I'm telling you, this is a tragedy for the national Dems. Every single one of the Reagan Democrats just went over to the Republicans, AGAIN. I know y'all think that's great, fuck 'em, they're morons, we don't need 'em, but WE NEED THEM.

I bet Lieberman has santorum leaking out of his briefs right now.

This is good for the pussy Democrats. If Lieberman would have won, they would be kissing his ass. Now they actually have to do something to stop the occupation of Iraq.

or at least, you'd think they would....we'll see...

Leiberman had to go. It's healthy for the Ds that he's gone. What's really important now is he loose as an independent. Leiberman would be fine if the d's were the majority party but they aren't.
This loss for an incumbant will make the Democratic party a little more focused. A focus that is very much needed.

The Dems lose (not "loose") whether Lieberman wins or not. If he wins, the Republicans say "they can't even win against themselves unless they lose the D after their names"; if he loses, they say "the sensible Dems have left the building, only the rabid kooks are left". Either of these messages are going to resonate with the electorate.

The notion that the Dems now "have to do something to stop the occupation of Iraq" is just ludicrous. The Dems aren't going to do anything of the sort; their ability to do ANYTHING AT ALL, already at a historic low, is now nil. Harry Reid now commands a third party.

Well, I gues yu r right, Fnarf.

Eithur wayh, weir all farked in the arse.

Nothin' good evah happins....

"I'm just a little black rain cloud, hovering over the honey tree..."

Enlighten me, pleaz - what is the 2nd purty, if the Dems are 3rd? I'm hoping you say the Greens, but I think you have something more snarky up your sleeve.

One and two will both be Republicans. Kook religious tax-and-spend Republicans versus libertarian Republicans.

I disagree, Fnarf. This was good for the Ds. The war ain't popular—even with, you know, me.

I gotta go to bed—gotta get up early tomorrow. But Lamont is a D, and he's more representative of the mainstream than Lieberman or Bush.

But the Dems don't have to appeal to the mainstream Dems -- I'm a mainstream Dem, and I'd vote for a goddamn serial killer over any Republican you care to name. They have to appeal to the swing -- the Lieberman vote.

This war is not as unpopular as you'd like to think. Unpopular, yes, but by a close margin: and the swing voters might accept a pullout option from a hawk, but never ever ever from a dove. Dovishness is no more popular now than ever.

Lamont may be more typically Dem, but that's not good enough. That's a 40% strategy. Gore and Lieberman won in 2000 with a centrist, Clintonist strategy. Moving left is going to kill the Dems, just watch.

This is a very conservative nation. I wish you would get that. The fact that the war is still supported by as many people as it is considering how poorly its been managed should tell you that.

Stop listening to Cokie Roberts, Fnarf. Neither of you know what you're talking about.

Dan's right: Lamont IS more representative of the mainstream. Not mainstream Dems, mainstream America.

Bush is a radical whom Lieberman refuses to question. Good riddance Joe. You too, Cynthia McKinney.

No Fnarf. The Dems need party discipline. They need internal accountability. Lieberman is a hinderance to developing both. I doubt that "all the swing voters" decided that Lieberman's defeat will drive them Republican. How they vote, especially in '08 depends who the parties put up. If it is Clinton, they'll go any way. So don't give Lieberman too much weight.

So ... Kos is giving marching orders to the Former President and the issue advocacy groups he routinely trashes up one side and down the other?

Hmmm. Wonder how that's gonna go over.

here's a clue to who is more "mainstream": lieberman lost.

Indeed the only real criticism that continually sticks to the Democrats is that they don't stand for anything. So they do very much need discipline and consistency.

Liberman is Exhibit A of a party that doesn't know what it believes in. Dumping him says that the grassroots cares what it means to be a Democrat.

Get the leading Democratic politicians in line with what the grassroots believes and what you get is a party that stands for something.

And what it stands for is the 40% position. What the so-called "grassroots", the laughably out-of-touch "netroots", believe, is a minority position in the USA and always will be. Lamont won this because it's Connecticut, but CT is a very untypical state.

The netroots won this one, but the display by people like Jane Hamscher and the other Ann Coulters of the left will disgust and horrify middle America. You talk about party discipline, but your house only has one wall: discipline means no rapprochement to the middle, but the left is out of control as always.

Put it this way: your candidate Lamont barely squeezes this one out in one of the most liberal states in the country. How's that "mainstream" going to play in Missouri, Ohio, Washington?

The message of this vote isn't "no war", it's "incumbents suck". Karl Rove is a happy man tonight. Hilary Clinton is terrified. Is that what you want?

You guys are missing the actual issue, which is that Liebermann is going to siphon votes from Lamont in the general election and likely cost the D's a seat.

I sent Lamont 5 bucks to help with his primary bid. Now I'm gonna send him 10 bucks. It's a simple as wanting some fiscal responsibility back in power. The rest of it you folks can debate til the rapture.

Fnarf, I have to disagree with you on this one. This nation may be conservative and it may have a lot of dumb people, but there is some hope for rationality.

I grew up in Iowa, in what is now Steve King's district. VERY conservative and very pro-military (because it's just about the only viable career choice anymore, unless you want to be a casino dealer or a telemarketer)

When my dad died last year, we had the typical Catholic funeral and burial, with a lunch back at the church hall. Since he was a WWII vet, the VFW were at the gravesite and did their thing, and someone at the luncheon got up and said how wonderful that was, especially considering we were again "at war".

Neither mom or dad were fans of this war, and just a few weeks before, they had both been at a funeral for a local boy who had died in Iraq. Despite the fact that she doesn't like to "make a scene", and in spite of the obvious emotions we were feeling that day, she stood up and responded to that stupid comment: Told the assembled crowd - in her polite way - that this war was a lie foisted off on us by corrupt politicians ,that "our soldiers" were dying in vain, and that she wouldn't let dad's memory be lumped in with the pro-war crowd.

For a second, I thought that a food fight would break out, but it was amazing: People started to clap, and before you know it, almost everyone was on their feet applauding what she had said - especially the VFW guys! It was almost like a movie, except the people weren't as pretty and she wasn't nearly as eloquent ;-)

My point is this: People are starting to get it, even in backwards places like western Iowa. The Democratic party needs to realize that.

I've always been proud of my Mom, but never as proud as that day when she stood up to the bullies in that stupid little town and found support among the "regular folks"

Fnarf is on the money, folks. If a guy like Lamont can only pull 52% in CT, that's not hopeful for like candidates in practically any other state.

Did anyone here pay any attention to the mauling that the Republicans in Washington State got in nominating 'ideologically pure' candidates like Ellen Craswell in '96, as opposed to almost winning with (as least sounding more centrist) Rossi in '04? The fact that the last Democrat to win President was a southern centrist?

If you want a 'pure' party, fine, but don't delude yourself that that's a winning ticket.

Fnarf: Put it this way: your candidate Lamont barely squeezes this one out....

51%-48%.

As TBogg points out, when the incumbent president won re-election in 2004 by that margin, it was trumpeted as giving him a massive mandate.

But when an incumbent Senator is defeated by the same margin, the winner "barely squeezes one out."

Watch for more of this kind of chatter from the Republicans and their talking pointers.

52% against a senior Senate incumbent who was almost vice-president is remarkable, actually.

As for Cokie Roberts: I have no idea what she's been saying lately, because I haven't heard a word she's said since that morning back in 1998 when I lay in bed listening to her explain on NPR that this Monica Lewinsky business was going to seriously cripple and possibly end Clinton's presidency. I was furious then -- that is the day that a lot of people got furious for the first time -- remember that is what moveon.org was supposed to be moving on from originally -- but.

Cokie was right then. And if she's saying this is bad for the Dems, she's right again. I can hate her guts, but the way the game is played, it doesn't matter who you like, it matters who WINS. The Dark Side has been winning and winning and winning for a decade now, and they're going to keep on winning, Iraq or no Iraq, Katrina or no Katrina, because the Democrats ONLY EAT THEIR OWN.

So the message for the Democrats of Connecticut is, "Shame on you! You don't know who best represents you!" Is that it?

If only they'd let Cokie do their thinking for them, everything would be alright.

What's that say for the many Democratic senators with a MORE conservative voting record (though a less combative style) than Lieberman? That's the thing that pisses me off -- not that Lieberman was challenged or that Lamont is garbage, but the extremist character assassination untertaken by the blogosphere. People who have no concept of nuanced argument, or difficult positions, or of range of opinion. No, it's lock-step all the way, and the only contest is who can vilify the identified target with the most bitterness.

Lieberman was too stupid to see it coming, and it hit him blindside. He couldn't have handled it worse. But who's next? Cantwell? Clinton? Feinstein? Reid? All Kos has to do is point, and they'll be off after him or her. It won't be a Republican, that's for sure. It never is.

For a newcomer to defeat an incumbent senior senator, one with national name recognition, in a primary, by any margin, is just massive. it is weird to hear people downplay what a huge victory this is for lamont.
as for "mainstream" -- lieberman is right there with the administration on the issue of torture. if that's mainstream, you can keep it.

Fuck Cokie, and fuck Connecticut. Connecticut doesn't matter. Nobody gives a shit about Connecticut. Connecticut is seven electoral votes. I care about nurturing a winning slate of Democrats for 2008.

Frankly, there is very little that could happen politically in the world that would make me optimistic and the Democratic primary for Senate in CT doesn't make much of an impression.

It is nice for once to see an old hawkish incumbant get his face slapped. I have no faith that Democratic Party can make anything happen, but this at least feels like a voice of reason above the din. Lieberman already sounds like a case of sour grapes. He should get alot of shit - and he should have been getting the shit for the past 4 years. Better late than never.

I just wish Feinstein had competition. None of them should have it easy. Burn, baby, burn!!

fnarf - there is no "nuance" when it comes to torture. it's wrong, always.

Lieberman shot himself in the ass (or fucked himself in the foot - I can never keep those straight). No questioning the president! There is no freedom from religion! The Hollywood Elite are coming for our children! Torture is good! Pucker up, Mr. President! The war is going great! How DARE you try to take away MY seat!

If the "blogosphere" had any real effect in meatspace, it was by constantly reminding us of Lieberman's own postures, rather than some SwiftBoat-analogue character assassination.

Cite: you think? Well, then, why are you so thrilled with a result that will keep the torturers in power forever? Do you know what a nuanced argument is? Do you want to win?

Catalina, your story is wonderful and enheartening, but I have to ask: how many of those cheering VFW folks in that hard-right district are going to vote for a Democrat next time? War or no war? I wish I shared your optimism.

If this shit keeps up, I'm going to be eventually trying to figure out how to defeat John Howard or Steven Harper, after I just plain give up on this country.

...And, mentioning Cantwell, I wish we had a Lamont of our own. I would vote for viable alternative in an instant. She has consistently disappointed. Even Senator Tennis Shoes has a record that better represents me.

I'm nobody, sitting here in the Far Provinces, and I knew W would abuse power and over-reach with any excuse they gave him. When he asked for open-ended permission to go to war in or near Iraq, with little or no debate, from HERE we knew he would use it as an excuse to do whatever he wanted. Why didn't Cantwell, sitting there in the same room, with professional advisors and experts, understand that?

Or maybe she did, and it didn't matter to her.

I read Lieberman has to scare up 7500 signatures by Wednesday. That's TOMORROW (or today in Connecticut). Anybody know for sure if he was collecting those signatures already? He must have been...

fnarf, I'd be a lot more likely to agree with you if this was actually a national (i.e. presidential) election coming up, but it's an off year and most of the races will turn on issues important to the locals.

While Dems can run against (or with, as the case may be...Maria?) Bush and the war as it suits them, Repubes running against Ned Lamont really isn't gonna carry much water in Billings or Biloxi.

My guess is that the race in CT will be of intense interest to political junkies between now and Nov, but be a blip on the radar in most Senate or Rep races.

The bastards win by doing all the things you're objecting to, Fnarf: enforcing ideological conformity, eliminating nuance, targeting dissenters, defining and distorting the opposition. They've been doing it consistently for 20 years. That's how they win.

Sorry for blathering. I've been having this argument all day.

(that was me)

There is no such thing as nuanced argument in a world of 10-second sound bites. That's why the republicans keep winning -- they know their instrument, and they play it like virtuosos.

Meanwhile, Democrats consistently sound like pansies because they try to make nuanced argument in the national arena. It leads to bad habits -- voting for things before they vote against them, for example.

First win the election, then worry about "nuance."

Huh, so the more popular Democrat won the Democratic primary and that spells bad news for Democrats because they don't win.

And Democrats don't win because they aren't enough like Republicans, who win. So Democrats should be more like Republicans so they can win.

What's all this about "nuance" again?

Well I asked my 1 democratic senator to support the primary winner. And on a related note, how the fuck did Oregon elect a republican senator!?!?

FNARF,

I think your point is very valid. Looking at the big picture here, it's a lot like Dan Savage's call for Bob Casey against Rick Santorum even though Bob Casey is pro-life.

Lieberman, if he won the primary, would have been a pretty good lock for re-election as the Lamont supporters would have followed him. They almost certainly would not have swung to the Republican ticket.

However, now that he lost, he's going to eat a chunk of votes from Lamont in the general election and could possibly cause the Democrats to lose the seat in the Senate.

As much as any "mainstream" Democrat dislikes Lieberman, he is a mere pawn in the Democrats retaking the Senate. And today, that movement took a step backwards because Connecticut took a step towards electing a Republican candidate.

FNARF has it right: You have to look at the body of work as a whole (the Senate) rather than in terms of "what have you done for me lately" (the primary race in Connecticut).

Oh come on, not one likes to find that they have santorum....

Gomez of comment #15 hit the target. Much of the rest of the commentary is indicative of the Democratic Party’s plight: A lot of talk without much substance. (Fnarf? A lot of talk.) Past the bedtime. Good night.

I think the bigger picture here is the anti-incumbency picture, and a desire for change by the electorate at large, both R and D.

Both parties have an uphill battle to show that they can actually govern. The proof will be in the pudding, as most House seats are in such safe districts (made worse by the tactics of people like DeLay) that I think that either many people from both parties will be turned out, or very few.

Dex, Lieberman is running again because his personal ambition and sense of entitlement is greater than his concern for his former party or for the country. That's not the fault or failure of the voters who found someone they liked better.

The next senator from Connecticut will be either independent Joe Lieberman or Democrat Ned Lamont. The GOP candidate is a complete yahoo even to the GOP. They've been trying to get him to drop out so they can put in an electable candidate but he won't. I saw he was polling at 11% in a three way race. Lieberman will likely vote with the democrats like Jeffords did, so this is unlikely to cost the Dems a shot a taking the Senate.

I'm glad to hear it. That plus how the 43rd District Democrats chose NOT to endorse Washington State Supreme Court Justice Gerry Alexander, after his decision and explanation for ruling against same-gender marriages in upholding DOMA.

It's a great day in America!

Fnarf, you are simply wrong when you say Lieberman's position on the war is more mainstream. According to a cnn poll I just saw, 60% of the country, not democrats but the country, is against the war. Only 40% share LIEBERMANS position. Furthermorem Lieberman needed to go not just because of his position on the war, but because of his habit of undermining democrats. It is Lieberman who has stated one shouldn't wuestion the president's action while we are at war. IT is Lieberman who has continually given bipartisan cover to the adminstration. On the controversial issues he seems to be more often then not siding with the republican.

Fnarf, seriously, calm down. This is a great win for the Dems. 60% of Americans do not support the Iraq war. Lieberman not only supported the war but, as Andrew Sullivan notes, he has been to the right of many Republicans by not criticizing the president on anything regarding foreign policy and by suggesting that such criticism is out of order from anyone. He deserves to lose his spot in the Senate in the Fall. If Dems were to insist on only fielding candidates who were completely aligned with Bush, because they are supposedly 'electable', then what's the point of having a Democratic party?

The main thing that makes Dems seem in disarray is talk like yours, fretting that 'Karl Rove is happy tonight' and that being genuinely center-left is a no-winner. Good God, man.

And Fnarf, if you lived in Canada you wouldn't really have to worry about defeating Harper, because in Canada the right-wing is much further to the left than here.

Fnarf, ALL of those VFW guys used to be Democrats, and some still are - they never left. The whole town used to be heavily Dem (except for the "merchant class", of course) until the "Reagan Revolution", and even now people like King get elected by small margins. Bush only won Iowa by 15,000 votes.

The Republican "majority" is only due to dirty tricks, outright criminal activity, and gerrymandering. Don't forget that both Kerry and Gore won the popular vote. If it weren't for that skanky nutcase Katherine Harris, and Bush' dadddy's pal on the supreme court, we would never have been in this mess in the first place.

The country is not nearly as conservative as people like to say it is.

Being center-left is a no-winner: yes, that is exactly my position.

As for these polls showing "60% against the war": there's a lot of ways to read those polls. That is absolutely NOT 60% suddenly turning into Kucinich voters all of a sudden. Just because some folks are disenheartened about the war -- more particularly, about the MANAGEMENT of the war, not the fact of it -- doesn't mean that if you are anti-war everyone is on your side now. There isn't much evidence that DEMOCRATS are in the lead now, let alone anti-war candidates.

The question of anti-incumbency is an important one, though we don't yet know how important. McKinney lost in Georgia, but she was a raving nutbag. The question is, can the Democrats play the anti-incumbency game better than the Republicans? I don't think they can, based on what I've seen so far; every Republican candidate in the country right now is running away from Bush, and with a fair amount of success. Voters want to get rid of incumbents IN GENERAL, but not usually their own guy; that's the way it always works.

I see no evidence at all of any enthusiasm for Democrats in the current Republican quandary. Losing Lieberman hurts, because he is the kind of candidate who can siphon off those votes.

I wish he'd stay out of the race now, though. It probably doesn't matter in terms of CT, because as you say the Republican candidate is a no-hoper with a gambling problem who isn't even 100% sure what his own name is. But a real candidate there could swoop in and take this election away; and even if that doesn't happen, having Democrats shred each other AFTER the primary is a major turnoff.

But if the "netroots" think this result covers them in glory, then we're in for more trouble, because it doesn't. Hubris is always unattractive. The only thing uglier than a sore loser is a sore winner. And I'm afraid that now the freaks are on the loose, and we're about to find out just how disgusting they can get. Did you see the Lieberman in blackface picture? That's the kind of thing that makes Rove chuckle with glee. Give Kos more rope, that's going to be their strategy.

Kerry did not come close to winning the popular vote, Ohio or no Ohio.

Fnarf - your strategy for why Lieberman is good for the Dems is completely inane. get a clue. Look at how the Republicans got control of our government - they lied their way up there, but saying homos and abortion are a threat to decent society and by saying that Arabs want to kill us with WMD in Iraq. Because education in this country is in the toilet, a lot of Americans believed this crap and voted for these assholes. We need Dems who will hold them accountable, rather than f-ing Lieberman. Al Gore won the popular vote and Kerry lost barely lost. So there are a lot of people who did not go along with this stupid-ass administration. We need Dems who will represent the 50 million out of 100 million people who did not fucking vote for this shit.

In the NY Post today, Johnicide Podhoretz illustrates how the right will try to frame this Lamont victory:

That's over now. The Democratic Party officially became the antiwar party last night... Begin with the Senate.

Unless a Democratic senator hails from a state that tends to vote Republican for president, he or she will have every reason to vote no on any and every matter involving Iraq proposed by the administration and supported by Republicans - and, for that matter, the war on terror.

No! on further appropriations bills for Iraq reconstruction. No! on any emergency funding for the military's operations in Iraq. No! on homeland-security funding. And on down the line.

There will be no room for serious foreign-policy talk about how we can't abandon the Iraqis, how we need to see this business through.

Podhoretz and his ilk are good at scaring people, as evidenced by the thread above. They present a false choice: that you are either supporting the Bush administration's war down to every detail, or else demanding an immediate withdrawal and being completely uncooperative. To suggest that Dems will just start being contrary for its own sake is ridiculous. What will happen is that if the Dems strengthen and move away from Bush, they will begin to have a say in how the war is run, rather than leaving the administration to its stumbling ineptitude. There are many different ways of being anti-war. Dems can oppose what Bush has wrought and put forth real solutions, they can win with better ideas.

So the mission right now is to anticipate rhetoric such as Podhoretz's and be ready with answers that illustrate to voters that the Dems will change the way the war is run. And polls suggest that Americans are very receptive to such a message. Someone like Lieberman, who was completely uncritical of Bush on this, had to go. That's what separates him from other Dems who also voted for the war. Others have at least had the decency to note that it's not going well and that a change is in order.

As for these polls showing "60% against the war": there's a lot of ways to read those polls. That is absolutely NOT 60% suddenly turning into Kucinich voters all of a sudden.

This is a good example of what I was saying above, Fnarf. It doesn't need to be one or the other. We don't need to turn into a party of Kuciniches, nor should we. Yes, the tent needs to be big enough to accommodate both those who initially supported the war and those who didn't. But it does not need to accommodate those who think it's going just fine.

So, Fnarf, what is the solution?

What could possibly happen to create change in the country (assuming that is what you are interested in having happen)?

Show me how it makes sense to elect politicians like Lieberman - repeatedly - when the advance of the right wing marches on unencumbered. Should we elect faux republicans and hope they change?

THAT sounds like something the wife of an alcoholic would say.

"Joe doesn't mean to support the war...he's just had so much pressure at work. I know he loves me."

So, Audrey, you're all good with finishing a close second over and over again? Is that the fucking clue I'm supposed to be picking up here?

All of these dirty Republican tricks -- so, now that Bush is sort of unpopular, they're going to stop doing them, right? Right? You don't win by "calling bullshit"; Americans aren't going to buy it. Your anger is impressive, but anger will never be a winning strategy.

Gore "won" WITH LIEBERMAN, remember that? All those "VFW Democrats" who keep voting Republican -- they're Lieberman Democrats, not Lamont or Kerry or Gore Democrats. We just told them all to fuck off.

Bemoaning the "arrogant hubris" of Kos & Co. seems pretty ridiculous in a world that includes Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.

This isn't about blogs--it the people of CT who voted, and like a lot of people everywhere, they're troubled by the direction we've be taken, and they're looking for change. It isn't the mindless rage of a angry mob; people are in the midst of acknowledging where we are, and correcting course. It's going to be messy, and there will be setbacks, and terrible failures, but the reckoning has started.

Blah blah blah.

I agree with Patrick. The strategy just serves to move the country further to the right, with the only benefit to Dems being that we could claim a larger piece of the right-wing pie. Hoping that we can gain power by putting forth right-wing politicians and then hoping that they will change to being more left-leaning once we have a majority is just naive.

yall need to lay off the crack pipe and get some sleep.

I think we need to find someone to resurrect those old "Sore Loserman" signs to shame Lieberman out of the election. If he doesn't run, the race will be less fractious, Lamont will win, and maybe our Democratic representatives will start acting like Democrats again.

Never confuse winning the battle with winning the war.

the war will go on forever.

Lieberman is a loser like Santorum and deserves a funny politician name definition. Let's show this loser what people really think about politico's who support the war. Santorum was a good start. Please add this Lieberman definition to your dictionary. -

Santorum - That frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes a byproduct of anal sex.

Lieberman - noun - A clot of blood than forms on an infant's penis if the Rabbi doesn't suck the blood away quick enough. -- The Rabbi used his tongue to dislodge the Lieberman that had formed on the penis. (There are three stages required for the performance of a ritually correct circumcision in Jewish law: the removal of the foreskin; the tearing of the underlying membraene so as to expose the glans completely; and the sucking away of the blood, m'tsitsah)see- http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/mohel.htm

I think we are all reading way too much into this, at least as far as the "Reagan Democrats" are concerned.

Reagan Democrats are Reagan Democrats because they don't follow politics. This isn't even on the radar screen of 90% of the voters out there.

Unfortunately, the majority of them make up their minds based on shitty TV commericals.

Dude! 64 comments.

I'm beginning to think that in some cases, they throw away the wrong part after the circumcision.

You're saying they should throw away the Jew?

FNARF, you are wrong, flat out wrong. Lieberman was a conservative politician representing a liberal state. a win win and a total coup for republicans. He put a D in front of his name for 18 years, but that in no way made him representative of CT voters. Voters in CT have rooted out a mole. I agree that a presidential candidate needs to lean to the center to win, but this was a race for senator from CT. That seat should be filled by a much more progressive voice than Lieberman and now there is a chance it might be. YOUR reaction is exactly what republicans want from this. pansy ass democrat panic. If the Dems celebrated this as they should, and got behind Lamont in the general this would be a strong signal in the democratic ranks that you have to do more than put a D in front of your name to get elected in liberal districts. and don't be afraid of the Dems taking an anti-war stance. As this war drags on and on and on and on and on and on, anti-war sentiment will continue to grow. That is a position with "upside", if you will.

Lamont is pretty darn close to a standard DLC Dem. Nothing radical here except winning a race to take out an establishment Dem. He did it because Lieberman steadily undercut his own party at crucial times, to the detriment of the party and the whole nation. Events continue to prove that an unfettered unopposed unchecked Bush II is historic disaster for the US. Lieberman went out of his way to say that opposition was not just wrong but traitorous.

When faced with a minor challenge, instead of speaking respectfully to voters, asking for their support, and saying he would abide by their will, he acted like an insulted hereditory aristocrat and proudly proclaimed BEFORE the race that he was not going to abide by the will of the voters.

The media spin is soo off here. If they weren't already stumping for him, the media would strongly point out that Lieberman lost primarilly for two reasons: 1) his proclomation of an independent run before the primary affirmed for all doubters that he is a disloyal backstabber and 2) the people who have been running the big Dem campaigns out of DC (including the presidential campaigns in 2000 and 2004) are terrible.

I hate to spam, I really do. I must say, I am enjoying watching Dem party hacks squirm as their precious Joe Lieberman goes down. Our very own party hacks remind us how this can be bad, since what we really want is to appeal to Reagan democrats (ha!) Who knew? Party hacks remind us that we don’t want to stand for something and be a real alternative to the Bush agenda, but what we really want to do is compromise all values for the sake of winning. Never mind that standing for something actually gets people excited and to the voting booths.

What is even more funny, is to watch this democrat dinosaur who once called Ralph Nader a spoiler talk about ( on the Today Show) about the need to create a “3rd� alternative. To watch the hypocrisy of the dems is priceless.

Congrats to Ned and I gotta say Maria Cantwell is lucky she did not draw a credible opponent in the primary, and the Greens should hang themselves because they could not come up with a credible candidate.

In celebration of all this, I want to leave you all with this great web site which shows you how to easily change a 3 dollar pen into a 200 hundred dollar Mat Le Blanc Pen ( it really works yo!!)

http://www.instructables.com/id/EWAMSPFFCKEP2871N2/?ALLSTEPS

FNARF van winkle:
Wake up...wake up.. got news for you.

You said, "Gore and Lieberman won in 2000 with a centrist, Clintonist strategy."

Where have you been the last 6 years? Gore and Lieberman lost!!

The "centrist" Lieberman strategy put a loser on the ticket who was so sure the GOP was going to win he ran a simultaneous Senate campaign. Centrist is one thing - ass-kissing the elite establishment is another.

Lieberman is more feisty and hard hitting now attacking the Democratic party than he ever was in criticising Bush or Cheney during the 2000 election, but he looks like a whining L-on-forhead loser. Its always been easier for Lieberman to attack Dems than Republicans. The Dems are well rid of him.

"Congrats to Ned and I gotta say Maria Cantwell is lucky she did not draw a credible opponent in the primary, and the Greens should hang themselves because they could not come up with a credible candidate."

The Greens should hang themselves, period. No one has been able to prove that a "credible" Green candidate even exists, so I don't blame the Greens for not coming up with one. Why even say congrats to Ned in the same sentence? Greens would run against him if the Republicans gave them money in CT.

Audrey, this is my quote of the day:

"No one has been able to prove that a 'credible' Green candidate even exists..."

about the snip - gabriel, it doesn't matter to me what the religious affiliation is...dan fan is my target...

Was just teasing...

actually, the Greens helped put the right-wing Conservatives back in power in BC in their last elections, by siphoning off NDP votes - the combined NDP/Green vote was frequently something like 60 percent, but the Cons got a teeny bit more than 32 percent in a lot of BC ridings and ended up winning.

Greens need to wake up and smell the reality. But none of this means Lieberman shouldn't have been kicked out - he should.

So, assholes, who is Lamont running against in November and what's his chances of winning?

Why the fuck did everyone waste 70+ comments bickering over philosophical bullcrap that's not gonna mean anything to 90% of the voters on election day? None of the shit you're arguing about matters to most of the voters that actually are going to decide who wins the seat!

Does Lamont stand a chance against a Republican opponent WITH Liebermann running independently like an assbag to siphon votes away? I think THAT is the only question that really warrants an answer. Everything else is dressing. Put the tub of dogma frosting down and think about the stuff that matters.

Dumbasses.

Yet again, I agree with Longball.

Once again, Gomez comes in with his insightful opinion that he is smarter than anyone else in the world.

Why doesn't the stranger just not allow ANY comments except for Gomez? Better yet, why doesn't the stranger just let Gomez do all the postings of every item on the Slog, and change the name of the slog to the Glog?

Obviously, no one else should even try to have an opinion other than Gomez - the world's most negative queen!!!!

I'm inclined to think that Lieberman is going to siphon more Republican votes than Democratic. Without the Dem label, what reason do Republicans have not to vote for him. He's barely even pro-choice since he endorsed forcing rape victims to hospital shop for emergency contraception.

I agree, Keshmeshi. And so does Time Magazine if you read today's analysis piece.

YYYEEEEAARRGGG!!!!! LISTEN TO ME I KNOW TRUTH!! YOU PANZY-ASS DUMBASS BRAINDED KNOW NOTHING FREAKS!!!

Like Keshmeshi said, Lieberman as 'independant' is more likely to syphon votes from regular red voters tired of GOP'ers--not from blue voters tired of GOP'ers dressed in Dem clothing.

LOL, 98104. That was essentially what it took to get these bickering ninnies back onto the actual topic.