"New Zogby Poll Reveals that Dems Nationwide Support Lamont and his Anti-War Credentials"

John Zoby:

An overwhelming majority of Democrats - 79% - nationwide said they are glad that the three-term senator was defeated by Lamont, who ran a powerful anti-Iraq war campaign. They also said Lamont's victory over one of the few pro-war Democrats in Washington makes them optimistic they can win control of at least one of the two houses of Congress in November.

Our interactive survey, including interviews Wednesday and Thursday with 1,229 likely voting Democrats, also highlighted what Democrats across the country said they want to hear from their candidates--a resolute opposition to the war. More than three-quarters of Democrats (78%) said they want candidates who oppose the conflict. Just 6% said they think their Democratic candidates should support the war. Another 13% said they want their candidates to take a middling stance somewhere between support and opposition.

While Republicans may have used the war for political success in 2002 and 2004, Democrats are ready for their turn at the plate this November, and they see the defeat of Lieberman as the first step - 62% said they believe the results of the Connecticut primary will hold national implications for the elections coming up this fall.

And they expect those implications to favor them - 70% said they think the Lamont victory makes the Democratic Party stronger heading into the important election season.

Until this week, Democrats had mostly failed to define themselves in this midterm election, but the Lamont victory may be a turning point for them. Their collective voice is now loud and clear.

Our poll shows the war is creating a unity in the Democratic Party, and the Lamont candidacy both fed off that unity and helped it grow stronger. In a curious way, Joe Lieberman also helped unify the Democrats - an overwhelming majority (71%) said they were unhappy with his decision to run as an independent in the November general election.

Which means there aren't many Democrats left to write support letters to Joe - let alone checks.

"POLITICIZE TERRORISM"

Legal Fiction:

Bill Clinton, 2005:

“You can't say, ‘Please don't be mean to me. Please let me win sometimes.’ Give me a break here[.] If you don't want to fight for the future and you can’t figure out how to beat these people then find something else to do.”

Lots of people are already complaining about the politicization of the London plot. Glenn Greenwald (via Benen) provides numerous examples from the right-wing blogosphere, which seized upon the news in record time. John Aravosis points to an article indicating that the White House knew of the plot last weekend (thus suggesting it coordinated its recent media strategy with it).

You know what I say to that — boo-frickin’-hoo. Get over it. The GOP politicizes terrorism — that’s what they do. They’ve been doing it for five years. They did it to start a war. They did it to win an election. And they’re going to keep doing it until they lose. People can moan and whine all day about how mean and unfair they’re being, or they can fight fire with fire and try to beat them. And so I’m not doing the obligatory “can’t we put partisanship aside in times like this” to show my reasonable centrism. Instead, I’ll take a stab at politicizing terrorism and say this — the failed UK plot illustrates why the people in charge of anti-terrorism policy shouldn’t be in charge of anti-terrorism policy anymore. It also demonstrates the utter failure of the Iraq War as anti-terrorism policy. And finally, it shows why Republicans should lose this fall.

Today's editorial in the NYTimes, unrestricted via this Democratic Underground post, makes a gentler proposal:

Here is what we want to do in the wake of the arrests in Britain. We want to understand as much as possible about what terrorists were planning. To talk about airport security and how to make it better. To find out what worked in the British investigation and discuss how to push these efforts farther. It would be a blessed moment in modern American history if we could do that without turning this into a political game plan.

"Darcy Burner Campaign Commercial 1"

Here. The two Davids, Postman and Goldstein, comment.

"Podcasting Liberally - August 8th, 2006"

A good gabfest about politics and "civility.":

It was a battle so big only four of us could fit around the table. Will and Mollie teamed up with me (Goldy) to take on Seattle P-I bruiser Joel Connelly in a no-holds-barred, steel cage match debate over political civility. I thought we held the upper hand until Joel blindsided me with a broken bottle of Maker's Mark, but my logical analysis and impressive command of the facts eventually won the day when I knocked the old curmudgeon to the ground and beat him senseless with his own cane. In between blows we civily discussed the McGavick shareholder lawsuit, my role in it, the pros and cons of negative campaigning, and how all this relates to Sen. Joe Lieberman's defeat last night in the CT Democratic primary.

The show is 46:25, and is available here.

"Civility" According to Mike!

David Postman:

Mike McGavick says he plans to not only endorse Lieberman in his independent campaign against Lamont, but will donate money to the effort...

Howard Dean on National TV Thursday Morning

ABC: "Good Morning America," 7:05am.

CNN: "American Morning, " 7:30am.

"The real hero in this is Keith Crane"

Ari Melber:

While famous bloggers deflect their own hype, it is clear that the netroots played an indispensable role in turning a quixotic, symbolic challenge into a decisive victory. The first netroots activist to break through in Connecticut was Keith Crane, a retired truck driver who sparked Internet rumblings against Lieberman in February 2005--without a blog. Crane had never even touched a computer until 2003, when he volunteered to work on Howard Dean's presidential campaign, and he still types with one finger. After Lieberman voted to confirm Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, Crane began a grassroots campaign to recruit a primary opponent and launched DumpJoe.com. Yet as a Democratic Town Committee member in Branford, Crane did not confine his activism to the Internet. While his website highlighted the infamous image of Bush kissing Lieberman, Crane also created hundreds of "kiss buttons" and Iraq stickers that he distributed in the parking lot at the state party's largest dinner in March 2005. He remembers that the buttons struck a nerve because "every car was stopping" to offer a thumbs-up.

Now that Lieberman has lost the primary and declared his independent bid, Crane believes the same approach will work in a general election. "He still can't defend any of his stances. He can't defend his vote on the energy bill or his position on Iraq," said Crane, amid the celebrations in the "bloggers' room" at the Lamont victory party on election night.

"The real hero in this is Keith Crane," said Kelly Monaghan, a 61-year-old blogger for MyLeftNutmeg, a Connecticut blog that predates the Lieberman resistance. "By handing out those kiss buttons, he created the psychic space for people within the Democratic Party to even think about possibly replacing Lieberman," Monaghan added, recounting the netroots' influence during a break from blogging election returns.

Yet Crane's early local outreach was significantly amplified by national bloggers. Back in January, Matt Stoller, a MyDD blogger and premier netroots networker, wrote a candid open letter weighing the race. Virtually ignored by the media and the Lieberman camp, that post outlined the perils of a primary challenge, including opposition from party elders; attacks against the campaign as reactionary; and the potential exacerbation of the bloggers' "crisis of legitimacy," since a loss would let people dismiss the netroots as futile "weirdos on the internet." It also fostered a debate of Lieberman's vulnerabilities and what messages netroots activists should take to the voters. Looking back this week, Stoller said his analysis has held up, though the race also revealed new problems for Lieberman, such as "disaffected union members" and the "insular stupidity of the single-issue group managers." (Prochoice organizations, for example, still backed Lieberman after his refusal to filibuster Samuel Alito's Supreme Court nomination, a move that surprised some activists who expected issue commitment to trump incumbency for issue groups.)

Stoller met with Lamont in February and introduced the new candidate to Tim Tagaris, a former Marine sergeant who was handling Internet operations for the Democratic National Committee. Soon Tagaris bolted that job to join the long-shot primary campaign, despite warnings of career suicide from DC-based operatives. He helped integrate local and national netroots activists to advance the campaign's top media and political objectives, including the successful effort to extract commitments from US senators to support the primary winner. Reflecting on that strategy this week, Tagaris said the netroots pressure turned a "simple question" into a "two-month news story," reminding Democrats of Lieberman's "disloyalty." It racked up political chits while reinforcing the most damaging charge against Lieberman in a primary. A former staff member of Lieberman's presidential campaign agreed on Tuesday night, conceding that "bloggers changed the narrative of this race" because "they legitimized Lamont for activists early on" and "reminded people about Joe selling out in the past."

Goldy Makes Two Points

1. Being "Progressive, united, partisan" is a good thing.

2. Maria Cantwell is a “Ned Lamont Democrat."

"Ned Lamont"

Howard Dean:

Ned Lamont -- that's the name of the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate from Connecticut. He defeated Senator Joe Lieberman yesterday in a hard-fought primary election.

There's been a lot said about this race and what it means for our party, so I wanted to get a few things straight.

One big issue in this race was the war in Iraq. Like the vast majority of Americans, Ned Lamont believes that "staying the course" will only drive America and Iraq deeper into disaster.

Lamont's courage and conviction on Iraq will make him a good Senator. But his positions on all the important issues -- on Iraq, but also balancing the budget, getting every American health insurance, and solving the energy crisis -- will make him a great Senator. These are not just the values of the Democratic Party, they are mainstream American values, and they are Ned Lamont's values.

After his loss, Joe Lieberman announced his intention to run as an independent. That's the wrong thing to do.

Ned Lamont won fair and square. We have a process, and those who participate in it should respect the outcome. Joe Lieberman should respect the Democratic voters' decision. He has to do what all of us who have lost an election have done: support the winner.

Our party is united on a new direction for our country. Joe Lieberman has been nominated for Senate by Democratic voters three times, and has served admirably for 18 years. But this moment in our country's history demands that we be unified.

This race wasn't about ideology. Ned Lamont succeeded because of participation politics -- he talked plainly and honestly with the people of Connecticut, and his campaign engaged in the kind of neighbor-to-neighbor organizing that has reinvigorated our party across the country.

Over a quarter-million people voted in the Democratic primary in Connecticut yesterday. Among those taking part in that exceptionally high voter turnout were tens of thousands of people who are new to our party. Voters included Republicans and Independents joining the Democratic Party and others registering for the first time and choosing to be Democrats.

That bodes well for our chances not just in Connecticut but everywhere that people like you have been working to build this party from the ground up.

We've got to be unified through November.

Thank you,
Howard

"THE LAMONT VICTORY--NEXT STEPS FOR CITIZENS"

Paul Loeb:

Ned Lamont's primary victory over Joe Lieberman may turn out to be a key moment in stopping the Bush Administration's destructive policies. But that depends on what the rest of us do.

Lieberman, as a majority of Connecticut's Democratic voters just acknowledged, was Bush's fiercest Democratic ally, not just on the Iraqi war, but on issues from the bankruptcy bill to his regressive energy bill, tax plans, and judicial nominations, not to mention Terri Schaivo.

The question now is whether Lieberman can hold his seat through a divisive third party run. Citizens throughout the country can play a crucial role by pressuring key elected leaders and organizations that initially supported him to switch their support. Some of this has already begun to occur, with Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer's strong statements that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee will fully back Lamont, and Hillary Clinton's donation of $5,000 from her PAC. But the process needs to be taken still further.

Though Lieberman's announced that he'll run as a third party candidate, that isn't set in stone. His chances of splitting the party enough to win in November or elect a Republican depend on the support he lines up. If it's only from major corporate and Republican interests, many of whom contributed to his primary campaign, then voters are far more likely to see him as merely a Republican stalking horse. According to ABC's George Stephanopolous, Karl Rove has already approached his campaign and offered to help. What got Lieberman as close as he came was the legitimacy that he gained from the backing of key Democratic leaders like Schumer, Bill Clinton, Chris Dodd, Barbara Boxer, and Barack Obama, and from institutions like the Connecticut AFL-CIO (though the state's major teachers unions and the Machinists union backed Lamont), and from Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the League of Conservation Voters, and the human rights campaign. They supported him, I believe, because of old friendships and allegiances, because they didn't expect Lamont to emerge as such a powerful candidate or his insurgent campaign to touch such a nerve, and because there's a standard (and problematic) assumption that if an incumbent is at least somewhat on your side, you give them your automatic backing even if their opponent is as strong on the relevant issues or stronger. So National Abortion Rights Action League backed Lieberman despite his immensely disturbing position that a hospital could refuse emergency contraceptives to a rape victim and despite his playing a key role, by blocking any filibuster, in the confirmation of the profoundly anti-choice Justices Roberts and Alito (who have also been as ghastly as expected on environmental, social justice and civil liberties issues). It was the support of institutions and individuals like these that gave Lieberman his veneer of moderation.

Now, we face a different situation. If anyone who loses a party primary, even a close one, can simply run on their own, then primaries become meaningless as ways to democratically elect our leaders. Lamont stressed from the beginning that he would support Lieberman if he lost and even campaign with him. Lieberman needs to do the same. The 40 percent statewide turnout was nearly double the last major contested statewide Democratic primary, a dozen years ago. Now that Connecticut's Democratic voters have spoken, Lieberman needs to respect their will, not split he party by refusing to accept the will of the voters, and siphon off huge amounts of Democratic money and volunteers to what would otherwise be a near-automatic win for Lamont.

So the challenge is to line up every possible aspect of Democratic and organizational support behind Lamont--and to strip Lieberman of the resources and support that got him as close as he came. If we do this well enough he may even decide that the battle is not worth taking on.

The initial shifts of high-profile Democrats are encouraging. But we need to ask more of them. Their endorsing Lamont matters, as do their financial contributions. But particularly for those who gave Lieberman credibility by initially backing and campaigning for him, that's not enough. They need to make clear that they will visibly and energetically campaign for Lamont as the legitimately elected representative of their party, and follow through on this commitment if they can't convince Lieberman to withdraw. It's up to all of us as to make sure the Democratic leaders who represent us respond.

The same thing's true with liberal organizations that endorsed Lieberman when Lamont's campaign had yet to coalesce. If we're members or supporters, we need to personally contact them and ask that they back Lamont and not Lieberman in this next round. They need to recognize that supporting Lieberman at this point means supporting the Bush administration, and everything it stands for.

We might remember that this isn't the first time Lieberman has placed his career above loyalty to party and beliefs. He also hedged his bets in the 2000 election, by running for reelection as Connecticut Senator while also running for Vice President. It didn't help the ticket, but worse yet, had Gore won (as he would have without the Florida machinations), Lieberman would have had to resign his Senate seat, and be replaced by a Republican appointed by Republican Governor John Rowland. So Lieberman has a long history of looking out only for himself, and we might also do our best to ensure that the media remembers this.

If we're successful enough in our efforts, the wells of support for Lieberman will dry up sufficiently that he decides not to make a serious third-party race. Or at least that Lamont gains enough support and momentum to solidly win. Contributing to Lamont's campaign is important--money matters. But wherever we live in the country, we now have another task. And that's to raise our voices enough with the elected officials and organizations that represent us so that this campaign indeed can indeed become a potential national turning point.

It's Ned by 4%

AP: Lieberman vows to run as independent, Hotline has Lieberman Speaks,Markos: CT-Sen: Winners and losers, MyDD celebrates, NYTimes puts the focus on Lieberman, as does most of the "traditional media." I gotta go to work.

CT-Sen: Live and Updated Coverage

Susan Hu says: "NYTimes is constantly updating -- I refresh the page and it's new every time. This radio station is covering it live (as opposed to the dopey cable TV stations)."

"Lieberman trails in early Conn. returns"

AP:

Three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman trailed in very early returns Tuesday, struggling to overcome a tough primary challenge and escape payback from his own party for supporting the Iraq war.

Six years after Democrats backed him for vice president, Lieberman was trailing with 43 percent, or 7,199 votes, to political novice Ned Lamont's 57 percent, or 9,399 votes, with just 6 percent of precincts reporting.

Kos cautions:

"...keep in mind that urban precincts will report last, and that's where the CW says Lieberman will get most of his support."

"CT: No Exit Polls Today"

Mystery Pollster:

The Note also passes along this helpful information for those who plan to follow the returns:

The Connecticut Legislation and Elections website (LINK and LINK)will be updated continually, as soon as information comes in. The state is using a brand new system, which may or may not work. Should the system not work, officials are prepared with a spreadsheet and the site should be updated at roughly fifteen minute intervals with results.

Lever machines will dominate in today's primary, with a smattering of optical scan voting places. And here is a chart, courtesy of the excellent folks at the AP, detailing the timing of the reporting of results on election night in 2004 to use as a guide for tonight.

First Reports from Counties: 8:35 pm ET (5:35 pm PT)

20% of Precincts Statewide by: 10:00 pm ET (7:00 pm PT)

90% of Precincts Statewide by: 1:01 am ET (10:01 pm PT)(Wednesday)

100% of Precincts Statewide by: 9:44 am ET (6:44 am PT)(Wednesday)

Swiftboating the Blogosphere/Kill The Messenger

RAW STORY: "Wall Street Journal columnist says anonymous bloggers are liberal's version of Ann Coulter."

Political Wire: "Lieberman Campaign Claims "No Electronic Communications."

Orcinus: "Nasty liberal bloggers."

Digby: "Blowing In The Wind."

"What The "DOS" Story Is About"

MyDD:

For a long time, the storyline the Lieberman camp was going to use to justify an Independent run was low turnout. The Lieberman camp kept pushing a narrative that they would do better with high turnout, and that they wanted to make a case to as many voters as possible. However, with turnout looking pretty good today, and with it looking like high turnout will help Lamont, not Lieberman (read Mystery Pollster for more on this), that justification for an independent run is collapsing. Now, they need something else, and have latched onto this "dirty tricks" narrative. If the storyline reads that Lieberman was robbed by evil bloggers, then he can justify running as an independent almost no mater what he loses by. The lapdog media has been more than helpful in fueling this narrative for Lieberman.

Never mind that the Lieberman website crashed the last time they had huge traffic back in June. Never mind that the Lamont campaign has offered to come help fix the problem. Never mind that the Lamont website has a Google cache link to the Lieberman website, thus allowing it to receive several times more traffic than it would have otherwise. Never mind that the Lieberman website had no interactive features or tools for supporters to use anyway. Never mind that the idea that this is even a DOS attack doesn't add up. Never mind any of this, because the lapdog press cannot stop falling all over themselves to help throw Lieberman a lifeline for a few last minute sympathy votes and a justification to run even if he loses tonight.

"CT-Sen: The hacked site story "

Kos:

The Lieberman campaign is on a whine attack, claiming the Lamont people "hacked" their site.

If they did, get the FBI on it and the guilty parties should be charged and tried.

But the Lieberman campaign has no evidence that the Lamont campaign had anything to do with it.

I'd be willing to bet that their website host couldn't keep up with increased traffic demands. Covering for their own incompetence, they're blaming it on "hackers".

Daily Kos is under constant Denial of Service attacks. Usually it just slows the site down, on rare instances, it actually brings it down for a few minutes. But then I have competent people working for me, and my web host is run by competent people who can fight off DoS attacks against their clients with little effort.

To claim this is somehow an orchestrated attack by "bloggers" or the Lamont campaign is absolutely ridiculous.

I'd like to see it all backed up with actual evidence, but of course, that's not what this is about. This is a last-minute smear job to cover their own incompetence and that of their vendors.

Stoller has an email from a tech guy offering actual facts. Bottom line? It's not a DoS attack, and Lieberman's web company is incompetent.
(snip)
Update: The Lamont campaign immediately offered its technical staff (they have competent ones) to the Lieberman campaign to help get their site back up. But the Lieberman campaign refused.

Lieberman's people aren't interested in their crappy website working. They're interested in one last smear.

the gadflyer on CT-Sen

Joshua Holland's "Changing DC's balance of fear ..." gives us a some understanding of why the incumbent-acracy is so worried about Lamont.

And they appear to be offering ongoing on-the-ground commentary from CT today, as well.

QUOTE OF THE DAY, BONUS CT DIVISION

Kos:

I didn't make a single phone call, I didn't walk a single precinct, I didn't lick any envelopes, or staffed an information booth at the local farmer's market.

I wrote about the race and suddenly people want to give this blog (and me) all sorts of credit/blame. Only the laziest of lazy reporters and pundits can lay this at the feet of me or any other blogger.
(snip)
Lamont has the support of a people-powered army. Unlike Lieberman who has had to pay top-dollar for his GOTV operation, Lamont supporters are there on their own volition, eager to work because they believe in the cause. You can't buy that sort of dedication and commitment.

Yet all of that is ignored in this "bloggers flexed muscle" narrative.
(snip)
I sat on my ass and wrote about it. I'm about as relevant to winning the Connecticut primary as the 101st Fighting Keyboardists are in winning the war in Iraq.

Give credit where it's due. The people-powered movement isn't about blogs. In fact, most of its foot-soldiers don't even know what a blog is.

It's about creating a new political order in which ordinary people can take charge of their political destinies and do something to make their country a better place.

They're the heroes in all of this.

MyDD Live-Blogging All Day in CT

Here.