You see, this story IS the lede in Tuesday's NY Times: "Blumenthal's Words Differ From His History."
I did do a couple of press events which included him, and produced a couple of pieces of campaign literature back when he was a State Representative or State Senator [Does it really matter at this point?] in Stamford, if I recall it correctly, about 24-26 years ago, give or take. Those pieces are somewhere in one of my older portfolios, and I made a decision, earlier this evening, not to take a look at them for the first time in over two decades. It'd just get me too upset. I'm probably still, at least a little bit, in denial about all of this, myself.)
A lot of politicians--even some well known ones...even some nationally prominent ones...Dem and GOP--have never really had good communications/press support. Some have never really been tested. Sometimes it's a combination of the two, with both problems feeding off the other.
(Frankly, I think even President Obama's always been a LOT better than the communications people around him. He's made them look good. Not the other way around. And, that is, to a much lesser extent, what's happened here. A good press/communications person would've dealt with this situation many, many years ago. Instead, it festered and grew. Textbook/case history of how NOT to handle political communications/p.r.)
I remember the comments about him being a Marine Sargeant, even back then.
The problem is the guy's never really been tested in a campaign before, and that's the damn truth. (Now that I think about it.)
Very regrettably, the diarist, kossack RachT, is profoundly accurate in their assessment of the situation, and that is somewhat of a qualified professional opinion, if I say so, myself. (I believe this is the most gratuitous statement I've ever made in a diary in the four years that I've been posting here.)
Blumenthal will be eaten alive in the general election in Connecticut...if he doesn't dropout, first. IMHO, THAT is for certain.
As we all know, Connecticut is a state that will elect Independents to statewide (Lowell Weicker) and national office (Joe Lieberman). (I have my own opinion about politics in that state--I live in NY now--but I'll keep them to myself tonight.) It also has some quirky campaign laws which will facilitate/enable someone such as its current senior Senator Chris Dodd or gubernatorial hopeful Ned Lamont if they opted to suddenly seek the Senate seat at the last moment.
I think Wednesday would be a great day for either one to make their announcement.
(I'll leave it to you in the comments to fill in the blanks.)
UPDATE: Kossack DisNoir36 is pretty upset with me in the comments, below. And, they provided this piece in rebuttal. I've reviewed all of the material, again, and it seems that, based upon all of the fact presented, Blumenthal and his staff did aid in the perpetuation of a significant myth about his military service. So, as much as I would really like to justify deleting this post, I can't. Here's the link (h/t to DisNoir36 for providing it), and by all means, weigh-in with your opinion(s):
In defense of Richard Blumenthal
By MICHAEL ROSTON
May. 18 2010 - 1:57 am
It looks like Richard Blumenthal is getting the `John McCain' treatment from the New York Times. The long-serving Attorney General of Connecticut who appeared to be a lock to replace Chris Dodd in the Senate and keep his seat blue is learning what happens when the Times decides to go live with a story built on the thinnest of reeds, caked up with newsroom editorializing and poorly reasoned innuendo.
Tonight's big `get' for Raymond Hernandez at the New York Times started as a breathless e-mail alert stating the following: "Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat who is running for the United States Senate from Connecticut, never served in Vietnam, despite statements to the contrary."
We're already off on a bad footing here. The Times in their news alert can't even come right out and say it was Dick Blumenthal who made statements to the contrary. That's like news alert editorial 101 - never in the passive voice. And if the Times can't keep their standards up in their e-mail alert, you have to imagine that the article itself is going to be terrible. Just like their exclusive on Senator McCain's implied affair and ethical improprieties with lobbyist Vicki Iseman that never managed to go anywhere...