Who would have thought 2 years ago that the first national victories for the populist reformation of the Democratic Party would occur in CT?

CA-GOV, MT-SEN, and now CT-SEN.

Now we just need to fuck over the DLC by kicking the shit out of Bean in IL-08 and we will have proved that the DLC worth shit in open seats, incumbent primaries, and general elections.

OK, I really want to talk to some activists in CT right about now. This is very interesting.

I would love to get a peak at their GOTV strategy.

phat

Its big that Lieberman is the first Bush-Rove enabler Democrat to get taken down.  I remember the deference he was shown in the Presidential primaries 2 years ago.  

David Shuster just said on MSNBC (live) that Schumer and the DSCC (and one would assume the rest of the DLCers) are going to publicly support Lamont but not be publicly against JoMo's campaign of self-interest.

In other words, they're going to do the only thing they know how to do -- sit on the fence while having their cake and eating it too.

What a pack of losers.

Hopefully, the takeaway from Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut will be that Democrats everywhere should be emboldened to speak clearly and forcefully for change.  

Given the electorate's growing unhappiness with the sad and worsening state of the nation, its energy policy, its foreign policy, its occupation of Iraq, and its standing and moral authority in the world, change is not something to downplay or dance around -- it's the very heart of the winning message, and it should be embraced and articulated.  With luck, Lamont's victory will re-masculate Democratic candidates around the country.  It's been a very long time since many of them have used their balls, but I hope they at least remember where they hid them (or whom they sold them to) so they can get them back again.

Campaigns may or may not need slogans; but they do need themes.  The slogans and themes so far presented by the Democratic Party are generic, bland, and ultimately meaningless.  Newt's "Had Enough?" is only half way there, because it alludes to the problem but doesn't offer a solution or alternative.

I suggest "Change the Course" might be a good theme for the Democrats this year.  Americans no longer want to stay the course in Iraq, and huge majorities think the country is off on the wrong track in general.  This theme ties all the threads together, while also offering an alternative.  It's not "cut and run" or "abandon the course," and it doesn't suggest there's nothing we can do except wait or hope for things to get better -- it's CHANGE the course, which implies that there IS something we can do.  It's also strong, direct, and pro-active -- and refers not just to Iraq, but to everything.

(Of course, I could be wrong.)

JEP

I like many DLC'ers like Tom Vilsalk, Bill Clinton, Ed Kilgore, etc.

But I dont like Marshall Wittman, Bruce Reed, etc because they keep dissing the Dem Party.

Very good observation by Kevin Drum:

"I suppose it may already be too late for this, but when the punditocracy starts chattering about how Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut is a sign that the Democratic Party is diving headlong over some kind of wild-eyed lefty peacenik cliff, I hope they keep in mind that Hank Johnson also won a landslide victory over Cynthia McKinney down in Georgia."

I like many DLC'ers like Tom Vilsalk, Bill Clinton, Ed Kilgore, etc.

Kilgore's writings show him to be a Republican in all but name.

Clinton's been cozying up to the the Bush clan lately.

(But, like the chaste chambermaid who only changes sheets in the brothel, they should at least be careful about who they're associated with if they really care about their reputations.)

Vilsack? Who cares? He's just a eunuch waterboy for Hillary's ambition.

I'd be careful about reading to much into Lamont's win or taking too much credit for it. While this primary did have a lot of national interest, it was still a local CT election. IIRC, CT gives Bush and the war one of the lowest, if not the lowest, approval ratings in the country. That is the agnst
Lamont tapped into and the Lieberman did not fully understand or appreciate. The outcome, therefore, isn't all that surprising and may even have been the same regardless of netroots involvement.

I see this election as a lot like the May primary in Pennsylvania where 15 R incumbents got beat because they supported the pay raise. But, because a lot of the challengers who won are more conservative than those whom they defeated, our state conservatives crowed a lot about how they've
taken control of the state GOP and how PA is getting more conservative. Neither is true, but they don't really understand that the reason these conservative challengers won was because the voters were just angry about the raise and had a means - the primary - to vote "not incumbent" and
send a message.

That's not to say their aren't some lessons that
can be applied nationwide. The first among them is that criticizing the war and Bush won't hurt you.

Stop fighting your base.  

Used to, you fought your base and the Republicans won.  Then, we got sick of you losing it for us, so we started fighting you.  Now, when you fight your base, you lose and progressives win.  

Join us or be destroyed, either by us or by the Republicans, in every election.  Stop pandering to your opponents' base, stop making excuses for failed Republican policies.  

And do not even THINK about supporting Lieberman.  You have been warned.  

Oh, and while you're at it, look up "democrat" in the dictionary while you're at it.  
.