NYT endorses Lamont for CT Senate.

[madfloridian]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/opinion/29sun2.html

"Two months ago, Connecticut’s Democratic voters sent Mr. Lieberman what should have been a jarring wake-up call when they rejected him for Mr. Lamont, a relative newcomer. We have been waiting to see what lessons the state’s best-known politician took from his defeat, and from the daily evidence of the deterioration of the situation in Iraq.

But instead of re-evaluating his own positions, Mr. Lieberman blamed his constituents for failing to notice that he had offered some negative comments about the conduct of the war, too, mainly when he was running for the Democratic nomination for president in 2004. He did not protest when Dick Cheney said that people who voted for Mr. Lamont were giving comfort to “Al Qaeda types.” His only reflection seemed devoted to a re-examination of the rules for getting back on the ballot.

..."We are living in perilous times. Being able to work with the opposition party — Mr. Lieberman’s claim to fame — is hardly a sign of moral courage when the opposition party controls the White House, Senate and House of Representatives. President Bush did not need Mr. Lieberman’s persistent support on Iraq when he had the deference of his own party members in Congress. What the country needed — and what Connecticut had the right to expect — was for Mr. Lieberman to risk some of his bipartisan clout to call attention to the way Iraq was spiraling out of control.

..."Mr. Lieberman has changed his tone but not his underlying conviction that he has been right all along. He and Mr. Bush are still on the very same page, encouraging the American people to believe that there is a happy ending for American involvement in Iraq, and that all it takes is the perseverance to keep marching toward the end of the rainbow.

Ned Lamont has run a far less polished campaign than Mr. Lieberman, but the more we see of him, the more impressed we are by his intelligence and his growing sophistication about the issues facing the nation. He is very much in the Connecticut mold of basically moderate, principled politicians, and his willingness to take on Mr. Lieberman when no one else dared to do it showed real courage and conviction. He would make a good senator. More important, he has the capacity to continually become a better one. We endorse Ned Lamont for Senate."

[Olney Blue]

1. We need Ned in the Senate- glad the NYT agrees!

[KaryninMiami]

2. Thank goodness. Now if only the Dems in CT could do the same..

I don't get it all- how could any Democrat at this point, even consider voting for Lieberman now. Just another mystery I suppose but this endorsement should help a bit. At least I hope so.

[LynzM]

18. Part of the problem is that it's not just the dems....

There are LOTS of independent voters here in CT, and many of them support Lieberman. Many Republicans, as well, given Schlesinger's poll numbers (9%, last I heard). So yes, I don't understand that, but at this point in the race, Lamont needs to pull more I's if he wants to beat Lieberman.

[JerseygirlCT]

3. Love that last paragraph

Of course, this may be undercut a bit in Hartford when The Courant endorses --- big shock! -- Lieberman.

This sentence really sums it up for me:
"What the country needed — and what Connecticut had the right to expect — was for Mr. Lieberman to risk some of his bipartisan clout to call attention to the way Iraq was spiraling out of control."

[Cha]

20. Oh, did the NYT mean the

"truth from lieberman" when all we get is kissing bush face? Whoa! That's asking too much from the lieman.

[Eric J in MN]

4. The NY Times editors are showing good judgement...

...over the past six months in terms of the editorial page.

[DoYouEverWonder]

5. About time

the NYT's did something right.

[tblue]

6. Way cool! Thanks for letting us know! Go Lamont!!!

[babylonsister]

7. Hot Stuff! K&R! nt

[nofurylike]

8. thank you! k&r. eom

[Rose Siding]

9. They make excellent points -Great endorsement

[bigwillq]

10. WOO HOO!

Great news!

[eleny]

11. K&&R Great news!

[TayTay]

12. Wonderful news!

I am glad to see the NYTimes noted that Lieberman has only criticized the war when he thought it was a politically necessary thing to do.

[JI7]

13. great, Lamont needs something big

don't care for the nyt, but they are well known and hopefully it gets people's attention.

i really don't want Lieberman winning again and hear bs about him about how it backs up his positions on issues that people did not vote him for.

[wiley]

14. Excellent!

The recent Wes Clark ad for Ned was also excellent.

[bobbie]

15. Hm, what a nice surprise

Thanks for posting it.

[femmedem]

16. Not so much of a surprise.

They endorsed him in the primary as well. But nice, nonetheless. Very nice.

[bobbie]

23. Well...that seems relavant

Thanks femmedem.

[blm]

17. GREAT!!! This is a HUGE PLUS at this crucial point.

.

[Clarkie1]

19. This is what I wish more Dems and indies who support Joe would understand...

..."We are living in perilous times. Being able to work with the opposition party — Mr. Lieberman’s claim to fame — is hardly a sign of moral courage when the opposition party controls the White House, Senate and House of Representatives. President Bush did not need Mr. Lieberman’s persistent support on Iraq when he had the deference of his own party members in Congress. What the country needed — and what Connecticut had the right to expect — was for Mr. Lieberman to risk some of his bipartisan clout to call attention to the way Iraq was spiraling out of control."

[Catchawave]

21. I bet Imus is going to be foaming at the mouth

tomorrow morning ! Great news, thanks

Edit for speeling

[AlamoDemoc]

22. WOW!....K&R

[madfloridian]

24. Odd, this is not nor was it on the greatest page.

I thought it was a 24 hour thing. I just noticed because I seldom check there.

Maybe it is a decision made by the mods? Or maybe all the times are screwed up because of the time shift?