What Hillary did for Ned Lamont

[MonkeyFunk]

some people seem a little unhappy with Clinton's level of support for Ned Lamont in the general election.

She offered to hold a fundraiser for him, campaign by his side, she sent him money, she offered to lend him campaign staff:

NEW HAVEN, Aug. 25 — In a private meeting at her Chappaqua, N.Y., home on Friday, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton offered to help Ned Lamont in his battle to unseat Senator Joseph I. Lieberman by sponsoring a fund-raiser, campaigning by his side and lending him one of her top political strategists.

Ned Lamont, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Connecticut.
That strategist, Howard Wolfson, said Mrs. Clinton wanted to throw her considerable political weight behind Mr. Lamont because the national Republican Party “is clearly invested in Ned Lamont’s defeat.”

“I think they are going to do what they can to see him defeated,” Mr. Wolfson said, adding that he was particularly concerned with “Bush-Cheney talking points.”

“They are going to attack him in the way Republicans do,” he said, “and he obviously needs to be and is going to be prepared.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/26/nyregion/26lieberman.html

[SaveElmer]

1. Man you are making a mess...

The exploding brain matter of the Hillary detractors is going to take forever to clean up if you don't stop injecting reality into the conversation...

[durrrty libby]

3. Yep...They hate truth tellers

[kenfrequed]

21. Reality?

The reality is that we have the word of a strategist referring to a meeting where Clinton offered up support AFTER the Democratic primary in a New York paper that is usually rather polite towards Senator Clinton.

This does nothing to reduce my scorn for people on this website that were backing Lieberman after he lost the primary.

[kenfrequed]

28. As to

As to the game of Counter-Gotcha with regards to Hillary's support of Lieberman, it would be far more effective for your argument if you found an actual quote where Hillary voiced support of Lamont by name in a public venue.

Personally it wouldn't surprise me if there was such a quote but I think it might say something if there was no declaration of support.

[JohnnyLib2]

2. Following up on SaveElmer's reply--

so don't stop! :evilgrin:

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. Uh-huh.

http://www.irregulartimes.com/clintonliebermanletter.html

She was against him before she was for him.

After an extended google, I'm not finding any references dated past yours that she actually DID "... hold a fundraiser for him, campaign by his side, she sent him money, she offered to lend him campaign staff."

Did she really stump for Lamont? Or merely 'offer' to?

Refs, please.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. She sent him $5,000 from her PAC

it's in the article I linked.

Whatever Lamont chose to take advantage of was up to him. She offered, and nowhere were there ever any reports that he sought to take advantage of any of those offers that she refused.

Just face it - she supported Lamont.

[Capn Sunshine]

12. I worked for Lamont

Granted, it was from this coast. While an offer of support is not the same as support, and at the time there was significant speculation about her triangulation ( ie wtf is her real motive?) there is the bottom line that she did extend a hand. Whether Lamont took it is another story.

That's not why I'm against Hillary's candidacy. It's childish of the usual suspects to ascribe some kind of emotional non thought based reaction to anyone who doesn't agree with their version of truth. It's her campaign organization. They don't have a clue how to win , and if she's the nominee, we will watch the huge Democratic lead erode just like they accomplished for her in Iowa.

These geniuses are responsible for the Kerry Campaign, many participated in the muzzling of Al Gore, but bottom line, they create a close race in situations where the Democratic candidate should win walking away. I suspect it's the shopworn DLC talking points; forged in the 90's and recycled again and again with the same result.

[TwilightZone]

6. Offers can be accepted or declined, can they not?

Perhaps Lamont chose not to accept. Did you consider that possibility?

[TwilightZone]

7. Interesting. This certainly deserves attention, but I suspect that it will be largely ignored.

Recommended, anyway.

[blm]

8. Lamont was doing GREAT....UNTIL Wolfson started handling his communications.

And she WOULDN'T campaign for him IN Connecticut. Neither would Bill.

[MonkeyFunk]

9. Do you have a reference

to that? Where Lamont asked them to and they refused?

[blm]

11. They didn't put it on the table as they did for other Dem campaigns.

.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. She was far far far from alone in that

Edwards campaigned for Lamont once, but that was right after he won the Democratic Primary and became a hero of the Democratic left which face it Edwards has been courting heavily ever since he apologized for his role in the Iraq War. I'm not saying that Edwards wasn't sincere in supporting Lamont, or that he doesn't deserve credit for doing so. But doing so wasn't exactly an act of courage on his part. Unlike our other Senate candidates Edwards no longer had to serve with Lieberman in the Senate and cut deals for votes on domestic issues with him etc. And after Lamont started slipping behind in the polls Edwards did not show up to campaign for him again, for whatever reasons. But on whole, score one for Edwards here. That's it. After Edwards Hillary Clinton can arguably say that she gave more tangible support to Lamont than any other current Democratic candidate.

The National Democrats who were there the most for Lamont, according to reports from inside the Lamont campaign, were John Kerry and Wes Clark. Obama certainly did not shine for Lamont. Even though he was travelling around campaigning in other states in the region, he managed to skip CT.

[MonkeyFunk]

36. except

the article linked in the OP says exactly that they put it on the table. She offered to sponsor a fundraiser, appear side by side with him, send him money (which she did) and offer the use of a campaign aide (which she did).

Now do you have evidence that Lamont asked her to appear with him and she subsequently refused?

[MonkeyFunk]

10. And Lamont was doing great?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2006/senate/ct/connecticut_senate_race-21.html#polls

He was never ahead of Lieberman.

But people just LOVE to make shit up.

[blm]

13. Lamont's MESSAGING was just fine and getting better till Wolfson took over

and your own links show there was a time when Lamont's communications were busting thru the entrenched machine that Lieberman had in Conn. and the race was even tied at one point.

You think Hillary's 'gift' of Wolfson taking control of Lamont's message hurt or helped him?

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. If you are proposing a conspiracy be up front about it.

For the point of this discussion the relevent matter is intent, as in intent to help Lamont over Lieberman or lack of intent to help Lamont over Lieberman. Hillary lent him staff help. It can be argued whether Lamont would have been better off without Wolfson joining his staff, that can be argued endlessly no doubt from both sides, but it is irrelevent. We argue about whether Clinton's own staff is even helping her right now for heaven's sake. Are you suggesting that there is a conspiracy going on by Clinton's staff to mess up her communications now? It seems many Clinton detractors here believe her staff is hurting her campaign to be President - but no one argues that she has them on her staff for that purpose.

[blm]

19. Clintons wanted Lieberman to win. They certainly did not want Lamont's message of antiwar

to be seen as a 'winning' message.

Especially since Hillary had just spoken out in June 2006 against any timetable for withdrawal.

You stick with YOUR trust of them. I'll stick to MY distrust which has come from watching everything they do along with their loyalists.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. Well you are calling Lamont an idiot then

If you think he was doing just fine all along, but couldn't see through some devious trojan horse offer of sending an enemy to give him false advice and theafter he swallowed hook line and sinker poison pill strategies secretly designed to make him fail, then probably he wasn't the type of guy who belongs in the Senate anyway - based on ability not ideology.

Of course I don't believe a word of that. I think Lamont knew what he was doing and could take care of himself. Presenting him now as some kind of dope who fell victim to the evil plots of the Clinton's I think is pretty demeaning to Ned Lamont.

[ronnykmarshall]

32. How about Barbara Boxer?

She stumped for Lieberman in the primary as well.

[blm]

38. Boxer wasn't planning her primary race for 2008 was she?

.

[MonkeyFunk]

39. What's your point?

The fact is, most prominent Dems, including Obama, Barbara Boxer and the Clintons, stumped for Lieberman in the primary. After the primary, they supported the Democrat, Lamont.

There's nothing unusual about that at all.

I'm not sure what Hillary's later run for the presidency has to do with it.

[kenfrequed]

29. Non-conspiratorial

A conspiracy is not impossible. But it would not be my first guess.

My first guess is that this schlep is a typical "professional strategist" that exists to water down the progressive/populist elements of the democratic party. I wouldn't be surprised if this strategist cut his teeth with the DLC and then attempted to "run" Lamont like a typical DLC-squishy moderate candidate.

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. I agree with your more likely scenario. Oil and Water don't mix well n/t

[kenfrequed]

33. That being said...

We really do, as a party, need to do away with strategists that fail to bring the populist majority into the system. Appeals to helping business, free trade, and that sort of drek really does not excite the progressive-populists much.

Demonstrations of piety, real or not, also do little unless it is linked to some real demonstrable behavoir. Besides no amount of church or handwringing can replace reminding people of the religious hypocracy of the republicans or how republican policy is burying our sons and daughters in this war and socking the working poor in the wallet and kicking the upper lower class out of their homes.

It shows the ultimate idiocy of the pundant/stratagist subset that they are completely painting shades of elmer gantry on the populace when the obvious is staring them in the face.

[AX10]

14. Hillary was pro-Lamont.

[mtnsnake]

15. Can someone tell me who Obama endorsed in that race between Lamont & Lieberman? I forgot.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Primary - Lieberman. General Election - Lamont. n/t

[Capn Sunshine]

20. IOW, the leading Democrat

Because he's a strong party guy.

[kenfrequed]

30. This proves little

As I support neither Hillary nor Obama, both are too conservative and both are too media-celebrity for my tastes.

[LoZoccolo]

22. Big it up! Big it up! Recommended!

:thumbsup:

[Capn Sunshine]

23. Isn't it better to work on Hillary's new framing today than the past?

Remember, " If you want change, why not vote for someone who has worked for change her whole career? "

I guess you missed the conference call.

OK Bill, you owe me.

[LoZoccolo]

25. Sure.

That's why we have to neutralize attacks on Hillary with facts like those in the original post, so we can move on to the future!

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. lol n/t

[Cameron27]

24. Thanks

Clinton supported Lamont in the general, most Democrats did once Lieberman decided to creat the Joe party.

[hayu_lol]

34. I read on one of these threads on this board...

that Obama also gave $5K to Lamont. So the offers of help were there. No one could stop indies and Repugs from voting for Lieberman.

Every state has it's own rules...some of them are absolutely nuts.

[bvar22]

35. Hillary was against Lamont before she was for him.

This is just more triangulating DoubleSpeak from the wing of the Party that has become notorious for evasion and ambiguity.

Had enough yet?


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. So was Barbara Boxer. What wing of the Party is she in?

Not to mention Dodd and Obama and the others. I'm curious what your read is on Boxer in this regard?