April 1st arrived late this year, I see.

:-)

A moving speech on such a Joementus occasion.

Brings to mind the realization that we don't use the word "droll" enough anymore.

Very droll, indeed.

Ump.

You spent some time writing this, and didn't want it to go to waste, I see.

I'm tired of moral victories Matt. I appreciate that you poured your heart into this race and want to see the positives but this devastating loss calls for a realistic reassessment of our losing ideology.

I'd be the first to agree that President Bush has been not only incompetent, but also intentionally destructive of constitutional protections. But Bush was elected and we can't ignore that fact. Senator Lieberman recognizes this and we ignore at our peril that President Bush, although odious, is our President in a time of war. We were justified in wanting Lieberman deposed but perhaps we should have hidden our objections to his coziness with Bush and focused on his embrace of pharmacist conscience laws and his actions in the Schiavo case.

The lesson I take from this is that opposition to the war, although important to us, just isn't going to get Democrats elected. We need to rethink our strategy going forward into November.

Who would have thought six months ago that this could have happened?  Lamont was a frigging fer chrissakes protest candidate with no money, no establishment support, no experience, no chance to win.

And he didn't win, really.  Lieberman LOST it.

Lieberman was the Goliath candidate.  When you're Goliath, you win by being as gracious as possible, trying to keep the condescension out of your voice as you welcome the chance for an amicable primary contest and talk about how Democracy is so wonderful and your little-known opponent has every right to run, and then you swamp him financially with positive, upbeat ads about your record, mentioning the "David" by name barely if ever.  "Goliath" wins popularity contests by being a gentle giant, not by being a brutal bully.

Lieberman didn't do that.  He was Fred Sanford, clutching his chest and yelling "LAMONT! LAMONT!" every chance he got.  He didn't even bother to hide his contempt for the democratic process as he screeched and raged at how this bloody peasant was daring to besmirch the divine right of incumbents.  He publicly insulted not only the "David" but anyone who held "David"s views--which happened to be popular, majority views. And to cap it off, he unveiled his spoiler independent bid, stabbing his own party in the back before he had even had the primary.

It was Lieberman, and not Lamont, who turned this race from nothing into a real contest, and then an upset.

It's the subject of epic tragedies.  If he had been a little less ultracompetitive, he'd be the safe nominee today.  And yet, if he'd been a little more fiercely competitive in 2000, when he was the "David" Candidate, he'd be Vice President today.  His career will stand as an epic warning for politicians for years to come.

Just had to flush your "draft documents" folder, I see...

You were writing two posts last night and figured "why waste it," huh?

Think somewhere there's a Bush contingency speech saying "because Saddam has complied with all the UN mandates, there's no need to go to war."

Nah, I didn't think so either.

I contacted all 44 dem senators and had some fun this morning. I need something more to do. What's the raction of the right wing blogosphere? I've read some and they are mostly silent. I gotta listen to Rush to see him whine about how great this is for Repubs.

Stop these kinds of posts---the snarkiness is annoying, especially the one by Chris last night about MyDD being hacked.  Post real stories, that are true-it's a waste of everyone's time to do otherwise.

You sir, have just published my nightmare.  It gives me the creeps just reading it.

You will probably need this speech - at least about Lieberman - come November.

I don't see how he can lose the general, at this point.  Please convince me that my reasoning below is wrong, since this community is the analytical progressive one.

The voters who voted for Lieberman - and then voters in the general:

a. They already knew that he would run independent.
b. When people commit to a vote, they usually stay committed.
c. That Hilary and Bill Clinton, other members of the establishment will now stump for Ned, won't make that much difference, as it didn't make a difference in electing Ned in the primary.
c. All the other people in the state - who are, and have been, comfortable with Joe - will now have a chance to act on their comfort.

What am I missing in this?

www.connecticutforlieberman.com/

Poor Joe's campaign dropped another proverbial ball - didn't register for the domain name of the party that he is allegedly running under. Absolute comedy whoever did this

If this had been the way it turned out, we would've taken a licking and kept on ticking, as the Timex commercials used to say.

But all the moral victories in the world don't boost morale half as much as one real victory.  And this was one we badly needed - not so much because we needed a win, but we by God needed this win.

If we're going to change this country through the institution of the Democratic Party (and it's not like there are any alternatives right now), cutting loose the sea anchor named Joe Lieberman was an absolute necessity.  He was just a constant drag on the party's efforts at coherence - the last man to come around on Social Security, a sure vote against cloture on anything important, the guy who ensured that the Gang of Fourteen would never find any nominee to be filibuster-worthy, the guy who continually attacked and undercut his own party almost every time he got on television.

Now the Democrats of the Nutmeg State have said he doesn't represent our party anymore.  Even if by some miracle Joe's independent campaign pulled out a win in November, he still wouldn't be a Democrat; he still wouldn't speak for our party.

Thank you, Connecticut Democrats, for stripping Joe Lieberman of his right to say he represents our party.  We owe you, big time.

But I'd much rather "lose" this way, if it's all the same to Joementum and everybody else.

IN a small bit of news: KARL ROVE OFFERS TO HELP JOE LIEBERMAN!

Why Joe will lose, if he doesn't drop out first.

1. No money. This alone is enough,

2. No support.
   
3. Republicans will vote for a Republican.
   
4. "Looserman"- nobody likes a looser.

I give him two weeks, then he will withraw for the good of the Party. My only hope is that if he continuies to try pulling a Nader, he is expelled from the Democratic Party. Let him go to Fox and suck up to Bus on Murdoch's payroll, not ours.

Ya know, I've been pestering them for months to get them to make 9/11 Truth part of their platform. I said, "I know it takes guts, but your opponent is close with the PNAC regime, and many people are catching on, this will be the issue that guarantees your man will be a winner, AND you will help bring the justice that the souls of the victims have waited in purgatory so long for... But they just ignored me every time. So, last night I got really loaded, I've just waked up, and this concession article is the first clue that Ned lost. This sucks! But now, the rest of you need to get busy with Truth before there is more damage done. Oh, my aching head...

Stoller, you bastard. I nearly lost my lunch reading that.

Nyah Nyah...

m/ m/

Bill, Hillary, Reid, Biden, Schumer et al. stumped for Joe against Ned in the primary. Now they're going to stump for Ned against Joe? Now THAT's going to look real principled. Doh!

How big a win is 52-48?
I was sort of hoping for a blowout even tho most people didn't think that would happen. Seems to me Ned beat an incompetent, smug, phoney, liar, Bush apologist, and a millionaire with a $15 a month web site to support his campaign for the US senate. Granted Joe had Clinton, Boxer, and the DLC doing the pc thing and supporting Joe and Ned is to be commended for a 52-48 win. However, my feeling is that Lamont has to get up to a new level.  He is in the big leagues now and apparently Rove is coming.

if by democratic establishment, you mean that harpy maxine waters, i will gladly stay in the moderate/mainstream mode....thank you very much.

Okay, since we did win, let's do what the pundits predicted would happen: Bring back McGovern's liberal campaign points from 1972.

* Unilateral withdrawal from the [Iraq] War in exchange for the return of American prisoners of war.

* Amnesty for draft evaders who have left the country.

* 37% reduction in defense spending over three years.

* Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.

Hmm, except for better control of defense spending, the points just don't sound as relevant to 2006.

Ironically, in creating this comment, I also found this January 2006 article on the American Conservative web site, Come Home, America: Liberals need another George McGovern--and perhaps conservatives do too.  It's a good read.

Brilliant, Matt.  Brilliant.

Perhaps we will have calls to start a third party about all this!