Lamont Won - a key rhetorical distinction. If the vote in Connecticut was "agaiinst" anything - it was against Bush and his failures and the Incompetence Society he and his cronies foster. I desperately would like someone to explaiin to me why we have such difficulty in taking advantage of such moments as the result of the Connecticut primary to drive home the superiority of our ideas and the fact that recent events show that the Republicans are wrong and we were right - why is that so hard?
Yet - even here, and other outlets of "progressive" thought the election is couched in terms of Lieberman. With all due respect ot the Senator - who cares about him? What we care about is defeating Bushism - which is leading this country into a nightmare from which we may not recover.
This election provided a platform from which to articulate a powerful vision - one which the Republicans seized -( look at the comments of Snow and Cheney saying that the vote shows the electorate does not take Al Qaeda seriously).
Besides Wes Clark - where are our leaders saying this vote was a loss for Bush - a loss for Al Qaeda - a loss for terror? Why can't we say that the Bushies are losers - they are losing the War on Terror - and that unless America votes Democratic then terror [ all we have to say is - if you thought Katrina was bad - leave these clowns in charge and even worse will come to pass] will come and inflict horror on us all? Why is it so difficult to say over and over and over that the entire Iraq fiasco is such a disaster that Republicans must be removed from power as quickly as possible if America is to survive?
Why is that so hard?