Didn't Hank Johhson get the nod of approval from the mighty KOS himself?

Both races are about getting candidates in office who will protect the image of the party rather than drag it down.

That is the link between the two.

 But the idea that Cynthia McKinney is the putative victim of a national "purge" by those her daddy graphically spelled out as "J-E-W-S" last time she lost, is little more than a reinforcement of her embattled campaign's talking points.

Yet, that is precisely why McKinney lost to Majette. When her father was asked what happened and what the reason was for that lost...it was entirely accurate. The fact that pro-Israel poured money into GA to defeat McKinney is without question, as well as the fact of the Republicans doing cross over voting. Since when is identifying the election population that set out to defeat you a problem?  Doesn't Bush readily acknowledge that he does not have the Black vote and doesn't Clinton acknowledge that it was the black votes that helped him win a majority in key states, as well?  So what is the problem with McKinney's dads statement as to why McKinney lost to Majette?

And McKinney's problem is not Outside Agitators, or Republican cross-over voters, but her lukewarm reputation among the middle- and upper-middle class African-American voters who dominate the politics of the 4th, and don't particularly appreciate her national political antics.

I agree that it is not her problem this time and that she has ticked off her district. At the same time, it was the issue when she lost to Majette.

impishly wonders why those of us worried about the national effort to drive Joe Lieberman out of the Senate and the Democratic Party aren't worried about a "purge" of the fiery Georgian. It's a good point to a very minor extent, but sort of ignores the proportions of the two efforts

How can the 'supposed' ideology of the Democratic issues that are driving the national anti-Lieberman thrust be a 'minor issue'

Isn't it THE issue...if the reason Lieberman is no longer acceptable is because he is pro-war and too bipartisan...then why is the ideology of someone like a McKinney also unacceptable to Democrats. Why in terms of 'national interests' are we opposed to one and not the other?  If this is about party unity.

Yes, I understand that McKinney's antics are what is driving her district to oppose her, but if we view this as building  "national party unity to speak with one voice" why would we as Democrats be opposed to McKinney ideologically?

=== no one could open up a major progressive web site over the last year without reading endless vituperative posts about Lieberman, and during the primary campaign,===

Perhaps if Mr. Lieberman and the DLC had answered many of the substantative comments and questions directed at them from 1998-2004 they might not now be faced with the mean, nasty lefties trying to purge them?

=== and during the primary campaign, endless over-the-top cheerleading for Ned Lamont, complete with links to opportunities to volunteer or give money, and on-the-ground accounts of the Lamont campaign's successes.===

Otherwise known as "campaigning for a candidate one supports", in this case in a "primary election" (although some day I would also like to get a meaningful definition of "over the top").

I am getting tired of asking this Lieberman supporters this, but I'll try one more time: are Senate seats now sinecures? If so, who makes the appointments? Marshall Wittman? If not, can you just accept that what is going on right now in CT is a thing called an "election"? I am sorry for you that your preferred candidate is losing, but the the kisses (not one kiss; dozens) are documented on video. Perhaps you should have talked to your good friend about that in 2002?

sPh

are Senate seats now sinecures?

No they are not.  But a factor to be considered (and is being considered up here) is whether it is in our state's best interest to remove a powerful tenured sitting senator and replace him with a back bencher for the good of the party when other state's powerful senators with similar positions to Lieberman are not being replaced.  Since this is for "the good of the party" are the out of state Lamont supporters going to urge their senators to not only keep their state's best interests in mind but Connecticut's also?

other senators with similar positions to Lieberman

Please. No other Democratic Senator has any thing like Lieberman's public profile. There's a reason Coulter and Hannity endorsed him. If you think the New London submarine base is a fair trade-off for the continuing fiasco that is Iraq, and the poison pill in the Constitution that is Samuel Alito, well...I can't change your mind any more than you can make me understand that kind of moral math.

I didn't know Joe was the only democratic senator who supported Alito.  And I also didn't know that the only reason we have the fiasco in Iraq was because of Lieberman's support of the president's policies on the war.  But I guess I am just being a selfish Nutmeg Stater...my moral math says people need to go after all politicians who support the Iraq War or has given support to any of the president's or RW's agenda.  Is the position I am taking that outrageous?

Those "who don't know Connecticut from Cancun" aren't the ones voting; thus, Lieberman's got nothing to worry about.

Right?

...

Questions about McKinney's race and pro-Israel money aside, here again is the claim that the Lamont campaign in a "purge", because it has attracted support from people outside of CT. I really can't get over how silly a claim this is, especially coming from such a level-headed guy as Kilgore.

First, how is the expression of opinion on the internet, accompanied by monetary donations a "purge"? I sure bet Stalin's officer-class would have loved being purged that way, instead of being purged in, well, an actual purge.

But also, how much money and organizing help is Lieberman accepting from out of state? Do all of those corporate and lobbying donations come from Mom 'n' Pop operations in Hartford and New Haven? No? I didn't think so. And those kids coming in for his ground game from New York and New Jersey? Are they coming from towns I've never heard of called New York, CT and New Jersey, CT? No? I didn't think so. So what's a "purge" for the goose is a "purge" for the gander.

"Is the position I am taking that outrageous?"

Not at all outrageous. But it doesn't make too much sense. You keep raising these points, having them answered, and then, dissatisfied, raising them again. That is OK. I have time and patience. While it is clear you view Lieberman as having done Connecticut invaluable service with the Naval Base at Groton and not being worse (or maybe not much worse) than other Senators, and you like him, you are unhappy with the campaign against him which involves support for Lamont coming from residents of other states as well. I don't think this latter is illegal; in fact it is done ALL THE TIME. Really. You are a self-described political junkie. Look into it. The Minnesota Senate campaign here will have Klobuchar vs. Kennedy each getting sizable amounts of funding from out of state. Norman Coleman in 2002, I believe had quite a bit more out-of-state funding than in-state. The policies that the Connecticut Senators support affect the nation and the world; why in the world wouldn't people get involved. A Minnesotan killed in a war that Lieberman loves is still dead; may his parents support Lamont? Maybe, if they ask you nicely. You point out that Lieberman's support is not the only reason for the fiasco. Bravo. Well-done. You are right. He is not the only cause; not the most culpable. However in the Democratic Party I cannot think of a single member of the party who has played the sort of singular role that Lieberman has: not only vocally and visibly supporting every excess of the Bush disaster team, but impugning the intelligence and integrity of everyone who has more sense and more moral sensitivity than he does. It is not by accident that during 2004, ABL ("anyone but Lieberman") was heard from coast to coast. If you like him, vote for him. If you like Bush, vote for Bush. I cannot vote for or against him; so in the end you and the rest of the Connecticut voters decide and your decisions affect all of us. What more will make you happy? If you want, change the rules of the primaries (all of them) so only in-state support is allowed. Keep out Bill Clinton AND Jesse Jackson (Isn't Clinton an outsider too?). The party leadership (that supports Lieberman) will not buy that in a million years; this way they have more power. Your position is not outrageous. It is not particularly thoughtful.

What is your point? You asked earlier if a position was outrageous. It wasn't. But this is indecipherable.

ok. sorry to butt in.

So McKinney and Yglesias is concerned that Hank Johnson has received donations from Jewish citizens? The shock, the horror!!!

Wonder why Yglesias isn't commenting on the fact that McKinney, since 2001 has received three quarters, if not more of her contributions from Muslim's and Muslim organizations, virtually all of them not from Georgia. Hundreds of thousands of dollars per year from such groups. Last year she received nearly 250,000 from such groups. But perhaps as in Orwell's Animal Farm, some of us are more equal than others?

Perhaps if McKinney spent as much time working for her constituents, instead of using that time to serve the interests of her anti-Israeli lobby then perhaps they wouldn't be so passionate about voting to send her home to Georgia.

The night before the vote on continuing the Voters Rights Act, McKinney was whooping it up big time in NYC with the very fascistic Medea Benjamin, who by the way was cheating on her pretense of the fast she claimed to be participating in about bringing home the troops, she was photographed stuffing her face with pizza, while elsewhere those who had been duped by her on the subject were going without in the interest of bringing about peace. McKinney couldn't get herself to the house of representatives on time to vote.. of course it's not like she really cares about the people back home, they don't fly her around and flatter her.

Not quite, the ones who were vilifying the "looney left" were the republicans, who had a big hand up in getting the message across because of groups like ELF (Earth Liberation Front) who were fanatically going around practicing eco-terrorism in the '80s. Inserting steel into trees so forestry workers, people just working to support their families would find the chainsaws they were using would bounce back and maim them.

This is what caused the American people, to start viewing the environmental movement through a different lens, the ones who had a decade before started having their awareness raised into environmentalism because true environmentalists made thoughtful appeals on how we were all in it together. How a polluted and over taxed environment hurt all of us. Reagan, and James Watt were able to label environmentalists as wackos and tree huggers because of the actions of extremists who were so consumed by hatred and a willingness to hurt innocent people that many average Americans felt betrayed by the environmental movement and withdrew support for them. Just as Americans are speaking out against the war in higher numbers all the time, they didn't approve of the violent tactics, the rationale of butchery against workers.

It was so successful that when the Gingrich blame game started up, they were ahead of the game. Extremely able to whitewash the left as being fruitcakes, and again, the neo-left while in small numbers, were vocal enough to help in the smear.

That is what has changed the image of the left.. not democrats, but the neo-leftist extremists. They have no one but themselves to blame.. and you can't spin it into being the truth, no matter how many grasstop ignoramouses you convince of it.

No one could open up a major progressive web site over the last year without reading endless vituperative posts about Lieberman, and during the primary campaign, endless over-the-top cheerleading for Ned Lamont, complete with links to opportunities to volunteer or give money, and on-the-ground accounts of the Lamont campaign's successes.

I think you visit the wrong websites. There have been plenty of thoughtful posts about Lieberman, regretful posts. So that's a credibility killer for starters.

But the big credibility killer for me is the one which is so gleefully autocratic as to hit on cheer-leading, volunteering, donating, and pleasure in one's candidate's successes. Shocking! Democracy in action! What's your kind of democracy? Is it entirely about lining up behind Ed?

I'm no fan of the DLC, but I've not read one word by them attacking the left, looney or otherwise.

I have read some articles, seen some interviews on tv where some members of the DLC have referenced the actions of the far left, but without the vitriol you have claimed. Also, the DLC, doesn't seem to me so much to the right of center. While there might be some in it I wouldn't agree with, there are some who are basically attempting to get involved with the leadership committee to promote the issues of the base, social justice, civil rights, more support for labor.

I'm a leftist democrat, but the reactionary, knee-jerk, propagandistic, neo-leftist extremes have made using the term leftist extremely distastefull to me and friends all over the country. The lies, the hatemongering. It is appalling. What is equally appalling is the disconnect, the elitist condescension of the neo-left, their desire to exploit issues, while lacking any commitment to the issues or the people who are so dependent on the issues being addressed.

Face it, what you endorse isn't in aid of anything other than fufilling a blind lust for power, no different than that of George W. Bush.

why do we have Amy Klobuchar so brainwashed into DLC Republican-lite centrism that she can't utter a single, solitary, coherent phrase about WAR except to tell us she is TOUGH. Well, TOUGH ain't COURAGE. She's going to be another Norm!

Why you ask...well AIPAC of course!!  And the Kaplans in MN of course! Amy has already stated her unequivocal support for Israel's 'right to defend itself"  Yes, she will be another Norm, but is Kennedy any better? He consistently supported Bush.

Who are the neo-left? No one in particular springs to mind when I read that phrase.

Why, any one to "the left" of Lieberman, which is apparently 54% of the Democrats in Connecticut.

Who knew we were so dang "looney" here?

[sarcasm off]

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com