You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (76)

PLAYS: (372)

Rachel Maddow talks to former Lieberman political rival Ned Lamont about what is driving Sen. Lieberman to obstruct health reform and threaten to filibuster his own caucus. As Ned notes, it was Republican money that got him elected and he's showing that political allegiance now. I think he doesn't care what party it is as long as his pockets are being lined.

Maddow: I have a feeling you're going to say "I told you so" but I have to ask. Does it surprise you that Sen. Lieberman would join Republicans to filibuster health reform?

Lamont: It surprises me in this sense, that everybody thought that our race three years ago was just about the war in Iraq, whether it was a good idea to invade or not, but we spent an awful lot of time talking about health care reform and during that race I accused Sen. Lieberman of dithering and after twenty years in the Senate not doing anything on fundamental health care reform, and he was the one that came back and said unilaterally "I support universal health insurance for all Americans and I'm going to fight for it". So I'm surprised that a few years later he is dithering again.

Maddow: I know...I went back and looked at some of the contemporaneous coverage from your race and I know back in September of 2006, during that fight Sen. Lieberman told reporters on a conference call “I have long supported the goal of universal health care. Ned Lamont can talk about it. I’ve been doing something about it all the time I’ve been here.” If he does end up being the one guy who stops it, if it is his filibuster, what do you think the political costs will be of that?

Lamont: Look the people of Connecticut are ready to have a vote. They want to have a vote on fundamental health care reform and they want the choice of a public option. Sen. Chris Dodd and all of our Congressionals are on board with that and it’s Sen. Lieberman who’s the outlier, so I think there will be political consequences if a Sen. Lieberman is the one person who stands in the way, who obstructs our opportunity to have a fundamental vote on health care reform.

Maddow: What do you think those consequences will be though? One of the things that we have to think about is what happens in Washington, whether or not the Democrats and the Senate allow him to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee—there’s also the question of whether he faces political consequences at home. He seems to be planning to run again.

Lamont: I believe—I probably wouldn’t know—I’d be the last person in Connecticut to know whether he’s going to run again but I can tell you this; there’s an awful lot of folks here who are looking forward to the opportunity of challenging Sen. Lieberman. You know during our race a few years ago he said nobody wants to have a Democrat elected president as much as I do. He supported health care reform. Nobody wanted to get the troops home more than he did. Three years is a long time. I think there are a number of folks, independent, moderates, Republicans and Democrats who are disappointed where the words aren’t matching the action and are looking for a change.

Maddow: Why do you think he doesn’t just become a Republican?

Lamont: I think he’s been a Democrat for an awful long time, but I think tactically he’s probably looking at his options right now. I’ve got to believe when you walk away from health care reform, when you deny your fellow Senators the right to vote on health care reform, that seems to be somebody that knows he was elected in 2006 with overwhelming Republican support. I think that’s his base.

In the 2006 cycle the candidate who attracted the most support from Blue America donors was Ned Lamont, with his campaign that served notice on the Democratic Establishment that the grassroots was unwilling to just eat up whatever crap it was served up from Inside the Beltway hacks. Blue America raised over $77,000 for him in our first year in action. The following cycle, saw another inspiring progressive primary challenger, Donna Edwards, attract the most donors and the largest amount (almost $65,000). It may be too early to tell, but it looks like 2010 cycle will mark the year of Alan Grayson. It's still only 2009 but Blue America has already raised over $30,000 for him-- without having even made an official endorsement! We've been collecting contributions for him at No Means No, a page dedicated to members of Congress who voted against Obama's supplemental war budget in June, and at Getting Grayson's Back, a page dedicated to standing up for him when he got GOP noses out of joint by telling the truth about their health care obstructionism.

Today Blue America is joining a netroots money bomb effort on behalf of Grayson, urging our community to band together and answer the Inside-the-Beltway and Villager mentality that says there's no room for a plainspoken truth-teller like Grayson in Congress. Nevermind, they tell you, that he studied economics at Harvard, then worked as an economist, then studied law at Harvard and then successfully pursued war profiteers and Bush cronies in Iraq-- even before being elected to Congress in a Republican district and becoming the scourge of banksters and assorted evil-doers dragged before the House Financial Services committee. No, to the Villagers, he's all about "outlandish rhetoric;" he's "the left's Michele Bachmann;" he's "pugilistic" and a "wing nut."

Rep. Grayson joins us below in the comments section where you can see for yourself he's quickly become the favorite member of Congress of Democrats and independents from across the country. And please, help out with the money bomb today.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1802)

PLAYS: (1070)

From Hardball Oct. 19, 2009. Thanks to our friends Ned Lamont and Joe Sestak for stopping by C&L for the chat, and hopefully it was more enjoyable than this interview on Hardball just before you came to visit here.

Updated. Transcript from MSNBC.

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Three years ago, businessman Ned Lamont rode an anti-war tidal wave to defeat Joe Lieberman in a Democratic primary. Well, Lieberman turned independent and beat Lamont to keep his seat, but Lamont is still a big deal for many Democrats. Today he endorsed U.S. Congressman Joe Sestak in the Democratic primary here in Pennsylvania against Senator Specter. They both join me here in Philly right now, Sestak and Ned Lamont.

Ned, why did you do it? Why are you here in Philly making the case for the challenger here, the David against the Goliath, you might say right now?

NED LAMONT (D), FORMER CT SENATE CANDIDATE: Well, Chris, it's great to be back with you and I'm delighted to be here with Joe Sestak. Look, Joe's got guts. He's not only just taken on Arlen Specter, he's taken on the entire political establishment.

And Joe, I know where you're coming from right now. The calls are coming in. They're telling you not to do it. Don't do a primary. You're upsetting the apple cart. And I just think it's good for democracy. Joe knows where he stands on the issues. It's not a question of political calculation. I hope people vote for Joe Sestak.

MATTHEWS: Well, Joe Sestak, Congressman, thank you for joining us. Here's the latest polling. It's done by Pollster.com. It's an average of all the polls in this primary fight. Specter's beating you by about 20 right now. How do you catch him?

REP. JOE SESTAK (R-PA), SENATE CANDIDATE: Boy, that's great. You know, that's cut us down about half in the last four months. I've only been in the race two months. Here's how to do it, by being out there and just talking to the people. They have lost such trust, such credibility that they once had in Washington, D.C. We've been down there too long with too many people, much like you ran against somebody who had forgotten that it was about the middle class, the working family. It's being everywhere, Chris. It's being on your show. And it's making sure that I have enough to get out there and just shake hands and be on the media. I want them to know there's a credible alternative who will be in it for them, not their own job.

MATTHEWS: I was picking up the paper this morning, "The Politico," in D.C. before I came up here on the train, and the one thing I noticed, Congressman, is that you're having a money problem. And Arlen Specter never has money problems. Is politics in this country driven by who's got the money?

SESTAK: Well, look, I'm obviously a co-sponsor of a bill for public financing of campaigns, but I don't have a money problem. As you can see, Arlen has already spent $2 million this year. I've only spent $500,000. And his approval rating has dropped all the way down to only 30 percent of the people believe he should be re-elected. So it's not about money.

Chris, this is about the future of Pennsylvania and this nation. I don't say that lightly. I honestly think they want to see people who believe principle should triumph over political calculation to where-

Arlen Specter gave 2,000 votes to President Bush, voted for tax cuts where 50 percent went to the top 1 percent, the millionaires of America. They just want a change. No, they want more than that. They want a warrior that's going to fight with President Obama to make sure they bring about that change.

Continue reading »

Yesterday Arlen Specter was back at his old media home, Fox News, singing a new tune, dancing the Lieberman shuffle, calling the GOP "a party of obstructionism." Well, he's got that right; they are. And until consistent polling showed that a right-wing extremist, Club For Growth head Pat Toomey, would kick his ass from Chester to Erie and from Waynesville to Carbondale in the Republican primary, Specter was very much a part of that obstructionist machine. Staring into the eyes of political mortality, Specter cut a deal with the White House to jump the fence and "become" a Democrat. He made the purely opportunistic switch on April 28. And here he was two weeks later on Meet The Press letting Pennsylvania voters know exactly what kind of a "Democrat" he would be:

Today he was calling his old colleagues obstructionists on the exact same issue for doing precisely what he was doing, although he has also bragged about how he will also vote with Republicans against Employees Free Choice. (The only difference is that he takes even more in thinly-veiled bribes from the Medical-Industrial Complex--$4,266,393, the most of any member of Congress who didn't run for president-- and Big Insurance--$1,058,655-- than most of them do.) Oh... and there's one more difference: Admiral Joe Sestak. Joe Sestak's constant pressure on behalf of working families has pushed Specter away from his unswerving support for his corporate donors. Petrified of being defeated in the Democratic primary, Specter sounds like he's almost a Democrat.

It was in the spring of 2006 that Blue America first started following Admiral Sestak as he sought, successfully, to dislodge another corrupt Republican barnacle obstructing progress in Washington, Curt Weldon. He was one of the first candidates our PAC ever endorsed and we have been immensely impressed by something that has distinguished Rep. Sestak from almost all the other members of Congress we've worked with. He is a critical thinker who seems to relish a debate of ideas. We don't always agree on every single issue but he never gets all brittle and uptight when challenged and he is always eager for input and eager to go through the thought processes that led him to make a decision. If there's one thing I've learned since starting Blue America, it's that no one is buying a member of Congress with an endorsement and no member of Congress will agree with you on every single vote. (Barney Frank once famously said even you wouldn't agree with you on every single vote.) What we do look for is someone with a sterling character who is open-minded, courageous and with inherently progressive sympathies. That's why we've continued to support Joe Sestak and why we asked him to come over to Crooks and Liars today for a live chat. He'll be joining us this afternoon at 3pm (PT), 6pm back in Pennsylvania. And he's bringing along another ole Blue America friend, Ned Lamont.

When I spoke to Rep. Sestak on the phone last week about the health-care debate, he was very forceful. "I'm going to have a very difficult time if I'm asked to vote for a bill that doesn't have a public option," he began. "I support a public option so that individuals are no longer stuck in insurance markets with no choices and no competition to bring down costs... I want to end unfair rationing by insurance company executives, like the small business owner who came into my District office because to complain about not being able to purchase insurance for herself or her employees because she had ovarian cancer ten years ago... As vice-chairman of the small business committee, I understand the need to reduce health care costs for small businesses. Only 62% of all small firms (less than 200 employees) offer health insurance, as compared to 99% of large firms. When they do offer insurance, it costs roughly 18% more than for larger employers."

You can find the rest of Specter's real health care record at DownWithTyranny. Meanwhile, please join us in the comments section below for our chat with Joe Sestak and Ned Lamont. After you've heard them out, if you'd like to sign up as a volunteer or donate to Rep. Sestak's election fund, you can do it on his website.

C&L is honored to have proud progressives Congressman Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania, and 2006 Democratic nominee for US Senate from Connecticut Ned Lamont, joining us for a live chat at 3 pm Pacific / 6 pm Eastern. The conversation will be wide-ranging, from health care and the economy to the upcoming 2010 mid-term elections. Ned Lamont endorsed Joe Sestak in the Pennsylvania Senate race earlier today.

Everyone is invited; if you haven't registered as a commenter here you will need to do that at this link in order to participate.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (77)

PLAYS: (189)

There is an irony on display here as a U.S. Senator describes how a colleague cannot use the same loophole he himself used to get a second electoral chance. Sen. Joe Lieberman lost the 2006 Connecticut Democratic primary to political neophyte Ned Lamont, yet was able to form a bogus political party (of one) and run as an Independent. Lieberman went on to win in November as the de facto Republican candidate. Connecticut is one of a handful of states which does not have a so-called "Sore-Loser Law" which permits these kind of shenanigans to take place.

Sen. Arlen Specter echoed this in his press conference today that the primaries have become a haven for extremists in both political parties. Neither seemed all that thrilled with the new democracy, something which no doubt offends their sense of entitlement.

DOWNLOAD (36)

PLAY (61)

A voice of reason explains what went down yesterday and why regarding the continuing saga of Joe Lieberman.

A bit of background first for those who don't remember: Ned Lamont is the Greenwich businessman who had the temerity to challenge Lieberman for the U.S. Senate in 2006 as a Democrat and defeated him in the August primary before losing to the then de facto Republican candidate Lieberman in the November General Election. The win in the primary by Lamont is regarded by many as the greatest political upset of recent U.S. political history. Lamont had next to no political experience prior to the race, which consumed much of the political landscape in the summer of 2006, and was the catalyst for a resurgent Democratic party which swept into power in both the House and the Senate.

As one of the group of bloggers Lieberman and his campaign despised -- a distinction we carried proudly -- hearing Lamont give his impressions carries much more weight than any of the chattering class. And he did not disappoint.

The very first line was direct and to the point, that this wasn't about retribution but about approving bad behavior, and that this was "probably the wrong move". Lamont's points about Lieberman being "All war, all the time" nailed him, as did Lieberman's constant attacks on Obama during the presidential campaign, that he was and has been "in the Republican column" for a while now, Lieberman's "recalcitrant behavior", the victimization. Ned rattled off his transgressions with a deftness and an aplomb he really didn't possess in 2006. But for all that he could still see Obama's likely view that Lieberman is a distraction he doesn't need right now with so many other things going on. Lamont didn't sound convinced but could see the logic. In the end, when Alison Stewart asked Ned Lamont if he'll run again he replied "Never say never." A very good sign indeed, considering Lieberman is now only slightly more popular in Connecticut than George Bush.

The FBI knew back in 2006 that Ned Lamont's campaign did not hack into Joe Lieberman's campaign website, but for some mysterious reason, we are just now getting their official statement. Emptywheel at FDL wants to know what about Holy Joe's six figure slush fund?

In thoroughly unsurprising news today, the Ned Lamont campaign was cleared of any wrong-doing in the crash of Lieberman's server leading up to primary day in 2006. The Stamford Advocate reports that the FBI determined--way back on October 25, 2006--that Lieberman's campaign bears all responsibility for the server crash.

Case closed, right?

No. Not on the outstanding legal issues arising from the campaign, anyway.

As you might recall, the Lamont campaign filed an FEC complaint, coincidentally just two days before the whole server crash case was closed in October 2006, noting that Joe Lieberman had a campaign finance entry for "petty cash" expenditures that were way beyond the legal limits: $387,000 of "petty cash." Read on...

Lieberman spokesperson, Dan Gerstein, recounts a different incident with the website to respond to the FBI report, and it appears that the IT professional the campaign quoted in 2006 admitted to The New York Times that he really isn't that hip when it comes to matters of internet security.

Christy:

  (T)his week's Blue America guest is going to be none other than Ned Lamont - live, in the comments, right here at FDL tomorrow starting at 11:00 am PT/2:00 pm ET.  Answering your questions and stopping by to say hello to everyone.

[..]So please, drop by and say hello to Ned, and thanks for a job well done:  for having the integrity to ask the tough questions about the mess in Iraq; for daring to utter the word accountability at a time when the Washington establishment was shuffling around in the corner somewhere trying to make nice with the very people causing the problems; and for standing up for the concerns of average Americans on education and health care and poverty and so many other issues over the course of the campaign.

 You gotta hand it to the Lieberman camp. They played the media like dupes---easy marks. When Holy Joe's site went down on the day of the election, we all knew what had happened because---we're bloggers and actually maintain websites. Check out my entries on 08/08/06 that followed the day. Now it's finally official.

The U.S. attorney's office and state attorney general have cleared former U.S. Senate candidate Ned Lamont and his supporters of any role in the crash of U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman's campaign Web site hours before last summer's Democratic primary. State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal confirmed the joint investigation "found no evidence of tampering or sabotage warranting civil action by my office." Both men declined to provide additional information, such as what might have happened to the site.

Calls to Lieberman went unanswered yesterday.

I remembered this clip of Matthews badgering Ned about the phony hack story like he had some magical influence to alter things---when really all Joe Lieberman had to do was pay a few bucks more and his website would have been fine. Will they all apologise now for their behavior? Will they?

Video-WMP Video-QT

Kos has more:

Lieberman and Dan Gerstein accomplished their mission, and they'll never have to answer for all the crap they pulled to make it happen -- from the many lies, to the hundreds of thousands of dollars in street money they spent without reporting to the FEC.

Christy from Firedoglake was just on CNN giving her analysis of Lieberman's win tonight.

Video - WMV  Video - QT

Christy was right on when she said Ned Lamont changed the conversation on the campaign trails to the failures in Iraq and the lack of accountability by the administration.

Holy Joe has some money issues going on. And---he didn't bother to show up for tonight's debate via Colin.

Ned Lamont and Alan Schlesinger will debate tomorrow night without the helpful presence of Joe Lieberman. I have Lieberman questions coming out my ears, and I will apparently never get to ask them. I mean, the people at Fox 61 and Quinnipiac University may feel spurned by the senator right now, but imagine how I feel. Lieberman has declined invitations to be on my show since his disastrous visit last March...read on

Obama 

Ned Lamont has waged an impressive grassroots campaign to give the people of Connecticut a choice in the November Senate election. He has a vision for his state and country, and his campaign has been about presenting that vision to Connecticut voters...read on

FDL

Evidently after the debate Lieberman walked up to Ned and said "You goddamn sonovabitch," and something to the effect of "how dare you run those direct mail pieces accusing me of voting for the energy bill in 2005 because of campaign contributions from the oil companies."  Joe's losing it....read on

Matt Stoller has a most excellent post from the debate today...

MJS says Lieberman will now run as a Dependent.