Tuesday, February 07, 2006



I just got back from meeting Ned Lamont. I went because I dislike everything about Lieberman and have since I first heard about him as a sleazy, right wing local pol in Connecticut, long before he became part of a national or international nightmare. I was so sure I was going to be unimpressed with Lamont that I didn't even bother to bring my checkbook to this-- his very first-- fund-raiser. I was so completely impressed that the first thing I did when I got home was rush to the computer to add him to the fledgling DWT ACT BLUE page. (Alas he's not even on with them yet but I'll get one going as soon as Act Blue gets him in their system.)

The last minute e-vite came a few days ago from friends with impeccable progressive cred-- some early (pre-cover of ROLLING STONE) activists in Howard Dean's California state campaign. It was for a hastily put-together fund-raiser for Lamont, who has been planning on being in L.A. months ago on non-political matters. Lamont is an entrepreneurial guy from Greenwich and all most people know about him is that he's taking on the odious Bush-Democrat from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman.

Yesterday Lamont created a "candidate committee," which isn't the same as declaring but does allow him to start collecting contributions. Liberal activist/Executive Director of Connecticut Citizen Action Group Tom Swan is heading it-- a good sign.

The mostly DFA crowd filled the house and Nick and his gracious, friendly wife, Anne and some friends spent time talking with everyone individually before he launched into a great talk about the race. Look, I go to a lot of these candidate meetings. This guy looks great, sounds great and it all seems very kosher. I was a little nervous because all I had read about him was that he was a millionaire businessman. His story is a lot more compelling than that. First of all his a quintessential all-American kind of entrepreneurial guy-- a living embodiment of the best in the American dream. He's as far from a corporate type of Big Business monster as you can be. He completely understands why it's essential for business that reforms like universal health care get hammered out. (He reminded me of Howard Dean when he talked about that.) This guy teaches entrepreneurship in Bridgeport High, a tough inner city school.

Although he was a town selectman, not only is Ned not a politician, he has a vibe that told me that even if he's elected to the U.S. Senate, he'll never become some kind of careerist self-server, but will always look at his role as that of a civil servant and guardian of his constituents' interests.

As soon as he walked in the door, just a few minutes after me and a good 30 minutes before the crowd showed up, I got to chat with him about the issues. The first thing I wanted to get a sense of was how he left about Iraq. I was wary of hearing any double-talk or weasel words. There were none. He went right to Jack Murtha and showed me immediately that not only does he support a plan for withdrawal but that he has a far better grasp of what the war is all about than old-line Democratic "thinkers" like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Wes Clark (all of whom are still babbling nonsense about "winning," an absurd concept to begin with). Later when he talked to the whole group he contrasted Bush's (latest) approach (shared not just by Lieberman but by even some well-meaning-- if limited-- Democrats) which is basically that the U.S. will step back when "the Iraqis" step up with a more well-reasoned and thought-out approach which is that the Iraqis will step up when-- and not until-- the U.S. starts stepping back in a serious way. "The invasion of Iraq was a colossal foreign policy disaster." That's clear. That's simple. That's what Democrats running for office should all be saying.

He talked a lot about the harmful trend of the Federal Government increasingly intruding into the private lives of American citizens and how that trend has to be turned around. He told us that for him Alito was not a close call. I have no doubt that he saw Alito as much a dangerous threat to American liberty as I did. In fact, he seems like the kind of guy who's going to carefully consider every issue and come up with the right approach across the board-- kind of a polar opposite of Joe Lieberman.


Here's your chance to tell Lieberman what you think of him in language he understands. And at the same time, advance the candidacy of a potentially great, progressive U.S. Senator. It's easy. Start right here.

Labels: ,


At 7:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How on earth can you lump Wes Clark in the same category as Lieberman, who supports GWB's "Stay the Course", and Clinton who really has no position on Iraq?

While it is true that Wes Clark does not support Murtha's position, he has never been for "stay the course". In his OpEds he has spelled out in great detail a third way which are dependent on political and diplomatic efforts.

I'm sure that Ned Lamont is a great candidate and I wish him the best against Lieberman, but I don't remember reading anything about his Foreign Policy experience or his knowledge of the intricacies of the problems in the Middle East

'Bring the troops home now' appeals to our reptilian brain. Who doesn't want to see those brave man and women out of harms way? But when you come down to it, there is no "good" way to get out of Iraq.

Wes Clark says we have the option of a "Plan C-" or the "Plan F". The C- plan is getting our troops home with honor and hopefully leaving some kind of stability behind that doesn't adversely effect the whole Region. You probably can guess what the F plan is.

With his lifetime of military and diplomatic experience, I think he has a better understanding of the geopolitical consequences that our actions in Iraq can trigger, so I tend to pay him more heed than those who do not.

Also please keep in mind unlike Lieberman and Clinton, Wes Clark was against the invasion from the start.

At 9:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...old-line Democratic "thinkers" like Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and Wes Clark (all of whom are still babbling nonsense about "winning," an absurd concept to begin with)."

Pardon, if you're going to discuss old line Democratic "thinkers" with any credibility, you're just going to have to delete Wes Clark's name from your post as well as from the roster of "O.L.D. (old? perfect!), thinkers" in your head.

Wes Clark is the most innovative of thinkers on the Democrat's roster from Foreign to Domestic. (No, no arguments now, I heard him speak 'live and in person' on getting out of Iraq just this past Thursday evening.)

Clearly you haven't made a point of familiarizing yourself with the man or with his foreign-policy-policies. No casual lumping of Clark with Lieberman. That just won't do. There_is_no_similarity in any way shape or form.

Please go edit your post.

...then we can talk about why Murtha's plan is not the more effective plan. Wes Clark's is.

(Lierberman/Hillary? ewwww )

Meantime, I wish the very best to your man Lamont.


At 4:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wes Clark always sounds like he has a mouthfull of grits spewing out at the microphone. He is a failure and over. Prick.

At 4:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I also attended this event and posted as much over at DU.
Everything said here is right on and I can tell you, this guy is very very viable.
Hope the net and grassroots will support him all the way.

As Ned said over and over, " bye bye Joe "

At 4:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Believing in freedom would require free elections, something I never again will trust. The GOP owns the companies that will be electronically tallying our "votes" and I'm afraid. I was in shock after the 2000 election, all the more so in its wake as the mainstream media buried the true story: Bush and his minions indead stole the election. This is not up for argument. An independent consortium of news groups studied and found that if there were a recount of Florida, Gore won. If you want to believe otherwise, you are sipping the happy juice ("Don't bother me with these facts of yours. I know what I believe!"). Then we got the 2004 repeat where the cheating was more insidious and ruthless. And all of it was reported. In the end, Bush who had a 47 percent approval rating, got a second term and stayed with his 47 percent approval rating (that is until it tumbled into the 30s.

At 6:13 PM, Blogger DownWithTyranny said...

I've never run into a more ignorant bunch of loud-mouthed-- and always anonymous-- louts
as the Clarkie goon squad. I was tempted to leave up the filth and slime at least half a dozen Clark fans felt they had to post here so everyone who might wonder what kind of people support Wes Clark could see for themselves. But then I said to myself, "Self, this is about Ned Lamont's campaign, not foul-mouthed little idea-less fascists who support someone else for an entirely different office." I have, however, created a special Clarkies posting site, which I encourage you to take a look at-- and vent all you like.

At 6:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


At 12:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since this is a "DownWithTyranny" blog, why would anyone come on here and support a tyrant like Clark?

What, did Wes Clark pay all his cronies to come on here and blog for him? Please. Wes Clark admitted on Charlie Rose he only got into the presidential race because he was asked to...drumroll please...in an "anybody but Dean" insider takedown. He admitted he was asked to run to stop Dean at all costs. That takedown was spearheaded by the Clintons, McAuliffe, Reed and team of other sellouts. I am not speculating here, I have first hand knowledge of this from people who worked for McAuliffe and the Clintons at the time.

Wes is a hawk and a war monger. We are to trust him to end this war? He was incompetent in his own service. He was fired (so much for his foreign policy brilliance). He talks a good talk, but sits on his ass and a year later we have still not moved in withdrawing troops and Iraq is getting more and more unstable.

We are going to have civil war there whether we pull out in 6 months or 6 years and America (and our soldiers) cannot afford a 10 year war.

Furthermore, Clark could be tried for war crimes with the murders he ordered or was involved with but of course, lazy Democrats rarely do their homework and Abu Ghraib isn't something that just happened under Bush. That type of torture has been going on, ordered by generals for many decades.

I met Wes Clark 2 weeks into his presidential run in 2003 and the guy was an arrogant, defensive, shrill power monger with no platform. He had no clue of the issues facing America.

I can see how so many Democrats are so fooled by him, however, because he got the best consultants in the business and his makeover presents a totally different person. Within a month after I met him he had the best consultants, managers, media people, web developers, etc. and a totally different Wes emerged. He, like Bush, is an emperor with no clothes and a pretty package does not integrity make.

If you Clark supporters have not learned your lesson yet, then just bolt to the Republican party because we have a country to take back and you all are just getting in the way.

Lamont is a good guy. He will get my money and my support.

At 12:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

By they way, "DownWithTyranny!" your blog is great. I just discovered it and will start linking and forwarding your stuff to my lists. You have some very insightful writing on the other posts I read too and a 'thinking Democrat' is something we really need right now with all the rethug-lite posters out on the blogosphere.


Post a Comment

<< Home