Ned Lamont gets asked the Obama question

I attended a local Democratic Town Committee meeting last night here in Connecticut.  It was the meeting where a representative for each of the major Presidential candidates gives a little speech and then the floor opens up for questions.  Many of you have probably attended something like this in your town.  Well, ours was a little extra special because the representative for Barack Obama last evening was Ned Lamont.  

It was an interesting evening with only a little bit of what you might call breaking news , but it did allow me to reflect on what I have been thinking about this Presidential race.  And since no one around here has written a candidate diary in the last 7 seconds, I thought maybe I better.

I wish I had brought a pen so I could have jotted down some notes.  For one, I would have jotted down the name of the guy who represented John Edwards because he was really very good.  He brought with him Edwards' 76-page booklet on policies and every time someone asked a question about a particular issue, he would look it up and then respond, "Page 46-49... Universal Health Care.  John Edwards' proposes....."  It was quite funny and very effective as it clearly got the message across that Edwards' is out in front with real, detailed plans.  The other reps, including Mr. Lamont, really couldn't comment much on policy specifics.

I almost felt sorry for the young woman representing Hillary Clinton.  I couldn't really tell who the favorite candidate in the room was, but it was clear that the most critical questions were of Hillary's rep.  For an establishment front-runner, it sure seems Hillary is the one with the most to answer for.  A question that the rep clearly couldn't answer, and one that I have never seen answered well, is just what the heck does 35 years of experience mean?  The man who asked this question was pretty upset and said something to the effect that he had 35 years of experience too.  Why does she have the audacity to suggest she has more experience than the other two candidates?  Hillary's rep got in a pretty funny line to start with - she asked him if he was going to run - but then swung and missed on the real answer.  She basically denied that Hillary was doing this.  I wanted to leap up and remind her about the terrible fear-mongering terrorist attack comment from the other week and how Hillary and not so indirectly implied that only she had the experience to handle that hypothetical.  But.... the meeting was pretty civil overall and I didn't want to disrupt that.

OK... that leads me to Ned Lamont.  Ned first stated how he started out supporting Chris Dodd that Senator Dodd had clearly done himself and the state of Connecticut proud.  I think most of us here would agree.  He then went on to talk about supporting Barack Obama.  And, the conclusion I came away with was that he is for Barack for the same reason I am really... and it may disappoint the non-Obama supporters here... its just a feeling that Barack could be a special kind of leader.  I know non-supporters hate that explanation.  But that's where we are.

All three made the point many times that we need a Dem President in 2008 badly to begin dealing with each and every issue, starting with the war. And they also seemed to agree that the policy differences between the three were minimal.  It came down to who would be the most effective leader.  For Ned (and for me) that person is Barack.  And there is a bit of blind faith involved, I admit.  But that is true for all of them.  I think of Edwards, for instance, as he is the one I could see myself supporting easily if I thought he was going to be competitive in the coming weeks (but I just don't see it....).  It is hard to ignore that Edwards voted for things that he now campaigns vigorously against.  It wasn't just one thing... it was many.  If it was just the war, it wouldn't be as bad.  But, take the Bankruptcy bill for example.  Here was a chance to do exactly what he now spends most of his campaign talking about... standing up to the entrenched, corporate interests and protecting the average American.  And he didn't do it.  Why?  Now.. that vote, nor any of the other votes, disqualify Edwards for me.  I think he'd be great.  But it does lead me to believe that all of them require a bit of faith.  None of the them are perfect souls sent down from heaven to lead us to a Progressive Promised Land.

OK... what was the Obama question for Ned?  This is the one little piece of insight I can share - if you've read this far.  Ned was asked about the concern people had about Obama's support of his candidacy and did Ned's endorsement of Barack mean he was satisfied with Barack's support for him.  And Ned gave a great answer that may not assuage concerns about Barack, but does say a lot about Ned Lamont.  I don't have the exact quotes, so I'm paraphrasing...

To be blunt, he didn't do much for us.  I put a lot of Democratic Senators in a sticky situation.  I sat down with Hillary Clinton afterwards and she basically said - ok, you won, now what are we going to do with you?  Now, what Bill's problem was I don't know.  (The Clinton comment sort of confirmed what I had suspected.  The one they were most upset with was Bill Clinton.  He was clearly the biggest disappointment.) Actually, it was John Edwards who stuck his neck out the most.  But we are here now to pick who will be the best leader for our country.  That issue does not make much difference for this important decision.  And I have decided that Barack Obama would be the best President.

Again - I want to emphasize that these are not exact quotes.  I'm trying to go from memory of last night... but I think this sums it up pretty accurately.

I got a chance to shake Ned's hand and talk to him briefly afterward.  He basically admitted that with Obama there was a bit of a risk.  With Hillary, you know exactly what you are going to get.  It will be better, but....

And I knew exactly what he meant.  

With Obama, there is a risk, but....  

And, again, I knew exactly what he meant.

That's where we stand.  This is a time where a progressive movement could really take root in this country.  I'm no historian, but it seemed this country went through a progressive movement at the beginning of the 20th Century that led to a breakup of the trusts, increasing worker's rights, eventually giving women the right to vote.  Perhaps we are at the beginning of new progressive era.  But that era will need a special leader to convince more than just those of us that already visit a Progressive website.  There is a bit of a risk.  But, this country needs to take some risks right now.  We need big, bold change and I think Barack Obama is the one that could possibly do that.