Any editorials for Ned Lamont besides the NY Times'?

[Eric J in MN]

Any pro-Ned Lamont op-eds?

[acmavm]

1. Conn. Race Could Be Democratic Watershed

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/05/AR2006080500963.html?referrer=email


Loss by Lieberman May Embolden Critics of War

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 6, 2006; Page A01

<snip>
FARMINGTON, Conn., Aug. 5 -- The passion and energy fueling the antiwar challenge to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in Connecticut's Senate primary signal a power shift inside the Democratic Party that could reshape the politics of national security and dramatically alter the battle for the party's 2008 presidential nomination, according to strategists in both political parties.

A victory by businessman Ned Lamont on Tuesday would confirm the growing strength of the grass-roots and Internet activists who first emerged in Howard Dean's presidential campaign. Driven by intense anger at President Bush and fierce opposition to the Iraq war, they are on the brink of claiming their most significant political triumph, one that will reverberate far beyond the borders here if Lieberman loses.

An upset by Lamont would affect the political calculations of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who like Lieberman supported giving Bush authority to wage the Iraq war, and could excite interest in a comeback by former vice president Al Gore, who warned in 2002 that the war could be a grave strategic error. For at least the next year, any Democrat hoping to play on the 2008 stage would need to reckon with the implications of Lieberman's repudiation.

Even backers of the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee are now expecting this scenario. Two public polls in the past three days show Lamont with a lead of at least 10 percentage points.

Although there are reasons beyond Lieberman's strong support for the war and what critics say is his accommodating stance toward Bush that have put him in trouble, the results will be read largely through the prism of what they say about Iraq and Bush's popularity.

-MORE-

[Eric J in MN]

2. That article seems fair to Ned Lamont,

but it's not an editorial or op-ed.

[acmavm]

3. I know that. But I thought it would be good for people to see.

[Eric J in MN]

7. The only op-ed I've seen whose main purpose was to support Ned Lamont....

...was written by Atrios and published in the LA Times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-black18jul18,0,7362225.story?coll=la-opinion-center

Why the Left Is Furious at Lieberman
A blogger's blast at the embattled Connecticut senator. Hint: It's not just Iraq.
By Duncan Black, DUNCAN BLACK writes the blog Eschaton www.atrios.blogspot.com under the pseudonym of Atrios and is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America.
July 18, 2006

...The war is certainly a reason — and given how events continue to devolve in Iraq, a perfectly sufficient one — but those who focus only on that miss the broader opposition to Lieberman and the kind of politics he represents.

For too long he has defined his image by distancing himself from other Democrats, cozying up to right-wing media figures and, at key moments, directing his criticisms at members of his own party instead of at the Republicans in power.

Late last year, after President Bush's job approval ratings hit record lows, Lieberman decided to lash out at the administration's critics, writing in the ultraconservative Wall Street Journal editorial pages that "we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril." In this he echoed the most toxic of Republican talking points — that criticizing the conduct of the war is actually damaging to national security.

[rodeodance]

4. I heard that 5 major newspapers in CT endorsed Joe

[cmkramer]

5. Does it really make a difference

I don't think I've ever known anyone who changed his vote because of an editorial endorsement.

As much as I would love to think that all over Connecticut Lamont supporters are now switching over to vote for Lieberman because he's gotten more endorsements, that ain't gonna be happening.

[otohara]

10. Exactly - Why Would Anyone Trust

a media who continues to pass on disinformation and the status-quo?

[Doctor_J]

6. NYT was the only major paper to endorse Gore in 2000

every other one has the deaths of 250,000 people in Iraq on their hands.

[Eric J in MN]

8. The Washington Post endorsed Gore in 2000, too.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/natendorse5.html

[NYCGirl]

16. Not quite true —

Here's the breakdown:

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/natendorse5.html

[calico1]

9. Here is one from another CT paper:

It's more anti Lieberman but it makes some very good points. I can't find an official candidate endorsement from this paper. This was from two days ago:

http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17013781&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=565859&rfi=6


Here is another one from the same paper from 7/28:

http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16979964&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=565859&rfi=6

It seems at least one CT paper has a clue.

[Eric J in MN]

11. Thanks, those were good. The Journal Inquirer

...gets it.

[calico1]

12. I found another one for you.

This one is a commentary in today's Hartford Courant. This is the most prominent CT Democrat to outspokenly support Ned Lamont:

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/commentary/hc-commentaryjepsen0806.artaug06,0,2574586.story

[femmedem]

13. OMG Thank you.

I hadn't seen this. It's excellent. Now I can go to sleep with a smile on my face.

[calico1]

15. I was wondering about Jepson.

I am glad he wrote this, and I am glad he waited until this weekend!

[Eric J in MN]

14. Great essay. I like this part,

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/commentary/hc-commentaryjepsen0806.artaug06,0,2574586.story

"Incumbency is not by itself a qualification for re-election."

And this part, "Joe portrays himself as a Democrat of the John F. Kennedy "muscular" foreign policy tradition. This distorts history. JFK learned early, the hard way (through the Bay of Pigs), the limits of military force. In the Cuban missile crisis, he spurned advocates of a military invasion, opting instead for a less confrontational blockade. Most historians agree he was looking for a way to avoid military build-up in Vietnam at the time of his death. Through the Peace Corps and Alliance for Progress, he looked to build bridges to potential adversaries.

Bush's go-it-alone militarism, so consistently supported and enabled by Joe Lieberman, plus all of its spillover into the issues of torture, domestic spying and civil liberties, is the antithesis of JFK's approach to foreign policy. Ned Lamont, with his understanding of history and advocacy of humanitarian aid and infrastructure investment over brute force, is far closer to the intellectual legacy of the late president."

[spooky3]

17. outstanding--very informative--thanks.