New Republic's Peretz: Bill Clinton's appearance "began Lieberman's decline"
In a post on The New Republic's weblog The Plank, editor-in-chief Martin Peretz blamed Bill Clinton for Sen. Joseph Lieberman's defeat in the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary. Peretz wrote: "Lieberman and [Ned] Lamont were running dead even in the polls, more or less. Clinton's appearance began Lieberman's decline. Within two or three days, Lieberman was down by ten points."
In an August 8 post on The New Republic's weblog The Plank, editor-in-chief Martin Peretz blamed former President Bill Clinton for Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's defeat in the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary. Lamenting that his own August 7 Wall Street Journal op-ed "did not ... help Joe very much," Peretz commented that "[w]orse can be said of Bill Clinton's stumping in Connecticut for Joe," which Peretz said had led to a sharp drop in Lieberman's support. "When Clinton came into the state," Peretz wrote, "Lieberman and [businessman Ned] Lamont were running dead even in the polls, more or less. Clinton's appearance began Lieberman's decline. Within two or three days, Lieberman was down by ten points." He then asserted that -- contrary to the "nostalgia" in the Democratic Party for Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) -- "many" people "in the party and out" actually think that "the Clintons are a nightmare."
Peretz further suggested that the "common wisdom" that "[former presidential candidate] Al Gore would have won in 2000 had he embraced Clinton more" was wrong: "[L]ook at what happened to Joe," he wrote.
Peretz's August 8 post on The New Republic's weblog The Plank:
I was for Joe Lieberman. I wrote an article about the race between him and Ned Lamont in Monday's Wall Street Journal. It was not neutral. But, though it got plenty of attention in the blogs and on television, it did not, alas, help Joe very much. Worse can be said of Bill Clinton's stumping in Connecticut for Joe (and Hillary's endorsement, too.) When Clinton came into the state, Lieberman and Lamont were running dead even in the polls, more or less. Clinton's appearance began Lieberman's decline. Within two or three days, Lieberman was down by ten points. (In the last few days of the campaign, Lieberman recovered considerably ... but not enough.) I know there's some nostalgia in the Democratic Party for Clinton and for Hillary, too. But for many, in the party and out, the Clintons are a nightmare. A nightmare, as James Joyce said, from which we are trying to awake. The common wisdom is that Al Gore would have won in 2000 had he embraced Clinton more or had he allowed Clinton to embrace him. Well, look at what happened to Joe.
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
not the Clinton bear hug.
Joe Lieberman was endorsed by most of the Foxites, Ann Coulter, and Tom Delay. I believe those endorsements had a negative effect.
Joe would have lost by more if it weren't for Clinton.
This is the same specious explanation as the recent "proof" of a liberal media, re: Bush's plummetting poll numbers.
If the media had a Conservative bias,how could his numbers be dropping?
They just weren't dropping as quickly as they would have been with a more fully informed public.
Bring back the Fairness Doctrine. [link to en.wikipedia.org]
I know I'm beating a dead horse, but if the press had been doing its job the past 5 years, Bush's poll numbers would be down in the single digits, and Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Karl Rove would be in jail.
Whenever something bad (in their opinion) happens, a con immediately assumes it had to have been caused by a Clinton. That limited cognitive ability is one of the defining attributes of a con.
The rightwingnut corporate media shills are scratching their heads so hard over this one, they're drawing blood . . . now they have to reach for the bread-and-butter play in their playbook: blame Clinton.
If they'd just think for a moment instead of making excuses, its not so hard to figure out: Candidate {A} is against an unpopular war. Candidate {B} is for that war. Perhaps 60% of residents of a certain state where candidates {A} and {B} are running to represent said state in the Senate are against this unpopular war. Now . . . which candidate will the voters see as reflecting their views, and thus are more likely to vote for?
I'm just waiting to hear accusations by Faux, WaPo, MSNBC, CNN, WSJ, and the rest of the rightwing media alleging voting machine tampering . . .
If Bill hadn't have had sexual relations with Monica, Joe would still be in office, Osama would be dead, the terrorists would have lost, Iraq would be a peace, and the world would love us.
Or something like that...err....
Mr. Peretz is so deluded it boggles my mind that he is an editor of a megazine, even the New Republic. he is living in a world of make believe with the rest of his GOP pals where there is no distinction between fact and fiction.
Liar? Idiot? Both?
But he failed to note that during that same time, Lindsay Lohan was photographed, on several occasions, in a bikini. Coincidence? I think not! If she had only put her clothes on, Lieberman might have won, but the liberal media kept publishing those pictures.
that's the reason Joe lost. Jebus, it's not that difficult to figure out.
LIBEBERMAN'S NUMBERS STATED TO GO UP WHEN CLINTON CAME IN.
I am so sick of hearing all the national press talk about Lieberman's loss without reflecting or knowing what people in our state have experienced with Senator Lieberman. As a few people have noted in other threads, Lieberman has all-too-frequently been caught up in his own ego rather than concentrating on working for our best interests. When he ran for VP, he refused to take himself out of the senatorial race, despite the certainty that had he won, his seat would have gone to a Republican appointed by our corrupt Republican-then governor. He was the only Democrat to vote for the Bush-Cheney energy bill; he has not fought for health care issues in any profound way. The Iraq war is a big issue, but not the only one. His decision to run as an independent is consistent with what has become his all-too-familiar focus on what is best for him rather than respecting the will of the people he represents.
And BTW, Bill Clinton is very popular in this state, and if anything, would have raised L:eberman's poll numbers, but by now, we have all had our own dose of Lieberman on which to base our votes.
I totally agree. I think the huff and puff against Lamont shows a ridiculous disrespect for the voters in Connecticut. Let people vote as they choose, let Connecticut decide what is best for Connecticut.