Bonewits | August 9, 2006 1:56 AM | Report abuse

Game over, Senator Lieberman. You ran the race, and you lost. Now we will see whether you are indeed motivated by public service, and so agree to support a fellow Democrat, with whose positions - despite the name-calling engaged in by both you and your campaign in recent days - you hopefully still have more in common than with the Bush Administration's... or whether instead you are willing to divide the Democratic Party to satisfy your ego.

My previous impression of the senator was of a man who may not always have made decisions i would agree with, especially on the issues of Iraq (and his implicit - sometimes obvious - support of Bush policies) and economic policy, but a man nevertheless who made his decisions with integrity and an eye toward supporting the greater good. That impression has now been tarnished, and if he makes good on his threat to run as an independent, it will be irrevocably stained - especially if the current crop of criminals is able to retain control of Congress as a result of bickering among the democrats.

That said, i do happen to believe that the often-repeated Republican attack on the Democratic party's supposed lack of a unifying theme or philosophy actually reflects a party unwilling to stifle differing opinion. One main reason that i am a democrat is actually that i do not feel constrained by the party to believe this that or the other thing. That's a unifying philosphy, and one to be proud of... the idea that you have the right / privilege / responsibility to inform yourself and make up your own mind.

However, within the Democratic framework and especially in the current context, the senator owes it to not only his constituents but to the nation as a whole - sure to feel the impact of his decision one way or the other - to support the nominee of the party which he has represented in Congress for many years and to which he claims to still belong. We cannnot all vote in CT, but in this closely and bitterly divided political landscape, his decision will echo across the country. you know what, Joe? I respect your experience and years spent in the game, but according to its rules, you're out.
Now batting for the Democrats...
Ned... Lamont..

Posted by: meuphys | August 9, 2006 1:54 AM | Report abuse

The funny thing about calling the democrats a one issue party and looking down on them for it is the fact that the issue being referred to is one of the worst and most unproductive wars in American history. The way we attacked Iraq was anti-American, and the fact that we are still there occupying their country and killing their people is disgusting as well. What person with any kind of a conscience can actually support the war at this point? Republican, Democrat, they're just words that get thrown around. It would be more useful if the words "human" and "compassion" were used more in this country. Fortunately, it seems more and more people are using their moral judgment these days, and Lamont's victory is proof of this. Let's hope it stays that way and that people can see through the propaganda thrown at them by politicians like Lieberman and Bush. At least now we can be a little bit more optimistic about the direction this country is going in.

Posted by: AEF | August 9, 2006 1:47 AM | Report abuse

Finally a person that has the gut's to say this war is wrong and not try to play both sides. GO Lamont!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 9, 2006 1:47 AM | Report abuse

Common Sense, I'm sure that Lieberman is a good person but as a politician, he has been anything but good and decent.

I lost faith in Lieberman after that speech where he condemned criticism against Bush as a threat to national security.

And his campaign has been appalling. From screwing over his party with his self-absorbed run as an "independent democrat" (which is not even allowed, hence his own personal political party), to his crying poor even though as an incumbent he holds a massive advantage there and has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from various lobbying groups (especially insurance). Now he accuses Lamont of sabotoging his campaign when it is known that his campaign has sent their own thugs to disrupt Lamonts speeches.

I believe Lieberman is decent man but he sold out the democratic party long ago. This is the democratic party, the voters chose their candidate. The good and decent thing to do is support that candidate.

Posted by: Publius | August 9, 2006 1:38 AM | Report abuse

Lamont胜了,恭喜你.希望你能阻止小布什发动的伊拉克战争.瞧你美国把世界搞得乱七八糟的,有朝一日,等中国强大了,非收拾你们不可,最起码也得把小日本给宰了.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 9, 2006 1:36 AM | Report abuse

SR - you said "Like my Dad says, think back to Vietnam. In 1966 or 67, just a few lonely, courageous voices like Wayne Morse were campaigning against the war. By 1968 that sentiment was in the clear majority. It already is now. History repeats itself...

And I say think back to the severe Democratic losses in 68 and 72. Anti-war McCarthy lost in a land slide. You are absolutely right - history does repeat itself. Tonight is the night that signifies a return to McCarthyism and more Democratic casualities in the years ahead. Maybe it's time to pick up that history book again.

Posted by: Jim | August 9, 2006 1:34 AM | Report abuse

I'll go a step further and submit that Joe Lieberman should begin a new third party and call on those with common sense of both parties to join him this fall for a true return to power of the people.

What a great person to be a part of a third way of politics.

I think it's possible.

Posted by: Common Sense | August 9, 2006 1:31 AM | Report abuse

He's a student like you...

Posted by: Anonymous | August 9, 2006 1:30 AM | Report abuse

Joe Lieberman is an honest and decent man. A man that we all would be proud to know. He's worked hard for what's right in this world.

Some of these Democrats who are now supporting Lamont just because he won the primary, even though Lieberman is still going to run, just absolutely surprise me.

They should stand with Joe Lieberman and not behind this hate monger of an opponent he faced, Lamont.

Joe Lieberman is a good and decent man and I say, give em hell Joe!

Posted by: Common Sense | August 9, 2006 1:25 AM | Report abuse

RMill: Would you be interested in a friendly wager that, if CT SEN remains a 3 way race to Election Day, Lamont will win? I really don't think Lieberman can do it. I don't think the deft handling is needed. They can pretend to be very sorry, but he's gone and there's nothing they can do about it. Look, Paul Wellstone is dead, and Mel Carnahan never even got to take the oath for the seat he won. At least Lieberman is still alive.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | August 9, 2006 1:21 AM | Report abuse

It is a shame that Lieberman is so arrogant. He is gaming the system, he knows it, we all know it. One chance win, or lose, not two chances. I think Lieberman will win, getting many Repbulican votes, plus his own supporters, but it doesn't make it right.

Posted by: citizen | August 9, 2006 1:16 AM | Report abuse

Eating our own is just what the Republicans want...right. Just like the Club for Growth trying to oust Sen. Specter, Sen. Chafee, and Rep. Schwartz in Michigan (which they succeeded at tonight). Here's a quarter, buy some reality.

Lamont's win hardly means Democrats are a one-issue party. But if you don't think the war is far and away the most pressing moral issue of our time, I don't know what you're smoking.

Porgie: Holy Mudhead, Mackeral! I don't believe it--another Firesign fan!!!

I'd like to remind folks that the latest Rasmussen poll showed Lamont and Lieberman TIED at 40%, with Schlesinger at 13%, in a three way race. Lieberman isn't going to win the general, there's a good chance he'll be forced to withdraw before he even gets there. It's such a joke to read these ridiculous comments about what a purist marginalized party we are for electing Lamont. Like my Dad says, think back to Vietnam. In 1966 or 67, just a few lonely, courageous voices like Wayne Morse were campaigning against the war. By 1968 that sentiment was in the clear majority. It already is now. History repeats itself...

Jim: Jim Jeffords gets his committee assignments from the DEMOCRATS. Because he left the REPUBLICANS and gave control of the Senate to DEMOCRATS. Most of the Republicans there hate him. Lieberman's case is nothing like Jeffords' and if it were, the Republicans should be giving him committee assignments now, not the Dems. I'm not worried though. Democrats who support Lieberman now will be few and far between. Evan Bayh is a terrific barometer of that, since his own positions change with the winds of political opportunity. Obviously he knows it's toxic to support Lieberman now. You know he wants to, but his ambition thinks better of it.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | August 9, 2006 1:14 AM | Report abuse

Putting in a quick two cents before I go to bed.

I was wrong! Lieberman made it close but never really gained any Joementum all evening. I will admit I am a little surprised that the vote wasn't closer.

I did not think all undecideds would turn to Lieberman and the 8,000 or so votes they may have represented would not have turned the tide.

I based this on past experience but it did not pan out in CT. Thats the problem with not being on the ground.

I think that this has two major impacts:

1) Bad news for Bush and the Republicans. The anti-war message energized CT Dems. If it does the same around the country, expect large turnover in both the House and the Senate.

2) Bad for the Dems that Lieberman will run as an I.

I mentioned this some weeks ago that having Liebrman in the US Senate despite the efforts of the Democratic Party could halt take over of the Senate. This situation needs to be deftly handled by Reid and Clinton among others. If he wins as an I, there cannot be bad blood in its wake or it will jeopardize the Senate takeover by the Dems.

How to back the will of the people and the Democratic nominee without trashing Lieberman (from official sources and without fingerprints leading back to them). That may well be the key to retaking control of the US Senate come January 2007.

Good night. I'll be happy to read comments and eat crow in the morning.

Posted by: RMill | August 9, 2006 1:13 AM | Report abuse

Ha! Comparing Jim Jeffords to Joe Lieberman is totally incongruous.

One last point Id like to make. Joe Lieberman was all about "moving forward together" and yet not ONCE did he mention his WIFE or family in his concession speech. Lamont passionately thanked his wife, kids, mom, dad, aunt, etc. Family values kids. Lieberman is a loser. Lamont is the true Dem. Hurray for Ned!

Posted by: F&B | August 9, 2006 1:08 AM | Report abuse

the politics of polarization! Joe's not happy the Dems have started to get a clue that 6 years of appeasment on the part of Dems isn't working - failures everywhere but hey, let's provide them with some more cover, yeah that's the ticket!

The Republican's are all about the politics of polarization and ex-Senator Lieberman wants us not to see it, not to oppose it. Joe has serious honesty issues.

Posted by: oyster | August 9, 2006 1:02 AM | Report abuse

Joe seems to think that a Senate seat is a lifetime appoinment.

This hypocrite worries about violence in video games, while overlooking it in Iraq. He condemned Clinton for a sexual indiscretion, but kisses upto Bush, who repeatedly violates the Constitution...

Posted by: Kris | August 9, 2006 12:57 AM | Report abuse

By the way... for all of you suggesting that Joe is going to be sidelined by the Dem leadership and have no influence, I have two words. Jim Jeffords. He has gotten along just fine as an independent. Joe's annoucement may be the trigger that unity08.com has been looking for.

Posted by: Jim | August 9, 2006 12:57 AM | Report abuse

By the way... for all of you suggesting that Joe is going to be sidelined by the Dem leadership and have no influnce, I have two words. Jim Jeffords. He has gotten along just fine as an independent. Joe's annoucement may be the tipping point for unity08.com.

Posted by: Jiim | August 9, 2006 12:56 AM | Report abuse

An army of College Republicans, lobbyists, and members of the incumbents for incumbents party (rules above all) almost won it for Joe, wonder what Lamont gave Waters or Moveon for pulling for him?

Posted by: flounder | August 9, 2006 12:55 AM | Report abuse

I am sorry about the accidental double post. The second one was me too. I don't know why 'HIb' showed up as the name the second time.

Posted by: Jon | August 9, 2006 12:54 AM | Report abuse

A few key points:
1. Turnout was at record levels, and large numbers of Independents reregistered as Democrats so that they could participate in this primary. This wasn't just a few activists voting on a hot summer day. No, it was a broad cross section of Connecticut voters who know Lieberman well, and decided that 18 years was long enough.

2. Still, Lieberman refuses to accept the judgments of the voters, his constituents the people he is supposed to be working for. In essence, he demands a do over. What arrogance. What a sore loser. What strong evidence that he has been in Washington for too long. What an undignified and bitter concession speech he gave tonight.

3. Let there be no confusion. This primary was decided on a whole host of issues that have nothing to do with the Iraq war.

For a partial list of them (with explanations and citations), see

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/4/222041/6912

4. Now that Lieberman has not only lost his primary, and by announcing his idependent run demonstrated his contempt for the voters and his own party, every Democratic politician in the land should endorse Ned Lamont publicly and loudly an repeatedly in Connecticut. That means you: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Obama, Harry Reid, Gore, Schumer, Dodd, Barbara Boxer, etc.

5. It will be interesting to see Lieberman tack to the right now that he has lost the primary. He may show himself to be quite an unprincipled flip flopper (from Bush enabler and the most right wing blue State Democratic Senator prior to the primary, to a true blue Democrat -- or so he claimed -- during the primary, back again to a right winger.)

6. The lobbyists & entrenched incumbents who like business as usual are feeling a bit more nervous tonight than they were.

Posted by: Hib | August 9, 2006 12:54 AM | Report abuse

I'm thrilled Lamont won, but folks are missing the real story out of todays results -- not just Lieberman, but other incumbent members of Congress lost tonight (Cynthia McKinney in GA, Joe Schwarz in Michigan). When is the last time three incumbents lost primaries in the same year, let alone the same night?

Lincoln Chaffee has got to be scared ... he's the next vulnerable incumbent facing a tough challenge. But I think all of the "ins" need to be worried about what it means in November (and since there seem to be many more endangered Republican incumbents than Democrats, and they are the party in power, the Republicans should be really worried by the direction of this narrative.)

And let's hope the press doesn't keep advancing the absurd argument that this is about some left-wing purge of "moderate" Democrats -- how can people even have that conversation on the same night that a loyally conservative Republican lost his seat in Michigan to a right wing fundamentalist just because he wasn't a true believer on social issues like abortion and gay marriage. Are all of the national news commentators warning about the impact of a Lamont victory going to start warning about how the Republicans are purging their moderates and that is to the detriment of our system? Of course not... conservatives have been purging the Republican ranks of perceived heretics for more than a decade, and there is virtually no bipartisanship left on that side of the aisle. It is dangerous when Democrats do it, but just politics when Republicans do? Get real.

And finally, if Democrats are all crazed pseudo-commies ready to jump off the edge of the nearest left wing cliff in the name of ideological purity, shouldn't Cynthia McKinney have won in a landslide?

Maybe today wasn't all about ideology and purity-- maybe it was just voters in their respective parties deciding that they preferred their nominees to be someone they agree with on issues and who they feel will represent them better in Washington than the current incumbents do. Democracy -- what a concept. Maybe we'll see some more of it November...

Posted by: Terje | August 9, 2006 12:52 AM | Report abuse

C'mon Joe, give it up. There's a cushy job at Faux News just waiting for you.

Posted by: John | August 9, 2006 12:52 AM | Report abuse

The primary is over. Netroots - please get over the fact that Joe is no longer on the Democratic ticket. As a (formerly) moderate Dem, I am now fed up with the party and no longer consider myself a Democrat in this day and age. the netroots are obviously upset since they know that Lamont (as a left winger) has maximized his potential and will lose in the general election. Too bad so sad.....

Posted by: Jim | August 9, 2006 12:49 AM | Report abuse

So Lieberman, in one final betrayal of the party that has been so good to him, will now run as an independent. I do not know much about Connecticut politics but I am sure of one thing. The big winner of that stupid decission has to be the republicans. What a self centered as* hole. Has he no shame? He has been stabbing the democrats in the back for six years now. Enough already, get lost loser!

Posted by: Ralph Hobe | August 9, 2006 12:49 AM | Report abuse

A few key points:
1. Turnout was at record levels, and large numbers of Independents reregistered as Democrats so that they could participate in this primary. This wasn't just a few activists voting on a hot summer day. No, it was a broad cross section of Connecticut voters who know Lieberman well, and decided that 18 years was long enough.

2. Still, Lieberman refuses to accept the judgments of the voters, his constituents the people he is supposed to be working for. In essence, he demands a do over. What arrogance. What a sore loser. What strong evidence that he be in Washington for too long. What an undignified and bitter concession speak he gave tonight.

3. Let there be no confusion. This primary was decided on a whole host of issues that have nothing to do with the Iraq war.

For a partial list of them (with explanations and citations), see

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/4/222041/6912

4. Now that Lieberman has not only lost his primary, but by announcing his idependent run demonstrated his contempt for the voters and his own party, every Democratic politician in the land should endorse Ned Lamont publicly and loudly an repeatedly in Connecticut. That means you: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Obama, Harry Reid, Gore, Schumer, Dodd, Barbara Boxer, etc.

5. It will be interesting to see Lieberman tack to the right now that he has lost the primary. He may show himself to be quite an unprincipled flip flopper (from Bush enabler and the most right wing blue State Democratic Senator prior to the primary, to a true blue Democrat -- or so he claimed -- during the primary, back again to a right winger.)

6. The lobbyists & entrenched incumbents who like business as usual are feeling a bit more nervous tonight than they were.

Posted by: Jon | August 9, 2006 12:48 AM | Report abuse

What I hate about this whole race Lieberman has made with not accepting the results of the voters, is that he claims he's a descent man and that we ought to act civil in of all things politics. Politics, is like football and boxing, there's a lot of bruising, a lot of hits and a lot of blood. That's how the game goes and he's saying let's do ballet. If he wants to do ballet that's fine but take it somewhere else.

Posted by: Brian | August 9, 2006 12:47 AM | Report abuse

Be sure to contact your Democratic Congress Critters and let them know what you think of Joementum's decision to run as an "Independent".

Posted by: Zelph | August 9, 2006 12:44 AM | Report abuse

SN

Joe LOST....if the Dems are smart, since he has announced his decision to run as an independent, he'll arrive tomorrow or the next day in Washington, DC to find ALL HIS DEM priviledges gone, including his committees. If he cannot respect the party's voice, he cannot be in the party.

As for teaching us bloggers something...good luck....we will only get more powerful as we figure out new ways to link up and spread our brand of politics...we are tired of the rich owning the political system.

Porgie Tirebiter

Posted by: Porgie Tirebiter | August 9, 2006 12:43 AM | Report abuse

Joe, don't change the rules as you go along. You lost the party primary, accept the will of the majority and step aside. You look like someone who cares more about self-preservation than for the people of Connecticut. You ran for senate while you were on the presidential party ticket. The Connecticut senate seat was your insurance policy.....that's how much you are driven by self-interest. For once be a true team player and for the sake of the party, please take a bow!!

Posted by: Randolph | August 9, 2006 12:41 AM | Report abuse

Say Joe,

You Lost!!!accept it and move on in your life!!

P.S. George Bush and the wacko's repukes are nexts!!!

Posted by: CuriousJoe | August 9, 2006 12:41 AM | Report abuse

SN:

There's always hope against hope! But I think you are wrong on this one. People are sick of being told that any dissent on the war issue is unpatriotic of them. Same kind of thing happened in the Joe McCarthy era, but by late 1954 his name was more disgraced than Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, and Randy "Duke" Cunningham put together.

We like to call the masses "sheep", but you can only push and manipulate American minds for so long before they simply get tired of you. Lieberman fell victim to this, and I say good riddance.

Posted by: Ronwell Dobbs | August 9, 2006 12:40 AM | Report abuse

Joe Lieberman, fortunately, will not let the single-issue zealots who came out in droves today speak for the majority Connecticut voters. Connecticut is lucky to have a real independent in Joe -- a man who stays with his principles and doesn't blow with the wind. If being a "real" Dem, as some would have it, is bowing to an invasion of the likes of Marcy Kaptur, Maxine Waters and moveon.org, woe to the "purist" party. They'll find they're more marginalized than ever. Don't worry, Joe, about the bloggers or the Dem establishment. There are plenty of Dems out there who can see more than one issue at a time and only wish there were more Senators like you. We, independents and moderate Republicans will teach the blogosphere a lesson in November.

Posted by: SN | August 9, 2006 12:40 AM | Report abuse

Joe Lieberman, fortunately, will not let the single-issue zealots who came out in droves today speak for the majority Connecticut voters. Connecticut is lucky to have a real independent in Joe -- a man who stays with his principles and doesn't blow with the wind. If being a "real" Dem, as some would have it, is bowing to an invasion of the likes of Marcy Kaptur, Maxine Waters and moveon.org, woe to the "purist" party. They'll find they're more marginalized than ever. Don't worry, Joe, about the bloggers or the Dem establishment. There are plenty of Dems out there who can see more than one issue at a time and only wish there were more Senators like you. We, independents and moderate Republicans will teach the blogosphere a lesson in November.

Posted by: SN | August 9, 2006 12:40 AM | Report abuse

The "one issue" that truly seems to dominate Mideast foreign policy is protection of Israel. Lieberman was unabashed about how it was more important for American young men and women to die in Iraq to protect a country that should be able to protect itself by now (or not).

Voters rejected him for the wealth of reasons listed in a previous post, but don't for a moment think that this didn't enter into it. Perhaps Americans are learning to view the widening Mideast conflict with a wider lens.

Posted by: Ronwell Dobbs | August 9, 2006 12:40 AM | Report abuse

Chris

We called it last month ...

We called it last month ...

Breaking News! Lieberman Pledges To Support "Whichever Party Elects Me"
Post-Debate Bombshell - Lieberman Announces Plan C - Will Run In All 50 States
Hires Nader For 'Underdog" Experience; Pledges To Support "Whichever Party Elects Me"
http://puregarlic.blogspot.com/2006/07/breaking-news-lieberman-pledges-to.html

Peace
JTD

Posted by: J. Thomas Duffy | August 9, 2006 12:29 AM | Report abuse

I hope that Schumer does the right thing and endorse Lamont tomorrow. Otherwise, Schumer will be facing a primary opponent the next time he runs for the Senate.

Posted by: Ancient Purple | August 9, 2006 12:28 AM | Report abuse

The people of CT have spoken. Lieberman does not listen to the people of his state. He is in this for himself; has been for a long time.

Posted by: Arturo | August 9, 2006 12:27 AM | Report abuse

Hey Boris, please let me know how these six years of Bush appeasement have helped Dems win broader elections.

And for the record, this "single issue" has resulted in the loss of thousands of American lives; hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives; countless more physically maimed, orphaned or mentally damaged; a bloody civil war resulting in the balkanization of radical religious elements in the middle east; Iran and North Korea marching forward with their nuclear ambitions with impunity; a destruction of moral authority and diplomatic relationships; a blind eye to contractor corruption and kickbacks; billions and billions of war debt, human rights violations in the murder and torture of Iraqi captives; illegal surveillance of American citizens, bald faced lies to the American public; manipulation of security intelligence for the purpose of winning votes; illegal outing of intelligence workers who don't "play ball"; a critical strain on our energy supply; and emboldened jihadists throughout the Middle East trying their best to lure us into another ill-conceived mess.

Geeze man, what other "single issue" or holding onto? Joe's greatest achievement is fighting for a fillibuster we can never use. Where do I sign up? Sheesh.

Posted by: SWB | August 9, 2006 12:25 AM | Report abuse

The nasty attitude of Liebermans concession speech, and his threats to immediately run as an Independent give everyone an inkling to the real Joe. I had a few gracious words for his past service, but trashed them. Did you hear any of the typically gracious words to the winner out of his selfish mouth? When his 'dial-up' site crashed from an overload and Lamonts team offered part of their site to him did you hear any words of thanks for that. No he just insinuated again that he had been hacked.
So its good by Joe and don't let the door hit you in the ass. And now that he's officially NOT our Democratic candidate, or a Democrat, he better not get one penny of Democratic Campaign dollars. That includes the DSCC.

Posted by: hazmaq | August 9, 2006 12:24 AM | Report abuse

****And if Lamont were a decent man, he'd have distanced himself from the scorched earth tactics of the left-wing blogosphere long ago. Instead, he embraced the blogosphere, and by extension their smear campaign against Joe Lieberman. ****

First, I am a blogger who attacked Joe Lieberman, and I have ROUTINELY attacked the ENTIRE Bush administration. That being said, I do not know Lamont, have not met him. He had no CONTROL OVER ME, or my CHOSEN MESSAGES on my various blogs. That is the beauty about us as bloggers...you IGNORE US at your own risk.

Gone are the days when Politicians could pay a small amount of lip service to the AVERAGE AMERICAN, while catering to, and pressing palms with the rich and elite. We may not have the money, but we have shown with Joe Lieberman, that the size of your war chest NO LONGER MATTERS, we can and will go after you, and we will TAKE YOU DOWN.

As I said in my earlier posts, BLOGGERS have ARRIVED, and we have POWER...which is why I have started another blog called, "Bloggers Political Party(tm)". We are a force, we are a movement, and we will BREAK THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM by linking together, and FORCING OUR OWN AGENDA to the FRONT BURNER.

Oh...just so you know, Joe Lieberman is NOT our only target in the Bloggosphere...for instance, a whole group of us here in New York have our sites on seeing Sue Kelly defeated in the 19th District.

Porgie Tirebiter
http://porgietirebiter.bravejournal.com/

Posted by: Porgie Tirebiter | August 9, 2006 12:21 AM | Report abuse

What kind of politician expects never have a primary challenge? To what extent will he work against his own party? Come on Joe, don't be that way.

Posted by: Leigh Evans | August 9, 2006 12:18 AM | Report abuse

Seriously D. Olstein, what are you talking about. Lamont "smeared" Lieberman? If by "smear" you mean he talked about Joe's conservative views on privacy (terry schiavo), choice (supporting hospitals decision not to distribute birth control + refusing to filibuster Alito), SS privatization (which joe has supported in the past), and school vouchers then i suppose he did.

Look, somewhere along the line Joe decided that he likes being liked by conservative republicans like Sean Hanity and the fox news crowd more than he likes living up to the principles of the Democratic party. That's fine, I suppose, but it means he's not longer a democrat - let alone a progressive - and pointing out that fact isn't a smear. It's just saying that the sky is blue. I suggest you stop whining and officially change your registration to Republican. You may feel more at home in that camp.

Posted by: Colin | August 9, 2006 12:14 AM | Report abuse

It is really sad to watch a guy like Lieberman grow so arrogant and out of touch. As if we needed more evidence of this after his "how-dare-they" primary campaign --- as soon as it is over and he is cast out by a clear majority in a huge, historic voter turnout, he announces that the vote "cannot stand." What a sore loser. What a loser.

Posted by: Jeff | August 9, 2006 12:13 AM | Report abuse

pardon the typos...

hearing him say he won't let the results of a fair election stand just burns me up...

Posted by: No Mulligans | August 9, 2006 12:09 AM | Report abuse

As a show of unity, the Senate Dem leadership needs to immediately strip Leiberman of all committee chairs and seniority now that he has renounced ordinary dem voters. Sore loser (didn't he say before that he would run as an indie because turnout would be low and he didn't want so few to choose his path?)

Posted by: flounder | August 9, 2006 12:08 AM | Report abuse

"He will not let the result stand"

Who does he think he is?

Some Democrat/democrat...I wonder what he would say if a losing Iraqi politician made such a statement...

Someone needs to start a collection and give Joe a civics lesson of democracy...

He didn't care about the his constiuents for 18 years other than during election years, and today, he continues the nasty trend...

what a dishonest politician...he may be an admirable man...but he is a lousy and distasteful politician...

Posted by: No Mulligans | August 9, 2006 12:07 AM | Report abuse

I am sad to see that a person capable of cool-headed bipartisanship; and who has a conviction to be honest to his heart and not just to follow the party line gets this kind of treatment. I am a committed Democrat, but I am afraid that this kind of hysteria which sweeps capable leaders out of office for the offenses against orthodoxy will lead Democrats to defeat in broader elections.

I do not think Democratic party, a party of Roosevelt, Kennedy and Clinton should imitate Republicans by becoming a one-issue party, and with a negative policy even in that.

Posted by: Boris Aleksandrovsky | August 9, 2006 12:04 AM | Report abuse

>

And if Lamont were a decent man, he'd have distanced himself from the scorched earth tactics of the left-wing blogosphere long ago. Instead, he embraced the blogosphere, and by extension their smear campaign against Joe Lieberman. Lamont could have run an honorable campaign based on the argument that while Lieberman is a solid progressive on most issues of importance to Democrats, his support of the war in Iraq disqualified him from being the Democratic nominee. Instead, Lamont chose to misrepresent Lieberman's record and paint him as a Bush clone.

Posted by: D. Olstein | August 9, 2006 12:01 AM | Report abuse

The decent thing for George Bush to do is appoint our friend Joe as US ambassador to Iraq. He can then report back on the tremendous progress our Commander-in- Chief is making. An appointment as undersecretary for Donald Rumsfeld would not be out of place either.

Go for it Joe!!!!

Posted by: Oscar | August 8, 2006 11:59 PM | Report abuse

Lamont's win in Connecticut is BIG for all kinds of reasons, least among them the fact that Americans are sending a clear message that Bush's STAY THE COURSE in Iraq is NOT GOING TO BE TOLERATED. Lieberman lost fair and square, but is showing he's not a decent Democrat, that he's guilty of treason to the party as he was charged with in the primary...if it were not so, he would have conceded, and offered to help see Lamont elected.

Even more important tonight...BLOGGERS have COME OF AGE as a political force to be reckoned with. We no longer will sit back and watch politicians ignore us and our views because we ARE NOT RICH AND ELITE. From this day forward, politicians ignore bloggers at thier own perile. We may not be able to attend $2,500 a plate dinners, but we can get our message out with a view links TO MILLIONS OF READERS without spending a dime, and Lieberman's DEFEAT tonight shows we are for real, and a force to be reckoned with...THAT IS THE REAL STORY TONIGHT.

Porgie Tirebiter
http://porgietirebiter.bravejournal.com/

Posted by: Porgie Tirebiter | August 8, 2006 11:58 PM | Report abuse

"who, like Lieberman, has close ties to moderates within the party "

Mr. Cillizza, please regale us with your definition of "moderate." Moderate as in wanting to privatize social security? Moderate as in the Bankruptcy bill? Moderate as in Justice Alito?

Moderate as in Sean Hannity moderate? Bill O'Reilly moderate? Fox News moderate? Yeah, that's how "moderate" Joe Lieberman is.

You need to get out of the office more. There's a whole other world out here, dude.

Posted by: James | August 8, 2006 11:57 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Lamont as a Senator!?!?! Who woudda thunk it?

Posted by: Leebrrrman | August 8, 2006 11:57 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman claims "the politics of polarization won today," yet he's the candidate who sanctioned the creation of a childish anti-Lamont web site attacking the candidate for his wealth and a host of other traits completely un-germane to the issues facing CT and the country and the political debate in general.

Posted by: Guy B. Jones | August 8, 2006 11:56 PM | Report abuse

At least Lieberman didn't claim a two-way tie for first this time ;-)

Posted by: Steve | August 8, 2006 11:55 PM | Report abuse

Kim - Nobody, not one person with any decency advocated federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case. And, no, that's not Republicans want. They want Joe back in the Senate! Bush, Rush, Sean - they love him to pieces!

Posted by: johng | August 8, 2006 11:49 PM | Report abuse

If Lieberman were a decent man -- or, as he claims, a loyal Democrat -- then he'd admit defeat and get out of the race. As it is, he's too besotted with himself and too in love with being a US Senator to do the honorable thing.

Posted by: eck | August 8, 2006 11:49 PM | Report abuse

Get a life, John. He's a decent man. The voters have spoken...do we have to eat our own? That's what the Republicans want.

Posted by: Kim | August 8, 2006 11:45 PM | Report abuse

I dont understand why Republicans are so happy with Joe running as an Indep. If he loses and Lamont wins, that's terrible for them. If he wins, there is effectively no change, as Joe will be an "independent" Democrat. Every single Republican caller from CT on Cspan says they are voting for Joe and not the Republican candidate.

Either way it's a win for the Dems, plus the shockwave of Ned beating Joe in the primary.

A good night for the Dems! Woo hoo!

Posted by: F&B | August 8, 2006 11:42 PM | Report abuse

Holy Joe, now known as "Senator Do-Over" and "Senator Mulligan".

What a self-absorbed jerk.

Posted by: John | August 8, 2006 11:36 PM | Report abuse

Ah, should it now be "Senator Do-Over" or "Senator Mulligan"?

Holy Joe, what a self-absorbed jerk.

Posted by: John | August 8, 2006 11:29 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company