On Ned Lamont's Endorsement of Obama

by: Matt Stoller

Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 19:49


Both Obama and Clinton betrayed Lamont and all of us during the 2006 campaign.  Hillary Clinton, while she did do a fundraiser for Lamont, had her husband go onto Larry King after the primary and back Lieberman by saying there was no difference between the candidates.  At that moment, all of Lamont's establishment support dried up, and we lost 30% of the Democrats in the general election.  At the same time, after promising to endorse the winner of the primary, Obama went through Connecticut by train and refused to stop in the state out of fear of challenging Lieberman.  He had earlier in the race spoken out at the Jefferson Jackson dinner for Lieberman, his mentor.

I talked to Ned today, and expressed all of this.  And he knows it.  And nothing can reverse the outcome of that election, which set the stage for the complete Democratic capitulation on Iraq we saw throughout 2007.

A few weeks ago, Obama refused to help out during the Senate FISA fight, when Chris Dodd bravely filibustered the Bush administration's top priority to expand wiretapping authority and immunize telecom companies who had broken the law.  The fight is probably coming around again, and Lamont promised he would advocate internally for Obama to actually stand with Dodd this time.  I doubt Obama will filibuster, though it would be really good for his campaign and I would become an excited advocate for Obama were he to do so.

Still, I hope Lamont is able to persuade Obama to actually stand for principle.  That would make his endorsement truly meaningful.
Matt Stoller :: On Ned Lamont's Endorsement of Obama

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
On Ned Lamont's Endorsement of Obama | 78 comments
Nail on the head, Matt. (0.00 / 0)
Clearly Lamont's endorsement of Obama means we were wrong about him all along -- not Obama, but Lamont! Lamont is obviously pretty conservative and does not share our values.

Right Matt?

yup (4.00 / 2)
He did an extremely brave thing by running against Lieberman, but that was a temporary alignment.  I will always be grateful to Ned for that, but we do not see eye to eye on political values.
[ Parent ]
Re: Lamont (0.00 / 0)
Wait, I'm confused, Matt. I'm not trying to attack you, but I just don't understand how endorsing someone who was not, and never will be perfect (especially in rhetoric), but is still the most viable, Progressive candidate, makes him any less eye to eye with you on political values. Is he not still quite liberal?

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
Re: Lamont (0.00 / 0)
On a side note, I don't think Obama is the best, nor the most Progressive (Edwards will forever hold that place in my heart, for this season), I merely mean in comparison to Clinton, he is much more Progressive, and has a good shot at winning.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
You really should (4.00 / 2)
research both Obama's and Clinton's Lifetime Progressive ratings. Clinton is the most progressive of the two over her lifetime but the reality based bloggers won't give her any credit for that.

Progressive Punch is a good place to check.

[ Parent ]
Pardon me (4.00 / 2)
If I don't put much stock in a measure that gives Hillary Clinton a higher lifetime score than Russ Feingold.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Wow, I didn't realize (4.00 / 1)
that until after I wrote my initial response. That seems like a pretty big discreditation of said website to me, and if it only has Mr. Feingold 2 slots ahead of Obama (22), then I don't really see the problem with Obama's Progressive credentials.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
160 issues (0.00 / 0)
It's how many times they voted progressively on 160 different issues. Feingold did poorly (66) on corporate agriculture subsidies. Clinton's worst score was war and peace (80). So on all votes, Clinton is the most progressive of the three. She's been a solid liberal for 35 years and that counts for something.

She voted evenly across the board with her lowest score 80.30, highest score, 100, like an A student. Indeed, her overall progressive score is 91.29.

Feingold missed school one day and gave too many corporate subsidies to farmers because he lives in Wisconsin. His grades range from 66-100 so his overall score is lower, 89.51.

May the best student win. She's like the girl in Election.

 

Banned for posting five straight diaries.

[ Parent ]
It's not her fault (0.00 / 0)
Feingold got a D in agricultural corporate subsidies.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.
[ Parent ]
Roberts (4.00 / 1)
Yeah, because Fiengold's vote to confirm Roberts was so much more progressive than Clinton's vote against confirmation. Or something.
[ Parent ]
Now let's look at Obama's score (0.00 / 0)
If Feingold got a 90 on Corporate Subsidies which is closer to his overall score of 89.51, his new overall score would be 92.15 and he'd be 13th on the list. Again, it's not Clinton's fault he sold out to corporate agriculture.

Obama scored from 76.92-100 and his weakness is Human Rights & Civil Liberties, funding Gitmo and confirming Gonzales. His overall score is 88.76.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.

[ Parent ]
Re: Clinton (4.00 / 5)
Well, I think you are missing the point of the "reality based bloggers [who] won't give her any credit." Numerous people have said countless times that there is very little difference in the actual positions of these candidates, but rather, it is their policy tactics and the people with whom they associate themselves. Clinton's campaign manager is a Union Buster, and her campaign is filled to the brim with DLC, triangulation types such as Carville and McAuliffe. As well, she has tried to campaign to the Right of the other major candidates (She attacked Obama as too left wing after losing Iowa), and so it is pretty hard to see her as advancing Progressive ideals when she uses them as points of attack. While Obama is far from perfect, and tends to run to the Center too often, he has pushed several Progressive ideals (Iraq, Net Neutrality), and has never used similar Right-Wing points of attack. As well, his campaign team does not have anyone like Penn or McAuliffe as high up in power (hell, Deval Patrick, a hero of the Progressive Netroots, is one of his campaign managers). Finally, while Clinton has mostly run her campaign as the inevitable, establishment candidate, Obama has run is as a grassroots operation, and you can't deny the fact that he has created a Progressive group of activists to support him. As it is, which few significant policy differences, Obama has gotten much support, at least more than Clinton, as a result of his more Progressive team and the people around him, who are the most likely to become the people in his cabinet.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
Thank you, JewishJake, (0.00 / 0)
that information was very useful. May I just say that I don't find Iraq a very progressive issue, except in the sense that Iraq is a latter-day colonial adventure. But it seems to me that most ideologies repudiate colonialism.  Iraq is just a rolling disaster.  It's a giant military effort which is predicated on a totally irrational attitude. Every rational person can probably join in objecting to it.  Of course, there's always McCain.
[ Parent ]
No Problem (0.00 / 0)


Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
knee-jerk reactions (4.00 / 3)
Again Matt I really respect you....

But I think everyone flipping out here against Lamont need to take a breath.

1) An endorsement of Obama is a way of speaking out against Clinton.
2) I really do like Edwards but it is clear now that the campaign is Obama Vs Clinton. I would go as far to say as I wish Edwards would drop out and endorse Obama. Hillary must be stopped.
3) No endorsement is ever perfect. But acting like Lamont is a turn coat for endorsing Obama is poor knee-jerk politics. No candidate is perfect, Obama is a good, solid candidate.

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

[ Parent ]
Uh huh. (4.00 / 1)
So, Lamont endorsing Obama is really a way of "speaking out against Clinton"?

How about the old fashioned way? If he has something negative to say about Clinton, can't he just say it? Everybody else is.

No. If Lamont endorses Obama it means that there is another sophomoric chump pushing us to join the minions who will lay down, get nice and comatose and spend time hoping. All the while they're hoping they are feeling good and thinking they are getting someplace. Works for me. Gail Collins writes that Obama has a "genius" for making moderation seem exciting. Where do I sign?

Yes. Clinton must be stopped.
Obama has shown such courage and decency in supporting Lieberman the blood-sucker and Donnie McClurkin the ... homophobe.

Obama must ride to victory.
Chumps unite.
The only thing we have to lose is whatever we have left.

[ Parent ]
?? (0.00 / 0)
Where the fuck have you been the last 7 years? And where are you now? Are you watching the same campaign as the rest of us, living in the same nation as the rest of us, enduring the same politics as the rest of us?

Yeah, cynicism is awesome when you're 17, but gets kind of old once you need to start dealing with the world we live in - and all of its many shortcomings.


"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
The world we live in (0.00 / 0)
must be your euphemism for follow the yellow brick road. Some people just believe whatever they are told and follow the crowd wherever it goes.  34% of the public believes in UFOs. That puts Obama slightly ahead of Martians and way behind the 59% who would vote for ghosts. 
Reality based community my ass.

Lamont is full of it.  The only value I saw in him was his push back against Lieberman.  The netroots would have supported Casper if he had the money to take on crazy Joe. 

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
like it or not (4.00 / 1)
one of these folks is going to be president.

[ Parent ]
lentinal is actually (0.00 / 0)
winning the argument at this point.  He has made about four points that nobody has answered. The score is lentinel 1, landstrander 0.
[ Parent ]
Oh geez... (0.00 / 0)
The name's LandStander! But thanks for keeping score.

A point by point repudiation of lentinel's argument is not worthwhile. He is expressing a tried and tired brand of cynicism that plaques all thinking people, but how we get PAST that thinking is what counts. Just whining about how the whole system is shitty doesn't do anyone any good.

He misinterprets and mocks Obama's tagline of 'hope' (soon to be the prime right-wing talking point if Obama gets the nomination), quotes a random pundit to make Obama sound like a triangulator when, in reality, you could quote any number of pundits to make Obama sound like pretty much anything you want - and then expresses, in too many words, that he is just another cynic who is fed up with the system. Well, welcome to the group! There isn't a commenter among us who is not fed up with the system.



"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
OK, this is the part of lentinel's argument that is decisive. (0.00 / 0)
How about the old fashioned way? If he has something negative to say about Clinton, can't he just say it? Everybody else is.

Sorry about the capitalization.

[ Parent ]
You have to be kidding (4.00 / 4)
Quote from Obama:

"I know that some in the party have differences with Joe," Senator Obama said, all but silencing the crowd. "I'm going to go ahead and say it. It's the elephant in the room. And Joe and I don't agree on everything. But what I know is, Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America."

"I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate." That time, people cheered loudly.

-------------------------------------

Stoller your lame attempt at trying to give cover to Lamont for doing this is sad. Maybe you'll persuade someone with half their brain removed, but any thinking person knows this is pitiful.

If he was going to endorse anybody, it should have been Edwards.

Lamont moved to my D list.

ok (4.00 / 1)
I can see your point.  It's a question of what Lamont got from Obama.  In all likelihood, he got nothing, but if Obama does filibuster on FISA it was a good decision.  In other words, we'll see.
[ Parent ]
Come On (4.00 / 1)
Lamont is no more likely to have any influence over Obama for anything, especially filibustering, than I do or you do.

Thinking otherwise is at best pure conjecture but probably closer for fantasy.

[ Parent ]
Conjecture (0.00 / 0)
Well no shit, he flat out admitted that. As well, what you, or just about anyone else says is conjecture, as we have no idea the inner workings or either Obama or Lamont.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
C'mon. (4.00 / 1)
Might I add it would have been political suicide for Obama had he endorsed Ned Lamont? Sure, one should always stand for his principles, but there's also the saying "live today, fight tomorrow".

Not to mention Obama's endorsement one way or another wouldn't have meant dick.

[ Parent ]
If Obama had endorsed Lamont (4.00 / 2)
I might have considered voting for Obama.
I might have considered that he actually gave a shit about ending the war in Iraq.

What you are saying, in different words, is that Obama chose to stump for Lieberman and not endorse Lamont because he was putting his own ambition above the lives of service people in the field.

He hadn't the guts to confront Bush or the establishment, and he still doesn't.

Why should he? He's doing great. Gets 'em to hope. Not only that - gets 'em to think that hoping is "audacious".

Please open the windows.

[ Parent ]
So who are you goning to vote for (0.00 / 0)
IN November, Nader?  Or stay home and sulk?

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Political Suicide (0.00 / 0)
Many progressives seem to think that sparing oneself from political suicide is a sign of weakness and a lack of core progressive values. Though it can also be interpreted as a sign of an individual who desires to get things done in the only way they know how.
If Obama turns out to be a truly progressive president - something none of us can predict either way - won't it seem like endorsing Lieberman was a justified means?

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
Endorsing Lieberman stunk to high heaven. (4.00 / 1)
An endorsement from Obama for Lamont might have helped turn the tide in his favor. It might have saved many young lives.

Obama was thinking about his own future. Not ours. That makes him a very very ordinary politician.

I couldn't care less about Obama.

[ Parent ]
The flaccidity of hope.. (4.00 / 3)
" I hope Lamont is able to persuade Obama to actually stand for principle.  That would make his endorsement truly meaningful."

Hidden in Matt's sentence is the acknowledgment that Obama does not stand for principle.

Once again, someone is expressing what they hope Obama will do or say or stand for. Looking at what he is actually saying and doing is not very inspiring.

Why in the world folks are spending time trying to make this guy into something he isn't is a mystery. It's like a woman who wants to be the woman behind the man  - to make him into something. Well, that's OK for a pot-boiler. But we're talking about our lives. We're talking about someone who rather casually referred to the use of nuclear weapons. We talking about someone who used his influence to derail the movement to end the war in Iraq.

If we have to PERSUADE Obama to actually stand for principle - what does that say about  his character? If he doesn't stand for principle, and I believe he does not, who the hell needs him?

[ Parent ]
Phew! (4.00 / 1)
Good thing we don't have to persuade him then, eh?
[ Parent ]
Well done. (4.00 / 1)
Why do people complain about their politicians not acting the way they want, when they can't be bothered to put pressure on those politicians to change their behavior?

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
-Lawrence Summers
[ Parent ]
Put pressure... Where have you been... (4.00 / 1)
When the Senate was busy being aided and abetted by Obama and others in keeping their powder dry and letting Roberts and Alito on the court, dailykos went up like a powder keg.  The result was a drive by Obama diary that basically said, "you don't have a clue, who the hell do you think you are, stfu, we'll do what we want, and don't call us - we'll call you".  It was elegantly written and delivered, but the message was plain.  Everyone has seen it done a million times in Council meetings in their local city halls.

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
Since we're all supporting Obama now (4.00 / 1)
I read his Daily Kos diary today about his philosophy and it doesn't sound half bad. Nuance, reasonableness, decency, working together towards solutions, disagreeing without being disagreeable, getting Republicans to resist the right-wing extremists in their party. Check it out.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.
[ Parent ]
Quoting Obama from the diary.... (4.00 / 1)
Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more "centrist."  In fact, I think the whole "centrist" versus "liberal" labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark.  Too often, the "centrist" label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don't think Democrats have been bold enough.

People who hear him talk about working with Conservatives assume he means DLC-style-compromise. It does not. It is a work ethic, not a centrist-value, and not a policy mandate.

I sincerely think it is Obama VS Hillary. Edwards is saying lots of good stuff now--but where has this person been? Obama has been Obama since day one.

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

[ Parent ]
If he has any principles, (4.00 / 1)
they haven't slid off his silver tongue yet.  Obama is glitz.  He is an insider and status quo candidate just like Hillary.  Not a dime's worth of difference between them.

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
[ Parent ]
Skip Second Grade Did we? (0.00 / 0)
Not a dime's worth of difference between them?

For every so-called dirty dollar that Obama recieved, Hillary took seven.

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

[ Parent ]
Hil and O and $$$$$$$ (0.00 / 0)
Both of them wound up with 100 Million dollars to spend.
[ Parent ]
To be technical (4.00 / 1)
Obama did send out an email for Ned after the primary. The number one complaint from (myleft)Nutmeggers about Obama at the time was that he was in Boston and NYC and didn't bother to do an appearance for Lamont in the CT that same day, which he very easily could have.

Neither Obama nor Edwards were perfect candidates for me. Lamont wasn't perfect either, but he'd probably be the closest thing (plus the ballsiest for being the first to really get out there and challenge Bush). I started out this year supporting Edwards, in part due to his support of Lamont, but more importantly because of his populist approach which just resonated with me personally. I will probably vote for Obama is Edwards isn't above 15% in CT come Super Tuesday.

It's important to remember/keep track of who are our allies and who's not, but it's also important to realize it gets complicated when 1) there's a lot of players to keep track of 2) things change over time (like Edwards not being in the best position right now) 3) nobody is politically pure (unless you're a fundie, then all you have to do is go on TV, weep and ask for forgiveness).

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
-Lawrence Summers

[ Parent ]
He sent out an e-mail to 225 people in CT (4.00 / 1)
and didn't even mention Lieberman by name. Tim Tagaris, Lamont's Internet Director, called Obama the biggest disappointment, period.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!
[ Parent ]
Clinton's betrayal was MUCH worse than Obama's. (4.00 / 6)
Hillary dispatched Bill to actively campaign for Joe Lieberman in the 2 weeks before the primary when Ned was ahead.  Very different from Obama's praise of Lieberman in April when Liberman was up by 60 and nobody thought there was a real race.

Similarly, having Bill Clinton say he saw no difference was far worse than Obama simply avoiding a personal appearence.

Unlike many on these blogs, Ned Lamont has concluded that it's a 2 person race. (Edwards supporters feel free to convince me that the guys who is low on money, has his spending capped, and polls in single digits with racial minorities is going to start doing a lot better.)  And given that he's very logically for whoever is not named "Clinton," as am I (I was making 80-mile trips to CT every other weekend for 6 months helping Lamont, and am still pissed.)

That said, I agree 100% with Matt that hopefully Ned will push Obama into being more active on FISA.

Exactly (0.00 / 0)


Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
Do you have proof (4.00 / 2)
that Hillary ORDERED bill to go on CNN? No!

She raised money for Lamont and Obama did squat.

You guys are making shit up about Hillary. Bill probably likes Joe and maybe owed him one for something in the past and did his own thing on CNN.

Utter BS until I see some proof.

[ Parent ]
Honestly, (4.00 / 1)
I don't think it is making up shit when you are talking about the Clintons, a couple who have always been in consistent political sync (remember the '92 60 Minutes interview after the allegations). To think that Bill would just act like this without consulting his wife, by whose career his speeches are affected, and that she wouldn't have some say, doesn't make much sense. Even if Bill liked/owed Lieberman, he didn't have to say that there was no difference between them.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
This time you're off base, Jewish Jake (0.00 / 0)
Bill's schtick is Bill's. You're talking about a guy who's the alpha male.  He was President for 8 years.  When Matt says "Hillary Clinton, while she did do a fundraiser for Lamont, had her husband go onto Larry King after the primary and back Lieberman by saying there was no difference between the candidates." looks to me to be projecting his emotion onto it. Bill does what he wants.  If you think can send him out to do her bidding, I think you're being unrealistic.  Certainly he's willing to do her favors. But she raised funds for Lamont.  That speaks for itself. Not guilty to Hillary.
[ Parent ]
Clintons (0.00 / 0)
Perhaps it is excessive to say she convinced him to do it, but my point remains that they definitely talked about the appearance before hand, which is something everyone does with their spouses, especially if the appearance could affect the potential Presidential campaign of said spouse. Thus, with the Lamont victory still in the news, it was obvious that King was going to ask him, and so it most likely came up at the table. As a result, you have to admit, she could have at least told Bill to just give a non-answer, or just stay neutral, instead of flat out saying they were both as good as each other, which is essentially putting an Independent to the same level as the Democratic Party nominee (imagine if he had done this for Nader back in '00). Most likely, she knew that would be his response, and even if she didn't, she never issued a correction about her own views (which usually, people do when someone associated with their Political team says something they disagree with, e.g. Clinton and the Shaheen-Cocaine comment), or at least shown some form of unity with Lamont after that. She did neither, and thus essentially left his view, which of course would then be associated with her own by the media, by itself, all but endorsing the comments herself. The fact is, as much as I may disagree with Hillary, I know one thing: she is a brilliant woman, and a brilliant politician, and the fact is, she knows all these things that I have just listed are RULES of the game in politics, so either she is just less sharp than I assumed, or she really didn't give a shit about whether Lamont won or lost, if not flat out supported these same views as her husband.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
OK, granted, Hillary is a brilliant woman. (0.00 / 0)
That doesn't mean she has everything under her control.  Have you ever done something your wife didn't want you to do, for a friend?  Ever? If you reach any farther for an argument, you're going to put your arm out of joint.  Even you are right, you have abstracted your argument to the point that Hillary's blameworthiness in all of this has attenuated to near zero. Besides which, you have not one iota of evidence that she had anything to do with it. She has her own shit to worry about too, you know.  And if she did support Lieberman in any way, it was only by omission. I still say the money talks louder, and Hillary is not guilty.
[ Parent ]
Wife (0.00 / 0)
Well, as a 17 year old, I am sad to say I have no wife, haha. I just still find it hard to believe that she really wouldn't have that much control over her own husband. And you have to admit, she could have at least sent out some statement, made one appearance, or at least made one email (as Obama did) afterward Bill's line to show unity with Lamont. Perhaps I am stretching my arm, it just doesn't seem that supportive to me that she wouldn't do anything to show her view afterwards (once again, look at the swift response after Shaheen made the comment about Obama, attacking the view and disassociating herself from it a few hours after it was said). In the end, this is just kind of trailing off way past where it needed, so I vote we just leave it at that.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
Provide some proof, Chris (0.00 / 0)
"Hillary Clinton, while she did do a fundraiser for Lamont, had her husband go onto Larry King after the primary and back Lieberman by saying there was no difference between the candidates."

Hillary Clinton HAD her husband, Bill Clinton go on Larry King?
If in fact Bill Clinton did do it - I will want to check if he actually said that there was no difference between Lieberman and Lamont - you have proof that Hillary Clinton put him up to it?

  Is this conjecture on your part? If it is, it should be stated as an opinion eg: "Bill Clinton said blah blah blah but I think Hillary Clinton made him do it".

If you have some inside information, I sincerely would like to hear it.

[ Parent ]
Sorry, Chris. (0.00 / 0)
I meant to say, provide some proof, Matt.
[ Parent ]
I guess you're going to force us to parse it. (4.00 / 3)
Item: when Matt uses the word "betray", saying Obama betrayed Lamont and all of us, he is incorrectly using the term.  If these people had a commitment to Lamont and then  campaigned against him, they would have "betrayed" him. That would have been a violation of trust. They had no personal obligation to campaign for him.  Therefore, they did not betray him.  As for all of us, opinions may differ about obligations to the collective.  These folks did, of course, have fairly compelling party reasons at least not to endorse Lieberman.

Item: campaigning for one candidate is not axiomatically the same as campaigning against his rival.  If I criticize and speak out against a candidate, I am campaigning against him. If I merely speak in favor of another candidate, that is not campaigning against him. I don't remember Obama criticizing Lamont.

What Obama really did was to part company with correct ideology.  On ideological grounds, Lamont's challenge was the first serious and initially successful effort to throw off the NeoCon yoke, and it was indefensible not to support it.

But Obama was not necessarily acting from ideological motives. Recall that at the time, Lieberman had liberal ratings in the 90%. He was Obama's mentor and friend.  A young senator needs a mentor. Every senator needs a friend. And Lieberman is only a NeoCon on national security and military policy issues.  The rest of his voting record is fine, if not exemplary.  Yes, it's a crucial issue. 

Recall that at the time, Lieberman had not yet flagrantly violated his sworn commitment to be "as much against the war as anybody". Lieberman was just a garden variety snake at that point. He was a NeoCon enabler who was promising to clean up his act.  I suppose it shouldn't have been credible that he would do it, but neither was it outside of the realm of possibility that Lieberman could have seen the light.

Obama was his friend.  He owed Lieberman some favors, favors Lieberman hadn't had to do for him. But he did.  Now Lieberman was asking for help.

Campaigning for Lieberman was ideologically wrong, but not a clear indicator of character for someone in Obama's position.  There were reasons why Obama shouldn't do it.  There were also reasons why he should. You have to cut the man some slack.  If this was the worst thing he did, then he gets the nod.

As far as Lamont, there are possible explanations for his behavior in endorsing Obama. He's a politician.  If he thinks Obama is going to win, that's a good enough reason to endorse him.  Maybe Lamont thinks Obama is the true progressive, and Clinton isn't.  That would be a good reason to endorse him.  You and I might differ.  Then again, Lamont could be right.

[ Parent ]
Wow (0.00 / 0)
Well said.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
Thank you. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
You ALL are too friggin much (4.00 / 4)
NED LAMONT IS A HERO OF THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT.
If it wasn't for Ned the whole conversation and narrative for the 2004 election wouldn't have switched to the Iraq war...As the megalomaniac BigDog recently said "HOW DARE YOU".......you know I am starting to think that story I heard on the Stephanie Miller show that Clinton has 4000 paid commenters spewing crap on progressive blogs might just be true
If Ned Lamont wants to support Obama, I would TAKE NOTICE

Hey Matt why didn't you let us in on what Ned said to you!!!!

4000 HRC sock puppets? (0.00 / 0)
Why am I not surprised?
[ Parent ]
I don't see any (0.00 / 0)
on progressive blogs. That's for sure.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.
[ Parent ]
Obama didn't just dis Ned Lamont. He spat in the face of all (4.00 / 1)
of the party rank and file who were rightfully offended by Lieberman's high-handed insistence on acting "independently" and often in defiance of the will of his constituents. That's the fundamental problem with Washington Democrats. They look upon their base as a nuisance, a bunch of yoohoos that have to be humored every couple of years or so, but can otherwise safely be ignored.

And The Man from Hype seems right at home among them. In his first race for the Illinois state senate, Obama successfully sued to have all four of his primary opponents' names removed from the ballot. Asked whether the district's primary voters were well served by having only one candidate on the ballot, he smiled and said: "I think they ended up with a very good state senator."  What would Machiavelli say?

Obama's Problems (0.00 / 0)
Can I see a link on that Obama primary thing. If this is true, I would like to be able to quote something when I told others. Second, I don't see how not campaigning is spitting all over his face. By that logic, any Democrat who didn't campaign for Lamont spat in his face, because almost none did outside of Connecticut, with the exceptions of Waters, Edwards, and a few others. I'm not defending Obama's actions, I'm just saying, I think this might be a bit of an exaggeration.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
"Obama Know His Way Around a Ballot" (0.00 / 0)
Chicago Tribune, April 3, 2007

http://www.chicagotr...

[ Parent ]
Obama commited a breach of party discipline. (4.00 / 1)
He did not spit in anybody's face.  Maybe your conduct in his place would have been different. That doesn't prove that you have the right to be outraged over it. I doubt you even know Obama. He doesn't owe you anything, you know.

Yes, Lieberman's an asshole.  Yes, Lamont's a hero of the progressive movement. Yes, Obama was on the wrong side. That doesn't make him your enemy though, and it doesn't make him Lieberman, either.  If Obama's responsible for Lieberman's shit, then what is Lieberman responsible for?

[ Parent ]
Obama's snub of Lamont and us CT Dems who supported Lamont... (0.00 / 0)
is why I won't donate money or time to Obama's campaign. 

Edwards is my first choice, but I don't see his campaign rebounding.  Obama is my 2nd choice and I will NEVER vote for Hillary.

[ Parent ]
Gnash yer teeth, rend your clothing... (0.00 / 0)
howl at the moon like rabid dog. Facts are facts and the facts are that there is little or no difference between Senators Lieberman and Obama.

Both have and continue to lie to the voters to get elected about their voting record, their policy positions, anything and everything. dKos, FDL, TPM, and a host of other bloggers have inumerable links showing this.

Neither have any interest in anything other than getting elected. That so they can take care of their pals who've funded their 'election'.

And those who want to say, 'Ever body does it...' Can hie over to RedState where you belong.

The Progressive movement is about changing the political fitness space that it becomes a reality, and is so recognized that, corruption and cronyism cannot be a successful path to true political leadership not, I repeat, not cutting deals with folks to slide by in the grease and stink of big money bribery.

The Clinton's are a classic example of  this. Obama and his Liebercrats are just less principled. They can lie without a qualm. Every once and a while lying chokes The Hill or Bill up a little.

Doesn't help the many, many folks who now have shitty jobs; their's having been shipped overseas. Doesn't help the American people who continue to see a steady erosion in their buying power. And, yes, that's Bill's fault. He fucked the dog in his two terms and we got Bush as a direct result of his personal and policy failures.

'Spin' it all ya want. Call me whatever names ya feel like. That's how it's going down in history.

And if folks don't wake up to the facts Clinton/Obama will compound the problem.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

"Wake up to the facts" (0.00 / 0)
Ok, let's say we "wake up to the facts" that Obama and Clinton are the same. What exactly is the solution? Edwards is not going to win this thing, simply due to the fact that he has little funds and no momentum. Everyone else except for the crazies are out. As well, if one of these two get the nomination, as it seems they almost certainly will, what is your plan then. You seem to despise both so much, but do you intend to do the Realpolitik thing and vote for the Democratic nominee?

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
That seems to be the unanswerable question. (0.00 / 0)
Is one of these candidates really evil? Is that inevitable?  Is it possible that those who say we have a wealth of excellent choices are right? I still support Edwards.  It's not looking really shiny for him, but we're not really very far along in the delegate selection process.  Believe it or not, junkies, a lot of people are not really paying attention yet.  There are more debates to come.  Things can still break a lot of ways. Remember, inevitability is dead.

All of the candidates need to offer bona fides to the left.  That means hearing us. We need a sign from each one of them that they are truly committed to the left.

If Edwards is eventually forced to withdraw, I will be very, very interested in hearing his recomendations about the other two.  I have to say that Lamont's endorsement carries considerable weight with me, as well.

In the contest of unfavorable associates, it looks to me like this round goes to Obama.

[ Parent ]
Point Well Taken (0.00 / 0)
I have to say, I'm not entirely sure who I am supporting now. I was a huge Edwards supporter for a while (I even got him to sign my poster at the California Democratic Convention last year!), but I am also a bit of a realist. While I prefer a Social Democrat (look up on wikipedia if you don't know the definition) as the head of the country, the fact is that we only have had a DLC'er, a Progressive-leaning Centrist, and a Populist so far, all of whom rather close, but no cigar (Kucinich is basically there, but come on, he's not going to get the nomination even if he gives Wolf Blitzer head). As it is, Edwards doesn't seem to have a lot of momentum, and while you may think people aren't paying attention, I beg to differ. As President of the Young Dems at my High School, people have been asking me questions since '06! Not junkies, either, random people. At this point, every person I talk to for more than 15 minutes brings up the race at some point, and talks about the issues, for whom they are voting, etc. With the news basically broadcasting the election almost 24/7, it is a major thing to modern Americans, and with Obama getting a lot of non-voters pumped, it is even getting to the point where apolitical punker friends of mine are talking about politics again. As it is, I really don't see Edwards getting some huge bump from new people who don't know, since most people do. I predict that unless he gets 1st in South Carolina, he is finished, and with the polls as they are, I don't see it happening, especially with the momentum the winner of Nevada is going to have going into the state.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
See, you're a political guy. (0.00 / 0)
You think politics is important, and it is.  But not to a lot of people who have what they consider to be higher priorities. Everybody talks to me about politics, too, but it's because they know I'm into politics.

That was a really rude remark about Wolf Blitzer, but it made me laugh out loud.  Twice. It is true that there are unusual levels of interest in this election. 30 to 40% are angry at Bush and the Repigs. Those are the ones saying Bush is doing really, really bad. Shading into outright obscentity. But few people are following the Democratic primaries in detail.

Shit happens.  It partly depends on who's agile. Wasn't it New Hampshire where Muskie cried on camera and lost? I think maybe New Hampshire was partly making up for that with Hillary.

Everybody should get a break.

[ Parent ]
for the record on Muskie (4.00 / 1)
I'm enjoying this conversation, but for the record, it's not clear that Muskie ever actually cried. It may have just been an early example of the type of journalistic malfeasance to which we've grown so accustomed.

David Broder, the deathless hack who penned the original story ("With tears streaming down his face..."), wrote the following 15 years later:

In retrospect, though, there were a few problems with the Muskie story. First, it is unclear whether Muskie did cry. He insists he never shed the tears we thought we saw. Melting snow from his hatless head filled his eyes, he said, and made him wipe his face. While admitting that exhaustion and emotion got the better of him that morning, the senator believes that he was damaged more by the press and television coverage of the event than by his own actions.

Second, it is now clear that the incident should have been placed in a different context: Muskie was victimized by the classic dirty trick that had been engineered by agents of the distent and detached President Nixon. The Loeb editorial that had brought Muskie out in the snowstorm had been based on a letter forged by a White House staff member intent on destroying Muskie's credibility. But we didn't know that and we didn't work hard enough to find out.

[ Parent ]
The hypocrisy on display here is stunning (4.00 / 3)
Why was it OK for Lamont to endorse Dodd, but not Obama?

After all, Dodd campaigned like crazy for Lieberman when the primary was close. Had Lieberman won the primary, would Chris Dodd's name be mud?

I surely hope not.

Politicians are human. They are often put in very difficult positions and they sometimes make mistakes. This includes Obama, the Clintons, Chris Dodd, Ned Lamont, Russ Feingold, and yes, John Edwards.

That doesn't mean we should hold them to any lower standard, but it does mean that we should give our friends the benefit of the doubt every now and again.


I'm really, really tired of hearing about hypocrisy. (0.00 / 0)
If that's the best you've got, then just bag it.
[ Parent ]
Re: Dodd (0.00 / 0)
Well, dunbar, this isn't really fair. Dodd has openly referred to Lieberman as a friend many times, and it would have looked horrible if he had suddenly dropped the guy he had praised for 18 years just because of a policy disagreement. You know why Durbin endorsed Obama, and Schumer endorsed Clinton, right off the back? Because, Senators always become friendly with one another, especially if they are in the same party, when they are from the same state, since they have identical interests. The fact is, Dodd DID campaign for Lamont, even appearing in a commerical, once the Democratic voters had spoken, showing that he had loyalty to his friend, but more to his party. As much as I hate the attacking of this endorsement, you can't really say Dodd didn't deserve the endorsement when he actually DID follow through on his pledge to help Lamont after the primary, something of which Obama backed out.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
Lamont endorsement of Obama (4.00 / 1)
I was at the fundraiser that Clinton "hostessed" for Ned on October 22nd in NYC:I had the impression thar HRC was so terrified of offending Holy Joe that she probably didn't cross the state line or fly over Connecticut airspace after the primary. She stood up at this event and threw Ned under the bus-he had to self-fund because the DSCC had so many tight races, yadda-yadda. I was infuriated and appalled at her behavior. I commented during the Q and A that Lieberman had become so ego-driven that he obviously didn't care that the result of his thirparty run mught be the loss of some or all of the three contested House seats in Connecticut. While I spoke, HRC stared daggers at me and I matched her dagger for dagger. She is a triangulating conniving DLC DINO. I gor home ant told my spouse what happened at the tea, and he said that it looked like, after 15 years, I could finally give in to my inner loathing if her! PS-Yes, her PAC gave Ned $5000, but it gave Holy Joe $10000 in the same cycle. And while I adore Russ Feingold(we just gave a fundraiser for his PAC), he supported Ned but I do not believe he went to Connecticut to campain for him. I will always admire John Edwars and John Kerry for putting their boots on the ground for the Lamont campaign!Sorry to all posters about my spelling-it's earlt and my keyboard is wacky!
It was Lamont campaign's fault why Feingold didn't come to CT (0.00 / 0)
The Lamont campaign spent too much time trying to woo Obama that they didn't send out the invite to Feingold to come to CT until very late in the election cycle.
[ Parent ]
Matt Stoller is just flat out full of crap (4.00 / 1)
And he's spreading that crap around the progressive blogosphere, giving all of us a bad name.

Matt Stoller's "Obama refused to help" comment was quoted in a diary about Lamont's endorsement at MyLeftNutmeg, a progressive blog in CT. Rather than repeat all the same points here that I made there, I'll just paste it instead:

Matt Stoller distorts reality
... and it's troubling because it hurts the reputation of progressives, progressive bloggers, and the entire cause -- because it makes us appear like the adolescent brat that Stoller is.

The fact is Obama supported Dodd's filibuster. Here's what he said:

"Senator Obama has serious concerns about many provisions in this bill, especially the provision on giving retroactive immunity to the telephone companies. He is hopeful that this bill can be improved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it."

No, Obama didn't lead the effort. But he didn't "refuse to help," which is just a flat out lie. And Stoller does it all the time. I have lost ALL respect for him. He's like a five-year-old who gets mad at anyone who disagrees with him.

It's like when Hillary said that Obama said "I will never vote for war funding" or some crap like that, which is totally false. Stoller is doing the same thing.

The truth -- reality -- is somewhere in the middle, and these kinds of attacks distort reality.  To those who know Stoller -- tell him to stop distorting reality. It's ugly and unproductive.

It's bad enough that Stoller spreads this kind of crap here. It's scary when it starts circulating.

Just plain disgusting to me.... (0.00 / 0)
that Lamont would endorse the man who calls Joe Lie...man his mentor. And is basically running a very similar campaign as Lieberman about unity and compromise.

Lamont, of course, has the right to do what he wants, but I think less of him now. Edwards came to rally for Lamont and stood up for him throughout. Just don't see how or why Lamont did this.

BTW, talk about a one issue mantra. You'd back Obama if he would just do one thing on FISA?

Obama Endorsed Lamont during the campaign (0.00 / 0)
Come on people. So soon you forget....

(AP) Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, a vocal defender of Sen. Joe Lieberman earlier this year, is urging Connecticut voters to rally behind his rival, Ned Lamont.

The Illinois senator and potential 2008 presidential candidate sent an e-mail message Thursday praising Lamont.

"Ned Lamont has waged an impressive grass-roots campaign to give the people of Connecticut a choice in the November Senate election," Obama wrote. "Please join me in supporting Ned Lamont with your hard work on-the-ground in these closing weeks of the campaign."

The Lamont campaign said Obama's e-mail went to about 5,000 Connecticut residents.

http://www.cbsnews.c...

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

[ Parent ]
"Both Obama and Clinton betrayed Lamont and all of us during the 2006 campaign." (0.00 / 0)
You could have, and possibly should have, stopped right there.

They now have the nerve to rub their fecal-leval betrayal in our faces, as if it didn't matter what they did two years ago. Despite their demonstrated perfidy, we're supposed to vote for these pusilanimous pigs?

Chuy!@ Somos jodidos, todos...

On Ned Lamont's Endorsement of Obama | 78 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox