Why Ned Lamont may be the Most Important Name in 2009 Politics

Yes, Ned Lamont may be the most important name in 2009 politics. Right now, it may be a more important name than Barack Obama. Let me explain.

The fight for health care reform comes closer than it has ever been before, and the Republican party continues to demonstrate that no compromise, not even tort reform, will draw a single Republican vote. At this point, the last thing standing between us and a strong health care bill is conservative or moderate Democrats. The progressive blogosphere has drawn a line in the sand. And I am reminded of 2006, and the Lieberman vs Lamont primary. I am reminded that when progressives draw a line in the sand on the most important issue to voters, they will follow through on holding politicians accountable.

continued at http://sumofchange.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-ned-lamont-may-be-most-important.html

although Lieberman won, it was not much of a victory. It was his last.

why it was not exactly a victory for Lieberman, it was simply narrowly delaying defeat.

"But Senator Lieberman won in the end, right? I mean, he did get reelected. Yes. But it was his last reelection. I doubt he will run again. He will not be winning any Democratic primary. And if he runs for the Democratic nomination, he will have to commit to not running as an independent should he lose. I remember working a mayoral primary in '07, every candidate had to commit to that to even be seriously considered. The reverberations of the '06 primary were felt on every ballot in CT. Senator Lieberman would be forced to make that promise. Then again, we all know how Lieberman is on campaign promises, especially about party affiliation. And he cannot run on the Connecticut for Lieberman party again. I mean that literally. He cannot run on that party line. I am not saying the politics forbids it, I am not saying that the Secretary of State might finally get bothered by Sen. Lieberman's repeated use of a fake party he has no intention of joining, I am saying that the party itself will forbid it. Senator Lieberman's campaign screwed up the process for taking control of the party, essentially no one actually registered for the party. John Orman noticed this and decided to register and submit party rules himself. Later, he made the party real. They endorsed President Obama in the 2008 election, pretty much for every reason they do not like Sen. Lieberman. The notion of Sen. Lieberman running against the Connecticut for Lieberman party, who will be eligible to cross endorse* the Democrat on every ballot in the state during the general election, is painfully hilarious for us, but a political dissaster for Sen. Lieberman."

I think that's cowardly and craven in the extreme.

Thanks for the condescension. I did say, explicitly, that Lieberman won. I also stated that his victory came with lasting injury. I think I clearly defined my reason why. I respect that you disagree.

Sorry I can't live up to your standard of bravery.

I said we landed a lasting injury. I merely used that injury as an example of why blue dogs should fear the progressive netroots. You assumed that I felt we won. Which is still little reason to throw personal insults around.

:rofl: