Ryan Grim and Sam Stein have an excellent piece on the coordinated efforts of various groups to support Bill Halter’s challenge to Blanche Lincoln. It represents the evolution of the efforts behind the Ned Lamont and Donna Edwards races, and now that the election is over, deserves some discussion.
|By: Jane Hamsher Friday June 11, 2010 11:30 am|
|By: Teddy Partridge Sunday January 17, 2010 8:01 pm|
Horseshoes, handgrenades — and Bloomberg campaigns? Does “close” count there, too? There’s no more lucrative campaign business to be in than Michael Bloomberg’s. The wee Mayor bestowed his every-four-year bonuses on campaign staffers after barely winning re-election in a squeaker that was expected to be a blowout: New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who spent [...]
|By: Teddy Partridge Monday December 22, 2008 3:30 pm|
Newly-named Napolitano Department of Homeland Security spokebot Sean Smith tried to create the illusion of an illegitimate victory by Democratic Senate challenger Ned Lamont in August 2006 when he invented spurious charges of website-hackery and sold them to Villager media gasbags like Chris Matthews.
|By: Ned Lamont Saturday September 27, 2008 10:00 am|
We were way down in the polls and I was busy leaving messages on answering machines when a young volunteer came bounding into my rabbit warren and announced breathlessly, “Paul Newman is on the line.” A little skeptical, I shot back that I was on the line with Vladimir Putin so hold all calls, but our savvy volunteer suggested that this was a call worth taking.
|By: Peterr Thursday August 28, 2008 10:04 am|
Senator Dodd, what’s the going rate? Could Lieberman stay in the caucus and keep his chairmanship if he gave the DSCC just $200K? $150K? 50K? $9.99? As the cliche goes, it seems we’ve established what the Dems in the Senate are — now we’re just haggling over the price.
|By: Jane Hamsher Tuesday August 26, 2008 8:59 pm|
Ned Lamont visited the Big Tent today. He’s kinda like Mick Jagger for bloggers. With the serious possibility that Joe Lieberman will be McCain’s VP choice, it was great to see Ned and celebrate the fact that together, two years ago, we kicked Joe out of the Democratic party.
We’ll have video up tomorrow. But everyone else is just catching up to what we knew two years ago.
We were f*&#ing right.
|By: Jane Hamsher Tuesday April 15, 2008 12:00 pm|
Can we just dispense with the charade that Joe Lieberman is backing John McCain because he’s a man of principle who will back the best candidate, regardless of party? Or that he’s attacking Barack Obama because he really thinks he’s a Marxist? Joe Lieberman, whom Chris Durang once called a “sanctimonious Hobbitt,” had his ass kicked out of the Democratic party. He’s a petty, bitter little man and he’s backing John McCain because of his own personal political upside.
|By: emptywheel Wednesday April 9, 2008 3:00 pm|
In thoroughly unsurprising news today, the Ned Lamont campaign was cleared of any wrong-doing in the crash of Lieberman’s server leading up to primary day in 2006. The Stanford Advocate reports that the FBI determined–way back on October 25, 2006–that Lieberman’s campaign bears all responsibility for the server crash. Case closed, right? No. Not on the outstanding legal issues arising from the campaign, anyway.
|By: Jane Hamsher Wednesday April 9, 2008 10:33 am|
I started transcribing this video but frankly I’m just too pissed to do it. Although the investigation in to the incident was concluded in 2006, due to the perserverence of the Stamford Advocate the results were revealed today, and found what we all know to be true on Lamont/Lieberman primary day 2006 — Joe Lieberman crashed his own website.
But that didn’t matter.
|By: Pachacutec Saturday March 8, 2008 9:35 am|
So, we have no progressive candidate. We have no Wellstone, no Feingold, no ideologically based movement person. My question is this: which of these candidates is more likely to reveal an inner Lieberman of some form once in power? I don’t have an answer. People can believe what they choose to believe, but both candidates have Liebermanish historical tendencies and both propel narratives reminiscent of Lieberman, the earlier years. The ultimate question I will have for supporters of either candidate during these days of pie fights will be, whoever gets power, what will you hold your winning candidate accountable for once in office, assuming s/he wins? If your winner gets some accountability fire from people who once supported your opponent, will you simply defend your winner, or will you join in for merited criticism?