This past Monday, I wrote a column for the Yale Daily News, which was linked to by Kos and on MyDD, as well as elsewhere.  In it, I laid out the case for Lamont and against Lieberman.  Today, the YDN published a rebuttal piece, written by the student who is leading Lieberman's (minimal) efforts on campus.  There are numerous problems with the piece.  I will address the specific, point-by-point ones below.  

Cross-posted at Yale Democrats Blog, MyDD, and My Left Nutmeg  

  Ned Lamont spoke last night (Monday, 2/27/06) to a meeting of the Yale Democrats and the Yale community at large.  Here is a summary of what he said, interspersed with some of my own comments.  He made a very good overall impression on the crowd of 80-100 people, mostly students.  He gave what is becoming his standard stump speech, followed by a brief Q & A session.  I think that he's getting very good at telling the crowd who he is, what he's about, and why Lieberman has to go.    

From the NY Times:

"But the portion of income that Americans save each month, on average, has now fallen to zero, according to the government. That leaves families with scant cushion; if the savings rate were higher, people could cover rising energy costs by cutting back on the amount of money they set aside."

http://nytimes.com/2005/08/17/business/17oil.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5094&en=d219a7957b93da59&a mp;hp&ex=1124251200&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1124251301-r6h6nHjinnaBWJbll9N KSw

seriousy.  0% savings rate.  Savings has to equal investment.  If domestic savings = 0%, then that means that 100% of investment comes from abroad.  Why has this not gotten more play on the air?  How on earth can anyone in their right mind think that such a lack of savings is sustainable??!!  And, most importantly, how can consumption/savings patterns be altered?