'Loserman'

[KG]

ya know, i recall a time not too long ago when this rightwing perjorative made democrats mad. now i see they've adopted this term of derision for themselves.

what does it all mean? i don't know. :eyes:

[City Lights]

1. It didn't fit in 2000 (they didn't lose), but it fits now.

He lost the Democratic primary. An honorable man would have given a concession speech and moved on. Running as an "independent Democrat" is assinine. He is a sore LOSERMAN!

[Cooley Hurd]

2. I thought it was silly and childish then...

...and I still do.:thumbsdown:

[Fredda Weinberg]

3. Indeed - let's see if we can be better than that

Or at least, let the record note that on our side ... some of us object.

[Cooley Hurd]

5. By focusing on Joe being a "sore loser," we cloud the reason why...

...he lost the Democratic nomination in the first place - because he was out of touch and out of step with the Democratic voters in CT. His run as an independent only underscores this.

It quite sad - Joe USED to be a good progressive (many years ago), but lost his way inside the beltway bubble. I still can't help but to wonder if the right wing and those who presently occupy the WH have something on him so nasty, that they were able to "flip" him.:shrug:

[Fredda Weinberg]

7. I fear we've all forgotten Weicker, whom Lieberman defeated

It does not bode well for Lamont in the general election.

[FormerDittoHead]

4. Here's another for him from the same source: "You lost, get over it." n/t

[rock]

6. It's ironic

Like "Yankee Doodle Dandy", we've turned it against the ones that meant to disparage us.

[derby378]

8. Me, I'm not a big fan of it

The more we use the term "Loserman," the less we focus on Ned Lamont. Joe wants all the attention he can get right now.