<p>well thats too bad</p>
<p>haha no need to feel "pity." Lamont may not win but that's the way i'm voting and i'm not basing my vote off of what a bunch of people on CC say.</p>
<p>Clinton can endorse Lieberman all he wants, but he won't get my vote.</p>
<p>Well I hope you don't base your vote on the propaganda Lamont has been spreading around either.</p>
<p>I don't oppose Lieberman just because of his position on videogames, I oppose him because of the way this position reflects on his lack of respect for the Constitution. If he's willing to just sweep away first amendment rights based on what he feels is his own best judgment, and not the will of the people or the will of science, then he's obviously not fit to contribute to the highest lawmaking body in the nation.</p>
<p>Lamont FTW!!!</p>
<p>So let's say polls continue the way they do: Lamont wins Democratic nomination, Lieberman goes as Independent and then loses the election. What now? Chris Dodd, the other Connecticut senator, is running for president in 2008, and could possibly vacate his seat (which is up in 2012) and Lieberman could go for that...or something else entirely. If your state does not want you to continue the same job after 18 years, perhaps it's time to find a different path.</p>
<p>Honestly that's a damn shame that you even think like that. Lieberman has done a good job for CT and I wouldnt want to see a blatant opportunist like Lamont in any sort of politics whatever.</p>
<p>lamont just doesnt have the background to be a US senator right now. he has just as much political experience as i do (aka none)</p>
<p>I don't live in Connecticut (at least not until the 26th!) so I can't really speak to what Lieberman's done for the state. I have, however, seen Lieberman's shift from being a respectable, middle of the road Democrat to becoming a power hungry, opportunist career politician. I don't think Lieberman is going to loose because of his sensible position of the war, but rather his unwillingness to voice constructive criticism to the republicans in control and his willingness to criticize democrats for finally standing for something. Also, with congressional approval ratings below 30%, being a Washington outsider is a good thing these days. I'm not sure who I'd vote for if I were in Connecticut now, but I do no that Lamont's lack of experience in public service is somewhat appealing in that he may be able to bring new life to an increasingly pathetic democratic party. </p>
<p>ps- Don't dismiss me as some raging liberal because I'm most definitely a moderate whose favorite senator is Chuck Hagel =)! Not to mention I’m from Georgia!</p>
<p>Sorry for not posting something relevant but...</p>
<p>To the OP: Your intentions are noble, but starting a discussion on politics in College Life is great fuel for a flamewar. All the "woo girls!" and "woo parties!" threads signal that there are a lot of immature people on this forum - and those aren't the type of people capable of carrying on a civilized politics debate/discussion.</p>
<p>To those of you actually posting mature, thoughtful comments: Good on you, keep it up.</p>
<p>^ that's why I'm a member of dailykos.com, however my account cannot be activated for a week. so here I am.</p>
<p>well either way a dem. wins so it's all good.</p>
<p>Compared to the population of Connecticut, Lieberman is not a Dem - he only pretends to be. If Lamont wins, then an actual Democrat will be on the ticket.</p>
<p>Seems to be a lose-lose for the Dems though. A Lieberman victory means that someone who is practically a GWB rubberstamp on foreign policy is back in office - a Lamont victory means Lieberman runs as an independent, perhaps scuttling both their chances.</p>
<p>All of the general election polls I've seen which include lieberman as an independent candidate still have either Lamont or Lieberman winning (there was a rasmussen reports poll but it's only available to subscribers right now). There's no need to fear! Come November 2006, CT will be represented by either a democrat or someone who's represented the state for years.</p>
<p>^^ Lieberman is a real democrat. </p>
<p>And now your buying into the propaganda, just like Lamont wants you to. Lieberman is NOT "practically a GWB rubberstamp on foreign policy" if you were to look at the facts, he has criticized the right and W numerous times over their handling of Iraq, Mid-East.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And where, exactly, would we find them? The Harvard forum?</p>
<p>^ ehh I already tried that.</p>
<p>Figures...Harvard is in Massachusetts after all -.-</p>
<p>Lieberman is willing to face the facts: We are a country at war. Although we are not directly affected besides gas prices, it seems like the majority of the Democrat party would rather pretend that we are not. Well, it's a little too late for that. Now is not the time to be anti-war, that would have been okay 3 yrs. ago. Lieberman is the only senator willing to face that, yes he is still critical of the war, just because he is saying we shouldn't pull out all at once means he is not a democrat? geez what is going on?!? Lamont's stance is completely illogical.</p>
<p>"Now is not the time to be anti-war, that would have been okay 3 yrs. ago"</p>
<p>ummm .... you're joking, right?</p>