Disclosure: I worked for the Lamont campaign doing web design and production and some writing for the official blog (from 9/5/06 to 11/07/06).

Saturday, April 08, 2006



President Bush, December 2005:

One of those who has seen that progress is Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman. Senator Lieberman has traveled to Iraq four times in the past 17 months, and the article he wrote when he returned from his most recent trip provides a clear description of the situation on the ground. Here's what Senator Lieberman wrote -- Senator Lieberman wrote about the Iraq he saw: "Progress is visible and practical. There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraq hands than before." He describes an Iraqi poll showing that, "two-thirds [of Iraqis] say they are better off than they were under Saddam Hussein."

Senator Lieberman goes on, "Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes, we do. And it's important to make clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still, but has changed over the years." The Senator says that mistakes have been made. But he goes on to say that he is worried about a bigger mistake. He writes, "What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory." Senator Lieberman is right.

Senator Lieberman, March 2006:

We're talking about 2006, 7, 8... that's three years. And I believe that a lot of very good things can happen in three years in Iraq that ideally would allow us to remove every American soldier who's there today.

Reality, April 2006:

An internal staff report by the United States Embassy and the military command in Baghdad provides a sobering province-by-province snapshot of Iraq's political, economic and security situation, rating the overall stability of 6 of the 18 provinces "serious" and one "critical." The report is a counterpoint to some recent upbeat public statements by top American politicians and military officials....

The patterns of discord mapped by the report confirm that ethnic and religious schisms have become entrenched across much of the country, even as monthly American fatalities have fallen. Those indications, taken with recent reports of mass migrations from mixed Sunni-Shiite areas, show that Iraq is undergoing a de facto partitioning along ethnic and sectarian lines, with clashes - sometimes political, sometimes violent - taking place in those mixed areas where different groups meet.

Maps from the NYT:

NYT on Iraq

Lieberman Informed of Bush Iran Bombing Plans?

According to Seymour Hersh in next week's bombshell New Yorker story on Bush Administration war plans for a possibly nuclear strike on Iran, one key Senate Democrat has been informed of these plans:

The administration of President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.

...The former intelligence officials depicts planning as “enormous,” “hectic” and “operational,” Hersh writes.

...In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of the House of Representatives, including at least one Democrat, the report said.

Might be something to ask the Senator about at one of his three in-state public appearances tomorrow, Sunday, April 9th (via MikeCT in the comments):

Has Sen. Lieberman been informed of Administration plans for a nuclear strike on Iran?

Joe Silent on Leaker-In-Chief

This week, it was revealed in court filings that President Bush authorized leaking classified information to the press for political purporses. The Courant asks why Sen. Lieberman had nothing to say about it:

Analysts and operatives in both parties said Friday they were puzzled that Lieberman, whose perceived coziness with the Republican president is fueling a primary challenge by Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont, found nothing to say about Bush for 28 hours.

"Say anything. Even something mildly critical would have no doubt helped in his primary," said Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political scientist....

But the focus by analysts and operatives was on Lieberman, the three-term senator facing his first fight for re-nomination, not the political newcomer challenging him. In Washington and in Hartford, the question was the same:

Where was Lieberman?

Good question. And one I swear I've heard before.

My opinion? Lieberman isn't long for the Democratic party. And may possibly soon be in the cabinet (there are certainly more changes coming before November), betting on a McCain victory in 2008 to keep him relevant in the medium-term future. Why else would he pass on such an obvious chance to get right with the very voters he needs in the primary?

It's not a good idea to insult your potential future boss.

Colin McEnroe has similar thoughts, if a bit more... colorful:

Lieberman's tin ear continues with his failure to denounce, thunderingly, the hypocrisy and untrustworthiness of the Bush White House and of the president himself....

It should be an easy call to denounce Bush. Unless one has too much invested in him to be able to quit him.

George Bush's Favorite Democrat has refused to rule out running as an Independent or Republican, refused to quash repeated speculation about joining Bush's cabinet, and is now refusing to criticize Bush even half as harshly as he did in the 2004 race.

Something's up.

Friday, April 07, 2006


Teenager Stumps Lieberman Spokesman (Updated)

The Lieberman campaign sent political director Ken Dagliere to rebut Ned Lamont's appearance in front of the Windsor DTC last night. But apparently he wasn't completely up to the task, deferring on some questions to Lieberman himself, who will meet with the group on Sunday, and getting embarassed on the issue of foreign policy by a 17-year old (via ctnewsjunkie.com):

Dagliere also addressed the committee's concern about Iraq.

“The war is a big issue. The committee passed a resolution and the senator respects that,” Dagliere said. But “I'm here to remind you that we agree on a lot of things,” he added....

The campaign literature Dagliere distributed included several interest groups' ratings of Lieberman on their [domestic] issues....

But 17-year-old Ian Crone looked at the glossy pamphlet and said this is great, "but where’s the section on foreign policy?”

Dagliere said he had only brought the single pamphlet, and that he would send Crone, who said he'll be 18 in November, information on Lieberman’s foreign policy.

Lieberman has a pamphlet on foreign policy? Why not just send the kid some Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign literature?

Update (and bumped): It gets even better. Here's what one of Crone's friends has to say in response to the article:

I'm Ian Crone's friend, I was there yesterday, and Dagliere's response is lacking in context. For one, he never made any effort of taking down Ian's address. He never even asked his name. Secondly, I would highly doubt he ever intended to - Ian asked a very pointed question, and Dagliere's feathers were clearly ruffled. His words were perfectly reasonable, but his tone was pure anger. He was visibly shook up, and took a very combative tone to my friend, who asked a very reasonable question.

If Dagliere can't handle a smart 17 year old, can he handle Ned Lamont?

(HT: ctblogger.)


I must have had Norman Rockwell on the brain after hearing about this uncanny life-imitating-art moment that occurred yesterday when a citizen named Harry Taylor stood up to calmly disagree with President Bush in North Carolina. Looking around Ned Lamont's website just now, I came across this photo that seemed equally Rockwellian:

Ned Lamont

Just a great photo.

The website has also recently been updated with an issues section. Have a look.

New Haven Round-up

Some online accounts of the DFA meeting with Ned on Wednesday: Branford Boy breaks the event down at MLN, Bob Adams has a first-hand account at his blog FutureDV, Ned Lamont Resource has the audio of the speech and Q&A (via FutureDV), Paul Bass writes about the event and the blogs at the New Haven Independent, and the Yale Daily News covers it too.

Update: ctblogger just posted a write-up of the meetup with some YouTube video clips.

Thursday, April 06, 2006


Where's Joe?

Meeting privately with DTC members, it seems.

Why won't Sen. Liebeman appear at a single public event? Should any sitting 18-year incumbent senator really be that scared of answering a few questions from his own constituents?

Been away for a day. Regular posting to resume tomorrow.

Update: According to this comment at MLN, everyone's invited to see Joe speak in Windsor this Sunday:

Lieberman's office sent a staffer to stand-in for Joe at the DTC meeting tonight. He spoke after Ned. When he was through, the DTC chair announced the Sunday meeting with Joe, which was for DTC members, elected officials, and delegates. There were at least 20 non-DTC Lamontistas present, and on the spur of the moment, the Lieberman staffer said the Sunday meeting was open to everyone! I wonder if he'll regret that. Sunday-11:30 at Windsor Town Hall

That's this Sunday, April 9th, 11:30am, Windsor Town Hall.

Wednesday, April 05, 2006


Wednesday Round-Up

Tuesday, April 04, 2006


Dodd's Got an Itch


As if on cue, Sen. Dodd gives an interview to AP and says he might want to run for President in 2008:

"It's an itch," Dodd told The Associated Press during an interview in his Senate office on Monday. "Could grow. Could disappear. It's an itch. It's not a bad word to use."

Dodd once again says nothing about whether he will support the winner of the Democratic primary for senate in November. Ask him if he will:

Washington Office: (202) 224-2823
Connecticut Office: (860) 258-6940

As for that "itch"... has he tried some calamine lotion?

Et tu, Dodd?

I somehow missed this bit in Kevin Rennie's column over the weekend:

It hasn't taken Lamont long to unnerve the Democratic establishment. Dodd, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and ultimate party loyalist, refuses to give an unqualified answer to whether he will support the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is.

Chris Dodd, that "ultimate party loyalist," won't commit to the lowest bar of loyalty - supporting the party's candidate in November. Need any more evidence that Lieberman is planning on cutting and running from the party?

As unacceptable as it is for Sen. Lieberman to refuse to say whether he will support the Democrat in November, it's equally unacceptable for Sen. Dodd to do so.

Ask Sen. Dodd why he won't commit to supporting the Democratic party's candidate for senate in November:

Washington Office: (202) 224-2823
Connecticut Office: (860) 258-6940

(HT: LarryInNYC.)

Monday, April 03, 2006


Lieberman and DeLay

So Tom DeLay is resigning amidst increasing scandal, preferring to cut and run rather than face the voters in November.

It's worth remembering that during the Terri Schiavo case, while even Chris Shays was yelling that the GOP had become "a party of theocracy," Joe Lieberman agreed with Tom DeLay that the federal government had the right to intervene in the most private matters of life and death:

MR. RUSSERT: You would have kept the tube in?

SEN. LIEBERMAN: I would have kept the tube in.

Tonight, Tom DeLay chose to cut and run rather than face the voters in an election he might lose.

And right now, by all accounts, Joe Lieberman is preparing to cut and run from the Democratic party rather than face the voters in a primary he might lose.

Cowards, both of them.

Right-Wing Bloggers for Lieberman


Well it looks like Joe's got the right-wing male hooker vote sewn up:

Truth be told, JFK would recognize the Democratic Party because his BROTHER is a member of its radicalized leadership as is the "other JFK", whose cheap imitation of a war hero would be repugnant to the commander of PT-109. He'd more than likely be sickened by its treatment of Sen. Joe Lieberman, one of the few in his party who takes the threat of Islamofacism seriously.

Now, this is silly, and the wisdom of linking to a forgotten non-entity like Gannon/Guckert is certainly questionable (who knew he was still blogging?). But I do so only because there's a larger issue illustrated here.

I've spent a fair amount of time scouring the blogs on this race, and literally every single one of the (admittedly few) bloggers I've come across who are defending Lieberman are right-wingers who have barely a single bad word for him. I have yet to come across even one self-described liberal, Democratic, moderate, or even non-partisan blogger speaking up strongly for Lieberman. If anyone has come across one, please let me know. But I haven't.

Why is the right-wing blogosphere - who should have zero interest in a closed Democratic primary where they lack even a credible GOP challenger for the general - so eager to try to help Lieberman fend off Ned Lamont? The answer is clear: not only is he an ideological fellow traveller of those supporting the Cheney-Rumsfeld neoconservative foreign policy, but he's also the most useful of Fox News Democrats to for the GOP to have around, constantly undercutting the opposition and making it nearly impossible for Democrats to define themselves on any issue as a party.

Republicans of all stripes adore Joe for his continuing service to their party, and his continuing disservice to his own. Including, apparently, male prostitutes who used to frequent the White House on a daily basis.

4,000 Donors in First Quarter

The 1Q numbers are out and exceeded all expectations, according to this email from the campaign:

Dear [Thirdparty],

Less than a month ago I officially announced I would challenge Senator Joseph Lieberman in the Democratic Primary. Our first Federal Election Commission (FEC) filing deadline has passed and I am encouraged and amazed to report that more than 4,000 of you stepped up and contributed. This is 33% more than our original goal, and a resounding testament to your hard work and ability to spread the word about our campaign and our vision. From the bottom of my heart I want to thank you. Clearly, without your support I would not be in this race.

But our work isn't done. In addition to continuing to fundraise, I now need to get on the ballot. There are two ways of ensuring Democrats in Connecticut have a choice on August 8.

First, our campaign will be on the ballot if we receive 15% of the delegates' votes at the State Party Convention on May 20th. For a challenger taking on a well-financed incumbent, this is difficult. But not impossible--and we are working every day with people from local town committees throughout the state to reach it.

The second option is to collect 15,000 signatures in support of my candidacy. On April 26th we will launch our petition drive, and if you live in Connecticut we need you and your friends and neighbors to take part. We want to show our strong support by submitting at least twice as many signatures as we need. We'll let you know the details of this exciting effort in the next few days.


Once again, thank you for everything you have done and everything you will do. This campaign has not solicited, and will not accept, Washington lobbyist money - we have you. And that's just the way I like it.

Thank you,

Ned Lamont

No Washington lobbyist money. Will Lieberman make the same pledge?

OK, you can stop laughing and get up off the floor now.

As the email notes, this campaign now moves on to something of a new phase, as the petition drive starts in a mere three weeks. Here are some events coming up this week where you can learn more, from the now regularly updated official site (or click on "Upcoming Events" on the left):

Sunday, April 02, 2006


Sean Smith Moves the Goalposts

Fresh off of refusing for the umpteenth time to categorically rule out his candidate leaving the Democratic party, much maligned Lieberman campaign manager Sean Smith talked to Ned Lamont's hometown Greenwich Time at length for their lead Sunday article on the race.

Smith has apparently abandoned his previous stints as both a stand-up comic and case study in psychological projection, and moved on to a new occupation - playing the expectations game:

"We think it won't be a problem for [Lamont] to get 15 percent of the delegates," Smith said. "He's been working at this for several months, and he's been bragging about his grass-roots army."

"We expected (Lamont) to do well in his hometown, as he should," Smith said.

"This is a competition," Smith said. "He's going to win some, and we're going to win some. We're confident that there's a lot of support for Senator Lieberman amongst the delegates and we'll end up on Row A."

It's more than a little pathetic for an eighteen-year incumbent senator to be playing this game at this early point. But, then again, Lieberman's campaign as run by Sean Smith has been more than a little pathetic so far.

So Joe Lieberman will try to claim "victory" as long as half of the representatives of a state party largely indebted to him financially and politically for three decades don't stand up on tables and boo him in May. That's not just pathetic, it's also laughable, and the media had better not let him get away with it.

Just as they had better not let a candidate with megamillions in the bank and chits galore to call in get away with claiming poverty:

"I think Ned Lamont's house in Greenwich is worth more than the $4 million cash on hand that we had, so we need to keep at it," Smith said. "This is a guy who may try to buy this seat."

Joe Lieberman, apparently, is now the outsider insurgent in this race.

Did I say Sean Smith had given up his fledgling career as a comedian? I stand corrected.

Quote of the Day

"He needs my vote more than he needs a drink."

- Unidentified attendee at the bar of the JJB dinner Thursday night, responding to someone attempting to cut the line in order to buy a drink for Sen. Lieberman, according to Ken Dixon at the Connecticut Post.