If you've fought against the Iraq occupation, you helped Lamont win

[WilliamPitt]

This was a victory for the progressive anti-war movement. Ned Lamont’s standing on issues central to the movement are still somewhat murky, but this is beside the point.

Lamont would not have beaten a powerful incumbent without the vast majority of Democrats holding strong opinions against the Iraq occupation. That strong opinion held by the majority of Democrats did not come from their listening to the media or to their leaders. It came from us, from the progressives, from the ones who have worked day and night to convince people the war is wrong.

We convinced enough people that Joe Lieberman, avowed Bush enabler, went down to historic defeat. This was our victory. The next step will involve helping Lamont to a win in the general election...and then a gentle reminder to Mr. Lamont about who it was that put him into Congress.

The skies are brightening, friends. If you need evidence that our hard work is bearing fruit, look to Connecticut.

[MessiahRp]

1. Although I am ecstatic about this

and agree with Joe's complicity with Bush and the neocons on everything damaged him permanently, doesn't this post sort of contradict your previous journal about this not just being about the war? :)

Rp

[im10ashus]

3. I read it differently.

That being anti-war "helped" Lamont win. :shrug:

[WilliamPitt]

5. It set the table

I didn't say it wasn't about the war, I said it wasn't *all* about the war.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/080906Z.shtml

It wasn't about the war. Not all of it. Iraq, of course, was the central motivating factor. Connecticut is a predominantly Democratic state, and some 80% of Democrats strongly oppose the occupation. The news out of Iraq has been uniformly dismal, and it was impossible to forget the manner in which Lieberman had stapled himself to George W. Bush and his collapsing war plan. This was the Democratic Senator, recall, who warned us all that criticizing Bush was terribly dangerous to the country. He said that only a few months ago.

(snip)

It wasn't just the war. It was a long, slow slide that eventually tipped Lieberman's applecart. It was a process of insinuation into the cash-and-carry culture of Washington, DC. It was a series of astonishingly bad votes on incredibly important issues. It was, above all, political cowardice; Lieberman attached himself to Bush while Bush was riding high, and was unable to extract himself as Bush's popularity collapsed.

[bigtree]

9. the title kinda took the wind out of me until I looked inside

I think it should read, It wasn't just the war. But, I hate nitpickers, so . . .

[SteppingRazor]

2. I really like the NY Times analysis...

that this isn't a win for "angry antiwar leftists," but a win for moderates who were angry at how far right the country has become -- so far right, in fact, that their position looks leftist when it's really moderate.

My blog entry on it, since I'm too lazy to find the direct link to the NY Times story:

http://blogs.southflorida.com/citylink_dansweeney/2006/08/ok_so_my_lamont_prediction_was.html

Very, very worth reading. (The Times article, not my blog. Although, my blog is certainly read-worthy too! ;) )



What say you, Will?

[WilliamPitt]

6. I think you're spot-on

but it was the progressives who helped to convince the moderates.

[mmonk]

4. I do feel better.

[symbolman]

7. This is a mirror of the 60's and I was there

THE PEOPLE got sick of death and losing sons and the bullshit on tv and they voted AGAINST someone who was obviously in Bush's pocket - the KIss of Death was widely distributed and THE PEOPLE saw it..

No doubt there was some hard work by progressives, but some of these Greenies are not progressives in the standard sense.. they are egoistic schmucks wanting to infiltrate the Democrats (of which Lamont is a SOLID OLD TIME DEMOCRAT) and jump into the Lamont win and claim it was all their doing.

They need to be dumped and weeded out just as much as other DINO's.

THis win belongs to those who HATE WAR and is a WARNING to people Like HILLARY and others that THE PEOPLE will not stand for this any longer.

Just my humble opinion, but that opinion includes that Lamont should run for President, and I'd get behing him 100%, not as a "progressive", but as a DEMOCRAT and FOR the Democratic party, not Greenies calling themselves 'progressives' as a Trojan Horse manuver.

As the other poster indicated Will, you can't have it both ways when posting.

[LeftHander]

8. Spot on.....we got em' on their heels

November is the knock out.

[bigtree]

10. great post

Power to the People!

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bigtree]

12. yeh yeah

same old deflecting crap. It should brush past voter's ears like all of the rest of the bullshit that comes from the republican reich-wing.