I'll believe it when I see it. Timetables have a tendency to be extended as the events warrant it.

Posted at November 11, 2006 10:20 PM in response to It Is At An End: Iraq Pullout Time Table

He hasn't given up on the primary. He still wants the party nod, but unlike most candidates he knows that he doesn't need it, that he can probably hold onto his seat without it. He's been with the party for years, and it's understandable that he'd rather win under the Democratic ticket.

But he doesn't need to go out of his way to appeal to the base in the primary.

Another advantage to running in the primary is that he can get the vocal support of Democratic politicians. Had he declared himself an independent, could he have gotten his friend Bill Clinton to come around and campaign for him?

Posted at July 22, 2006 8:31 AM in response to Lieberman's Problem: Lieberman

For one thing, Clinton is much, much, closer ideologically to Lieberman than he is to Lamont. The two men were on the ground floor of the New Democrat/Third Way/progressive centrism movement, which repackaged progressive ideals in a way that could appeal to swing voters and even Republicans.

Lamont is none of those things.

Posted at July 21, 2006 9:06 PM in response to Lieberman's Problem: Lieberman

By a long habit, Atrios has tried to avoid topics that he thinks will be controversial among his readers. He has gained his readership by telling his readers what he thinks they want to hear and avoiding topics that might divide them or challenge them to think. He knows his customer base, and gives them the product they are looking for.

So for years, he has mostly stayed away from discussions about Israel. He was also one of the few political bloggers not to express a preference among the Democratic presidential contenders.

Posted at July 20, 2006 8:39 PM in response to Silence on the Homefront

Can we please put to rest the idea that Ned Lamont’s challenge to Senator Lieberman is a product of, or a wholly-owned subsidiary of, that thing called “the netroots.”

I agree that Lieberman's weaknesses are largely of his doing, and that Lamont is running a surprisingly effective campaign against him.

But Lamont made a TV spot with out-of-state blogger Markos Moulitsas. He has a conscious decision -- for some reason that eludes me -- to spread the idea that he's the "netroots" candidate.

Why would he set up so prominently a guy whose view on American contractors killed overseas is to say "screw them"? Some possibilities: (a) he didn't know; (b) he didn't find anything particularly wrong with what Markos was saying; (c) he figured (probably rightly) that most Connecticuters wouldn't know Markos from Adam, and this way he could wink at the netroots, saying, "I'm one of you."

If people think that Mr. Lamont is owned by the netroots, it's because Lamont went out of his way to create this impression.

Posted at July 14, 2006 5:32 PM in response to Who's Responsible for the Lieberman Meltdown?

no mechanism to fire a bad employee.

We have a perfectly good mechanism. It's call an election. If the people of Connecticut decide they want somebody else to represent them, they can vote for somebody else.

If an incumbent keeps his seat, it's because the voters feel that he deserves to, or at least that he's better than the alternative.

Posted at July 14, 2006 5:15 PM in response to Who's Responsible for the Lieberman Meltdown?

It's possible that the plaintiffs aren't interested in a settlement, but by a desire to get the facts out to the public. They could get much of what they want long before the case is decided.

Posted at July 13, 2006 6:38 PM in response to Wilson sues Rove, Cheney and Libby

Article Two, Section Two of the Constitution, gives the President the "Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States." This power applies to criminal cases, United States v. Somebody, not to a civil case.

Posted at July 13, 2006 6:28 PM in response to Wilson sues Rove, Cheney and Libby

Matt's not saying they should lie, just that if they do lie they should do so convincingly.

Posted at July 12, 2006 4:49 PM in response to At Least Pretend

They've tried that, but they've cried "wolf!" so many times it just won't have much effect.

That won't stop them from trying again, though.

Posted at July 11, 2006 8:37 PM in response to Question of the Day