Just ‘cuz Lieberman is running as a Repug does nothing to prove that Lamont, who represents Prescott Bush’s wet dream economics, is a democrat. They’re both radical anti-Americans. While whites are too stupid to get it, blacks did. They voted for the only candidate who represented them – none of the above – despite Black rent-a-Demagogues being imported to exhort them. Congrats on seeing through the bullshit, black folks.

Posted by: jj | Aug 9 2006 5:39 utc | 3

jj has it right.
Ned the poster boy for Israeli massacres Lamont is just the same meat in a new tin as Joe the darling of AIPAC Lieberman.
Why is it better to have someone with boyish good looks shove a pineapple up yer ass than a ugly old greedhead? The end result is just the same, hemorrhoids and fuck they hurt!

Posted by: Debs is dead | Aug 9 2006 11:06 utc | 5

As the circle jerk er, I mean elections are ramping up, the cyclical burn out of people who care, is sure to happen again, the following may help as a precaution antidote/inoculation, what have you:
Activism and Mental Health [Wed 8.02.06] seriously, that particular show was kick ass… entitled: Activism and Mental Health [Wed 8.02.06]you may have to scroll a bit to find it, but it will be worth it to some. It resonated with me on many levels.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 9 2006 12:03 utc | 7

Debs, aside from not being able to follow you in visualizing a paint-by-numbers Ned as an AIPAC massacre poster boy, what exact facts back up your ad hominem?
I, for one, am quite content that Ned found it more important to actually win the primary than to satisfy your cynic snark.
Granted, I lack your experience and insight in anal problems, but I do know enough about Realpolitik to understand that he would not have won the primary with you as campaign manager.
Perhaps, having boyish good looks myself, it is easier for me to concentrate on the issues at hand, free of petty envy.
Thus, unable to share your myopic combine harvesting acid test for Democratic candidates, I freely admit the joy I feel for you providing proof of Ned being far from the lunatic fringe corner that the establishment is desperately trying to paint him into.
Oh, and if you have a chance, watch his acceptance speech of the primary.
Ned still has to win a difficult senatorial race in November.
I am a creative artist, and gawd knows I have done some really wacko shite in my days in front of paying audiences, but your assurance of Ned and Joe being the “same meat in a new tin ” is far past what I am able to envision.
Please, indulge and enlighten me about what I am missing.

Posted by: Werner Dieter Thomas | Aug 9 2006 12:54 utc | 9

b real,
I did not at all miss the article in The Forward, I actually watched the interview in question!
I saw Ned uncomfortably squealing at the question that right here, right then could have ended his aspirations forever – a little, but very important detail not at all described in The Forward.
b real, be real! You know how narrowly Ned saved it over the finish line, in spite of massive brew-ha-ha last minute accusations of DOS attacks on Liebermann’s website and GOTV efforts, aided by all day newsflashes in the cable MSM, reports of significant numbers of GOP supporters enlisting as Democrats – so that they could vote in the Democratic primary – and the notoriously doubtful electronic voting process!
And that is just for starters. Any other answer of Ned at this part in the game would have ended his run. Do you realize what cutthroat, corrupt and cynical process elections are in the US of A? If you have a chance to find the interview on YouTube or whatever, ask yourself: Does Ned speak with conviction and fluid assertiveness, or is he hesitantly circling the wagons around well rehearsed CYA talking points. Given your moniker, you should grasp the difference.
b real, so no, I’m not buying into the validity of your argument for two cents.

Posted by: Werner Dieter Thomas | Aug 9 2006 15:04 utc | 11

Oh, I may have forgotten to mention this, but I don’t want to upset some of the readers of this blog, so let me state very clearly that,
I AM FOR NED LAMONT!
I AM FOR NED LAMONT!
I AM FOR NED LAMONT!

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 9 2006 15:09 utc | 13

The issue of Lamont is not of him being a real progressive. The issue is to turn the tide. To pull back the Democratic party from further drifting to the right. Maybe even generate momentum to push it to the left.
In that I think his primary win is helpful.

Posted by: b | Aug 9 2006 15:16 utc | 15

I found Lamont’s acceptance speech very refreshing and promising.
meh…I found it vile, monotonous and ubiquitous. Same ol song and dance we have come to expect from our rulers…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 9 2006 15:31 utc | 17

However, I do agree with Chicago Dyke’s treatise about the Lamont victory, especially with the summation of point 5: That means less snark blogging, and more dissection of the mechanisms by which Democrats are actually elected

Posted by: Werner Dieter Thomas | Aug 9 2006 16:24 utc | 19

Yeah, I guess it depends on how one listens.
King Kong Died for our Sins; grep that one…
Just another Signifying Monkey, A popular trickster figure. Oh, but how we love our saviors…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 9 2006 16:29 utc | 21

GODDAMN TYPEPAD… GODDAMN IT TO HELL!
w/apologies to planet of the apes er, domesticated primates.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 9 2006 16:36 utc | 23

One is a neo-con, the other is a neo-lib. That they are both Democrats adds to the spice, obfuscation, spin …

Posted by: Noirette | Aug 9 2006 17:43 utc | 25

Very well put, jj.
Except that Lieberman is also the voice of American Capitalism. Ralph Nader, fom today’s Democracy Now:

Well, Senator Lieberman would have lost even bigger last night if Lamont’s people actually expanded their criticism of Senator Lieberman as big business’s favorite Democratic senator, not just George Bush’s favorite Democratic senator.
The most aggressive, cruel and insensitive business lobby and the most powerful in Washington is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and they have enthusiastically endorsed Senator Joseph Lieberman, one of only two Democratic senators they’ve endorsed out of 46 Democratic senators. And they have given him the highest cumulative score in their ranking of any Democratic senator in the Northeast, and for good reason.
He has supported the U.S. Chamber of Commerce positions, not only on capital gains tax cuts, he supported NAFTA and WTO and CAFTA, which have depleted jobs here, high-paying jobs here in Connecticut. He has supported the Chamber’s drive to weaken the rights of injured workers and consumers and defrauded investors from having their full day in court against the perpetrators of their misery.
He has supported the Exxon-Cheney energy bill, that notorious energy bill that was signed into law last year that subsidized big oil’s profiteering, weakened environmental standards in a variety of ways and made sure that there were no further advances in fuel efficiency for motor vehicles. And here in Connecticut, like everywhere else, they’re paying $3.40 – $3.50 a gallon, and it’s going up. So he hasn’t done anything on that.
And then, finally, on the labor issue, he’s not been outspoken on the minimum wage like Senator Kennedy. He has not pushed for labor law reform to give workers a chance to organize. He has not gone after OSHA because of its weak enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health laws. 58,000 American workers die every year, according to OSHA, from worker-related diseases and trauma.
So, in many, many ways, including never challenging the military budget — that’s the Chamber of Commerce position, as well — never really in 18 years advancing universal health insurance. That’s a Chamber of Commerce provision.

Nader, in his attacks, gives a hint on what a PROGRESSIVE candidate might actually be for.
It is telling that Lamont consciously chose NOT to run on any of those planks, despite the fact that he would have won by a larger margin.
Also telling, for those who believe Lamont is in any way progressive, is to compare the warm reception his campaign has received by power and media, compared to the absolute blackout that the media has imposed upon Jonathan Tasini, who might be considered a moderate progressive candidate. Again from today’s DN:

AMY GOODMAN: Jonathan Tasini, Ralph Nader just mentioned the issue of money. How do you compare yourself to Ned Lamont, who just won in Connecticut?
JONATHAN TASINI: Well, I’m not a multimillionaire, that’s for sure. Ned Lamont was, I guess, fortunate enough to have been a cable executive, was able to spend more than $4 million of his own money. We rely on individual donors and small donors all across the state and, frankly, all across the country, and I think that’s really the essence of democracy. One of the things that wasn’t pointed out and, I think, you know, Ralph pointed out before, it’s not an inconsequential thing in this victory that Ned Lamont was able to spend $4 million. That’s the way you get on television. That’s the way you can advertise. But we’ve had an amazing grassroots campaign that got us on the ballot, so I’m very proud of the kind of campaign we’ve been running.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you about the coverage of your campaign and read a quote. The local Time Warner station in New York, NY1, has refused to set up a debate between you and Senator Clinton, because you haven’t spent enough money in your campaign. We invited NY1 to join us on today’s program, but they declined. The station’s public relations manager, Edward Pachetti, though, sent us this statement outlining their position. He said, “NY1 News is producing the most ambitious series of political debates and town hall meetings this election season. As part of the staging of these events, NY1 established criteria to identify which candidates would be invited to participate in these events. The criteria are that a candidate must poll at least five percent (including margin of error) in a recognized independent poll and would need to have spent and/or raised $500,000. All candidates who have met these criteria have been invited to participate.” That’s the statement of NY1, which is owned by Time Warner. What are your poll numbers, Jonathan Tasini?
JONATHAN TASINI: Well, we’re actually at 13%, which is pretty extraordinary. That’s actually the number that Ned Lamont was at several months ago, when Joe Lieberman was leading that race by 55 points. And the reason we’re, I think, at that number is we’ve had an amazing grassroots campaign. To get on the ballot in New York, which is one of the most difficult states to get on the ballot, you need 15,000 signatures. We were able to gather 40,000, which means we have an enormous amount of support from the grassroots.
And I find that criteria that NY1 is putting out is appalling. It is anti-democratic. It amounts to essentially censorship. It takes and values money over the power of people and grassroots. I hope that NY1 changes, might we actually ask your listeners and your viewers to call NY1. You can go to our website tasinifornewyork.org and get all that information. But we need to pressure NY1 now to hold a debate between myself and Hillary Rodham Clinton, because voters deserve to see our positions side-by-side before they go to the ballot box.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, interestingly, NY1’s parent company, which is Time Warner, has contributed — is one of the top contributors to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign, contributed — what? — $100,000, was number six of the top ten.
JONATHAN TASINI: Yes, that’s correct. It’s amazing.
AMY GOODMAN: Newsday today also, in an editorial comment, says that NY1 should reconsider its criteria. You’ve been dealing with this for years, Ralph Nader. Your response.
RALPH NADER: I think the Time Warner Corporation should be in trouble under the 1934 Communications Act. I know that Time Warner owns over-the-air radio and TV stations, and this — NY1 is a cable, Amy. Is it a cable station?
AMY GOODMAN: Yes, NY1 is cable in New York.
RALPH NADER: So, overall, this company’s responsible, under the 1934 Communications Act, “to perform in the public interest, necessity and convenience.” Those are the words in the act. And for this corporation, whose executives are giving to Hillary Rodham Clinton money, to have a means test to say that Jonathan Tasini has to raise $500,000 — do you know that you have to raise only one-third of that running for president in order to qualify for matching funds under the federal law? And so, they put the bar very high. They should have no right as a corporation, which is not a human being, not a person, to determine that kind of access. The only criteria that’s justifiable is whether the candidate is on the ballot. If the candidate is a ballot-qualified candidate, that should bring that person into any of the debates.
JONATHAN TASINI: I completely agree with Ralph and, in fact, the League of Women Voters has a debate scheduled on September 6, which I’ve agreed to attend and Hillary Clinton has not, and the criteria they’re using is exactly what Ralph says, which is getting on the ballot, which, in fact, in New York State is a very difficult thing. And I want to say, I don’t even think the polling number is right the way to go. Their criteria at NY1 is 5%. I’m at 13%. But If somebody came to the debate and was running as another candidate in this race, I would stand up for their right, if they were legally on the ballot, to be in this debate, whether they had 5% or not, whether they had raised $500,000, because democracy is about the ability to go out there, talk to people, get them to sign your petitions. It’s an amazing grassroots effort.
And I think, frankly, that the Clinton campaign does not want to debate us. Putting aside the NY1 issue just for a moment, I call on Hillary Clinton to agree to the set of debates that we’ve proposed in a letter just a couple of weeks ago. I’m happy to debate her on this program, anywhere that she would agree to do that. I think we should debate multiple times on the Iraq war, on the Middle East, on her relationships to corporate power, her support for free trade agreements like NAFTA. The voters deserve to know where she stands. She cannot run and hide from the voters in New York.

Anyone hear Lamont question NAFTA?
Those who either don’t know, or don’t understand what a “pressure relief” candidate is, or how they function, can be happy for Ned Lamont. Those who understand what even a minimal progressive position is, are for Jonathan Tasini, who is squaring off against the equally odious Hillary Clinton, without the benefit of a doting media, access to debates, or a personal fortune.
(Can’t get the bolding to turn off, sorry.)

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 9 2006 19:37 utc | 27

One last point:

“But the administration now has to admit what anyone — including myself — who believed in the importance of getting Iraq right has to admit: Whether for Bush reasons or Arab reasons, it is not happening, and we can’t throw more good lives after good lives…. But second best is leaving Iraq. Because the worst option — the one Iran loves — is for us to stay in Iraq, bleeding, and in easy range to be hit by Iran if we strike its nukes…. We need to deal with Iran and Syria, but from a position of strength — and that requires a broad coalition. The longer we maintain a unilateral failing strategy in Iraq, the harder it will be to build such a coalition, and the stronger the enemies of freedom will become.”
Thomas Friedman, New York Times, August 4, 2006

It is a sad day when people on this blog start parroting Tom Friedman. If he advocates something, you KNOW it is wrong.
The best possible outcome for world peace would be for the US to lose decisively in Iraq. That would at least temporarily halt the meatgrinder of empire, and dreams of world domination.
There is nothing safer than a multi-polar world.
The best way for that to happen is to keep our troops in Iraq until there is a debacle, and have our army trapped and evacuated by helicopter leaving all their equipment behind as in Vietnam.
The big boys know this, and they also know this is a distinct possibility.
So the smart plan for maintaining the empire is to take 100,000 soldiers out of Iraq and rest them for the next battle. Leave 30,000 behind to protect our embassy and “enduring” bases, keep the death squads churning, and try to keep a puppet in power.
That is Lamont’s plan.
As Friedman says, “We need to deal with Iran and Syria, but from a position of strength…” Well, we all know what dealing with Syria and Iran entails, and it won’t be pretty. And I’m not in favor of it.
But, we can only do it by getting out of Iraq. And lucky us, Lamont will help us.
I am not in favor of a smarter way of “owning” Iraq for its oil and the repatriation of corporate profits. But Lamont is.
I’m not in favor of what Israel is doing. But Lamont is.
I’m not in favor of “dealing with Syria and Iran.” But Lamont is.
It’s basic logic, but logic is hard to accept when you are frustrated by the status quo. Still, that is no reason to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire.
If I lived in Connecticut, I would vote for Lieberman. Their social policies are the same, and Lieberman’s Iraq policy is clearly more risky for empire, leaving a better chance for us to save the world.
But, who am I to say. Maybe the world would be better under a Pax Americana. And maybe Lamont can best help ensure one.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 9 2006 20:17 utc | 29

@Werner Dieter Thomas
My moniker is ‘Debs is dead’ not Debs which pretty much sums up the state of politics. Lamont is just another rich asshole wanting to buy power. Presumably to establish or reinforce his ‘dynasty’ just like the generations of democrat legislators who have gone before.
The electoral process is as irrelevant to the average amerikan as the democrat party.
Anyone who imagines differently is just another hamster on the washington wheel.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Aug 9 2006 21:19 utc | 31

Lefti nails it about perception vs. reality.
Let’s also take a moment here to mourn the loss of Cynthia McKinney (by the non-existent Jewish lobby). Her courage and honesty and willingness to speak truth to power will be sorely missed — if she is indeed gone. She was a leader in the 9-11 truth movement, civil rights, anti-war, labor, and the now dead concept of civil liberties.
One McKinney in the House was worth ten Lamonts in the Senate.
@Werner:
I hope you don’t take my attacks personally; they are not meant so. I just believe that candidates who peddle what I believe to be perception over reality are more dangerous thanthose who openly espouse heinous positions.
Since you are not American, you might benefit from reading the book “Dimes Worth of Difference” from the Counterpunch website. If you read the book — which details the lies and hypocrises of the Democratic party, as well as the harm caused by its policies — and still disagree with me, then I will respect your point of view much more.
Yours in Peace and Friendship-
Malooga

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 10 2006 0:18 utc | 33

Things have been curious for a while haven’t they. Everybody’s evolving like crazy and strange political groupings have temporarily emerged. So you find Colin Powell’s right hand man on the Amy Goodman show. Zbignew Brerzinski staggers about from interview to interview, like Frankenstein’s monster, exclaiming the US needs “…friends!” The harshest mainstream opposition magazine is … Vanity Fair. An old money oligarch named Lamont becomes the peace candidate in Connecticut.
This must have some meaning. It isn’t pure window dressing.
Clearly some people with clout seem very very dissatisfied. Much more satisfied than the sheeple below. I mean look at it this way: 48+% percent of Connecticut Democrats voted for a guy who is (a) the ultimate Bush sycophant and (b) so thoroughly nauseating as a public persona that he has authentic freak entertainment value. Lamont only beat Joementum Joe thanks to his majority in and around… Greenwich!
It is one of my pet theories that this dissatisfaction among the monied East Coast elite is the reason why the stock market isn’t higher (and in fact bizarrly cheap).
These folks have done so well in the last 20 years that they have a need to feel good about “things”. You know: they too are idealists at heart, they too were young once. (Wink Wink).
I have no conclusions to offer where this will lead, except one: not to anything that upsets the establishment gravy train.
Fukuyama’s “Last Man” was discussed around here lately. Did you know (and if you didn’t, how could you doubt) that the Last Man has a lot of money and lives in Connecticut?

Posted by: Guthman Bey | Aug 10 2006 1:21 utc | 35

“Let’s also take a moment here to mourn the loss of Cynthia McKinney (by the non-existent Jewish lobby). Her courage and honesty and willingness to speak truth to power will be sorely missed — if she is indeed gone. She was a leader in the 9-11 truth movement, civil rights, anti-war, labor, and the now dead concept of civil liberties.
One McKinney in the House was worth ten Lamonts in the Senate.”
Malooga, thanks for this. I’ve been depressed all day, even though I knew she would lose – after all, the non-existent AIPAC is powerful, even when not existing – and trying to think of something to write to her. I think I’ll just thank her; she’ll know what I mean.

Posted by: catherine | Aug 10 2006 2:10 utc | 37

Re Lamont on NAFTA, see my post on the other thread…
Lieberman…so thoroughly nauseating as a public persona that he has authentic freak entertainment value.
Could he be cast in movie of Handmaid’s Tale?

Posted by: jj | Aug 10 2006 2:56 utc | 39

I mean look at it this way: 48+% percent of Connecticut Democrats voted for a guy
did they? from the comments>/A>
Odd. The margin has been at ~7500 votes since the reporting precincts was in the teens — now it’s at 44% reporting. Which means the last 25% of precincts have been split equally between the two.
How I wish we could trust our election processes and technology. Whenever there are statistically improbable results we naturally suspect the worst. Unfortunately, the current technologies employ NONE of the standard security methodologies, so we are forced to always be suspicious.
obvious | 08.08.06 09:33 PM
i found it awfully strange he went from 13% to 4%. all he needs is that extra four percent plus from rethugs to make a believable win in november. much more challenging than coming from 13% behind. this is so far from a done deal, no wonder he’s sticking it out w/confidence. payback, aipac, neocons, not a done deal at all.

Posted by: annie | Aug 10 2006 3:31 utc | 41

shit, blame the tequila

Posted by: annie | Aug 10 2006 3:32 utc | 43

@lonesome g:
Yes, perhaps “pro-israel” or “pro-greater-israel” lobby would be more accurate. I used the word “Jewish” sarcasticly, and as common usage, but I do believe that accuracy in speech is more important.
@Gutman Bey:
Yes corporate profits are at an all time high. And you are percipient in noting the “Goldmänner” sightings. But, I still see storm clouds on the horizon, if not for immediate profits, then for the threats tosocial disorder. The housing boom will crash, and the resulting drop in values will hurt all the refi profits. Newspapers are losing ad revenue to the weblistings. Russia and China are taking advantage of the record high distrust of the US and outmaneuvering the US throughout the world. Multinationals are facing citizen campaigns. American credibility is at an all-time low. The country is hollowed out. There are no more “efficiencies” to be wrest from the American worker. I could go on and on. Seems to me the dam has to break sometime in the not so distant future. Remember, “Goldmänner” like Jackie “O”s father made a killing out of the ’29 stockmarket crash. Maybe we are seeing a similar pre-positioning.

Posted by: Malooga | Aug 10 2006 4:31 utc | 45