- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I know this is stepping away of the subject of the original post, so I'll keep it brief.
I doubt Jane Hampsire's actions had any impact on the re-election of Lieberman. It appears to be more or a blogosphere issue. It got no coverage in the newspaper or television. Trying to paint one of the parties as racist was important only to discourage some from voting in the election.
Understand that the Democratic Party in Connecticut is bifurcated - there are limosine liberals in the wealthier parts of the state, and working class, conservative "Reagan Democrats" in the places where manufacturing used to take place. The latter are Lieberman's diner buddies, and the people that Lamont needed to win over in the general election.
But in the end I think Ned Lamont made some mistakes in his campaign that had a greater effect.
1. He let Lieberman give his "consolation" speech first. This gave Lieberman 15 mins uninterrupted (starting at 11PM) to launch his new campaign. And Lieberman gave the performance of his life. Lamont came after commercials, and was not as polished.
2. Lamont let himself be surrounded with people from outside CT and that was the "money shot" that every newspaper and broadcast went with. It gave the impression that Lamont was allied with interests outside Connecticut.
3. He went on vacation right after the primaries giving Lieberman momentum.
I was sorry Lamont lost for many issues beyond the war - I voted for him. I think he had a larger impact in teh election than most have given him. Although he lost he changed the nature of the debate. He proved an entrenched, imcubent war supporter could be beat.
