Wednesday, July 26, 2006

YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP: Yet another (very good) reason to support Lamont

Follow the link:

Tuesday, July 25, 2006


Just like at the Bush campaign speeches, the attendees at the Joe Lieberman/Bubba gig were carefully monitored. You all remember that when chimpy stumps, the audience is selected; it's never open to the public. That's right (no pun intended): only the very loyal could attend. Anyone known to be on the "other side" is not welcomed and usually turned away, if one so dares to approach the event.

To get tickets to the Joe/Bubba gig, one not only had to apply; one also had to give his/her social security number. Yeah. That probably had to do with a "secret service" check, given that Bubba is a former president and needs legitimate protection. So when the bloggers Spazeboy and Jane Hamsher applied and received tickets, they were rather stunned when they were attempting to be admitted and presented their tickets only to have a Lieberman staffer tear a ticket apart and tell them that they werenot welcomed. Hmm. Joe continues to seem like Bush in more ways than one. Check out the video at My Left Nutmeg blog:

Monday, July 24, 2006


Bewildered by both Barbara Boxer's and Bill Clinton's appearances today in support of Joe Lieberman, who, has burned both his political buddies in the past, I cannot help but conclude what my better half--Amy--has said: they know he's going down and they had to do it. Amy hypothesizes that both Boxer and Clinton realize that a campaign appearance for Lieberman now means no campaign appearances for Lieberman when he flies solo. In short, backing him in the primary lessens the blow that these Dems. cannot and will not back him should he, in fact, mount his independent campaign after the primary. And by briefly evaluating both appearances--Boxer seemed very annoyed and Bubba was supportive but certainly not passionate--the Amy theory may explain more than meets the eye. It's just a theory, but in light of the recent polls and how these politicians are polloholics, Amy's theory makes sense. Only time will tell.

A tribute to Maxine Waters, Fearless & Blue

Yesterday, as Senator Lieberman was making his conevenient cameos at African-American churches in CT, the great congresswoman Maxine Waters, known for her unwavering support of Civil Rights and voting rights, was stumping for Ned Lamont. Decked out in a dress-suit and high heels, Mrs. Waters did more than just cameo; she was greeting voters in the streets of Hartford and going door to door, getting the job done. So while the Democrat establishment quakes and cowers, hoping that Bubba will score big points with the African-American constituency today, the same constituency that Lieberman has dissed time and time again with his assualt on Affirmative action, the Lamont campaign made the wise choice with Mrs. Waters, a fighter, a believer, a poltician for the people.

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

"INSTEAD OF WONDERING WHEN WE ARE GOING TO BE ATTACKED, MAYBE WE NEED TO THINK HARDER ABOUT WHY THESE TERROISTS WANT TO ATTACK US." This was an observation Amy made as we were both watching that asshole Rudy Giuliani pontificate about national security on Larry King Live. In light of the recent developments in today's news, I am updating this post because people HAVE TO READ THIS BOOK!! It's a true eye-opener. Back to Rudy: now Larry has Arnold phone in. Excuse my cynicism, but this is becoming a bit much.

BOOK RECOMMENDATION: The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

This is a must read. If you want to gain a greater understanding of America's role in the world, if you want to learn more about why we have conflicts with so many countries, if you want to develop a true understanding of terrorism, then you have to read this book. A work of non-fiction, it reads like a spy novel. John Perkins, the author, reviews his life work as an economic hit man and explains to the reader why he became one per cent more conscious. Check it out.

Monday, July 10, 2006

There have been some compelling essays on the Lieberman dilemma on The Huffington Post. I could not agree more with Suzanne Nossel's analysis. If you have a chance, please check it out:

Friday, July 07, 2006


I'll tell you: after last night's debate, it became real clear why we need to send Ned Lamont to the senate. The debate itself was like a greek tragedy, and the tragic hero was Lieberman himself; he even looked the part.

Granted, Lamont came in as a neophyte with little experience debating a seasoned veteran like Senator Lieberman. The first few minutes revealed Lamont's inexperience. However, the good news is that as the debate progressed Lamont was able to get leverage and pull off a strong performance, all things considered. This genuine (Lamont seemed more human and less mechanical than Lieberman) performance, in part, was made possible by Lieberman's over-reliance on GOP attack tactics and a rather pathetic fall from grace.

What was most shocking, as plenty of others have noticed, is how indignant Joe Lieberman was. His hubris, his self-entitlement, his rudeness, and his adopted GOP tacticis (smearing, distortion, diversion, etc.) became abundantly clear; revisit his debates with Cheney in 2000 to see a much more controlled and even-keeled Joe Lieberman. Quite frankly, I felt sorry for him by the end of the debate. Senator Lieberman seemed like an Oedipus figure, myopic and dangerous: unwilling to accept reality, unwilling to acknowledge that war is an awful thing--supporting it or not, and unwilling to embrace and perhaps pull in the voters on whom he once counted. Let's face it: many of us have supported Lieberman in the past. And had he seized this debate as an opportunity, maybe some of us would re-consider supporting him again. Not I. Not many. Especially after last night.

What we witnessed last night was the final stages of a fall, although it's important to point out that this fall has been in progress for quite some time. What we saw was a man driven by his own perception of power, oftentimes resembling the solipsistic figures of the Bush administration. What we encountered was a man who thinks that we don't think, that we should unquestioningly trust him because he knows better and that that should be enough (according to the senator) to dismiss Lamont. What we found was a man who doesn't understand that he is, like it or not, an elected official who is part of an opposition party that should offer an alternative to what's happening now; that's what we pay him approximately 150k a year to do. That he took issue with Mr. Lamont's wealth and income further revealed how pathetic Lieberman has become. What we hope the future will bring is change, healing among Democrats who are divided right now, and a shared understanding of why we belong to a party built upon the principles of equality and an inclusive vision of the future. Ned Lamont is unequivocally the candidate to make that happen.