• What the American people have judged of progressives  is that we don't have a moral stance. And they are right.

    Nah.  That's a load of hooey. The American public is just beginning to see the Progressive movement. They barely know wht the word means.  I'd say switch the channel to something other than CNN if you want to rid yourself of the Republican spin that Democrats "stand for nothing."

    Standing for something and running good campaign tactics--from the candidate down to the grassroots--is not in any way a contradiction as your comment implies.  We aren't immoral if you we run good campaigns.

  • who thought that was a great line in this post:

    I think you're being too simplistic in you reading of that remark.  It reminded me of the way ConEd workers talk about electricity:  Either you respect it or electricity will kill you.

    I don't think any of us admire Joe Lieberman in the sense of wanting to be him.  But if we are honest with ourselves, we have to acknowledge that Lieberman has a set of skills here that must to be respected--or he will kill us in this election.  

    Frankly, what I'm tired of is the kind of Progressive campaigns where everyone thinks that we're going to surf to victory on our passion and moral stance alone.  The Lamont team tapped into passion, but they also leveraged a great deal of political skill--and it's that realistic fight that I saw acknolwedged in the line about "kean" respect for Lieberman.  Not a confession of wanting to become like Joe, but an actual true acknowledgement that this is a real race that is taking real hard political moves to win.  And when we do win, it will be because we rose to that challenge.

    I think on occasion we all take shots at Stoller's writing, but in this instance--that passage is worth re-reading as it is making a very, very valuable point that Progressives should take to heart if  we want to be in this for the long haul.

  • I hope that's the case, because that would mean that a few weeks of "machine"  politics in favor of Lamont, and we should be back on top.

    I also think that Lamont really benefited from being in the national spotlight.  He did great when he was the big national story--absolutely great.  But when he was sharing the "big story" status with 'macaca' and Foley etc.--I think some of the steam let out of the race and maybe voters just reverted to form a bit.  

    Who knows.  I still think Lamont can pull it out and that historians will be writing about this race for a long, long time to come.

  • comment on a post Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll over 7 years ago

    It seems to me that the big thing Lieberman achieved was a take-down of that kiss image.  At first when Lamont hit him with that approach, Lieberman seemed really defensive, but he pivoted to a much more aggressive stance.  And now he doesn't even flinch when that tactic is used.  Especially in the recent debate with 5 candidates on stage--it just seemed like that initial stark image had been effectively debunked.  After that, I think Lamont has been having  hard time making the case as to what the choice is exactly.  

    Also, I think Lamont suffered a bit from a lack of authenticity in the debates.  Of all I have have heard from Lamont over this camaign--interviews, speeches, etc.--I've felt he was at his most authentic when talking about Teddy Roosevelt as a political influence.  For some reason, he went into the debates without that authentic narrative.  I just wonder if a fundamental error in the debate strategy was to overprep Lamont in a way that suffocated his real voice.  I don't blame anyone, here.  This has been a really tough challenge.  And like you said, Lieberman has that Happy Meal thing going for him which is hard to beat.

    I hope there's still one more untapped reserve of idealism left in CT voters--that they suddenly wake up and realize that Lieberman is the problem.

  • comment on a post Joe Lieberman's Worst Nightmare over 7 years ago

    how many points Schlessinger managed to pull after the debate?  He stole the show...I'm guessing around 10 points.

  • comment on a post Lieberman Flip-Flops on Bolton over 7 years ago

    seems to me to be an indicator of a quid-pro-quo agreement.  Maybe Bolton plans to head to CT on election day to pound his fists on some windows at polling stations--a little replay to come, perhaps, of his fabulous negotiation skills as a paid thug in the Florida 2000 recount.

  • Did I miss something, here?  Stoller's asking for help to get out into the field, not to sit around in his pajamas and each cheetos.

    Journalists get credit cards from their publishers.  Bloggers get help from their readers.  

    Volunteering is important.  But so is working for pay.

    Even an all volunteer fire department has to pay for a truck.  So shell out a few bucks to help Matt get out to the fire...

  • is that the brand is MyDD, not MyMattStoller--which just means you're fundraising battle is uphill when you suddenly ask for money to fund an individual.

    "Sponsor MyDD GOTV Fieldwork!"  Or some variation like that might be better.

    I think it's the "you give to me" dynamic of the request when it  might work better as an "us give to us" request.    And Matt:  if you want people to give you money, don't critique their motives for not giving you money--just keep asking.

    One last thing:  Lindsay Beyerstein has fundraisers at Majikthise of the format:  "Ask the blogger."  Make a donation and your question gets answered on the front page.  It's a gimmick, I know, but it's a great idea and it works.

    One last thing:  thanks for all our work.  

  • comment on a post Three weeks till tomorrow over 7 years ago

    for the 15 minutes of your life that you lost reading Larry Kudlow.

  • Yes I did miss that.   Very interesting...

  • comment on a post Republican Jewish Coalition Attacking Lamont over 7 years ago

    Jewish PAC that gets out the fliers first and is able to compete against these kinds of the-sky-is-falling Israel advocacy groups--this stuff will happen.

    I did a quick search for Jeff Weinstein and it took me to a NORPAC page full of pictures from past events.  Single politician events included:  George Allen, Lieberman, HRC, Menendez, Stabenow, Pelosi, etc. etc.  Republicans and Democrats.  So they get to everybody and everybody gets to them.

    The Jeff Weinstein's of America need to be displaced by other Jewish groups.  

    I seriously believe we should consider forming a Jewish Progressive Pac with the sole purpose of creating photo ops for Progressive candidates who want to reach out to the "Jewish vote."  That way when these "Dean hates Israel" and "Jimmy Carter hates Israel" (!) crap floats to the surface--we are already out in front of it with pictures and press releases, etc.

    (Anybody know any wealthy American Jews who want to pony up $250K for a new Jewish PAC so we can have some luncheons?)

  • So...the Peter Principle, basically.  That's your argument.

  • Isn't this argument, though, the exact opposite of what Stoller is talking about in this post?  It's not about competence--it's about vision.  Clinton's problem is not her executive experience, but that she does not stand for anything.

  • I don't know if the WSJ is any indication what's to come, but they seem to have made a decision recently that bloggers are the future.  They've been running front-page blogger stories one after the other lately.  I think we can expect FOX to try to buy some bloggers.  The worldview that it's "all about markets" is hard to shake in these folks on the right.  

    Also, the Repubs have dumped a boatload of money into the College Republican movement.  Win, lose or draw in November, these college kids will be rocketing out of their semester in Washington programs to become the next Karl Roves.  So, maybe we'll see lots of diry campaiging as a result in 2010.  The College Repubs make me more nervous than anything.  I think Democrats are basically ceding University campuses to these folks and I'm not sure what to do about it.


Advertise Blogads