Clinton just wrote a check for Lamont

[tulip]

They are lining up like ducks in a row. They always support the Dem Candidate. Joe will have to go it alone now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/joe-lieberman-spoilered_b_26880.html

Party leaders now need to return the favor. They're off to a good start, with Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Evan Bayh, John Edwards, Barak Obama, Frank Lautenberg, Rahm Emanuel, Barbara Boxer, the DSCC, the DCCC, and Lieberman's Connecticut homey Chris Dodd all throwing their support behind Lamont. Even better, Hillary Clinton cut Lamont a $5,000 check from her HILLPAC.

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Joe will be out of the race within a month

Maybe less.

Simply by registering to run as an independent, he's alienated a whole chunk of the party who had otherwise stood by him.

If he continues, he will either have to become a Republican, or give up all thoughts of ever again having a political career.

--p!

[demdiva]

2. WHY IS EVERYONE LEAVING OUT KERRY??????? This is ridiculous

Kerry has also shown his support for Lamont. CONTINUOUSLY.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2767641

[movonne]

3. I think that might be the reason that they did not say Kerry is that

he always has supported lamont..the rest supported lieberman..

[demdiva]

4. But still .... he has been left out of every article in this vain

[Lost-in-FL]

5. Cause it is a know fact?

:shrug:

[demdiva]

7. I really don't think that's true

You are giving the american public wayyyyy too much credit. Just like the american public should have known the Swift Boaters were lying about Kerry's record? They didn't

[Lost-in-FL]

12. It was a DU fact at least.

I read a few weeks ago that Kerry was very supportive of Lamont. I should have made it clear in my first post to avoid confussion.

[demdiva]

13. I'm glad you know! I just don't think enought people do ...

Thanks for clarifying though!!!!!

[primative1]

6. Thanks For That ...

I was actualy starting to wonder what he was doing :)

[demdiva]

10. Thanks for proving my point for me!!!

[sendero]

17. Ok, ok...

.. so now those who didn't know that, do know it.

And good for JK for being on the right side all along.

[malikstein]

8. Edwards beat her to the punch.

Two days before the primary he made a "troops out now" speech. All the opportunists are "seeing the light".

[tulip]

11. oh I thought you meant

he donated money too. Yes Edwards did ask to begin bringing home troops. I think 40,0000 but his statement came as Lamont was polled ahead. What's important is where they have been on the Iraq war for the past say 2 years and Edwards has been critical of the Bush presidency & the handling of the war so in my book he scores well. :) Actually most of them score well on their criticism of the war....Clinton just came a little late to the party but what's important is that she's here now.

[goreo8]

15. I disagree about Hillary

It's time to "Lieberman" Hillary. She will NOT help us win in '08. She is not polling well at all, and we cannot afford to lose in '08. She voted for the war, and she MUST pay for it. It's time to defeat Hillary next!

This was a story in the Boston Herald http://news.bostonherald.com/columnists/view.bg?articleid=151737

We must make sure she is NOT the next Democratic candidate in '08.

[malikstein]

16. Tasini sounds good.

He's Hillary's Ned Lamont. Amy Goodman interviewed him this week. He's pro-labor, which is more than you can say for the DLC shills like Lieberman and Clinton (both).

We should try to get Tasini's campaign the prominence it deserves. With the likes of Rupert Murdoch backing Hillary, the corporate media are giving Tasini the brush off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Tasini

http://www.tasinifornewyork.org/

[oasis]

18. Dozens of important events will occur between now and '08. You may find

yourself in Hillary's camp by then.

[newyawker99]

19. Hi malikstein!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Impashund Ubique]

21. Actually Edwards has been saying that

since he wrote the "I was wrong" Op-Ed, which was a long time ago...

Edwards beat everyone to the punch on congratulating Lamont though; Lamont said that Edwards was the first to call on Tuesday night ;)

[KKKarl is an idiot]

I believe the late arrival of the Clinton's to support Lamont shows they have underestimated the blogging community. Hilary keeps pandering to the right acting like she is already the Democratic nominee for '08. It is time for them to take note. No one is safe anymore. Let this be a lesson.

[tulip]

9. I guess she meant it.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/08/hillary_clinton.html

She spoke with Lamont today, Clinton said, and pledged to donate "the maximum I can provide" as well as campaign for him. "I'll do whatever he needs done. I think it's very important we keep that senate seat in Democratic hands."

[ShrewdlyDone]

14. She is looking for a pres bid... and it will destroy us if she succeeds

She is the opposite of a consensus builder when it comes to Repubs.

They will rally like you cannot believe against her. She has to see that.

If she doesn't she is just working out of pure ego.

[dolstein]

20. Personally, I'm not so sure this actually hurts Joe

After all, these are all people who backed Joe in the primary. If their endorsements were so influential, he'd have won in a walk. And now they're turning on a dime. A lot of people might presume that these endorsements are being made more out of blind party loyalty rather than any deep personal commitment Lamont, and they'd probably be right. Plus, it looks a little odd for Lamont to suddenly embrace the very same establishment he was running against. And that in turn gives Lieberman an opening to run as a true independent "pox on both houses" type.

Seriously, here's Lieberman's campaign message in nutshell:

If you think the problem with Washington is that there's not enough partisanship, vote for Ned. If you think the problem is that there's too much partisanship, vote for me.

Frankly, that's a message that a lot of independents could agree with. While Bush is very unpopular, as is the Republican party, the Democratic Party is popular only relative to the Republicans. It's not "popular" in any objective sense.