Why am I not seeing Ned Lamont on tv? Last night, the media carried Lieberman's "poor, poor pitiful me" concession speech live but only CSPAN carried Lamont's victory speech. Today, all I see all over my TV screen and my net server news sections is Lieberman's face, Lieberman's words.

There was an election. One guy won, the other guy lost. The election is usually about the winner, not the loser. If it's big news that the incumbent lost, which it sometimes is, that's no reason to deny coverage of the victor.

I say we need to bombard the media with demands for an explanation as to why Ned Lamont is being marginalized after he just WON the election of his life.

Democrats will be able to do that only by demonstrating -- for the first time during the Bush presidency -- that they are willing to stand up to Bush and his congressional loyalists

Give them a little credit; they did manage to defeat Social Security privatization. So perhaps call it the second time during the Bush presidency.

If the "National" Democrats are serious about supporting Ned Lamont then every darned one of them should make at least one trip to Connecticut to campaign for Ned Lamont. And might we not take Lieberman's declaration this morning that he was going to run as an Independent as his official resignation from the Democratic Party?? Unless he changes his mind, I'd kick Joe Lieberman off every committee and subcommitee that he sits on. (See list below.) Joe Lieberman hasn't shown one shred of loyalty to his constituents or to the Democratic Party ... his constituents have returned the favor, now it's time for the Democratic Party to do the same!

• Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (Ranking Member and former Chairman)
• Environment and Public Works Committee
• Senate Armed Services Committee (Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on AirLand Forces AND member of the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities)
• Small Business Committee

The Democrats would have a much easier time getting their message across if it weren’t for the Fox News/Karl Rove propaganda machine continually distorting and misrepresenting the Democratic point of view. The Right owns the terms of debate right now, so however they choose to define the Democrats, is how they end up being defined. Unfortunately, that definition is always some warped, distorted, and misrepresented view. The “conservative” take on the issues of they day are always very easily distilled into clever little sound bites and slogans. The truth, is never so easy. Which means the Democratic point of view requires a bit more explaining, which certain portions of our society seem to have trouble with. And the conservative spin-meisters have a much easier time twisting said “explanations” however they see fit.

Democrats can sit around for hours debating different redeployment strategies in Iraq. Republicans sit around and say “Stay the course, don’t cut and run,” and that’s about as deep as their discussions ever get.

Dear Harry and Chuck: It is not a "perception" that Joe Lieberman was too close to George Bush. This is the sort of waffling language that politicians use, for example, when they are caught driving drunk and they say "there was a perception that I was somehow impaired."

A more accurate description would be that Joe Lieberman has spent the last five years humping George Bush's leg.

Nobody really cares beyond a few rabid dems because this election was only about who hates Bush.

The fact that Lieberman wasn't taken down in a landslide shows that dems have a horrific fight ahead of them and they have to do more than just hate Bush and continually spout off about bringing the troops home.

They'll have to come up with deeper thoughts and I just don't think they can.

I just wanted to point out an underlying theme in this and a few other sections of Salon today. It's just a whisper, just a slight implication coming through the language, but it's there: The beltway establishment of advisors and consultants was WRONG. Dead wrong, about many things in particular- including Iraq and various campaign/issue strategies- and Ned Lamont's Blogosphere supported victory over 'establishment Joe' Lieberman proves it. Certainly. Definitely, if the ship is off course you must conclude that those at the helm, and their navigators, are to blame. Undeniably. The thing that made me write this post, however, was the rather thinly veiled conclusion that these authors seemed to want to get across: they were wrong, we were right. They were big shot political consultants, but we should be the ones giving the advice now. I don't disagree, but something about self-promotion being slipped into what is usually objective reporting rubs me the wrong way. I don't blame you, anyone who thinks critically about politics daydreams about being listened to, about influencing policy. Humans like to feel important, we need it. That's why I post long responses to rather short articles that will probably only ever be read by a few people quite like myself. But remember, this is about unbiased journalism- balanced and critical reporting- and if you want to get to the big show you can't screw up in the minors

What is this weak, pathetic criticism that people voted for Lamont because they hate Bush? At the root of it the implicit assumption that hating Bush is somehow wrong. Oh dear me, Dems should be above the fray. Pish posh, we must be bi-partisan and take the high road. F*ck that s*it. Hate, when properly harnessed and channeled, can be an effective emotive force to move forward and reach electoral victory. Here's a hint: the Republicans do it ALL THE TIME! Bush acts as an effective short hand for all of the un-American crap the Republicans have brutalized this country with.

It's time for Dems to step up and do what the majority of Americans are dying to see them do--challenge this administration on each and every power grubbing move they make. The Spectre bill is the most blatant example of all the things this administration has done to get Americans pissed off and ready to vote out anybody that allies themselves too closely with this president. It's a bill that reads as if hand-written by Cheney and Addington, and gives them all the powers they've been dreaming of since they tried and failed to turn Nixon into an Eternal Imperial Republican Ruler. It took them a couple decades of hiding in the weeds, but they've emerged more malevolent and unscrupulous than ever, and with a reinvigorated taste for untrammelled power. Time for Democrats in congress to grow some backbone and dog these bastards right up to the election and beyond.