home

Lamont - Lieberman: The Morning After

Predictably, the mainstream media is focusing on the effect of the netroots. From Time Magazine:

Now that it has played a major role in helping to defeat Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Senate primary Tuesday, the Netroots' moment has finally arrived.....in Tuesday's Democratic primary, the bloggers didn't just get a win, but a victory no one could have expected even four months ago.

What the magazine is missing:

The netroots is much larger than bloggers. It includes grass roots activists, organizations like MoveOn and more. The reporter kind of gets it a few paragraphs down:

Lamont's victory was about far more than them. Lieberman's fervent support for the Iraq War, and his attacks on many of his party who opposed President Bush's policy there, annoyed Connecticut voters as much as bloggers. Also, aside from the war, Lieberman suffered from a feeling among many voters there that he was taking the state for granted, and liberals in the blue state were frustrated by his positions on other issues, such as his support for school vouchers.

I think the reporters conclusion, however, is correct.

Either way, this primary win means the Netroots now must be treated by Democratic leaders and politicians like the party's other major power centers -- pro-abortion rights groups, African-Americans and unions.... Now that the Netroots' power has been cemented, any Democratic presidential candidate will have to consider how to woo these Internet activists -- or at least keep them from hating him or her..... this race sends one clear overriding message: in a liberal state like Connecticut, Democratic candidates defy the Netroots, who are here to stay, at their own peril.

Yes, we are here to stay. It's people-powered politics. But the win in Connecticut was not the result of the blogs, it was the result of the voters' disenchantment with Joe Lieberman. Lamont won because of that disenchantment and because he had amassed an incredible local campaign team that knew how to find, target and convince the voters. The Blogs just spread the message and created buzz. But they aren't the reason Joe Lieberman lost.

[Update: The Washington Post

Moving on to the next issue: Lieberman's independent run. Sen. Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer put out this message today:

"The Democratic voters of Connecticut have spoken and chosen Ned Lamont as their nominee. Both we and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) fully support Mr. Lamont's candidacy. Congratulations to Ned on his victory and on a race well run.

"Joe Lieberman has been an effective Democratic Senator for Connecticut and for America. But the perception was that he was too close to George Bush and this election was, in many respects, a referendum on the President more than anything else. The results bode well for Democratic victories in November and our efforts to take the country in a new direction."

Atrios has part of the transcript of Lieberman on the Today show this morning. I think this says it all:

Yes, I'm a proud Democrat, but I'm more devoted to my state and my country than I am to my party. And the parties today are getting in the way of our government doing for our people what they need their government to do.

....I am committed to this campaign, to a different kind of politics, to bringing the Democratic Party back from Ned Lamont, Maxine Waters to the mainstream.

Markos at Daily Kos has a good roundup of reaction. My favorite: Karl Rove offering to help Joe Lieberman:

According to a close Lieberman adviser, the President's political guru, Karl Rove, has reached out to the Lieberman camp with a message straight from the Oval Office: "The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do."

Update: Hillary on Lieberman: She does all but call on him to quit and tells Lamont she will be contributing to his campaign soon.

< Late Night: Give Them What They Want | Poll: 60% of Americans Oppose Iraq War >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Lamont - Lieberman: The Morning After (none / 0) (#1)
    by oldtree on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 11:51:54 AM EST
    we will never see the television and print media give anything up to the blog, for this reason an old friend in the publishing business informed me categorically that they were losing their business to the internet, 8 years ago and that there was no way print would be what it was, ever again so why would the MSM, or infotainers, ever acknowledge that which is now destroying them? The voices in the anchor's (boat) ears are angry that they are being ridiculed by the online community. the corporate ownership above seals their fate. They are going to be mad as hell and not take it much longer themselves. Jack Cafferty is the only voice it seems. these sites must find a way to become the news. The intelligent selection of your topic, and the online community knowing you are an expert is the one way we are going to find the details of the news in the future, as we in this community do now. remember, all most all of our tv and radio stations are run by corpses that do not want anything to do with your getting any news but what they wish you to know. They don't even let people know there is a tornado any longer because they don't have to. no need to depresss the community. this used to be the way everyone in this country and world got their information. no more. so, the internet may be the only chance we have for reality. think senator ted stupid doesn't know this? those tubes run directly in his pants

    Re: Lamont - Lieberman: The Morning After (none / 0) (#2)
    by Andreas on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 11:52:49 AM EST
    The WSWS writes:
    The Connecticut vote shows the enormous depth and breadth of opposition to the war. But at the same time, the primary demonstrates why it is impossible for the Democratic Party to become the vehicle for mass antiwar sentiment. Some 29 Democratic senators voted for the October 2002 resolution authorizing the Iraq war; virtually all Democratic senators have voted for military appropriations to sustain it. But of all these senators, only one, Lieberman, has faced a significant challenge for renomination. Hillary Clinton, after Lieberman perhaps the most fervent defender of the Iraq war among leading Senate Democrats, is the early favorite for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. The near-unanimous support for the war in Iraq in the leadership of the Democratic Party is not an accident, or the result of political misjudgment. It is a manifestation of the fundamental class character of the Democratic Party, one of the two major political instruments of the American ruling elite. Like the Republicans, the Democratic Party is a capitalist party; it defends the profit system and the worldwide interests of the giant corporations and banks which are the core institutions of American capitalism. Even those Democratic politicians, like Ned Lamont, who claim to oppose the war in Iraq do so from the standpoint of the defense of American imperialism. They argue that the war has become a diversion from more critical overseas tasks, such as the preparations for war with Syria, Iran and North Korea. Lamont, like Lieberman, is a fervent defender of Israeli aggression in Lebanon, in which US-built bombs and missiles delivered by US-built warplanes have slaughtered thousands.
    Pro-war Democrat Joseph Lieberman defeated in Connecticut primary By Patrick Martin, 9 August 2006

    Re: Lamont - Lieberman: The Morning After (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 12:01:08 PM EST
    Now if Lieberman gets indicted will this be another on the long list of current republican criminals or one for the very short list of democrats?
    Over at TPMmuckraker, we're still tracking down the details of yesterday's web hacking allegations from Lieberman's campaign. The latest - the FBI says that if the Lieberman camp cried "wolf," that's a prosecutable offense.
    From Josh Marshall

    Re: Lamont - Lieberman: The Morning After (none / 0) (#4)
    by Peaches on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 12:02:12 PM EST
    remember, all most all of our tv and radio stations are run by corpses that do not want anything to do with your getting any news but what they wish you to know.
    The internet is slowly, yet accelerating at an alarming rate, also coming under control of the corps.
    so, the internet may be the only chance we have for reality. think senator ted stupid doesn't know this?
    God help us. Luddites come forth.

    Re: Lamont - Lieberman: The Morning After (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 12:26:18 PM EST
    Well, we have come a long way since Strom Thurmond referred to a microphone as a "machine". Politicians are always the last ones to catch up to the times. Hell, even many Dinocrats still think the war is going nicely.

    Re: Lamont - Lieberman: The Morning After (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 02:58:49 PM EST
    From both Liebermans consolation speech last night and his interview with Matt Lauer this morning it seems that Holy Joe really wants to end the partisan politics in washington. His solution: Just agree with Bush, don't make waves because we are at war. Am I missing something here? Isn't one of the fundamental ways we distinguished ourself from a monarchy some 230 years ago is by having checks and balances, not just by the three branches but by political parties that are by nature in opposition. Seems to me that the reason Holy Joe lost is because he wants a monarchy. How about we name him and Katherine Harris court jesters and be done with it. Bush may go for it. Given last nights CT bellweather primary appointing court jesters is about as much monarchy as America is ready for these days.

    Re: Lamont - Lieberman: The Morning After (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 03:01:46 PM EST
    WOW---This is the most ridiculous anti-capitalist, anti-semetic, fact denying, scary far left wing nonsense rhetoric that I have run across.

    Re: Lamont - Lieberman: The Morning After (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 03:07:05 PM EST
    It seems King George II himself is mad as heck about this. Let's keep up the pressure!

    Re: Lamont - Lieberman: The Morning After (none / 0) (#9)
    by Aaron on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 03:20:54 PM EST
    In an interview at a restaurant with Ned Lamont, Chris Matthews referred to bloggers as the Pajamahideen (link to video over at crooks and liars.) Referencing the Mujahideen (Mujahedin) an Arabic term often defined as those who engage in Islamic holy war or jihad, most commonly associated with Afghanistan in the 80s. One is forced to ask why the mainstream corporate media wishes to paint bloggers and anyone involved in grassroots movements that don't fall in line with their narrowly defined view, as the equivalent of Islamic fundamentalists/terrorists struggling to foment holy war. Why do they want to portray bloggers as some kind of lunatic fringe who are negatively impacting and damaging America simply by engaging in any free exchange of information, ideas and opinions? Why is it that they feel they have something to lose when these exchanges occur? Why would they not promote such exchange? The translation of the word مجاهد, mugāhid, where this Arabic word originates, literally means "strugglers". Jihad and mugāhid both have root meanings which translate to "to exert effort against" or "to struggle." If anything, this more literal interpretation is far more apt in its description of bloggers as we struggle to exert pressure by making people aware, often one person at a time in one-on-one debates, and expose the underlying realities that the major news providers would overlook or avoid, and the deeper complexity of these realities which much of the mainstream media also often seem all too content to gloss over if allowed to do so. We are a new movement in America and around the globe, a movement without regard for partisanship since bloggers of every political stripe abound throughout the Internet. And we are struggling to take back control of our governments, and our lives, hopefully for the the betterment of all. One thing you can count on, when powerful elements in government and media are trying to make you out to be some kind crazy nuts and lunatic fringe, that's how you know you're getting to them, that's how you know that people are beginning to listen. The evidence can be found in the defeats of both Joe Lieberman and Cynthia McKinney, both politicians I supported up until recently. But when such politicians chose to marginalize themselves by adopting extremist ideas and positions that are well out of the mainstream, the American people saw through their rhetoric with the help of the blog sphere. Just as the world powers once feared the mujahedin in Afghanistan, they now fear bloggers, and the blogging movement. And they a right to fear us, for we are a threat to their control. Power to the people my brothers and sisters! Sincerely Aaron, a proud member of the Pajamahideen, though admittedly I don't wear pajamas.

    Re: Lamont - Lieberman: The Morning After (none / 0) (#10)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 03:33:02 PM EST
    Stu - Your Im-a-left-leaning-Democrat mask is slipping off a little. Thats anti-semitic btw. Would you care to enumerate some of the "facts" that you think have been denied; the "anti-capitalist" statements; and the examples of "anti-semitism" (Hugh Hewitt and Jim are already way ahead of you with the a-vote-against-Joe-is-a-vote-for-racism b.s)

    Re: Lamont - Lieberman: The Morning After (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 04:46:34 PM EST
    WOW---This is the most ridiculous anti-capitalist, anti-semetic, fact denying, scary far left wing nonsense rhetoric that I have run across.
    Some clarification needed: ridiculous: something Stu disagress with anti-capitalist: against the wishes of Wall Street, including but not limited to the HMOs, pharmaceutical, petrochemical, cable TV, or any other large and obnoxiously powerful corporations/conglomerates. anti-semetic (sic): anything said against Joe Lieberman for any reason. Joe, after all, is representative of every jewish person on the face of the earth. fact denying: questioning the mainstream media, which everyone knows is infallible, much like the pope (and Joe Lierberman) scary far left wing nonsense: Anything to the left of Zel Miller or Jesse Helms There, now we have some much needed context. You were saying Stu?

    Re: Lamont - Lieberman: The Morning After (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 07:40:10 PM EST
    Connecticut needs a "sore loser" law -- such as is found in Illinois and some other states -- to prevent a primary loser from running for the same office in the same year under a different party banner than the one he lost under.

    Re: Lamont - Lieberman: The Morning After (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 08:47:00 PM EST
    WOW---This is the most ridiculous anti-capitalist, anti-semetic, fact denying, scary far left wing nonsense rhetoric that I have run across.
    Wow! That was the most ridiculous content-free, logic-free, fact-challenged, ignorant nonsense I have seen posted here. Stu must have spent every minute on his soap box lecturing to sheep and cows -- he clearly has no idea how to converse with real people.

    Re: Lamont - Lieberman: The Morning After (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 09:45:28 PM EST
    This is an interesting take:
    Last night, Ned Lamont made the first mistake of his general election campaign.....Lamont should have used his victory speech last night to crush Lieberman. He should have emphasized that the voters decisively rejected Lieberman. He should have called for Lieberman to exit the race immediately. He should have consolidated his victory and raised the price of Lieberman's indie bid.
    Ryan Lizzavia Josh Marshall who notes that:
    Lamont has a very brief window of time to shut down Lieberman's indie bid. And he's off to a slow start.


    Re: Lamont - Lieberman: The Morning After (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 10:16:39 PM EST
    Jon Stewart delivers a cutting smackdown to Joe, and he is right on the money.

    Re: Lamont - Lieberman: The Morning After (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 10:20:07 PM EST
    Lamont has a very brief window of time to shut down Lieberman's indie bid.
    Wrong. He has 3 months to let Joe shut himself down with the I's and R's. If one thing was proven during the primary campaign it's that the more people see and hear Joe Lieberman, the less they like him.

    Re: Lamont - Lieberman: The Morning After (none / 0) (#17)
    by Aaron on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 11:00:16 PM EST
    Squeaky Perhaps you're not familiar with the concept of excepting victory graciously. This was a very close election, thanks in part to some amateur theatrics on the part of one specific blogger, which wound up cutting Lamont's lead in half. When someone is beaten, whether it's in a political race or a fistfight, those standing on the sidelines rubbing it in only succeed in in garnering more sympathy for the defeated. Lieberman has a real chance of winning the general election, especially if those on the left continue to demonize him with inflammatory rhetoric. That's the kind of thing that Republicans hope you'll do, it's playing right into their hands. I realize you're young and some of these ideas may be new to you, but don't let your naïveté and the naïveté of other lefties snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I was glad to see Lieberman lose, but I do not take joy in his loss because this one race has helped divide Democrats, and weaken the party overall. It's a victory with considerable cost in political capital, let's just hope the cost doesn't wind up being a seat in the Senate. Now is not the time to attack, now is the time to invite Joe Lieberman to return to the fold. And anyone looking objectively at the political climate in America would immediately conclude that the left cannot afford to be vindictive.

    Re: Lamont - Lieberman: The Morning After (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 11:18:32 PM EST
    now is the time to invite Joe Lieberman to return to the fold
    LOL...I gotta admit Aaron...NO ONE does subtle yet hard-hitting satire like you can. Lieberman...return to fold...LMAO, that was a durn good 'un!

    Re: Lamont - Lieberman: The Morning After (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 02:13:27 AM EST
    This was a very close election, thanks in part to some amateur theatrics on the part of one specific blogger, which wound up cutting Lamont's lead in half. Yes Squeaky, The Black people that you claim you know so well, and wouldn't have minded a "little satire", apparently they.. er...did.

    Re: Lamont - Lieberman: The Morning After (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 10:42:37 AM EST
    Aaron- I think that you should cut down on your herbal supplements, there is way too much smoke in your eyes. The only "gracious" ones, as you put it, wanting to invite Lieberman back into the fold are arch neocons like Cheney, Coulter, Rove et al. He will continue his political career as a neocon republican. Do you plan on switching too?

    Re: Lamont - Lieberman: The Morning After (none / 0) (#21)
    by Aaron on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 07:01:28 PM EST
    Squeaker One of the emerging tactics in the blogging world is for right wing operatives to infiltrate left wing blogs posing as lefties. They immediately set about making over-the-top comments with the specific idea in mind of convincing moderates that the left is composed of lunatics and crazies who are devoid of the ability to make coherent arguments in support of their positions. This tactic is becoming more and more common, and I've observed it on the number of left-leaning blogs. Lately I've begun to wonder if you and Dadler and Ernesto Del Mundo are just another conservative Internet cell, Republican plants as it were, pretending to be anarchistic socialist, anticapitalist, Castro supporting lefties. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but some of your comments seem to be the kind of things that GOP supporters might suppose left-wingers would say. If you are right wing conservative plants, I would suggest doing a little more research, so in future your acts will be more convincing.

    Re: Lamont - Lieberman: The Morning After (none / 0) (#22)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:00:51 PM EST
    The post-Lieberman hissy fit continues.

    Re: Lamont - Lieberman: The Morning After (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:01:20 PM EST
    Aaron, Sorry, I will have to address your blasphemy later. I am busy applying for a Canadian passport so that I may be able to visit Cuba without getting arrested by the United States. ;)

    Re: Lamont - Lieberman: The Morning After (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:13:16 PM EST
    My Kelvinator is still frosted about that red Ry Cooder and his whole Buena Vista Social Club pinko front.. Try playing the record backwards: tell me cant hear them chanting "Viva Che, Viva Che.." Of course, some would say he's a right wing plant.

    Re: Lamont - Lieberman: The Morning After (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 08:54:58 PM EST
    Aaron-Obviously, I underestimated the quality of your smoke.