Lamont wins but was Bill and Hillary a hinderance or help?

[nolies32fouettes]

x posted at kos >>>>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/9/172938/1111


Lieberman Toxic Independent Democrat
by nolies32fouettes
Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 02:29:38 PM PDT
Behold! The Democratic voters of Connecticut have spoken!

No doubt many will speculate on exactly WHAT was enough to make this strong incumbent so toxic to voters. Was it "the kiss" and his closeness to President Bush and the Republicans? Was it his anti-choice and anti-woman stances while retaining endorsements from NARAL and Planned Parenthood? Was it his support of the Iraq war, or perhaps government meddling in the situation with Terry Schiavo? To many of us, his list of sins seems endless, all the worse because he still called himself a "Democrat" while spouting Republican Lite talking points.

Or was it his connections to the Clintons?


nolies32fouettes's diary :: ::
Despite Hillary's promise to support whoever wins the primary, Bill went out of his way to campaign for Lieberman. And Lieberman's numbers fell according to the Washington Post.

Lamont leads Lieberman, 54 percent to 41 percent, in the poll and now has clear momentum over the three-term incumbent and former Democratic vice presidential nominee


Lieberman has been sliding throughout the summer as Lamont's candidacy has picked up energy and support. In June, the Quinnipiac poll showed Lieberman leading, 55 percent to 40 percent. Shortly before Bill Clinton's July 24 visit with Lieberman -- which the senator said had turned around his campaign -- the poll found Lamont edging ahead, 51 percent to 47 percent.

Clearly it didn't help, as Lieberman's poll numbers slid faster than food down the garbage disposal. His numbers were EVEN with Lamont on June 25th, before the former president joined the fun. A few days later, Lieberman found himself down by around 10 points.

One has to wonder what Bill Clinton must have felt... pulling a political emergency rescue operation for a man who criticized and back-stabbed him with the Republicans.

"You cross a guy like Cheney, he never returns your calls. You cross a guy like Clinton, you get nominated to run as vice president." {and you get to campaign for the same guy's re-election so your wife won't have to.}

Clinton lied, Lieberman attacked.

Bush lied, Lieberman stood behind him. What's wrong with that picture?

And what makes Lieberman think that with all the animosity towards the Clintons, he'd PROFIT from Clinton's efforts?

Why did Lieberman lose the Democratic nomination and why didn't Bill and Hillary Clinton have the Midas touch to help their own DLC candidate over-power another Democrat? Could it be that they've lost their magic touch? OR maybe they've lost touch with what the American public wants?

[snowbear]

1. Big Dawg campaigned for Gray Davis and others too..

And as much as Democrats love him.. Democrats have minds of their own and will ultimately make up their own minds.

That's why our party is so AWESOME! ~~~

[nolies32fouettes]

6. true! AND we don't take 'politicizing' very well either

[Dogmudgeon]

2. But it's far simpler than that!

We (as in "many DUers") are so hung up on the DLC thing that we can't see anything else that's happening. In addition, many of us see things that just aren't there, especially if the initials "DLC" are anywhere nearby.

But the DLC is a toothless beast, Bill Clinton doesn't have much election-swaying political power, and Lamont beat Lieberman because the Connecticut Dems want a more-liberal senator than Lieberman. They specifically want a senator who opposes the war. Most of the machinations and manipulations have been on the part of the Press, the Lieberman campaign, and the Right. There was very little toxicity here; the choice was simple, and the people of Connecticut made their choice -- Lamont. Even just one day after the election, most of those who voted for Lieberman are rallying behind Lamont.

It was, after all, a fairly simple election. Lieberman lost. The Democrats are going to support Democrats, not an independent run by a spurned suitor. It's a sea-change, and micromanagement will be impossible. But that's politics.

--p!

[nolies32fouettes]

5. no--Clinton was suppose to "save" Lieberman while allowing Hillary to

sit by and watch silently.

This wasn't an accident. It was a decision. It may be that the DLC is toothless now, but as we listen to the media claim that the win in Connecticut for Lamont will make the party go left, we need to focus on the fact that the Clinton are 'rightie dems' and Hillary is trying to run as a "Goldwater Republican". So this has bearing on the fact that the Democrats in Connecticut actually model the mindset of the majority of Americans. Even in the South, they're not as 'red' as they use to be.

[BootinUp]

3. Let it go for crise sake. n/t

[nolies32fouettes]

4. Let what go?

[dsc]

7. Lets assume you mean for a moment July 25th

as the date of the President's visit. By my calculations, Lieberman went from 55 to 47 before Clinton and after Clinton was at 48. Clinton did stop the slide it seems.

[Eric J in MN]

8. Good point. NT

NT

[AtomicKitten]

9. They are merely players in the game of politics.

The Democrats paid their dues of loyalty to Lieberman for 18 years of service; I can understand that though some here at DU expect politicians to act out their rage on their behalf.

The Clintons both pledged to support the winner of the primary, and the first thing HRC did was donate $5,000 to Lamont's campaign yesterday, supporting him just as she promised.

I think people here need to rethink this DLC boogieman BS that cripples critical thought here at DU. Clearly the voice of the people is a hell of a lot stronger than some think. That was born out last night in a splendid victory for Lamont.