In These Times

Latest Comments view all 5

• • 13 Nov 06
  • 4:49 pm

  It would be wrong to assume that Ned Lamont's campaign meant absolutely nothing after spending $16 million for the U.S. Senate. And yes, the Democrats did take control of the House and the Senate. Lamont deserves credit for at least broadening the public's dialouge, especially on Iraq. Lamont's opponents said he was a one-issue candidate, but to a large degree the election was a referendum on Iraq, and by extention President Bush. Already, the governor of Iowa, and Sen. McCain, are preparing for a 2008 presidential run and Iowa is one of the battleground states. Where I think Lamont erred was …

  Posted to Learning From Lamont

• • 14 Nov 06
  • 10:09 pm

  You know, each time I get a response I think someone has actually taken the time to read my comments. Let's try to keep our focus on Lamont and moving forward. That's what this thread was originally for.

  Posted to Learning From Lamont

• • 14 Nov 06
  • 10:28 pm

  http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/us/politics/15lieberman.html?hp&ex=1163566800&en=b704d175ee098131&ei=5094&partner=homepage

  Posted to Learning From Lamont

• • 17 Nov 06
  • 12:07 am

  Blondmike, Did you actually read my comments? I understand my post is about 4,000 words, but come on now. If you are going to say you disagree with me, I at least want to hear something from my post, with all due respect to popom here. Look, conservatives have a strong lobbying force in Washington to support Israel. Even if Lamont was elected, that force isn't simply going to dissipate. It's going to continue to be a big dynamic in the 2008 presidential elections, and actually the Democrats closed the 'God gap' somewhat in the 2006 elections. Whether that was a …

  Posted to Learning From Lamont

• • 17 Nov 06
  • 10:12 am

  Thank you. But seriously, that's the way to go. Once we stop finger-pointing we can start doing something about it.

  Posted to Learning From Lamont