Ned Lamont's win in Connecticut is widely credited in these parts (that is to say, the blogosphere) to the "netroots". So-called liberal bloggers who jumped on the anti-Lieberman bandwagon to support a somewhat awkward novice campaigner who, oh, by the way, had four million of his own to dump into his campaign. Among those taking bows after Lamont's 4-point win over Lieberman were Markos Moulitsis of Daily Kos, Duncan Black (a/k/a Atrios) of Eschaton, and Matt Stoller, Chris Bowers, and Jerome Armstrong, all of My DD. Together, these leaders in the self-labeled "liberal" blogosphere personally donated the aggregate sum of $750.00 to Lamont (and all of that came from Bowers and Stoller). But they leant him the more valuable support of their blogs.
These same liberal bloggers also supported Democratic candidates who supported the Bush Administration policies much more consistently than did Joe Lieberman who, regardless what you think of his position on the war, was a much more reliable Democratic vote than most other Democrats in Congress. Here in Pennsylvania, supporters of Chuck Pennacchio (your correspondent included) were astounded that they were unable to raise the kind of blog support for their man that Ned Lamont could raise. Particularly since his opponent in the primary, Bob Casey, held positions further to the right than Joe Lieberman.
The main talking points of these self-described liberals were that Pennacchio had never been elected to any office before and lacked financial support of the public. They apparently considered Lamont's township supervisor position superior training for the US Senate over Pennacchio's decades of expertise in foreign affairs and political science as a college professor.
The major difference between Pennacchio and Lamont was that Pennacchio had a few thousand bucks to throw into his campaign, while Lamont had a few million. That was Pennacchio's mistake -- before running for the Senate, he should have become a millionaire. Then he'd get the liberal blogger support.
Am I wrong? Ask Hong Tran. She's a smart, anti-war Democrat opposing war-supporter Maria Cantwell in Washington's Senatorial Primary. Like Pennacchio, she has very little personal wealth to throw into her candidacy, but a legitimate liberal record. Like Lamont, she's opposing a party-preferred candidate with a record of supporting the Bush administration's failed policies. But she has received little traction among the liberal bloggers. If only she had four million of her own money laying about . . . .
I love it that Lamont won and I hope he goes on to defeat Lieberman in the general election. I was anti-Lieberman long before it was popular. Lieberman's attempts to impose censorship on entertainment he found personally embarrassing long-ago painted him in my little mind.
But trading Joe Lieberman for Bob Casey in the Senate is a bad move. And that's the choice that the so-called liberal bloggers made when they decided to throw their weight behind Casey. Casey will get my vote, but not my support.
These same liberal bloggers also supported Democratic candidates who supported the Bush Administration policies much more consistently than did Joe Lieberman who, regardless what you think of his position on the war, was a much more reliable Democratic vote than most other Democrats in Congress. Here in Pennsylvania, supporters of Chuck Pennacchio (your correspondent included) were astounded that they were unable to raise the kind of blog support for their man that Ned Lamont could raise. Particularly since his opponent in the primary, Bob Casey, held positions further to the right than Joe Lieberman.
The main talking points of these self-described liberals were that Pennacchio had never been elected to any office before and lacked financial support of the public. They apparently considered Lamont's township supervisor position superior training for the US Senate over Pennacchio's decades of expertise in foreign affairs and political science as a college professor.
The major difference between Pennacchio and Lamont was that Pennacchio had a few thousand bucks to throw into his campaign, while Lamont had a few million. That was Pennacchio's mistake -- before running for the Senate, he should have become a millionaire. Then he'd get the liberal blogger support.
Am I wrong? Ask Hong Tran. She's a smart, anti-war Democrat opposing war-supporter Maria Cantwell in Washington's Senatorial Primary. Like Pennacchio, she has very little personal wealth to throw into her candidacy, but a legitimate liberal record. Like Lamont, she's opposing a party-preferred candidate with a record of supporting the Bush administration's failed policies. But she has received little traction among the liberal bloggers. If only she had four million of her own money laying about . . . .
I love it that Lamont won and I hope he goes on to defeat Lieberman in the general election. I was anti-Lieberman long before it was popular. Lieberman's attempts to impose censorship on entertainment he found personally embarrassing long-ago painted him in my little mind.
But trading Joe Lieberman for Bob Casey in the Senate is a bad move. And that's the choice that the so-called liberal bloggers made when they decided to throw their weight behind Casey. Casey will get my vote, but not my support.
1 comment:
I think a big part of the support Lamont got in the beginning came from the fact that Tim Tagaris was involved. Tagaris is magic. He's a true visionary - I'd bet on any race he's involved in.
I think they also wanted a race they thought they could win. Tagaris + small state + wealthy candidate willing to spend, spend, spend = viability. Pennacchio had no money. PA is gigantic. Casey was the Dems' boy and there were also some connections between him and bloggers that I never really understood - lawyers and clients ... as I said, I never understood it.
The bottom line is that nobody wants to back a loser. When election day is over, I'll write about a DFA story I know that supports that. Of course, nobody wants to lose, but when you're trying to make a name as a kingmaker, you CAN'T lose. Ideas be damned, which is the way it always goes. And when it comes to that - can you see Kos the Pragmatist, the "Reform Democrat," the Libertarian Democrat supporting a real progressive candidate against long odds? No way.
Post a Comment