Every time Kerry tried to gather strength on filibusters, Joe would obstruct.

Question, who will get his votes? The GOP as usual, quid pro quo for their help, or the Dems, as he’s holding them up, as well.

Jane – I agree completely.

Public support for Ned Lamont is my single most important litmus test for 2008 presidential hopefuls. Kerry, Edwards and Clark have passed with flying colors.

Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama – they are currently failing. Barak needs to go to Connecticut and Hillary needs to send her husband there to campaign for Ned.

If Hillary and Barak don’t act soon, they’re finished. Period.

How can I be loyal to a candidate who stabs their own party in the back by failing to support the Democratic nominee? I simply cannot.

The window of opportunity for Hillary and Barak is rapidly closing, never to open again. Will they act now?

From a purely political perspective, I don’t understand what Hillary and Barak are doing. If they support Lamont they gain strong support from millions of active, motivated progressive Democrats and loyal Democrats across the country. If they do nothing, they lose our support and gain significant and long-lasting enmity. If they think that we have a short memory about important matters such as this, they are fools.

I just don’t get it.

Me neither but I share your disgust and committment to hold Hillary & Obama accountable for clearly hardball is the only tactic that we have left. Could they both be so insecure they fear Ned Lamont – if so I only have two words for them: tough luck.

Are you saying Kerry is a “stand up guy” just because he’s a major Democratic player willing to go to bat for your guy Ned Lamont?

Isn’t John Kerry the same John Kerry who was swiftboated in 2004 and lost that battle?

Isn’t this the same John Kerry who lost the 2004 Presidential election by fraud and conceeded quicker than you can say howdy?

Ned ought to feel real proud with a man like that backing him. Not!

Troubled

And I’d like to point out that for all the bashing Kerry has taken because his staffers stupid remark, HR Clinton, Reid, Boxer, and Schumer have apparently decided that the blogs are to the Dems what hte Xian Right is to the left: Convenient cash cows and votes to be stroked or ignored as the DC establishment dictates.

If the remark you’re referring to is the one about the “anonymous blogger”, then it’s not stupid, IMHO. They were referring to a website that was set up anonymously by a self-described “Democratic official not affiliated with the DSCC”. Its URL was:

http://www.heyjohn.org/

I write “was”, because it’s no longer in operation. As far as I know, no one ever publicly accepted responsibility for this site. For all any of us knows, it was just one Democratic politician trying to knock down another one. It may have even been a Republican trying foment arguments among Democrats.

Fortunately, Kerry, Kennedy, and Rahm Emanuel (yes, I’m surprised to be praising him) have made responsible gestures.

More people should be stumping for Lamont.

lot’s of very interesting stuff in the pipeline, apparently. Tim Tagaris said the same thing. And I’d like to point out that for all the bashing Kerry has taken because his staffers stupid remark, HR Clinton, Reid, Boxer, and Schumer have apparently decided that the blogs are to the Dems what hte Xian Right is to the left: Convenient cash cows and votes to be stroked or ignored as the DC establishment dictates.

And to those of you asking about Obama: He picked Joe Lieberman as his Senate mentor. In January of 2004. It is the single most disturbing thing about him, IMHO.

Balrog @ 55

Stephen Parrish, CPA @
31

Do you see a pattern developing with respect to organized volunteer activity? Where’s the dough?

Stephen, I sense you have a great point here but I still don’t get it. Could you help out a dense Balrog and explain?

Thanks.

So the paid ‘volunteers’ in the CT For Lieberman campaign are derived from a page and petty funding technique out of the Karl Rove playbook.

Wondering how many Republicans are missing large amounts of petty cash expenditures during the final days of a campaign.

It gets worse in that interview, and it can all tie together.

Bad polls, petty cash nozzle, or a peculiar change in voters’ opinion on Iraq from one day to the next?
Rove on NPR:

Lieberman went from being way behind to being narrowly behind on Election Day, because as the election got closer, people had to think about the consequences to America of winning or losing.

On NPR’s All Things Considered, Karl Rove explained why Iraq will not negatively affect Republicans on Nov 7th. He used the example that the blue state of CT had a Democratic primary. In this primary, the main issue was Iraq. And the fact that Joe Lieberman came back from double digits to lose by a thinner margin, proves to Rove that opinions against Iraq are fine in the weeds, but when the lever gets pulled, voters think of the consequences of defeat in Iraq, and they pull for the war.

listen for yourself:
http://www.npr.org/templates/s…..Id=6376549

READ for yourself

MR. SIEGEL: There are also a lot of stories about people being very disturbed about the course of the war in Iraq and about people who feel that this is not the way it was supposed to happen.
MR. ROVE: No war ever happens the way it was supposed to happen. I’d love for somebody to show me a war that rolled out exactly the way that it did. I do know this, though: The people, as they get close to the voting decision, focus on the issue of what — the consequences of winning and the consequences of losing. And I think we saw this earlier this year in a blue state among blue voters and that’s the Connecticut senatorial primary. There was only one issue: Iraq. Thirty-four of the states voters are Democrats eligible to participate in the primary. Forty percent of them turned out. Just over 7 percent of them voted to get out now, in a blue state.
Lieberman went from being way behind to being narrowly behind on Election Day, because as the election got closer, people had to think about the consequences to America of winning or losing.
MR. SIEGEL: How then do you read — or how then do you look ahead to the election in terms of Iraq policy? If the Republicans maintain majorities on the Hill it’s a ratification of the Iraq policy?

The program went on to back Rove up by talking about Lieberman’s 12 point lead in the latest poll stressing that Joe lost to Ned in the primary.
OK, the idea that the cash nozzle aimed at CT’s streets was there to narrow the gap at the last minute suddenly seems more credible. Either that or Rove’s just took a bad poll, ignored incumbency, and spun a new GOP narrative based on those scraps. How far and wide will that narrative be heard and believed?