« What Does "First" Mean Again? | Main | Using Caller ID on the Third Rate Crank Phone Calls »

July 07, 2006

Comments

Speaking of memories of Lieberman as a drag to the 2000 ticket, I sure would like to hear what his former running mate thinks of his behavior in this primary.

So far the most I've heard is that Lieberman is a friend, but he won't endorse him and doesn't endorse any primaries (which will be news to Howard Dean, whom he endorsed).

It was good to hear Lamont say "This isn't about somebody's career, but about the people of Connecticut." That was a good jab.

Lieberman appeared flushed in the face. As many noted, he seemed angry.

Lieberman tended to dribble on at length. Lamont said what he had to say and concluded each thrust or parry succinctly.

I didn't see the whole debate, but from what I saw Lieberman constantly interruptred and took extra time, disrespecting the woman moderator or questioner in particular. He acted very entitled and aggressive, and at the same time acted very whiny and like a victim. Very, very unattractive qualities in my book. I can't believe he appealed to many women, unless they like that schtick. Lamont was fresh-faced and earnest, but a little inexperienced. But he got off some good lines. It really is a contest between the old and the new, and should gove us an indication of how much perople want change.

I'm not looking closely, I admit it. But it's looking more and more like predicting a Lamont win wouldn't be all that crazy.

Easier to predict, though, is the reaction from Right Blogistan: the only election the Lefty Netroots can win is one in which they eat their own.

Of course, he's not really our own. But it points out the special responsibility we'll have for winning the general, if successful in the primary. And the special role Lieberman's independent/spoiler bid can play in discrediting us, if we let it happen.

As Connecticut's grassroots Dems approach the tipping point after which a Lamont victory is a reasonable likelihood, some of the focus is going to have to shift toward deligitimizing the independent bid entirely, so as to minimize whatever spoiler effect there is. Though maybe that task can be taken up nationally, rather than making Connecticut's grassroots responsible for everything.

Recently I had a DSL line installed, and it has been very off and on -- and of all times to have literally no access -- yesterday was a "fine" time. I've pushed a few buttons and maybe things have fixed -- but I an knocking on wood with crossed fingers.

Anyhow, I thought Lamont did fine. I would have preferred a bit more of drawing differences -- for instance on his support for the CT Parent-teachers, school boards and Teachers who have gone into Fed. Court on the inflexible qualities of No Child Left Behind, in some measure because Lieberman would not help them deal with the Department of Education on a policy matter that questioned a Bush Program -- but lets hope Lamont will now have larger audiences, and he can push such differences with the likely voters.

Is the Lamont Campaign doing the things now that will make GOTV work in August??? Are they identifying their voters so they can contact them just before election day? Do they have precinct based field organizations where appropriate that can do GOTV? Do they have an absentee voter strategy for those who will be vacationing in early August? Some of these things may well be located in groups that have endorsed rather than just in the campaign itself -- but what I want to know is whether the tactical thinking necessary is up and running?

By the way, the float is great -- I assume it drives around 24-7 between now and August.

It is ironic that the netroots is receiving so much flak for supporting Lamont's bid against Lieberman, while the support of labor and some other interest groups for key GOP House incumbents and Senators goes mostly unremarked, except at TAPPED and Noam Scheiber, who is linked in that piece.

here are my thoughts cut and pasted from an email I sent to a friend:

lieberman whining all the time, god what an awful voice.

But joe was far, far more aggressive against lamont than he was against Cheney, and that makes me despise him more.

lieberman on most of his answers was fine re: content, but poorly delivered. lamont stuck to his message, and largely stayed positive - very skillful at this. lieb was the one on the attack.

amont did not hit lieberman on his bankruptcy bill vote or his corporate accounting votes. So tempting to "go there", but Lamont had outstanding message discipline for a rookie. He knows that less is more.

Something I'm finding interesting about the post-debate gestalt is the press coverage, which could easily have concentrated on "Lieberman looked experienced/Lamont looked green" -- something even a number of Lamont sympathizers have said -- but instead has concentrated on "Lieberman looked grumpy and entitled/Lamont seemed sincere and plausible". This may spring from a press interest in promoting a contest (a la 2000's first Bush/Gore post-debate slant), but it also may reflect a reality: sometimes winning on points isn't enough, if what voters are despartely looking for is a comfort-level that Lieberman simply can't seem to provide right now.

Lamont could have had better answers to some of Joe's accusations (I was thinking of them; of course, I was comfortable at home). Hopefully in any later encounter, he'll be ready with them. But for now, the important thing may be that people already inclined to not like Lieberman have been pushed further in that direction.

Lamont brought out his secret weapon last night,JOE LIEBERMAN.

Every second Joe Liebermans face is on TV is a PLUS for Lamont.

I watched the Debate less than 1/4 mile away from the TV station where it took place in a Best Buy store.Me and a freind stood outside the TV studio holding our DUMPJOE signs and talking to the media pre Debate and then walked to the Best Buy where they had a couch and a HUGE TV that the manager was more than happy to let us watch the Debate.She and all the clerks enjoyed the "kiss Buttons" I gave them.Every Employee had something nasty to say about Lieberman.

We attended the party afterward .when Ned Arrived I handed him my Laptop and had him read Al Schrums review of the Debate aloud to the crowd.Even Schrum has abandoned Lieberman,It's all over but the fat lady singing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13085442/#060706n

Sorry,

Bob Shrum

I recall Cheney saying something in the 2000 debate like: "I've been glad to get out of government for the last eight years working in the private sector. Govt is too big, wastes money. Lieberman, of course, in response said nothing. Even I watching at home thought, "Why doesn't he say 'Mr. Cheney doesn't say that his company, Haliburton, made most of its money on large contracts WITH the govt. But he isn't criticizing the govt for being too big and too wasteful by spending those dollars, huh.'" Talk about an ineffective debater. I guess he didn't want to cause Cheney another heart attack.

So Bob Shrum - the man who, in no particular order, backed Edmund Muskie, George McGovern (remember "Come Home America"?), Mario Cuomo, Richard Gephardt (in 1988), Michael Dukakis (also in 1988), Bob Kerry, Al Gore, John Kerry and New Coke - has written off Joe Lieberman. That will, I'm sure, reduce the Lieberman campaign staff to near suicidal despair and cause Joe to weep bitterly at the thought of what might have been.

fatman

well, perhaps not. but lieberman ain't hubert humphrey - he's no happy warrior.

DemFromCT

You're missing my point (I think). Bob Shrum is to MSNBC what Dick "Resident Pundit Who Couldn't Get It Right If You Gave Him A Map And Explicit Directions In Words Of Two Syllables Or Less" Morris is to Fox News; a complete and utter waste of air time and bandwidth.

fatman

I got your point. ;-)

Something about even a stopped clock is right twice a day...

I love the fact that Lieberman is getting a serious challenge. All the stuff ctkeith is talking about is, frankly, great. However, at the risk of sounding like a whiffle-butt, the fact that the challenge is so real is a win in itself; I would LOVE to see Lamont win, but if he doesn't, he has given Joe notice.

Publius at Legal Fiction (who is so fed up with Joementum that he says he would vote for anyone else) has a hard-eyed view, but concludes with some real wisdom: ..on balance, I think Lieberman may curb his more egregious behavior going forward even if he wins. Fear of political death is the only thing that truly gets politicians' attention, and Joe is having a brush with mortality that he won't want to relive. Ask Arlen Specter.

In the ensuing discussion, someone asks: Did Arlen Spector's brush with mortality make any difference on his subsequent actions? Spector appears to be as close to a eunuch as any senator, appearing to know what he should do but incapable of following through.

To which Eric Martin correctly replies:

But wasn't making Specter a eunuch the whole point of the Toomey challenge?

Exactly. I'd much rather have Lamont win, but it's a win anyway. I wish people - particularly people in their 20s and 30s who are quite sensibly appalled at the piece of shit-situation they're inheriting - didn't have to deal with inertia; but those of you who give a shit are affecting that inertia in a serious way, whether Lamont wins or loses. Hats off.

DemFromCT said

Something about even a stopped clock is right twice a day...

True. But all the rest of the time it's still wrong. ;)

jonnybutter:

I root for a baseball team that has had thirteen consecutive losing seasons. On its way to making that fourteen consecutive losing seasons, it recently posted a modern day, franchise record thirteen game losing streak. I know from moral victories. And I'm here to tell you a loss is a loss, no matter how you try to dress it up

If, on November 8, 2006, Joe Lieberman is the re-elected incumbent, he'll be safe until 2012. By that time, the war will hopefully be over, one way or another. And the electorate, which has a notoriously short memory, will be wondering what all the shouting was about in 2006.

And so far, I haven't seen anything that would make me think Lieberman is in serious danger of losing the primary, let alone the general election.

I haven't seen anything that would make me think Lieberman is in serious danger of losing the primary

You haven't been watching Lieberman, then. he's still the favorite but he is aware of the ffect of a mid-summer light turnout primary and the fact that Lamont supporters are pumped, whereas his are not, and never will be. Joe's still the favorite but from the Cook Report to the Fix to the halls of Congress to Lieberman HQ, there are those who think he could lose.

Living in Ct. I see so much hatred for Joe. It is a progressive state and Ned has a good chance of winning.

Would be a shame if the Reps. win the seat if Joe runs as an independent.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad