Is a Lieberman loss

[hyphenate]

a good sign for the rest of the election in November? Have we gotten the voters' attentions now? Or have we shut out a part of the voting public that hedged their bets on a more moderate position?

[saltpoint]

1. Don't know. But to me, Lamont's opposition to Bush's insane foreign

policy is not immoderate.

It's clear-headed common sense.

He whipped Joe's ass tonight not on the strength of jihadist bloggers but on the votes of (I'm guessing) mostly moderate Democrats.

[adarling]

2. its going to get alot of attention from everyone in the country

its not about anti-war anymore...its about anti screwing up the country!! People are sick of idiotic, ignorant buttheads in charge. People want a breath of fresh air!!

[AusGail]

3. Maybe Lieberman should reconsider being an independent

He should start his own party. Call it the War Mongers Party

[Starlight]

4. Absolutely. Our party "moderates" are definitely rethinking their position

s and trying to backpeddle on any support for the war & the administration. Even republicans will be moving to the left and trying to distance themselves from the administration.

[kenny blankenship]

5. Expect 24x7 MSM drumbeat on the "Democrats shooting themselves in foot"

theme. You know that little game they love to play where they continually assert that the public feels one way about some hotbutton issue--despite tons of evidence like Bush's low poll #'s and widespread Iraq War regrets, that the public in fact doesn't feel this way about that issue--and how the Democrats "had better" move to the right and distance themselves from "the angry left" to reassure voters that they wouldn't do anything different than Bush and the Republicans are doing.

[beltanefauve]

6. Joe is out of touch

Plain and simple. It's not just the war. It's about not listening to constituents. It's a general frustration his constituents felt, according to what I've read, with Joe becoming more and more of a "Washington insider" and less about Connecticut. Ned Lamont is hardly a "rabid Liberal". Being "out of touch" will take down a candidate faster than anything, regardless of which side of the aisle you stand on.

[Skittles]

7. oh, he is in touch

just not with the people

[beltanefauve]

12. Good one!

[MrBenchley]

8. I certainly don't think so....

I think the far left's swift boat campaign has alienated many moderate Democrats around the country, and thrown what had been the Democrats' safest seat into play, making it that much harder to get back the Senate.

[depakid]

9. This will help to nationalize the election

and draw some VERY useful and easy to understand contrasts between the far right and what the Democratic party and its candidates on every level down to dog catcher could be.

It's no longer "business- and losing as usual" for the sell out, stand up for nothing Beltway Dems.

Lieberman running as an "independent" only serves to further the contrast....

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. in what way are Lamont's positions not moderate?

unless one defines "moderate" as holding a marginal opinion regarding the war in Iraq. And left-wing or "far left" as holding the same opinion as the vast majority.

[hyphenate]

11. Not Lamont's

Lieberman's. His stance in the Senate has always been more moderate in some topics. Supposedly, he was one of the few "moderates" in Congress who kept that middlin' ground. Personally, I don't believe a lot of it myself, but that's what people have told me. :eyes: