Zuky

A Debate in Connecticut

Connecticut is abuzz over today's planned debate between Senate candidates Ned Lamont, Joe Lieberman, Alan Schlesinger, Ralph Ferrucci (Green Party) and Timothy Knibbs (Concerned Citizens Party).

Today I'm hoping to see Ned Lamont step up and show the world just how far he's come since his last debate with Lieberman early in the primary race. By all indications, Lamont has matured dramatically as a political performer since then, so today's his big chance to show it off with poise and passion, to re-energize his supporters and get his campaign revved up into high gear. It's also a chance to put the hurt on Lieberman, who must be mercilessly criticized for ignoring the results of the primary election and running as an "independent". Watching the candidates pile on Lieberman should be fun.

I'll be keeping an eye on it via our local news 12 coverage and updating this post with occasional updates and comments below.

From Debate Headquarters:

Time: 1 PM ET | Broadcast: WVIT Channel 30 and News 12 | Live Stream Link

Pre-Debate Events: Attend the rally at 11 AM in Stamford

Tools: Letter to the Editor | Send a postcard to family, friends and neighbors
 
Behind-the-Scenes: We’ll be providing some behind the scenes stories, video, and photos throughout the day.

Pre-debate rally | Inside the War-Room | Post-Debate Coverage

Bloggers Covering the Debate: A few bloggers have been granted credentials

Connecticut Local Politics | Spazeboy | CTBob | CTBlog

More to come...

1:05 pm — Opening statements are done; they've gone exactly as expected, though Lamont does appear a bit nervous. Somehow Ferrucci and Knibbs aren't there.

1:14 pm — Schlesinger is attacking Lieberman on foreign policy. Lamont's still too jumpy to be truly effective.

1:46 pm — Well, not a particularly illuminating debate so far. I get the impression Schlesinger has done well for himself, while neither Lamont nor Lieberman is doing enough to change many minds at this point.

2:00 pm — Closing statements are in. Nothing surprising there. So I guess my snap analysis is that all that happened is that Schlesinger probably pealed some votes away from Lieberman, which is probably good for Lamont. This thing is still up for grabs; it's gonna be close.

WRAP-UP (2006-10-16 14:26EST): It appears to me that Lamont is facing an uphill battle. He didn't do nearly as well in today's debate as I expected. His talking points seemed repetitive and stale, his passion seemed a bit flat, his intellect and emotions seemed rather rigid and disconnected. Gone was the easy-smiling humanity I'd seen in his early appearances. Is this what happens when a local politician goes national? Is he spending so much time surrounded by national-level thinkers that he is becoming ungrounded? Hard to say. But his performance suggests to me that the Lamont campaign is in trouble, still not fully recovered from the primary, gasping for a second wind. They need to hit the reset button and find some fresh inspiration.

Joe's Gotta Go: A Fake Political Party

From the Hartford Courant (thanks, lotus):

I wish to file an official, notarized complaint about the new candidacy of Mr. Joseph Lieberman. I ask that the secretary of the state and the Elections Enforcement Commission remove Mr. Joseph Lieberman from the November ballot for U.S. Senate because he has undermined the integrity of our Connecticut electoral process by his action of creating a fake political party.

Mr. Lieberman may have violated Section 9-368c "Misrepresentation of Contents of a Petition." He claimed to the secretary of the state's office that he wanted to start a new political party called "Connecticut for Lieberman" within 12 hours after losing a Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate. He has absolutely no intent of forming a legitimate third party. [...]

Mr. Lieberman challenged the results of the election in his speech that night of the primary. He did not claim voter fraud or ask for a recount. He challenged the results of the election simply because he lost. In the long history of Connecticut politics, I do not recall any candidate for a major office contesting the results of a fair election merely because they lost. There are no do-overs in democratic elections in the same cycle because one candidate cannot accept his loss. If he is not removed, this will set an intolerable precedent for future Connecticut elections. [...]

Mr. Lieberman's phony party, "Connecticut for Lieberman", violates the spirit and intent of our state laws covering third-party development. This law was never intended to allow defeated majority party candidates to run again after they have been defeated. If Mr. Lieberman wanted to form a real third party, he should have dropped out of the Democratic primary and formed one. Instead he gathered petitions while being a registered Democrat and while presumably using Democratic money to start this party of one. This is high-class election fraud and he should be removed from the ballot.

He may or may not have lived up to the letter of the law, but he sure grossly violated the spirit and intent of our third-party laws. He is only doing this to force the state to vote all over again between Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Lamont. We already had that election.

The author of this op-ed, John Orman, is absolutely right. Lieberman's behavior is so outrageous, one can hardly fathom the depth of his contempt for voters and disdain for democracy.

[Cartoon via Michael Forbes Wilcox]

Blackface Joe: Five Grievances

UPDATE (2006-09-21 06:55EST): The latest: The Color Line and the Perceptual Gulf and A Chasm Illuminated.

UPDATE (2006-10-03 16:14EST): Still more Zukiness at An Uncanny (Media Tactic) Resemblance and A Chasm Accentuated.

Here are 5 problems I have with Blackface Joe:

(1) Visual Impact: Tell me honestly, if you empty your mind and look at the picture fresh, as most people will, who's the first target of visual mockery? Black folks or Lieberman? I'd argue that the image's raw, visual, stereotypical mockery of blacks handily outweighs any secondary intellectualizations that might be layered on top. Now I'm sure some white Americans view the stylized humiliation and emasculation of African Americans, and other people of color, as a yawn-worthy cultural norm, easily overlooked in the service of an important liberal political campaign. But I'm not down with that. I think progressives should energetically analyze and criticize linguistic, conceptual, and visual constructions which reinforce the cultural norms of white supremacy. This isn't "political correctness"; white supremacy isn't a fabrication of the "PC police" or any humorless leftist conspiracy. Political correctness never lynched anybody; human beings who emerged from a white supremacist culture did, and do. Crying PC is a scant excuse for the intellectual and spiritual laziness that underlies privilege. Blackface is only funny if lynching is funny. I'll welcome that day; but we're not there yet.

(2) Crossed Metaphor: The central satirical point of Blackface Joe is to highlight the fakeness of Lieberman's overtures to black voters. In other words: Lieberman's attempts to portray himself as a civil rights champion are as fake as the make-up on a blackface minstrel. Here's the metaphorical problem: Minstrels applied make-up in order to mock African Americans, whereas Lieberman's act is meant to appeal to African Americans (get it? blackface is for white consumption only). Lieberman's attempts might exude a clueless "old white dude" stiffness about them, but it's not blackface, any more than Lamont's overtures are. I think the metaphor gets its own internal logic crossed and badly misses the mark, leaving only the decontextualized visual impact as the persistent message.

(3) Imprecise Framing: As usual, Bill Clinton's presence creates more confusion than clarity. He's the "white" foil, arm in arm with Lieberman's blackface. The superimposed sunglasses appear to be an effort to make him more "ethnic" or "soulful" (a la Blues Brothers), but that's where I get lost. What exactly are we to gather from this extended metaphor? Bill Clinton is Joe Lieberman's soulful slave master? I don't even know what that means. So what are we supposed to resent: Joe's fakeness or Bill's being a slave master? Again, the metaphor's essential sloppiness leaves the viewer with little more than the raw fact of the visual impact. It's hard to avoid the feeling that Clinton has been spared the blackface treatment simply because the artist holds Clinton in higher esteem than Lieberman. In this sense, blackface becomes a cheap slander, like drawing a mustache on a girl; and as surely as the mustache on the girl is intended to make her ugly and ridiculous, the blackface on Lieberman appears intended to do the same.

[ UPDATE (2006-09-26 22:45EST): Darkblack has offered this explanation: "Clinton's black, opaque glasses signify that he is 'blind' to how he is being used, as I made clear at FDL over a month ago. A side effect here is that he, in real life, no longer suffers that 'affliction'." I don't know about you, but the mere presence of dark shades doesn't make Clinton look blind to me. Furthermore, I seriously doubt Clinton was "blind" to what Lieberman was doing; he's a slick operative who understands the political game as well as anyone. Basically, even with darkblack's clarification, I believe the image suffers from Imprecise Framing.]

(4) Gratuitous Invocation: Of course, there are instances when it makes complete sense for a fearless artist to invoke explosive, culturally-loaded imagery in the service of an ambitious artistic objective. But my feeling is that the offensiveness of the material should be justified by the loftiness of the artistic enterprise. In other words, I think you can justifiably satirize the Bible if you're writing "The Last Temptation of Christ"; you can justifiably satirize the Koran if you're writing "The Satanic Verses"; but in the case of Blackface Joe, the argument for risky satire is, shall we say, less clear. The upside just doesn't live up to the downside. From a story-telling perspective, the shock value overwhelms any intended plot development. Obviously this is a subjective measure, but it's part of my frank explanation; realistically I could have let this image slide if it accomplished something more; but it didn't. That makes its offensive imagery gratuitous.

In fairness to the PC-haters and other erstwhile champions of controversial imagery, I should note that on one level they're right: cultural expression should not be policed in any way. I don't mean to suggest that offensive imagery should be censored. As far as I'm concerned, you should say and publish any damn thing you choose. And then I'll say and publish any damn thing I choose about what you said. Don't blame me if your own foolishness sticks to you. Free speech means freedom to speak like an idiot, I suppose. Free speech isn't at issue in this discussion; the substantive meaning and value of a specific image is.

(5) Flippant Defense: The last thing that rubbed me the wrong way about the whole Blackface Joe episode was the cavalier lack of contrition from its originators. I don't for a moment believe that either Jane Hamsher or darkblack are racists; I'm just pissed that they don't get what's so wrong about what they did. Jane's apology came straight out of the "asshole boyfriend non-apology" book of patronizing dismissals: "I apologize that you're upset, though if you're upset you're probably my political enemy". Wow, that brush-off makes Arianna's Clooney-triggered soul-searching look positively spiritual.

Thankfully, the bottom line remains: Lamont won. But as long as Lamont's supporters, and other progressives, refuse to confront the uncomfortable implications of Blackface Joe, the progressive vehicle won't be firing on all cylinders.

Ned Lamont: The Democrats Mean Business

This op-ed by Ned Lamont in today's Wall Street Journal is a must-read (via LamontBlog). On top of his stand on the war, I think one of the most exciting things that Lamont brings to the national political arena is the voice of the socially-conscious entrepreneur:

Here are the four lessons of my business life that I talked about every day on the campaign trail, and that have resonated with Connecticut Democrats:

• First, entrepreneurs are frugal beasts, because the bottom line means everything. In Connecticut, voters are convinced that Washington has utterly lost touch with fiscal reality. We talked about irresponsible budget policies that have driven the annual federal deficit above $300 billion and the debt ceiling to $9 trillion. Meanwhile, the government is spending $250 million a day on an unprovoked war in Iraq while starving needed social investment at home. I am a fiscal conservative and our people want their government to be sparing and sensible with their tax dollars.

• Second, entrepreneurs invest in human resources. Our business strives to pay good wages and provide good health benefits so that we can attract employees that give us an edge in a competitive marketplace. Well-trained and well-cared-for people are essential for every business these days, particularly in a global economy. It's getting harder and harder for American businesses to compete on price, but we innovate and change better than any economy on the planet. The quality of our work force is one of America's competitive advantages--if our education system fails our children and our employers, we'll lose the future.

That's why I talked about my work as a volunteer teacher in the Bridgeport public schools, which can't afford to be open later than 2:30 p.m., schools that send children home to an empty house. That's why my campaign offered a strong alternative to standardized tests and No Child Left Behind. That's why I believe in an employer-based health-care system that covers everyone, and providing tax benefits to small businesses so they can provide insurance without risking bankruptcy.

• Third, in a market-driven economy, entrepreneurs can never lose touch with what customers, suppliers and workers are saying. A great strength of our campaign is that we embraced the grassroots and netroots, suburbs and inner cities, and used the most advanced technology to empower our door-knockers and activists. We listened hard and respectfully to what voters told us, and gave them the confidence to trust someone new.

• Finally, entrepreneurs are pragmatic. Unlike some politicians, we don't draw a false strength from closed minds, and we don't step on the accelerator when the car is headed off the cliff.

By every available metric, the "stay the course" strategy in Iraq is not a winning strategy. Changing course is neither extreme nor weak; it is essential for our national security.

The Politics of Impotent Lunacy

When the two big news stories of the day are (1) Lamont's boat-rocking victory over Lieberman, and (2) a foiled terrorist plot in London, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the right-wing corporate-media angle: "Lamont's victory helps terrorists!" It's actually so bizarre and hilarious that I don't even find it offensive anymore; I guess I'm finally starting to lose my ability to be shocked by the surreal depravity of American politics.

Thus my new label for all this right-wing blather ("We're so scared of ... everything!") is the Politics of Impotent Lunacy, not only because it's coming from Prozac-popping Viagra-drips like Cheney, Lieberman, Mehlman, and Limbaugh, but also because everything that's happening in the world right now — from the blood-drenched streets of Iraq and Lebanon, to the humiliating spectacle of shoeless shampoo-less water-less airport lines, to the kindergarten-level ramblings on all this by the parade of morons in the corporate media — dramatically underscores both the impotence and the lunacy of current US foreign policy.

Islamist terrorism is real, but it must be addressed as a law-enforcement problem with cultural and psychological underpinnings, not cynically savored as a political-military opportunity. The former approach would seek to aggressively thwart psychopathic schemes (e.g. blowing up airplanes) while marginalizing extremists to the point of irrelevance by disempowering their appeals and creating powerful cultural and psychological counter-incentives. In contrast, the latter approach only glamorizes extremism by turning terrorists into rock stars and truncating any understanding of underlying societal factors, ensuring an ever-escalating spiral of violence. As I've said before, fighting terrorism with military force is like fighting a bacterial infection with a sledgehammer.

From Arianna Huffington:

Chutzpah doesn't even begin to describe the Vice President of the United States suggesting that the outcome of the Connecticut primary might embolden "al Qaeda types". Sure, and the final tally on So You Think You Can Dance will really give them the greenlight: "Travis beat Benji? The infidels must die!" [...]

You want to know what really emboldens our enemies? It's not Ned Lamont beating Joe Lieberman; it's the idea of an impotent United States so over-extended and bogged down in Iraq that it has been pushed to the diplomatic sidelines.

From John Tirman:

What we now know about the London-based plot to destroy ten  civilian airplanes points to six conclusions. 

First, what stopped this plot was law enforcement.  Law  enforcement. Not a military invasion of Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, or Iraq. Old-fashioned surveillance, development of human sources, putting pieces together, and cooperation with foreign police and intelligence services. 

Second, the conspiracy — if it resembles the London bombings of last summer — will likely be home-grown, another of the growing jihad "fashion" in Europe that comprises the new street gangs of this world.  It is not a religious movement, it is not fundamentalism. These are thin veneers. It is at root sheer violence undertaken by young men resentful of many things (not least the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebanon) and ready to kill in return.  Under different cirucmstances, it could be Tamils or Red Brigades or Michigan Militiamen, and has been. 

Third, if al Qaeda was involved (allegedly from Pakistan), we can thank the failure of the war in Afghanistan and the cozying up to Musharraf to destroy them.

Fourth, there was no involvement by any American-based  “cells,” according the FBI Director Robert Mueller.  As many of us have been saying for nearly five years, and as the 9/11 Commission Report showed, there is virtually no plausible American jihad organization at work, and never has been.

Fifth, the plot again reveals how ill-equipped the U.S. Government has been in anticipating plausible attack scenarios and taking steps to prevent them.  Liquid bombs were so hard to figure out? Al Qaeda already tried it.  DHS has almost completely missed the threat, just as they are missing the vulnerability of cargo holds and God knows what else. Thomas Kean, the former GOP governor and co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, called this liquid bomb error “appalling” and wondered, on an NBC program four months ago, why no progress had been made.  What are the tens of billions being spent on?  This is Katrina II.

Sixth, and most important, we must end our involvement in Iraq and sharply refocus our presence in the region. The war president’s approach is not working.  It’s a diversion from the real threat.  It’s a spur to bitter revenge.  It’s a big feedback loop that will endanger us for years, if not decades.  Our lives are now at stake because the Bush catastrophe has created thousands of new terrorists.

From Billmon:

It's a pretty ironic coda to the wingnut flypaper theory -- under which we were supposed to "take the fight" to the terrorists in Iraq (and Afghanistan and Lebanon and, in time, Iran) so that we wouldn't have to fight them in the streets of New York and London:

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Fran Townsend, the president's homeland security adviser, said that the war in Iraq attracts terrorists "where we have a fighting military and a coalition that can take them on and not have the sort of civilian casualties that you saw in London."

Either there are more than enough flies to go around or the flypaper has moved -- or both. In his post, Juan Cole cited recent poll results showing that 13% of all British Muslims surveyed think last year's London bombers are religious martyrs, while another 16% think their ends were justified even if their means weren't. That's almost 30% -- of a population of 1.6 million.

The poll was taken right before the start of Israel's aerial shock-and-awe offensive against Hizbullah. One wonders what a month's worth of footage of slaughtered Lebanese civilians has done to those results.

Multiply those same results by about a thousand or so, and you have a rough estimate of the jihadi recruiting pool for Al Qaeda, Hizbullah or any other Islamic organization that feels like taking a swing at the Great Satan and his friends and minions.

What can I say? We're stuck to our own flypaper. Which means that phony or not, today's hysteria probably is an authentic glimpse at the shape of things to come. We're going to have to get used to the idea of standing in two-hour lines at airport security and toting our carry-on items in a clear plastic bags. But these inconveniences are absurdly insignificant compared to other risks we'll face if we remain on the road we're on -- the one that leads to that clash of civilizations the uberhawks are clamoring for.

As usual, Firedoglake has plenty more.

[Photo: AP Photo, via FDL}

The Divine Right of Liebermans

From Billmon, who wonders exactly what "principles" Lieberman is upholding by vowing to continue running for Senate after being defeated in Tuesday's primary election :

Maybe it's the sacred principle that 18-year incumbents who blow milk run primaries should be allowed to blame their campaign staffers for their own moronic mistakes -- while sanctimoniously denying that they're doing just that:

Lieberman said that he fired his campaign manager and spokesman, and asked for the resignations of his campaign staff.

"We did not answer, adequately answer, the distortions of my record on Iraq and my relationship with George Bush, that the Lamont campaign put out," said Lieberman, though he said he did not blame campaign workers. (emphasis added)

What a guy, eh?

No wait, I see Joe has a even nobler principle to uphold. It's his deeply held conviction that the most important test of any Senator's value is his or her ability to "get things done" in the legislative sausage factory:

"I'm fed up with all the partisanship in Washington that stops us from getting anything done."

Given Holy Joe's record, I guess he's talking about things like abolishing habeas corpus, greasing the skids for right-wing zealots to take control of the Supreme Court, screwing lower income Americans on bankruptcy reform, cheering Bush's faith-based GOP patronage program, and, of course, invading Middle Eastern countries based on trumped up evidence of non-existent WMD, and then mindlessly backing the neocon cabal's prosecution of the war until it was far too late to do anything about it.

Them's some principles, Joe.

You know I started out (back in the Monica days) only mildly disliking Holy Joe. Now he practically gives me the dry heaves every time I see his pasty mug on the tube. I don't know if absence really does make the heart grow fonder, but in Joe's case I would love to find out.

Samantha Bee of The Daily Show (via Crooks and Liars) sums it up nicely:

Joe Lieberman has made up his mind. If not nominated, he will run. If not elected, he will serve.

[Ali-Liston photo via This Modern World]

Ned Lamont: A Victory for Hope

In politics as in life, winning matters. A lot. Ned Lamont's victory over Joe Lieberman in Tuesday's Democratic primary is one of the most dramatic, gratifying triumphs that I've been lucky enough to experience up close, period. Without gloating, I'll say that Yes, it's sweet.

Yet as I see it, both the corporate media and the celebrity blogosphere have largely failed to grasp the essential dynamics of this race. The corporate media has framed the race in terms of an angry left-wing fringe of pajama-clad bloggers pulling the Democratic Party toward national unelectability. Meanwhile, celebrity blogs (i.e. professional ad-funded websites whose big-name content-contributors attract hordes of online groupies) have perhaps inadvertently framed the race as an illustration of their own populist power. Based on what I've seen in the past couple of weeks of volunteer work on behalf of the Lamont campaign, I think both frameworks miss the mark.

On the corporate media front, let's just say that it's become a given in America that insultingly irrational absurdity has come to pass as political punditry. Lieberman's beltway-media friends for the most part closed ranks around him for a simple reason: they'd never given their Go to Ned Lamont. As they saw it: "Who the hell is this unapproved guy who thinks he can just step into the fray and win an election without going through the process of orderly succession? Doesn't he know that there are DC power brokers and corporate lobbies already in place to make those decisions? What the hell is this, real democracy?!"

On the other hand, a good many of my favorite liberal bloggers seem to imply that "We made this happen in spite of MSM opposition! We're powerful! Kabuki! Schadenfreude!". As a Connecticut resident and longtime activist, that's really not my impression. As I see it, blogs certainly helped out, but they didn't determine doodly-squat. What propelled Lamont to victory was local, non-blog-related support, especially from old money in Greenwich and disaffected families in eviscerated working class towns like Bridgeport and New Haven — and neither of those groups is particularly into faux-hip internet culture.

During the course of Tuesday's primary election, I was lucky enough to give rides to the polls to various voters in Stamford and Bridgeport. All were aware of blogs, but none had been particularly influenced by them. The basic line I heard was this: blogs are good at distributing the burden of research to a collaborative social network and offering rapid response to specific attacks, but that's all. People repeatedly told me that blogs were great at quickly exposing things like Richard Goodstein and the $15/month website, but nobody voted for Lamont because of anything the blogs said. People were voting for Lamont because they fundamentally agreed with his message, and his local outreach organization just worked. In terms of organization, it seems to me that Lamont's experience as a successful entrepreneur was as central to this political fight as Lieberman's utterly out-of-touch DC-fat-cat incompetence.

So rather than attending the blogger-addled, press-friendly party in Meriden on Tuesday night, I decided to hang out at Augie's Tavern in good ol' Cos Cob to await the news of the day. Sitting in a carved wooden booth, ordering a long sequence of Belgian ales, I struck up conversations with anyone in talking distance. People were excited but composed. Most of my fellow Lamont-supporters there were in their 50s and 60s and 70s. Interestingly, most were internet-savvy. Most were WASPs who had been born into country clubs and circles of political influence. Frankly, these people were probably more decisive in the election than any blogger. Many had known the Lamont family for many years, and they believed in Ned's fundamental decency as a human being. They viewed the national attention as little more than a distraction. They were as interested in other local races as they were in the Lamont-Lieberman drama (for example, John DeStefano's stunning come-from-behind victory over Dan Malloy; most folks believed that DeStefano's edge came from having his name appear on the same line on the ballot as Ned Lamont). Most assumed that everything in the mainstream media is bullshit, and that real power moves in ways that hairsprayed talking heads on TV are utterly incapable of discussing.

Nevertheless, the bottom line remains: we won. As successive poll-data reports appeared on News 12 Connecticut on the TVs above the bar, the tavern roared with applause. When Lieberman took the podium for his concession, it was handshakes and hugs all around. And as Lamont delivered his victory speech, the bar-room grew silent. I sat in that wooden booth and soaked in the moment. It's been an intense ride, and frankly I'm going to just bathe in the glow of this victory for at least a few days before hitting the grindstone again. I'm going to sit in my yard and barbecue. I'm going to look at the trees and the clouds and feel good about living in the great state of Connecticut.

Ned Lamont: A Vehicle for Hope (Part 2)

It's the least sleepy Monday I've ever experienced here in Connecticut, and there's only one reason for it: tomorrow is the Democratic primary and the feeling round here is that the future of America is delicately swinging in the balance.

Continuing from the previous post: Following Al Sharpton's rousing speech at the Mounty Aery Baptist Church in Bridgeport on Wednesday evening, I hopped back in my car and headed to New Haven to meet a couple of friends at the train station, before dropping into the Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church for the night cap.

Reverend Al didn't make it, but Jesse Jackson took charge and delivered a thundering oration that worked the crowd into a frenzy on several occasions. He opened his speech by saying, "Some people say that because Ned Lamont is rich, he can't relate to the poor. Well, a lot of poor people can't relate to the poor! It's not what you have; it's what you share."

At one point, Reverend Jesse had the crowd repeat after him, "Nelson Mandela, gave 27 years in prison, for the right to vote. Martin Luther King, gave his life, for the right to vote. I can give, one weekend."

At another point, Jackson also made the slightest allusion to the controversy du jour, when he encouraged the assembled congregation to sign up right there and then for campaign work in the upcoming days. As folks lined up in front of the pulpit to volunteer for Lamont, he said, "You want a picture for a blog? Take a picture of that!"

Ned Lamont: A Vehicle for Hope

Here in Connecticut in the sweltering summer of '06, the electrifying Senatorial candidacy of Ned Lamont has transformed from a laughably obscure anti-war bid to an almost transcendent vehicle for hope — hope for sanity in a political world gone mad; hope for a nationally contagious resurgence of progressive populism; hope for a genuine American democratic restoration.

Even with all the heartbreaking war and turmoil roiling this world, in my neck of the woods there's only one political story for the next 3 days, and that's Ned Lamont. Regardless of what happens on election day (Tuesday, Aug. 8), I'll be physically, intellectually, and emotionally glued to this race non-stop until I'm either singing victory songs on a tabletop while waving a bottle in the air, or lying face-down on the floor weeping.

On Wednesday night I attended two Lamont campaign events which absolutely bristled with visceral excitement and passion. And I'm not just talking about a bunch of clique-clutching blog-readers stroking one another's fragile egos with faux-hip e-jargon; I'm talking about street action with meat on the bones.

As everyone knows by now, Lamont and his deeply entrenched primary opponent Joe Lieberman are locked in a bruising battle for the proverbial hearts and minds of African American voters. In that context, Lieberman has been playing up the glory days of the Sixties when he marched for civil rights alongside Dr. King, as well his recent endorsement by Bill Clinton (white liberals seem to believe that Clinton's status as "the first black president" actually amounts to more than a good laugh line). Meanwhile, Lamont has been pounding pavement and pressing flesh in Bridgeport and New Haven, home to Connecticut's densest African American populations.

In the midst of Wednesday's triple-digit temperatures, I'd spent most of my day in Lamont's Norwalk campaign office, at least partly because the A.C. system there works so much better than in my cottage in the Greenwich woods, where electricity has been on-and-off all week (privatization, baby!). Safely insulated from the hammering heat, I sat alongside volunteer teens and seniors at a Lamont-festooned desk, armed with a script, a talking points sheet, a long list of registered Democrats, and a telephone. Based on what I heard, it was pretty clear that Lamont was pulling ahead: Ned's supporters not only outnumbered his opponents by close to 2 to 1, they were also far more enthusiastic and informed.

First stop on Wednesday evening: the Mount Aery Baptist Church in Bridgeport. Somehow, driving my Honda hybrid amid the bustling front porches and weedy chainlink fences made me feel like I was wearing a sticker on my lapel saying "Visitor". Across the street from the packed church parking lot, an open fire hydrant was dumping a fat lazy stream of water onto the steaming pavement.

Inside the church, volunteers were handing out Ned Lamont buttons, bumper stickers, and bottled water to a steady stream of locals. Reverend Anthony Bennett opened the proceedings with prayer and song, and a disclaimer: "We are not endorsing any candidate in this Senate race, but we are here to listen to what Brother Al Sharpton and Brother Jesse Jackson have to say."

Al Sharpton was clearly under no such constraint. He opened his speech this way: "With 6 days left before election day, this is no time for lengthy keynote speeches. This is time to get organized and stay focused. Now, Joe Lieberman is a friend of mine. He's a nice guy. I can sit down and have a cup of coffee with Joe Lieberman. But elections aren't about who you'd like to sit down and have a cup of coffee with. Elections are about social policy, not socializing.

"At some point in the game, you've got to realize that when you've got someone in your huddle, acting like he's your teammate, and after the huddle breaks, he runs to the other bench; and he's wearings the other uniform; and every time he gets the ball, he runs in the other direction; at some point in the game, you've got to realize that he's playing for the other team."

[More to come...]