Lieberman in trouble

[cosmic]

BC-Connecticut Senate,0405
Lieberman loses ground to Democratic challenger, poll shows
statistical dead heat
HAMDEN, Conn. (AP) -- Sen. Joe Lieberman, under fire from
activists in his own party, has lost ground to his challenger and
is in a statistical dead heat for the Democratic nomination, a new
poll released Thursday shows.
Businessman Ned Lamont led Lieberman, 51 percent to 47 percent,
among likely Democratic voters in the latest Quinnipiac University
poll. The difference was within the poll's margin of error of plus
or minus 4 percentage points, but Lieberman's numbers were down
from a Quinnipiac poll in June.
Last month, Lieberman had led, 55 percent to 40 percent.
The poll's results weren't all bad for the three-term senator:
When non-Democrats were included, the survey of registered
Connecticut voters showed him leading in a three-way race, with 51
percent favoring Lieberman, 27 percent for Lamont and 9 percent for
Republican Alan Schlesinger.
Lieberman filed papers last week that will allow him to petition
his way onto the November ballot if he loses in the Aug. 8
Democratic primary.
The telephone survey of 2,502 registered voters, 653 of them
likely Democratic voters, was conducted July 13-18. The margin of
error for the overall survey was plus or minus 2 percentage points.
Lamont, a multimillionaire and founder of a cable television
company that has wired college campuses, has gained national
attention in his challenge to Lieberman. Liberal blogs have built
Lamont up while taking shots at Lieberman for his support of the
Iraq war and other moves perceived to support for congressional
Republicans and Bush.
"We think the voters of Connecticut are continuing to realize
that Ned represents the kind of change they want in Washington,"
said Lamont campaign spokeswoman Liz Dupont-Diehl. "It's clear
that Joe Lieberman is just interested in hanging on to power."
Lieberman campaign spokeswoman Marion Steinfels said the poll
simply shows that the race is "competitive."
"We've been treating it that way, and we continue to work hard
to make sure Joe Lieberman wins on Aug. 8," she said. The campaign
announced Thursday that former President Clinton would help
campaign for Lieberman.
Lieberman was the Democratic Party's vice presidential nominee
in 2000 and ran for the presidential nomination in 2004.

[msnicolea]

Good--he's a war hawk in sheep's clothing anyway.

[chefker]

ITA, msnicolea. There's a reason he's the 'Republican's favorite democrat', after all.

I feel that all Lieberman really cares about in this race, is keeping his job. Hence his willingness to jump party lines and run as an independent, if he loses the primary. So much for simply letting the voters decide and conceding gracefully, eh?

I am definitely voting for Lamont.

[PG-rated]

I think this whole thing is really interesting. I used to really like Joe Lieberman, because he was moderate and wasn't afraid to take principled stances on issues, even if that meant he broke with the official party line sometimes. But his stance on Iraq (and other foreign policy issues) is just indefensible, IMHO, and I've lost a lot of respect for him as a result.

On the other hand, I saw Ned Lamont on the Colbert Report last week, and I was really disappointed. I thought he came off as really inarticulate when pushed to move outside his basic talking points/applause lines. I'm not convinced he'd make a good Senator.

Of course, I'm registered to vote in DC, so my opinion on this doesn't really matter, but DH is still registered in CT, and he's undecided at this point, for many of the same reasons.

[skraus75]

Of course, I'm registered to vote in DC, so my opinion on this doesn't really matter, but DH is still registered in CT, and he's undecided at this point, for many of the same reasons.
Sadly, your opinion doesn't really matter to anyone in Congress. Perhaps DC should have a freaking vote.....

I agree on Joe though. He doesn't seem to care about what the voters want as much as retaining his title and power. :(

[PG-rated]

Maybe running with Al Gore made him power-mad, and he wants to stay in so he can have his shot at the White House again? I really feel like he's a different person now.

[trefoil]

I'm not impressed with the fact he's already planning to run as an independent if he isn't the Democrat nominee. If he wants to run as an independent, then he shouldn't run as a Democrat since he's not willing to support the choice of the Democrats in his state. If he does what he is threatening to do if he loses the primaries, he's as good as handing the seat to the Republican nominee. What a jerk.

[pocket]

I'm not impressed with the fact he's already planning to run as an independent if he isn't the Democrat nominee. If he wants to run as an independent, then he shouldn't run as a Democrat since he's not willing to support the choice of the Democrats in his state.

Exactly - I held my nose and voted for him when he ran for vp because he's a Democrat. even though, as one of my friends said, "it's great that gore picked a jew, but it would have been even better if he'd picked a democrat." If he loses the nomination, he should suck it up and accept the decision of the democrats of ct. politicians SHOULD face problems getting elected because of their supportive stance on the war and sycophantic attitude to bush.

[jnettie]

ITA. Running as an idependent says "I love power" not "I care about the needs of my constituents." And I'm also pissed at Bill Clinton for supporting him.

[cosmic]

Lieberman concedes to Lamont, vows to run in November
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/POLITICS/08/08/democratic.primaries/story.jl.concede.ap.jpg

(CNN) -- Sen. Joseph Lieberman conceded to cable executive Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary for the Connecticut Senate nomination Tuesday night but vowed to run as an "independent Democrat" this fall.

With 95 percent of the precincts reporting, Lamont led Lieberman 52 percent to 48 percent, according to The Associated Press.

Lieberman, who was former Vice President Al Gore's running mate in 2000, is seeking a fourth Senate term. Lamont, a former Greenwich city councilman, is running his first statewide campaign.

After telling his supporters that he had called Lamont to congratulate him on his victory, Lieberman said "We've just finished the first half and the Lamont team is ahead, but, in the second half, our team -- Team Connecticut -- is going to surge forward to victory in November"

Lamont, speaking to his supporters during a victory celebration after Lieberman conceded, urged Lieberman not to run.

"I want to thank Sen. Lieberman for his campaign." Lamont said. "I want to thank him for the dignity and decency in which he has represented our state and our country, for many, many years.

"I'm hoping, that over the next few days that he will come to the conclusion that the party is going to stick together and go forward united," Lamont said.

Also on Tuesday night, Georgia Rep. Cynthia McKinney lost in a runoff to Democratic challenger Hank Johnson.

And in Missouri Claire McCaskill, as expected, won the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate. She will face Republican Sen. Jim Talent this fall, according to the AP.

Primaries are also taking place in Colorado and Michigan, but the Democratic race in Connecticut was the most closely watched of Tuesday's races.

Lieberman faults 'polarization'
Lieberman said he was disappointed by the results but said he was more disappointed in how the primary campaign was conducted.

"The old politics of partisan polarization won today. For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot, I will not let this result stand."

Lieberman had for some time threatened to run as an independent in November if he failed to claim the party's nomination, further enraging party activists and many Web commentators, who have boosted Lamont.

A source close to Lieberman told CNN that Lieberman has the 7,500 signatures necessary to get on the ballot as an independent candidate.

Voter turnout was high in the high-profile primary fight, according to Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz. Bysiewicz predicted Tuesday that turnout for the primary could reach 45 percent to 50 percent, nearly double the normal turnout for a primary election.

Bysiewicz's office said turnout was high, compared to previous elections, in Greenwich -- Lamont's hometown -- as well as Hartford, Danbury and New Briton.

New Briton and Hartford are considered liberal areas, with votes in the 2004 presidential election for Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry exceeding two-thirds in both cities.

Both Lieberman's and Lamont's campaigns claimed that high voter turnout would help their chances for victory.

All eyes on Connecticut
In a state President Bush lost by a 10-point spread in 2004, Lieberman's critics have crystallized their complaint in a single image: Bush's embrace of Lieberman before the 2005 State of the Union address. Lamont boosters have mocked the scene with a pickup-mounted replica of the scene, dubbed "The Kiss."

Lieberman called accusations that he has been a "cheerleader" for Bush "ridiculous." Former President Bill Clinton, former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland and fellow Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd campaigned for him in recent weeks.

"I have opposed most of what this president has asked us to do in Congress," he said. "And secondly, that somehow I am not a real Democrat? It is outrageous."

On Tuesday afternoon, Lieberman's campaign accused Lamont's of "dirty politics" after a denial-of-service attack knocked out the Lieberman campaign Web site. Lieberman spokesman Sean Smith compared the hack to the kind of tactics used by Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser. (Full Story)

"There is no place for these Rovian tactics in Democratic politics, and we demand that our opponent calls off his supporters and their online attack dogs," Smith said.

When asked by reporters at a campaign stop Tuesday if he or his campaign was responsible for the incident, Lamont said, "No, it's just another scurrilous charge."

Liz Dupont-Diehl, a Lamont spokeswoman, told CNN that the campaign "denounced and condemned" the action, and she denied any involvement by Lamont or members of his campaign. She added that the Lamont campaign did not know who was behind the incident.

[chefker]

ITA. Running as an idependent says "I love power" not "I care about the needs of my constituents." And I'm also pissed at Bill Clinton for supporting him.


Yup. And it's how many voters around here are feeling. Rather than accept defeat, he's basically thumbing his nose at the voters who MADE A CHOICE yesterday. He cares more about keeping his job at this point, IMO.

I'm not happy with Clinton's support of Lieberman either.

[msnicolea]

I am disgusted with Lieberman. He is saying that his job matters more than the will of the poeple or the Democratic Party. Totally selfish. Now, I have NO problem with independents in general--I wish there were more of them! But bailing on your party when you lose in a primary? LAME.

[PG-rated]

I am disgusted with Lieberman. He is saying that his job matters more than the will of the poeple or the Democratic Party. Totally selfish. Now, I have NO problem with independents in general--I wish there were more of them! But bailing on your party when you lose in a primary? LAME.
I disagree. I think the primary sent an important message to him that the Democrats are finally getting serious about putting up a united front, and it's time to get in line or get out. But that doesn't necessarily mean that he wouldn't still make a better senator than Lamont, and that's up to the voters to decide. Nobody thinks the Republican has any chance of winning no matter what (the state party is even talking about replacing him at the last minute), so it's not about handing the seat to a Republican. There are a LOT of independent voters in CT, and if they think Lieberman's the better choice, they're entitled to their vote. If they don't, his run won't matter anyway.

[msnicolea]

What justification does could Lieberman have for suddenly becoming an independent? He has been a Decmorat his entire career--if he wanted to run as an independent, why even enter the primary in the first place?

No, he's running as an independent simply because he lost the primary, not for some higher purpose--and that blows.

[PG-rated]

Well, my take on it is that he still thinks of himself as a Democrat, and ran as one because he believes there's still a place for him in the Democratic party. The primary results show that, no, there really isn't. But that doesn't negate his years of service in CT, and he feels that he's still the best choice, so he wants the voters to decide (and he may be right, since previous polls had him winning a three-way race).

I'm not saying that your criticisms of his positions and motivations are wrong, necessarily, just that I think there's more to the story.

[chefker]

so he wants the voters to decide


But the voters DID decide...yesterday. He just didn't like the outcome.

I do get what you're saying about the polls though. Lieberman is probably hinging all his hopes on previous polls that were favorable to him in a 3-way race. It'll be interesting to see what the 'new' polls (since yesterday's vote) will say to that affect.

[PG-rated]

But the voters DID decide...yesterday. He just didn't like the outcome.
The Democrats decided - not all the voters. And there are so many registered independents in CT that you can't really say that one party's primary reflects the will of the voters.

Basically, there are two decisions to be made, and they're not going to be made by the same people:
1. Should Lieberman be a representative of the Democratic Party?
2. Should Lieberman be Connecticut's representative in the Senate?

[wine_o_girlie]

I stayed up late last night just to hear the results. I am pleased this Bush ass-kisser lost. I see this as a positive thing for the Democrats and really, really hope it pushes other candidates to grow some balls and stop trying to straddle the line. Lieberman needs to take the defeat he was handed and go home and try to think about other ways to further the Democratic cause rather than run as an Independent. What a selfish a-hole. I personally hope this propels the Democratic leadership to get a wake up call and return to being Democrats.

[PG-rated]

I see this as a positive thing for the Democrats and really, really hope it pushes other candidates to grow some balls and stop trying to straddle the line.
Well, here's the thing - if what you really want is for the Democrats to close ranks and have the same party discipline as the Republicans, then I say be careful what you wish for. Because if that happens and the Democrats still don't take either the House or the Senate, then you have no right to complain when the Republicans keep on doing whatever the hell they want. Strict party discipline is ultimately bad for democracy, IMHO. It takes a politician who thinks for him/herself to really make a difference.

Now, I don't blame anyone for disagreeing with Lieberman's stance on issues - Lord knows I'm just plain ashamed of him for his position on the war - but there's a big difference between disagreeing with him because of his actual opinions and disagreeing with him because he's willing to break from the party line. I know I've heard comments from a lot of people that suggest their anger is more from the latter than the former. And I think that's a dangerous stance to take.

[kam]

Well, my take on it is that he still thinks of himself as a Democrat, and ran as one because he believes there's still a place for him in the Democratic party. The primary results show that, no, there really isn't. But that doesn't negate his years of service in CT, and he feels that he's still the best choice, so he wants the voters to decide (and he may be right, since previous polls had him winning a three-way race).

Well......I guess you could say he thinks of himself as a Democrat. He is a lifelong Democrat but so are a lot of people in Connecticut. Lieberman's political beliefs even then were challenged as "not Democratic enough" back in 1988 but CT likes to see their senators be Democrat. Weiker, his opponent, was essentially beat by tactics and arguments being used against Lieberman now.

That said, Lamont's tactics in this campaign aren't something I'd be proud of, being from Connecticut and being a lifelong Democrat.

[PG-rated]

Up until he took a hard right turn on the war, I'd say Lieberman was a pretty decent Connecticut Democrat - I think we're more moderate, as a general rule, than the party as a whole. And in Connecticut you need to be able to appeal to the huge numbers of independent voters, so a willingness to cross party lines is pretty much always an asset.

Not that my vote mattered here, but I would've been willing to support the right candidate over Lieberman. But nothing about Lamont has made me think he's the guy for the job.

[chefker]

Now, I don't blame anyone for disagreeing with Lieberman's stance on issues - Lord knows I'm just plain ashamed of him for his position on the war - but there's a big difference between disagreeing with him because of his actual opinions and disagreeing with him because he's willing to break from the party line. I know I've heard comments from a lot of people that suggest their anger is more from the latter than the former. And I think that's a dangerous stance to take.


Well...speaking for myself, there are a WHOLE bunch of other issues I disagree with Lieberman on (the war being a huge one). For me, this whole "crossing party lines" nonsense was just like icing on the cake, and not in a positive way..

[skraus75]

Strict party discipline is ultimately bad for democracy, IMHO. It takes a politician who thinks for him/herself to really make a difference.
I would agree on strict party discipline not being beneficial. However, I think it takes a politician who listens to his constituents to really make a difference. (I'm thinking stem cell research and how most Americans favor it as an example -- this comment is not intended to start this debate here however!!) Yes, there are times where doing what is right, even if the people don't agree, is essential. However, on most matters, I'd actually like to see politicians put aside their own agendas and focus on their constituents.

I don't neccessarily agree with Lieberman leaving his party to continue his campaign to stay in the Senate. However the people of CT, not just the Democrats from CT, can decide that now. Time will tell....

[PG-rated]

Yes, there are times where doing what is right, even if the people don't agree, is essential. However, on most matters, I'd actually like to see politicians put aside their own agendas and focus on their constituents.
Oh, yes, I agree. I definitely understand why people would feel that he doesn't represent their views anymore. But there's definitely an undercurrent in some places (especially in the Lamont-friendly blogosphere) that one of Lieberman's big problems is that he's not a "good Democrat." And I think that's a bad road to start down.

[skraus75]

Oh, yes, I agree. I definitely understand why people would feel that he doesn't represent their views anymore. But there's definitely an undercurrent in some places (especially in the Lamont-friendly blogosphere) that one of Lieberman's big problems is that he's not a "good Democrat." And I think that's a bad road to start down.
I agree entirely.... and I'm not so sure I think Lamont is a good alternative. Luckily, I'm not a CT voter anymore so I don't have to worry about voting in that 3 way contest. I get to vote against Santorum instead! :D

[cosmic]

Friends,

Let the resounding defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman send a cold shiver down the spine of every Democrat who supported the invasion of Iraq and who continues to support, in any way, this senseless, immoral, unwinnable war. Make no mistake about it: We, the majority of Americans, want this war ended -- and we will actively work to defeat each and every one of you who does not support an immediate end to this war.

Nearly every Democrat set to run for president in 2008 is responsible for this war. They voted for it or they supported it. That single, stupid decision has cost us 2,592 American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Lieberman and Company made a colossal mistake -- and we are going to make sure they pay for that mistake. Payback time started last night.

I realize that there are those like Kerry and Edwards who have now changed their position and are strongly anti-war. Perhaps that switch will be enough for some to support them. For others, like me -- while I'm glad they've seen the light -- their massive error in judgment is, sadly, proof that they are not fit for the job. They sided with Bush, and for that, they may never enter the promised land.

To Hillary, our first best hope for a woman to become president, I cannot for the life of me figure out why you continue to support Bush and his war. I'm sure someone has advised you that a woman can't be elected unless she proves she can kick ass just as crazy as any man. I'm here to tell you that you will never make it through the Democratic primaries unless you start now by strongly opposing the war. It is your only hope. You and Joe have been Bush's biggest Democratic supporters of the war. Last night's voter revolt took place just a few miles from your home in Chappaqua. Did you hear the noise? Can you read the writing on the wall?

To every Democratic Senator and Congressman who continues to back Bush's War, allow me to inform you that your days in elective office are now numbered. Myself and tens of millions of citizens are going to work hard to actively remove you from any position of power.

If you don't believe us, give Joe a call.

Yours,
Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
www.michaelmoore.com

P.S. Republicans -- sorry to leave you out of this letter. It's just that our side has a little housecleaning to do. We'll take care of you this November.

[msnicolea]

I am thankful every day for Russ Feingold.

[kam]

But there's definitely an undercurrent in some places (especially in the Lamont-friendly blogosphere) that one of Lieberman's big problems is that he's not a "good Democrat." And I think that's a bad road to start down.

The road was started in 1988 so I wouldn't call it starting down. That is the one thing I remember about that campaign - Lieberman was serilously questioned as to his liberalness.

[PG-rated]

The road was started in 1988 so I wouldn't call it starting down. That is the one thing I remember about that campaign - Lieberman was serilously questioned as to his liberalness.
That's definitely true, but you have to admit that the 90's were much friendlier to moderate Democrats. There's a difference between wishing he were more liberal and saying he's not fit to be a face of the Democratic Party.


I realize that there are those like Kerry and Edwards who have now changed their position and are strongly anti-war. Perhaps that switch will be enough for some to support them. For others, like me -- while I'm glad they've seen the light -- their massive error in judgment is, sadly, proof that they are not fit for the job. They sided with Bush, and for that, they may never enter the promised land.
This is ridiculous on so many levels. Michael Moore is smarter than this, and should know better.

[skraus75]

As an interesting aside, I talked to one of my students today (I'm a college adminstrator) who just worked on the Lieberman campaign. He said they were pleasantly surprised it was as close as it was and that Joe was super nice to work for.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

That's definitely true, but you have to admit that the 90's were much friendlier to moderate Democrats. There's a difference between wishing he were more liberal and saying he's not fit to be a face of the Democratic Party.
I disagree. I think moderate Democrats are very welcomed within the party. I think we've allowed the Republican party to paint moderate Democrats as far leftists though. Like, Kerry and Edwards are moderates, not the screaming liberals the right wing has painted them to be.

[wine_o_girlie]

I disagree. I think moderate Democrats are very welcomed within the party. I think we've allowed the Republican party to paint moderate Democrats as far leftists though. Like, Kerry and Edwards are moderates, not the screaming liberals the right wing has painted them to be.

Didn't someone try to pass Kerry off as the #1 most liberal Senator or something crazy like that during Campaign 2004? I'm sure Senator Kennedy felt de-throned. ;)

[wine_o_girlie]

Well, here's the thing - if what you really want is for the Democrats to close ranks and have the same party discipline as the Republicans, then I say be careful what you wish for. Because if that happens and the Democrats still don't take either the House or the Senate, then you have no right to complain when the Republicans keep on doing whatever the hell they want. Strict party discipline is ultimately bad for democracy, IMHO. It takes a politician who thinks for him/herself to really make a difference.

Now, I don't blame anyone for disagreeing with Lieberman's stance on issues - Lord knows I'm just plain ashamed of him for his position on the war - but there's a big difference between disagreeing with him because of his actual opinions and disagreeing with him because he's willing to break from the party line. I know I've heard comments from a lot of people that suggest their anger is more from the latter than the former. And I think that's a dangerous stance to take.

No one, including myself, is saying that I want all Democratic Senators to vote the same exact way on all issues. What I am saying though is that I look forward to more Democrats standing up for what they believe in and not cowering to the Republicans. Ironically, maybe that is what Lieberman did with his support of the war and of Bush and that's what got him "fired". I happen to be more liberally than Lieberman seems to be so maybe that's why I would like to see more of the Russ Feingold-type Democrats. I respect him for the way he seems to vote his conscience and not "toe the party line".

[jnettie]

Mrs. Clinton Offers to Raise Money for Lamont Campaign (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/26/nyregion/26lieberman.html)
By JENNIFER MEDINA
Published: August 26, 2006

NEW HAVEN, Aug. 25 — In a private meeting at her Chappaqua, N.Y., home on Friday, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton offered to help Ned Lamont in his battle to unseat Senator Joseph I. Lieberman by sponsoring a fund-raiser, campaigning by his side and lending him one of her top political strategists.

That strategist, Howard Wolfson, said Mrs. Clinton wanted to throw her considerable political weight behind Mr. Lamont because the national Republican Party “is clearly invested in Ned Lamont’s defeat.”

“I think they are going to do what they can to see him defeated,” Mr. Wolfson said, adding that he was particularly concerned with “Bush-Cheney talking points.”

“They are going to attack him in the way Republicans do,” he said, “and he obviously needs to be and is going to be prepared.”

Mr. Lieberman, who lost to Mr. Lamont in the Aug. 8 Democratic primary, is running on his own Connecticut for Lieberman line, while still calling himself a Democrat, angering many other Democrats. At the same time, an array of Republican officials, including President Bush, have praised Mr. Lieberman while distancing themselves from their own candidate, Alan Schlesinger. Across the country, the Republican Party has tried to use Mr. Lamont’s primary victory as evidence that an antiwar fringe has captured the Democratic Party.
More at link.