Martin Peretz believes Lieberman lost because of Clinton

[fujiyama]

THE CLINTON FACTOR:

I was for Joe Lieberman. I wrote an article about the race between him and Ned Lamont in Monday's Wall Street Journal. It was not neutral. But, though it got plenty of attention in the blogs and on television, it did not, alas, help Joe very much. Worse can be said of Bill Clinton's stumping in Connecticut for Joe (and Hillary's endorsement, too.) When Clinton came into the state, Lieberman and Lamont were running dead even in the polls, more or less. Clinton's appearance began Lieberman's decline. Within two or three days, Lieberman was down by ten points. (In the last few days of the campaign, Lieberman recovered considerably ... but not enough.) I know there's some nostalgia in the Democratic Party for Clinton and for Hillary, too. But for many, in the party and out, the Clintons are a nightmare. A nightmare, as James Joyce said, from which we are trying to awake. The common wisdom is that Al Gore would have won in 2000 had he embraced Clinton more or had he allowed Clinton to embrace him. Well, look at what happened to Joe.

--Martin Peretz

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=29876

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Never mind Joe's ass kissing of Bush...The first comment is great "Does anybody else at TNR mind that their editor in chief is..you know...prety much insane?"

[OwnedByFerrets]

1. Thats a pretty asinine statement. n/t

[formernaderite]

7. Actually Clinton is the epitome of the DLC candidate...

I think this election was about giving them the boot...thank all of you who voted for Lamont. And I'd agree....Clinton stumping only reminded us of his failed middle of the road politics, where we lost both houses.

[comradebillyboy]

2. Martin Peretz is either senile or

delusional. TNR has evolved into a bad joke, completly out of touch with reality.

[Bucky]

3. I think it's pretty funny

Clinton's endorsement meant nothing because Lieberman is a known quantity. Democrats think for themselves when they have the facts in front of them. That's the main cultural difference between us and Republicans. If Clinton were to endorse an unknown candidate, it would swing the vote for certain. To any thinking person, his endorsement of Lieberman was just one DLC moderate doing his buddy DLC moderate a personal favor and would have been dismissed as such.

Peretz, fwiw, is an ass.

[Dudley_DUright]

4. One hundred years from now, wingnuts like Peretz

will be claiming that everything that goes wrong (from their point of view) is the fault of the mighty Clenis.

[Vickers]

5. "The common wisdom is that Al Gore would have won in 2000"

He did, you pathetic pudknocker.

[laugle]

6. This idiot obviously has an agenda or maybe it's just Clenis envy!!

LOL,LOL, LOL, that's a funny word I just read.....sorry...I stole it.....

[Canuckistanian]

8. Nope. Joe lost all on his lonesome.

I really don't think Clinton had that big an impact at all.

Come to think of it, how many candidates can you think of who get the nod from the Clintons, Tom Delay, Annthrax, and Barabara Boxer?

[JI7]

9. this is a bunch of shit, Lieberman gained in the polls after Clinton

campaigned for him. without Clinton it's very likely Lamont would have won by a far larger amount.

[11cents]

10. Moronic beyond belief.

Really. I don't believe anybody could, with serious and sincere intent, write something so stupid. OP, you're making it up.

I mean, it's perfectly obvious that Lieberman's defeat was caused by the birth of a litter of kittens in Beaverton, Oregon on July 21. Previous to that birth, Lieberman and Lamont were running about even in the polls. Afterwards, Lamont surged ahead.

The kittens, BTW, are darling.