Lamont vs. Lieberman

-->

In late 1942, in the aftermath of what he called "The Battle of Egypt," Winston Churchill famously said, "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." If I'm Joe Lieberman, that's where I'm at this morning.

If I'm Ned Lamont, I'm telling everyone, everywhere, that Joe Lieberman and George W. Bush were separated at birth. Had enough of Bush? Vote for change, vote Democratic, vote for Lamont.

And the bloggers? Boo-yah!

To All Democratic elected officials, whether you be a mayor, a senator, a dog catcher, a president, a congressman, or a county commissioner:

Yesterday, Democratic primary voters went to the polls in...Connecticut. And what happened is what has been happening for the last sixty years or more. The party voters, the people who actually make up the rank and file of the Democratic Party, made their voices heard. They chose the candidate that best represents their beliefs, their ideas, their passion, and their policies at the polls and against the Republicans in November.

[T]hat candidate is Ned Lamont. He is now the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate...

So who the hell are you to question that choice?

If you are a Democrat this morning, you will ethusiastically support Ned Lamont in the fall. You will support him, campaign for him, contribute money to him. You will do for him what you do for other Democratic candidates across this land.

By contrast, Joe Lieberman, a former Democrat who left the Party last night because he could not abide democracy and the will of his party constituents, is to receive none of your hard work, encouraging words, or support, financial or otherwise. He is a party of one, a sore loserman if there ever was one...

If you dare to support Joe Lieberman, in any way, you are no longer a Democrat and we will seek to remove you from office. We will be watching. And we are not asking for much, only that support which you would give any Democrat who wins his primary.

Signed,
Delaware Dem

As for me? A couple of thoughts:

• If the Democrats are ever going to offer a clear choice to the Republicans, it'll be with Senators like Lamont, not Lieberman.

• If you've read anything I've written here over the last four-plus years, you'd think Lieberman would be my guy, right? But no. Lieberman lost me when he pounded that lectern and lectured me about backing the President during a time of war. Things haven't been the same since....

• ...and it isn't just about the war.
  • There was Lieberman playing footsie with Bush on Social Security;
  • there was his support of the energy bill;
  • there was his refusal to support the filibuster of Alito when it really could have made a difference;
  • there was his membership in that stupid "Gang of 14," when all it meant was that the Dems rolled over for the Republicans;
  • there was his support of the bankruptcy bill;
  • his support of the Republicans on the Schiavo affair,
  • and on and on and on.
  Apparently, to Lieberman, bi-partisanship means doing whatever the Republicans want him to do.

• Given his steadfast refusal to hold this president accountable for anything -- anything! -- his sanctimonious scolding of Bill Clinton in 1998 is now particularly infuriating.

• Isn't it ironic: Gore lost Tennessee in 2000 (because he was too liberal) and now Lieberman has lost Connecticut because he wasn't liberal enough.

• Does this mean that the Democrats are re-living 1968 and 1972 all over again? Listen -- I was around then and this is nothing like that. If you want details, I'll be happy to provide them in the comments.

P.S. Message to Lieberman's webmaster: you are lame, lame, lame -- if your site has crashed (for whatever reason) your first responsibility is to get it up and running again. That should have taken you only an hour or two yesterday. You're going on two days now fellas. Get your s--t together, OK?