"but Lamont only won by a few points"

[welshTerrier2]

what a remarkable morning ... just look at DU go ... finally, we are focussed where we should be ... there are no posts about Chimpy ... there are no posts about Tweety ... there are no posts about Condi ...

we are discussing who we are and what should be the path of the Democratic Party ... we are talking about inclusiveness ... we are talking about the Party's message ... we are talking about our expectations from our Party's leaders ... it's a new dawn in Demville ...

all this, and yet there have been comments here and in the media that Lamont's victory was far too narrow to send a meaningful message ... au contraire!!

i've listened to hours of call in shows and i listened very carefully to Lieberman's supporters ... why did they vote for Joe? did they strongly support him, and bush, on the war? did they argue that a pro-corporate agenda was the right thing for America? did they believe that Democrats should not be the opposition party and should rollover to appease the neocons?

The Democratic Party's leadership needs to hear their answer ... their answer to all of the above is a plain and simple: "NO!"

Lieberman supporters did not focus on these national issues at all ... they talked about Joe being a good man ... they talked about the good things he's done locally for the citizens of Connecticut ... they talked about his honor and integrity (don't start!) ... and they talked about his lifetime of service ...

we may disagree with one or more of their assessments ... but the far greater point is that even the conservative or moderate Democrats who voted for Lieberman did not oppose the Party's emerging political force on the issues we care about ...

using only the margin of victory to define what happened yesterday would fail to understand the message sent to the Democratic Party's leadership by the voters ... Lamont was outspent 2-1 ... Lieberman had name recognition ... Lieberman had Bill Clinton and many leading Democrats campaigning for him ... but that could not overcome the pent-up demand for change ...

Democrats are tired of all the appeasement ... we don't want civility and collegiality in the face of neocon extremism ... we don't want our party managed by political hacks who cautiously and timidly try to mechanically chart a course to political victory ... we want to hear and see our passion for change reflected in our party's leaders ... we want the war, all the wars, to end ... we want big business to be thrown out of the halls of our government and replaced by the voices of just plain citizens ...

We see a world threatened with extinction by war and global warming and greedy profiteers who care little about human suffering and justice ... That has to stop! Please, party leaders, just do the right thing ... you will be rewarded for this new boldness in ways you can't yet imagine ...

[ClassWarrior]

1. Every Loserman supporter I heard on CSPAN last night...

...was a Republicon. EVERY one.

NGU.

[Totally Committed]

2. To those who say... "but Lamont only won by a few points"

Remind them that this is only the fourth time in history that an incumbent Senator has been beaten in a Primary AT ALL... This was an historic win, and we shouldn't let Lieberman or his supporters diminish what happened last night... ever.

TC

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. Amazing, for a political unknown

to unseat an incumbent.

What happened last night is historic and does not bode well for the Repugs, or anyone who is seen has close to Bush, in the fall.

[unpossibles]

4. which sometimes is a "mandate" n/t

[wisteria]

5. I agree with your thoughts. n/t

[tsuki]

6. What are you talking about? It is a "GWB Mandate." nt

[Downtown Hound]

9. That's exactly what I was thinking

Bush wins by 2.7% (in an election filled with fraud) and it's a mandate. Lamont wins and it's "too weak to send a strong signal." Fucking whore media. I hate 'em. They are so terrified of the left. If there's one thing I grow more and more sure of every day, it's that. They are terrified of us.

[July]

11. And let's not forget that 537-vote "win" in 2000.

That amounted to a "win" of a fraction of a point.

[mcscajun]

7. Lieberman also took office in 1988 with a margin of only 10,000 votes.

We should hammer that into these water-bearers every time they mention the closeness of the race.

[nolabels]

8. Don't plead with them SO CALLED party leaders for leadership

They are too ignorant and arrogant to listen (and have shown they don't know how to give or show too much leadership anyway). We (that's a plural) must all do it together. If we are smart we will shove aside what Korporate or what ever other marginalizers want to try to give us and decide what we can use and want on our colective own. The former tried everything they could to derail Mr Lamont but now, thank goodness, Mr Lamont is in a drivers seat.

[kestrel91316]

10. If the numbers were reversed the "MSM" would have called it a

resounding defeat for Lamont, or a landslide.

[tulsakatz]

12. even if Lamont had lost.......

.....it still would have sent a powerful message!!

Are they kidding? Of course, it was a powerful message!! To unseat an incumbent who has been there for yrs. Not to mention, Lamont did not have the access to corporate money as Lieberman did.

It is truly a powerful message that, no one's seat is safe when the voters disagree with their representation!!

[Stinky The Clown]

13. Hey Welshie .......

.... as I said in another post: Ain't it great to feel more hopeful **after** and election than before one? :hi:

Disregard that 'won by a squeaker' crap. I honestly don't give a shit how the media spins this. The fact is, the party leaders saw it, picked their collective jaw off the floor, and are now having their ears enlarged.

The other meme to just plain ignore is the one note frame of 'anti-war'. That was no one note vote we saw yesterday. That was a fully orchestrated symphony. I, too, listened to more than a few callers-in. The electorate was PISSED. About LOTS of shit.

As for the Joesupporters, I heard many of them express sentiments of loyalty and few endorsing Joe's positions. There really *was* a fight among Connecticut's Dems. We all need to just give them a few weeks' worth of space. I suspect, in the end, there'll be more unity there than not. Much of Joe's support seemed more like non-reasoned, but very understandable, loyalty to a long term incumbent. Joenertia, if you will.

[derby378]

14. I got news for y'all...

Most of the Republicans who won in Texas in 2004 did so by only "a few points."

It's a win, folks. Lamont is going to Capitol Hill.