<p>40% reporting </p>
<p>Lamont - 52%</p>
<p>Lieberman - 46%</p>
<p>Lamont's entire platform is "bring the troops home," but if you ask him when, he says "when it's time." Which is the same thing everyone from George W. Bush to Hillary Clinton to Barbara Boxer to John Kerry said/are saying. It's the same thing Lieberman says too. Everyone knows we can't bring the troops home right away, without cleaning up the damage we've done. Think Pottery Barn: "You break it, you buy it." Lamont is not any more anti-war than Ghengis Khan. Lamont's entire platform is simply "I'm not Lieberman." And that's not enough to be a member of the world's most powerful deliberative body. Sound bytes and commercials are enough to win a primary, but Lamont does not have the political IQ or intellectual caliber to win the November race. Lamont may claim to be a Democrat, but he's nothing more than a Republican political operative going undercover; he's practically sabatoging his own party.</p>
<p>And so, I cry. Haha.</p>
<p>no, i wasn't joking. maybe i should clarify, a lot of people are "anti-war" and say we should get out of Iraq. I agree with that. However, I think we are too far involved in the situation to just be "anti-war." Of course no one likes the war, no one likes that thousands of our own have been killed. And, I think we need to get out, but it's not that simple. Just pulling out would be disasterous for Iraq and the rest of the region.</p>
<p>Yougotjohn, I totally agree with you. I wish other people could see it the way you do.</p>
<p>Thanks. Look, every blogger and their mother and their local politician is saying, "We need to get out of Iraq." It's easy for someone to run on a platform that says "we need to get out of Iraq." Leiberman has the courage to go beyond eight syllables and add, "When Iraq is ready to defend itself, that is, and when our pull-out will not destabilize the Middle East, that is, and when we've cleaned up our mess." It's responsibility. Lamont may be a politician. But he's certainly not a policymaker.</p>
<p>^ Yes! Thank you! Someone else actually understands what I am saying.</p>
<p>Where's lilybloom and dima? Lets see what they have to say to that, huh?</p>
<p>Lieberman has lost the primary 52-48, with 94% of precints reporting. He has vowed to run as an independent in November.</p>
<p>Well, Lamont won. And for those of you who say Lieberman is a real Democrat: read this article: <a href="http://www.courant.com/news/local/northeast/hc-pbass0604.artjun04,0,7611693.column%5B/url%5D">http://www.courant.com/news/local/northeast/hc-pbass0604.artjun04,0,7611693.column</a></p>
<p>nooooo noooooooooooooooooooooooo</p>
<p>maybe Lieberman can go cry into the arms of President Bush now?</p>
<p>Congress did nothing to stop Bush from going into Iraq although they had the same information he had. Bush did what he thought was right, it was up to Congress to stand up for the people and tell us that he was doing wrong - they didn't, a lot of them have failed in their jobs as representatives of the American people. Now too few are willing to put any real pressure on Bush, letting him take his dear sweet time. I'm not saying get the troops out now. I'm saying we need a legitimate other party in Congress putting pressure on the administration - I'm willing to give Lamont a chance to be a member of that party, Lieberman has failed in that duty. Not that it matters, as I am a Virginia voter not a Connecticut one.</p>
<p>blah blah blah blah</p>
<p>i think the US is screwed, we cant even elect sensible people that at least have the balls to stand by their convictions.</p>
<p>thats probably the most sensible post all day. i guess you know how to put things into perspective.</p>
<p>yeap. i just get frustrated, i can't honestly say i'm a democrat or a republican, cause that no longer means a concept but rather an AGENDA</p>
<p>My problem with Lieberman isn't that he supports keeping troops in Iraq. I held that same position until quite recently, when I finally decided that we were no longer capable of doing any good. My problem with Lieberman is that he has said that people who criticize the president during wartime endanger our national security. That is the kind of thing I only expect to see from the idiot Bu****es who want to avoid any honest discussion of their policies, not from a member of the opposition party. I don't call that "standing by his convictions." I call that opposition to the basic principles of democracy.</p>
<p>gg lieberman gg</p>
<p>meh</p>
<p>i might be interpreting what lieberman said in the way i want to hear it, but to me it sounds like he's saying, in the face of such a global and powerful terrorist threat, it would be nice to have some SOLIDARITY and unity. </p>
<p>Petty bickering was cool in 3rd grade, i'm going to be a freshman in college and if you cant settle an arguement without raising your fists and calling names...</p>
<p>that elipse means we're headed in the wrong direction</p>
<p>Goooooooooooooo Lamont. Kick the conservative Bit*hes out of office.</p>
<p>lieberman will still win the seat- schlessinger (the repub. nominee) is a schmuck, and joe will pick up many republican votes because of that. also, most registered voters in CT are registered as independent, and they couldnt vote yesterday. joe will also win the majority of their votes as well (independents are typically more moderate).</p>
<p>again, while i consider myself to be very liberal, my vote is for joe.</p>
<p>^ yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! yeah,he's lost the primary but he WILL win in November. As long as the NYTimes stops publishing insanely biased pieces.</p>