I think Ed gave a very good interview and I think Ned did a very good job answering them.

(I did think he sort of dodged the media ownership question though).

Will the Huff Post have another article on Ed now? Possibly more favorable???

Cheers,

-P

Agreed on all points! He sounds like he has a head on his shoulders. That's a start...... Sallie

I think Ned is handling the huge leap from selectman to US Senate candidate quite well, but he still strikes me as very green and somewhat unpolished. Otherwise, his stance on the issues are decidedly Dem, which is no surprise since he has given thousands to the Dem party and candidates.

Chip

Agreed. But I think his unpolished appearance is something that makes him more appealing, especially since Joe exudes an arrogance that the seat is his and his alone.

Cheers,

-P

Another reason to not be suprised is that he is running for a democratic seat in a democratic primary. duh...

I guess he should not have been active as a private citizen before...

I think Ned did well, even if he is just a little better than Lieberman then, that is still better isn't it?

Even if it is a one issue (Iraq) it is a huge issue. And if oe Lieberman and Ned Lamont are like plain ice cream and ice cream with sprinkles and a cherry on top, then why not go for the latter?

Insults aside, I was addressing the claims that Ned was a former Repub who had switched parties just to go up against Joe. Ned is decidedly a Dem, at least as far back as Opensecrets could reveal.

Chip

I understood your point.

-P

While I would have preferred him to answer the question more directly, I can't say I blame him for the path he took.

We only need remember what happened to Dr. Dean right after he declared on Hardball during the Dem primary that he would break up the media conglomerates...even his own party couldn't suck enough blood from him, let alone the repugs and the corporate media.

I'd pretty much agree with you as well. It may not have been so much of a dodge, but more of a question he really wasn't expecting. If that's the case, then I think he handled it reasonably well for someone so unseasoned.

That's my feeling at least.

-P

So, what's your feeling for the state? How do you think it's gonna go down?

I'm in Jersey, with friends in CT- so I only get a vibe through them. They seem to think that people are excited about Ned (and they're voting for him), but that it's gonna go to Joe in a close one.

To me, that sounds about right. But I can barely cope with thinking that, so I refuse to believe it.

It will be close, but I think Ned has the edge in the primary.

Sure, the polls (which are pretty stale by now) have Joe taking the lead, but you have to realize the type of voter that's going to vote on Aug 8 for a midterm primary-mostly people with a bone to pick with the incumbent. Also, in a few short months Ned has gone from virtually unknown to a nearly household name. I really think he just needs to ride the momentum and not make any serious blunders.

After the primary? That's anyones guess.

-P

We Democrats in Conn. have been hoping for years that some Liberal Democratic politician would run against Joe and, for whatever reason, it never happened. We're delighted with Ned because he's so talented and dedicated and progressive, AND he doesn't have to kiss the bottoms of the big cheese politicians and fat cat power brokers because he's got his own stash to get him through the hurdles.

Joe has proven that he loves himself above all else and that, if the party doesn't choose HIM, the party and the state of Connecticut can go to hell.

I hope and expect (as does Joe himself) that enough Democrats are going to tell him where to go on August 8th, at which time most of his old friends in the party will persuade him to take his marbles and go home!

Arianna is bright, a bit aggressive. What she has to say is pretty straight on. Don't know about her bloggers. Let the Connecticutters decide this for them selves. No?

>> Let the Connecticutters decide this for them selves. No?

I don't know how many times I heard Ed say something like that last week in his replies to the many callers who praised Ned Lamont. Ed just couldn't bring himself to give Lamont the credit he deserved, although he acknowledged that Lamont answered his questions clearly and directly. Lieberman, OTOH, was evasive. He stumbled and wavered, like dubya at the debates, waiting for Karl's prompt over his wireless connection.

Joe likes to say, "I'm not Bush!" He wouldn't need that disclaimer if the differences were more apparent.

I think Ed's admitted personal friendship with Joe Lieberman prevents him from giving Lamont the affirmation he deserves.

Lamont's impediment is that he's not well known. Lieberman's problem is that he's known too well.

Actually, if you want to be honest about it, you've got to give Ed the credit he deserves. If you listened to the interview, you'll notice several things:

1) Ned got more airtime.

2) Ed Schultz has the only radio show in America to let both candidates say their piece. (And this is just a primary for my small state of CT).

3) Ed REPEATEDLY said he would support the winning candidate of this primary.

4) Ed also said that he agreed with Ned on the war and several other issues.

Now, I don't know what Ed's relationship with Lieberman is. Having met Joe before, I'm willing to bet that it is actually a good one. Joe is a nice guy, and I say this even though I'm currently supporting his opponent. But, I don't think it's fair to attack Ed because you read to much into his motivations.

Ed gave a fair interview to each candidate, and refused to publicly support either of them before the primary. Anything else you take away from it is mere speculation.

Cheers,

-P

>> you've got to give Ed the credit he deserves.

No, I don't. I posted a complaint, not praise. I give Ed credit for other things. This is a complaint. If you want to give Ed credit for something go ahead, but allow me the freedom to complain when I see a problem. The problem I see is Ed's unconditional love for Joe Lieberman that blurs his vision and allows him to call Lieberman a "progressive."

>> I don't know what Ed's relationship with Lieberman is.

If you listened to the Ed Schultz show you'd hear Ed acknowledge that he and Joe Lieberman are friends. Heck, we all need friends, but Ed's friendship with Joe Lieberman leads to his blurry vision and tolerance for the intolerable.

>> I don't think it's fair to attack Ed because you read to much into his motivations.

If you saw an "attack" then you could be a New Age Sensitive Guy. This is a complaint, far short of an attack.

>> Ed ...refused to publicly support either of them before the primary.

Au contraire. Ed supports Lieberman in the back-handed way I mentioned in my first paragraph. When callers complain about Joe Lieberman's vaporous, noncommittal affiliation with the Democratic Party, Ed dismisses it with some variation of "We'll let the voters of Connecticut decide that." I don't hear Ed acknowledge Lieberman's attachment to the Bush-neocon agenda. Instead, Ed continues to call Lieberman a "progressive" (he's not) and "experienced" (he is, and that's the problem. His record is the very reason that he has been abandoned by progressives).

No matter what specifics a caller gives when complaining about Joe Lieberman, Ed reduces them to the single issue, "You don't like Joe because he supports the war in Iraq."

That's unacceptable. Lieberman's bewildering support of the invasion, occupation, and rape of Iraq is merely one strike against him. There are additional reasons for putting Joe Lieberman out to pasture. Here's one:

had Gore won..., Lieberman would have had to resign his Senate seat, and be replaced by a Republican appointed by Republican Gov. John Rowland. Given that the Senate ended up split 50-50 (until Sen. Jeffords left the Republican Party), this would have brought about a major political loss.

But none of that mattered to Joe. His prime loyalty has always been to himself.... --Sun-Sentinel

Cheers.

Actually, I think you are the one being overly sensitive on this. I posted facts, you posted feelings. I could care less if Ed has any agenda here (I doubt he does). It is perfectly within your right to post criticism, but I still believe that should be tempered with reason.

I've actually talked with Homey extensively about this and have heard the interviews several times; you can too (Lamont's interview here, Lieberman's interview here.)

If I come across as somewhat sensitive on this subject, it is because I find it tiring how many liberal bloggers attack Ed for his so-called agenda. Case in point: the day after Ed touched on the Lamont/Lieberman debate the blogosphere lit up tons of criticism on Ed (from DU to the Huffington post). When Ed was THE ONLY radio guy to interview both candidates, guess what happened? Silence.

It's annoying to say the least.

-P

>> I posted facts, you posted feelings.

These are feelings:

I find it tiring how many liberal bloggers attack Ed for his so-called agenda. ... It's annoying to say the least.

"Tiring" and "annoying" are your feelings. I posted a specific complaint, identifying the subject precisely and factually, based on Ed's own words, spoken over the air.

If you want to dismiss my complaint as a "feeling", and link me to "liberal bloggers [who] attack Ed for his so-called agenda," you're missing the point. I don't condemn you for expressing your feelings (above), but please don't attribute them to me. As the pop-psychologists say, you need to "own" your own feelings.

I haven't mentioned "Ed's agenda." I said "I don't hear Ed acknowledge Lieberman's attachment to the Bush-neocon agenda."

You seem to have translated that into "attack[ing] Ed for his so-called agenda," and you responded with your feelings (above).

Now (if you 'feel' like it), I invite you to respond to the actual subject of my complaint. You may need to review my comments because you've missed the point so far. In summary, the subject of my complaint is comments Ed has made on the air (fact) about Joe Lieberman.

Note that this does not involve my feelings. Just Ed's own words, over the air. BTW, the comments I'm referring to were not part of the interviews, but Ed's comments to callers in regards to Joe Lieberman.

Okay, here's what you said that gives you a problem with Ed:

>> Let the Connecticutters decide this for them selves. No?

I don't have a problem with this, actually. Ed is 100% correct on this, and we in CT will decide in a few short weeks. Did you also miss the part where Ed called Schumer a prick for getting involved?

I also responded with these facts, which you avoided:


I'm sorry if I misunderstood that you weren't discussing the interviews. I do believe that was an honest mistake, however, since that is what this thread is about (I know, I started it).

I don't want to get in a pissing match with you over this, but I'd like to say that the snarky tones don't help (and, yes, I had a few myself). I'm saying this as a member, not as an administrator.

Cheers,

-P

I ...responded with these facts, which you avoided

I didn't intend to avoid them; I have no problem with any of them. They were not the subject of my specific, limited complaint. You seem to think I'm condemning Ed on a global scale. Not true. I like Ed and try to listen every day. But I listen critically.

>> you weren't discussing the interviews. I do believe that was an honest mistake, however, since that is what this thread is about

True, I did miss that. I thought it was about Ed Lamont vs. Joe Lieberman in general, not limited to the interviews. My mistake. I probably should have read the first few posts. I saw the heading and jumped in.

>> I'm saying this as a member, not as an administrator.

I discovered you were an admin only seconds before this post. Sorry. I don't go out of my way to hassle admins. It's your forum.

If this were a rightie forum I wouldn't bother. But Ed's show is the only game in town that's even close to progressive and I want it to be as effective as possible. The reason Republicans keep winning and Dem's keep losing is that the pubbies are mean, ornery, cutthroat liars. When Ed mollycoddles Joe Lieberman he's soft on the right. That's a big mistake. That's how we (Dems) keep losing and the Evil Ones from the Dark Side keep winning. With few exceptions (Lieberman not among them), the Crats are limp noodles. The Pubbies are high on steroids and Viagratized, beating their chests and war drums. The Dem's are sipping weak tea and whimpering, preparing to lose again.

Where is Ed in all this? Ed says we have "four parties":
Republicans (moderate right), Democrats (moderate left), the Wacky Right, and the Wacky Left. I disagree.

As I see it we have the
• Ultra-Right (Christian Taliban Fundamentalist Santorum-hugging, Rattlesnake-handling, Holy Rolling Rapture Monkeys);

• Far Right (most Republicans, including Joe Lieberman),

• Mildly Right (most Dem's, including Hillary, Ed Schultz), and

• Center (Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Robert Byrd).

We have no "left" in the U.S. But that's for another thread.

>> Did you also miss the part where Ed called Schumer a prick for getting involved?

Yes, I missed that. I don't know what it means but I can Google it. If it's about Schumer telling Lieberman to retire then I'll sign it.
I understand that the Lamont vs. Lieberman issue is for Connecticut voters, but it's also a national issue. If Lieberman screws up Lamont's run, it will affect all of us. It could even make the difference in party majority. Lieberman should announce that he needs to spend more time with his family, and then hang up his hat. His usefulness in Congress has passed. If he wants to spend more time with George he can hide under the desk in the Oval Office.

I hear you. We're cool. I only mentioned the admin/member thing because I didn't want it to be a source of intimidation for you.

In all fairness, I came out a little harsh on you. As I said, I've seen a lot of heat on the Ed/Ned stuff.

BTW, Ed calling Schumer a prick was because Schumer was poo-pooing the whole concept of the primary and (I think) he said that he would support Lieberman regardless of the outcome in Aug. Essentially, Ed was saying he should stay out of it.

Cheers, and welcome to the forum.

-P

welcome to the forum.

OK, thanks. I'll browse around and get to know what's what.