One woman insisted that he was not conservative enough for her, chiding him over his views on abortion. She pleaded with Mr. Lieberman about why he did not support a ban on so-called “partial-birth abortion,” which she called a “disgrace.”
“Come on, how can a man like you agree with that,” she asked, sitting in the waiting area of a hair salon. “You know what I’m going to do? I’m going to write in my husband. I don’t like any of them. Ned Lamont is the biggest jerk in the world.”
And what was Joe Lieberman's "bipartisan positive campaign" response?
“Well we agree on that,” he said. “So if you’ve got a choice between a jerk ...” He trailed off, not quite finishing his sentence.
What an effing HYPOCRITE!
Earlier on in the NY Times article they discussed Lieberman's seeming arrogance at being challenged by anyone in the race and the Lamont campaigns' positive energy:
Whether among friends or not, Mr. Lieberman, with his avuncular, grandfatherly demeanor, usually seems right at home, happily chatting with children or their mothers. But he keeps the stops short — typical for a campaign in which his appearances are carefully orchestrated and tightly controlled. His aides routinely cut off questioning when they feel Mr. Lieberman has addressed an issue adequately, and the senator himself, a three-term incumbent, sometimes has the air of a candidate who did not quite expect to be defending his seat again.
Mr. Lamont, by contrast, seems to possess almost limitless energy. He lingers at events, shaking hands until his driver begins tapping him impatiently on the arm, always seeming to enjoy himself.
As befits an underdog, he is also unusually patient with the news media, even after his primary victory, when television crews and reporters from around the world converged on Connecticut and mobbed his events.
Joe Liberman is an arraogant hypocrite because he is willing to conduct the exact sort of negative campaigning he decries while living in a delusional Bush world of false denials and innumerable Flip-Flops and lies in order to please whomever he happens to be speaking to.
The irony? Both Lamont and Schlesinger have only ever attacked Lieberman's positions, Lieberman's public statements, and Joe's illegal use of campaign funds, and rightfully so. If Lieberman thinks that his own positions and statements being thrown back in his face are negative attacks, then that just exposes one more of his many weaknesses. It is much like admitting, sub-consciously, that even Lieberman hates himself.
Ned Lamont has been honest and consistent in his message that if you want to "Change the Course!" then you have to attack the real problems in Washington. Problems like Joe Lieberman's absurd support of the Bush administration.
When I got into this race, people told me it's impossible, but important. It's important because 47 million Americans don't have health insurance, and skyrocketing health care costs bankrupt working families and business alike. It's the lobbyist written legislation, like the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" and Dick Cheney's Energy Bill that Senator Lieberman supported. And most importantly, for me, it was the war in Iraq.
Now, as tens of thousands are dead and wounded, our military is stretched thin, we can't finish the mission in Afghanistan, and our own National Intelligence Estimate says we are less safe. It's not simply that Senator Lieberman supported the Bush/Cheney agenda in Iraq. It's when he questions the patriotism of concerned citizens as they say, "we gotta ask the tough questions, they're must be an alternative to stay the course."
We got into this mess in Washington not because we asked too many questions, but because we asked too few. On November 7th, we start asking the tough questions again, the first one being, "can't we do better?"
If you send Ned Lamont to Washington as Connecticut's next JR. Senator you will be sending a clear message to the failed Bush administration that we need to change the course.