Senator Lieberman,

As a Democrat (now former Democrat?), you ran against a challenger for Connecticut’s Senate seat. Your desire was to once again become the state’s Democratic nominee. Had you won the party’s nomination tonight, you would’ve expected your challenger, Ned Lamont, to fall in line with the party Democrats and support you as the Democratic Nominee. Time and time again in American politics, this has been the tradition — primary candidates who have lost their bid for the party’s nomination subsequently stand united with their party behind the duly-elected party nominee in the general election. Even George W. Bush and John McCain managed to shake hands and smile for the cameras after evidence of dirty push-polling tricks by the Bush campaign made the headlines. But that was so long ago. It’s a shame that politics has become so divisive these days that some candidates who have lost in their quest for their party’s nomination can no longer honor the rules of the game.

Your determination to now run as an independent clearly shows the world what we Democrats always knew about you — that as Democrats, we couldn’t count on you as a Democrat when the going got tough over the last several years. You call it cooperation, and ending the hostile nature of politics in Washington. Some would call it simple capitulation. How ironic it is then that by continuing your campaign for Senate in the face of the voters decision, you create the very hostile environment you claim you despise? Once again, you reveal that Democrats cannot count on you.

As Democrats, we needed you to stand up for us when financial corporations decided they wanted to make it tougher for those of us suffering from the weight of an unjust healthcare and local/federal taxation system to declare bankruptcy and gain a fresh start.

As Democrats, we needed you to step up to the plate and declare in the Terry Schiavo case that intimate and sometimes agonizing decisions that families have to deal with every day in this country regarding their most beloved have no place being decided in the House or Senate.

As Democrats, we needed you to stand up to those who would dismantle our Social Security system.

And as Democrats, we needed you to stand firm against a sitting president who would invade a sovereign nation and ignore the joint resolution of the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,’ which clearly stated that military force would be used as “necessary and appropriate in order to – 1. defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and 2. enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” Those conditions were not met, the UN inspectors were kicked out, and you supported (and continue to support) this administration’s cherry-picking of evidence to support a justification to send over a hundred thousand of our boys and girls to war, causing the death of over 2500 of them and the maiming and wounding of tens of thousands of others, not to mention the consequences on innocent Iraqi civilians.

As Democrats, we watched you fail to do any of these things, and those who paid for you to represent them in Washington tonight decided that you were not doing the job for which they paid. They elected to not renew your contract with Connecticut. This is the democratic process working. I urge you to respect the will of the voters and as a lifelong Democrat to support Connecticut’s legally-elected Democratic Nominee for Senator, Ned Lamont. This is your change to show Connecticut Democrats that you are a man of integrity and that you truly do not want to divide this country, let alone your home state. What a pleasant surprise it would be to see you at the “Show Of Unity” that State Democrats plan for 11am tomorrow morning in Connecticut. Will you be there and honor the will of Connecticut Democrats?

Some 7000 Connecticut voters switched their party affiliation to Democrat in order to be able to vote against Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Primary. In a few hours, we’ll find out whether or not that swing helped challenger Ned Lamont defeat Joe Lieberman.

This morning, Lieberman accused Lamont supporters of hacking the Lieberman website and asked the Connecticut district attorney and “state and federal authorities” to begin a criminal investigation. Lamont, responding to a challenge by Lieberman, responded, noting on his website:

“If Senator Lieberman’s website was indeed hacked, we had absolutely no part in it, denounce the action, and urge whoever is responsible cease and desist immediately,” Lamont says in a message on his Web site. “It is our sincerest wish that everyone planning to vote for Ned Lamont or Joe Lieberman does so today.”

Lieberman’s campaign spokeswoman noted that the attack was a “denial of service” attack, and then noted that a virus had been placed on the website through a “SQL Injection” attack. If this is true, Lieberman needs a new website administrator. Denial of Service attacks can be filtered by the hosting provider within a matter of minutes, and a SQL Injection attack is easily stopped with a simple ruleset provided by mod_security. The claim that their website has been offline for over 24 hours because of these two incidents is quite outrageous. A quick restore from backup and filtering of the attacking addresses should have had this site back up and running in an hour or so.

I don’t know if anyone has noted the possibility that Lieberman has, himself (or his staff), brought the site down to garner sympathy as polls show the gap between he and Lamont narrowing? It certainly gives Lieberman something visible to complain about (not that he ever needed anything truly substantial to complain about), and offer up another excuse why he will run as an independent should he lose the primary.

Connecticut Democrats are already planning a show of unity, standing behind whomever should win the Primary.

I wonder for whom the Clintons will campaign in the general election if Lamont wins today — Ned Lamont (D) or Joe Lieberman (I)?

While you’re waiting on election results to see just how angry at least one state is by a representative that has chosen to lie down with the Bush Administration, check out Newt Gingrich’s take on the CT Democratic Primary, where he so carefully uses the word “insurgents” to describe those who would vote against Joe Lieberman. Here’s one blogger’s reaction to those comments. Nice one, Newt… This isn’t Democracy at its best — American citizens looking to fire a guy who has looked after his own interests instead of those he is paid to represent, it’s an insurgency. Thanks for deliberately lumping American citizens exercising their right to vote in with those whom you consider terrorists.

Only 900 more days before we throw George W. Bush and the rest of his crew out of Washington. In the meantime, we now return you to the culture of lies and corruption…

There’s a great piece at Salon today by Colin McEnroe about the whole Joe Lieberman vs. Ned Lamont affair. Actually, it’s more about Joe than Lamont, and provides a nice history of Joe’s Republican-leaning indiscretions. Meanwhile, the results of a new poll can be found over at the Hartford Courant (the paper that endorsed Lieberman over Lamont this past weekend). Editor’s Note: The poll and endorsement previously linked to from this site have been mysteriously removed from the Hartford Courant’s website, so the links have been removed as of 10-17-2006. It shows Lamont gaining even more traction over Lieberman, with 54 percent of voters supporting him vs. 41 percent for Joe. So much for Clinton magic. A massive 65 percent of voters said their vote “is mainly against Lieberman.” Does anyone else think that is a bellwether for the Republicans in the House and Senate this November?

It appears Joe’s creation of the “Lieberman for Connecticut” party was a good idea, as it looks like he might just lose this primary. Ned Lamont is going to have his work cut out for him should he win next Tuesday. With all of Connecticut voting instead of just Democrats, Lamont will have to bring independent voters into his camp… That is, unless Joe does the honorable thing and drops out after losing the primary.

Yeah, right…