I just finished watching the debate, and I do have some first impressions I want to get down.
Mad Joe
First, I can't believe how angry Joe Lieberman looked the entire time. He seemed personally offended by the notion that he was being challenged. He seemed kind of whiny and petulant the entire time.
He was rude. He interrupted. He didn't respect the rules of the debate, and stepped on Lamont's time. He actually wagged his finger at Lamont a number of times. Poor Joanne Nesti looked like she had been hit by a bus a couple of times, and I noticed that she tried to give Lamont extra time near the end.
Attack of the Senate Candidates
Secondly, Lieberman's attacks didn't really hit home, except for the part about the tax returns, which Lamont sort of dodged. But they were numerous, and they were nasty. He kept saying "There you go again," or "There he goes again." Who are you, Ronald Reagan? Painting Lamont as a conservative Republican in a liberal Democrat's clothing just didn't seem to be working, and Lamont shrugged it off.
Lamont's attacks, on the other hand, at least had a foot in reality, although they were just as numerous. The Bush-Cheney-Lieberman energy bill was a good one. Also, Lamont's last question to Lieberman, when he asked if, like Lieberman had said in 1988, that he still thought it was time for a change after 18 years. Lieberman handled it well, but it was a nice touch.
Amazing Claims
Lieberman saved the sub base? Huh. I thought Rob Simmons saved that thing. And good luck getting rid of earmarks. Wow.
Iraq
This is where Lieberman seemed close to losing it, and where I think Lamont did best. Lamont's position on Iraq, despite what Lieberman said, seemed pretty clear to me. On the other hand, I'm not exactly sure what Lieberman wants to do there. Lieberman did make good points about regional instability, but trying to scare voters with terrorists seems rather more like the party opposite.
The Winner
In order to win tonight, Joe Lieberman had to convince Democrats that he was, in fact, one of them. He failed. His attacks will remind voters of Bush's attacks on John Kerry in 2004, and he wasn't very reassuring on Iraq, which is the central issue of the campaign, if not our times. This debate often seemed to me like a debate between a Republican and a Democrat, not two Democrats.
For Ned Lamont to win, he had to keep up with the more experienced Lieberman, keep his cool, and lay out his positions without succumbing to Lieberman's attacks. He did this. He looked cooler and calmer on camera (despite that thing he does where he pops his eyes out of his head) than Lieberman, who just looked angry and self-important.
On the issues, Lamont managed to state his positions more clearly than Lieberman, who unfortunately has to stand on his record. Lieberman got plenty of statesman points (when he was calm), but I'm not sure that's what voters are after. I actually expected Lieberman to be a policy encyclopedia in this debate, and he wasn't. There were a couple of places where Lamont's policy knowledge was obviously less than Lieberman's, but Lamont kept up well.
In the end, Lamont exceeded expectations. Policy-wise, they were about even. Lamont won hands down on style. Lieberman, on the other hand, looked like he didn't want to be there--like NBC30 is beneath him.
Victory to Mr. Lamont.
29 comments:
I know Joe Lieberman. I served with Joe Lieberman. Ned Lamont is no Joe Lieberman.
And thank G-d for that! Victory in the debate for Ned.
I'll be voting for Ned on 8/8, but I think "Joementum" won this round. Not by knock out, but still a win.
Lieberman saved the sub base? Huh. I thought Rob Simmons saved that thing.
You thought right.
Simmons is probably the only guy that could have saved it too.
He is after all a lifetime member of the intel "fraternity" thanks to his CIA background and those connections are beyond a doubt how he did it.
Of course everyone wants to take credit for it - but just think about it for a few minutes.
Just can't let mod.dem.like.jfk's comments (above) pass. People don't agree with you, so you pick up your marbles and go home? What a load of crap.
In terms of the debate, each candidate made their points, but I believe it's the overall impression that counts.
Lieberman's constant talking over Lamont, and repeated personal attacks left the impression that Lieberman is the attack dog, not Lamont. As an incumbant, that smells desperate. It also skewed the impression that Lieberman actually didn't have anything else to say.
Lamont kept on message, despite Lieberman's attacks, and (contrary to what others think they saw) Lamont was quite articulate with the vision, tone, direction and style he would take to Washington.
I agree with others that Lamont walks away with the advantage, though the race is by no means over.
i plan on voting for ned on 8/8, however i think lieberman one.
lamont just looked very inexperienced, nervous, and scared. i dont think he convinced anyone to vote for him tonight, sorry.
but on the other hand, i dont think joe convinced anyone to get off of their butts on 8/8 to vote for him, either.
i dont think the debate will affect the outcome of the primary at all.
I'm with janet - question - did either candidate move an undecided one way or the other? I thought ned seemed newvous and inexperienced, but joe seemed angy and arrogant. The debate probably solidified supporters in both camps, but did anyone in the middle move?
Lieberman barely won the debate, but he doesn't care if this debate helps him August. His performance will help him in November... which is what he cares about.
Publius said... "
Tonight's debate solidified in my mind that Ned Lamont would be an utterly terrible United States Senator. "
Shhhhhh.
It's better for if Lamont wins the primary
Thought you all might be interested in the Lieberman campaign's response:
HARTFORD - In a televised debate tonight, Sen. Joe Lieberman demonstrated again that Connecticut Democrats voting in the Aug. 8 Democratic Primary will be choosing between a senator who offers voters experience, principles and hope and a challenger who offers them criticism, negativism and pessimism.
"Connecticut voters have a choice," Lieberman said in his opening remarks."I am running based on my record as a progressive Democrat and for a better future for Connecticut. Ned is running against me based on my stand on one issue --- Iraq."
In the 60-minute live exchange on WVIT-TV Hartford Channel 30, Lieberman discussed his thirty-five year record of fighting for progressive causes for the middle class, civil rights, women's rights,and human rights. In debating about a range of issues from decreasing gas prices to increasing Connecticut jobs, Lieberman talked about his work on behalf of Connecticut.
"I'm on of the senators who are able to reach across the partisan divide to get things done," Lieberman said. "And that's helped me deliver for Connecticut. It helped me save the 31,000 jobs at the Sub Base in New London. It helps me to clean up the Long Island Sound. It helps me to return more money to Connecticut for our transportation funding."
Lieberman's Campaign Communications Director Marion Steinfels said,"you saw the real Joe Lieberman tonight. He is a principled Democrat with the courage of his convictions. You saw the real Ned Lamont tonight. The central premise of his campaign collapsed as he waffled yet again on Iraq and couldn't answer why he agreed with Republicans 80 percent of the time when he was in elected office. The contrast was crystal clear. A principled fighter won the debate against an inconsistent and inexperienced challenger."
Lamont's "This isn't FOX News" was a cheap shot...and poorly delivered.
Joe Lieberman did what he had to do in this debate. He will win the primary.
I hope there are more debstes like this. no matter who you thought won or who you are supporting, it was great to see the difference between the two candidates. look forward to seeing mr lamonts tax returns. wonder why he dodged that question.
Here's the best, well-articulated wrap-up of the debate that I have read thus far:
http://ctconservative.blogspot.com/2006/07/lamontlieberman-debate.html
GC, honestly, your analysis was far off-base. I could imagine Lamont having come across as worse. Would there ever be a scenario in which you wouldn't think Lamont won? Give me a break.
...* I couldn't imagine...
Ned might not be Richard Blumenthal or Rosa DeLauro, but by God, we need a change. I'll take my chances with the earnest non-politician named Ned Lamont.
Joe just seems so angry. And I thought coming home, campaigning, etc. was just part of the process. Were Dodd ever to be primaried, can anyone imagine him coming off so arrogant, entitled, mean, selfish and self-righteous?
Honestly, Lieberman is one DC blowhard who needs to be retired. If Ned doesn't turn out so well, we can have another interesting race in 2012.
I think my pre-debate prediction of how things would go was pretty accurate.
Actually, I'm amazed at how many of those things actually came up.
Larry King interviewed President Bush tonight, about an hour after the debate ended.
• Bush refused to say whether he would support an independent candidacy by Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who is facing a stiff primary challenge over his support for Bush's Iraq policy.
"You're trying to get me to give him a political kiss, which may be his death," Bush told King.
My nine year old walks in to say goodnight in the middle of the debate.
Ned is talking. So I ask "do you like him"?
"NO!" came the immediate and forceful response from this utterly naive and unfailingly kind child. "His eyes are sticking out of his head and he's all [thrashes around a bit spastically]. He makes me nervous."
Really hate to admit it, but I had to agree. As my grandfather used to say, you can't fool kids or dogs.
On substance, Lieberman crushed Ned. The contrast was unavoidable. I found myself thinking how amazing it is that a man of Ned's accomplishment could be that far out of his depth. The Quayle effect never stopped.
And what happened in the studio? At one point it sounded like one of Ned's staff interrupted Lieberman in the middle of saying something. Anybody know what that was?
Bad night for Ned, whether it makes any difference or not. It was a butt-whoopin' by Lieberman.
I'm sure this will be taken down, (but don't worry, it's all been copied and pasted, and will make a worthy diary at MLN), but Zengerite appears here as a poster boyfor the falseness/undisclosed BIAS that I complained about earlier, --with regard to a now nameless front-page poster.
If you read his comment above, it would almost seem as if Zengerite is a reasonable, "fair and balanced", blogger. But were you to happen to hit upon his own blog, Zengerite.blogspot, you'd quickly uncover that John Zengerite has a huge axe to grind.
And again, I don't care that he's grinding it, but that he won't be clear about where he's coming from is problemmatic, at least in my book.
Ghost... it is precisely those people who are posting under false persona's that need to be pointed out. The more of a threat that Ned becomes to Bush's favorite Democrat, the more you can expect to see posts in our blogs from people pretending to be concerned democrats who are actually right wingers with an axe to grind (after all, LIEberman IS their favorite Democrat next to Zell Miller), Rendon group employees and friends of Rove who know the kind of damage that a Lamont win can do to Bush's hold on congress.
I expect these clowns to be coming out of the woodwork, and there appear to be more than one just on this thread. Publius would be the other one I've spotted. Be sure to check out his blog at http://ct-cia.blogspot.com/, and you'll see what I mean.
This must be a liberal blog because anyone who knows politics and watches political debates knows that Lieberman absolutely thumped Lamont. Lieberman definitley looked like a strong and forceful leader (whether he is or not). After saying that this debate dosen't matter. It's all about turnout. All of Joe's voters will be on Block Island or Martha's Vineyard. That is why Lamont will win the primary, not because of his wonderful debating skills, but because more of his people will show up on Aug. 8th.
I agree CT_Husky, but many times ideals don't win out. Politics is very simple it's a numbers game.
I don't know why there's this impression that Joe Lieberman's supporters are all a bunch of wealthy people on Block Island or Martha's Vineyard while Lamont's supporters are a bunch of working class people who won't be on vacation.
I would imagine that both Lieberman and Lamont supporters take vacations in August, and I'd further venture that Lamont's supporters skew more affluent than Joementum's.
Ned is a multi-millionaire from Greenwich. Lieberman is from a working class background in Stamford. Lieberman's net worth may be above a million, but just. Lamont has 100x as much money.
I would venture that Lamont's supports skew younger, whiter and more affluent than Lieberman's. But I'm not certain: hasn't a poll been done that breaks down various demographic segments?
Anyway, this Republican is very pleased by the Lamont-Lieberman race. While it probably won't push Schlesinger into the Senate, if Lamont wins, the Democrats in the Senate will be divided between their support of Lieberman and Lamont and the national party will look awfully foolish for kicking out Lieberman while having no coherent strategy about Iraq. A three way race between Lamont, Lieberman and Schlesinger is going to result in the Democrats spending all kinds of money in what would have been a completely safe seat. If Lieberman wins, expect many Lamontites not to vote in the general (especially if Rell is way up in the polls), which will hurt downstate Democrats.
GMR, Lamont may be wealth, but is "energetic support and base" are younger folks in their 20's and 30's. Myself being 27, I know many young folks don't/can't afford at this time to take a long vacation or one that is a great distance away.
Anonymous said... " are younger folks in their 20's and 30's. Myself being 27.."
Which I find shocking and thank God my 18 year old already joined the Republican Town Committee.
Should liberals have their way with America there will be no place left on the face of the earth to escape to.
The liberal agenda is clearly set to destroy the United States and the rest of the free world, which (don't look now) isn't anywhere nearly as free as we are.
No drilling for oil anywhere; but no nuke plants either.
How does that work?
Should we cook on open fires? No - that would cause too much air pollution I suppose.
Cut the military to the bone.
Never mind Connecticut jobs, what happens the next time a tsunami hits someplace? I guess we just sit back and let `em all die huh? (after all "it's not really our business")
Who do you think shows up when it really hits the fan someplace, the Peace Corps?
I wonder what you people are reading, thinking or if you've all taken the Kool Aid.™
Complain about NAFTA while ignoring the fact that out of 50 states Connecticut gained more jobs than any other thanks to it. (Our number export destination is Mexico, the final assembly point for loads of precision stuff we make)
Worry about free trade while driving around in Toyotas (the only auto manufacturer in Europe or Japan with -0- CT content throughout their entire line)
The hypocrisy of it all is overwhelming.
Authentic CT Republican - I too am a member of the GOP, but we are not the top in job creation, but towards the very bottom. It's one of the biggest problems with this state, which I blame the Dem's for (Higher taxes,hostile business climate, etc..).
" we are not the top in job creation"
Never said we were.
We are however the number one winner out of all 50 states as it regards NAFTA.
Zack said... "You do realize that Connecticut is in the bottom 5 in job creation, right?"
Gosh do ya think maybe the unions and the politcal party they own might have anything to do with that?
Who besides a retailer would bother to locate anything here that might entail any blue collar workers? They would have to be insane.
Thanks Connecticut Dems!
Lieberman is a tool...case closed. Why do think every right wing blog and media source is propping him up so much. Remember, if Ann Coulter likes a person, they're not worth voting for.
I will not vote for Ned Lamont He is a one issue candidate and his performance did not change my mind.
He is just a mouthpiece for the anti war movement and like their cause which is anti American and unacceptable I can not support Lamont at All.
I will be voting for Senator Lieberman on August 8th Why go with an unknown product when you have one that works and has done so consistently since 1988.
I dont want to see Weicker and his cronies take over with Ned" The Cub" Lamont as their mouthpiece
Post a Comment