Debate Postmortem

MSNBC: (4.00 / 1)

Sen-elect Lamont: 73%
Bush Sec of War: 25%

---

by: hardcrad @ Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 18:45:50 PM CDT

NBC30 Web Poll (0.00 / 0)

Dont forget to vote in the Poll and post comments:

http://www.nbc30.com/news/9471030/detail.html

---

by: JET_powered @ Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 18:48:26 PM CDT

Point, set and Match (4.00 / 1)

Lamont did much better than I expected.  His rebutle showed he has more in the chamber than jus Iraq. 

---

by: Publius @ Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 18:50:28 PM CDT

Ned.... (0.00 / 0)

sounded more real.  Even the courant editor who commented before the debate on C-Span, said that Lamont had almost no experience speaking before an un-friendly audience.  But I think he very well, he found his groove at the halfway mark.

But it goes to show that Joe has nothing to offer, considering that he had to go negative in the first 2 minutes.

---

by: JET_powered @ Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 18:50:44 PM CDT

Yeah (0.00 / 0)

Pazniokas' pre-debate comment was a great set up for Ned's superior performance!

---

by: BranfordBoy @ Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 19:02:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Watch Pazniokas' interview (4.00 / 1)

http://www.spazeboy.net/2006/07/local-debate-video-hq/

and other videos here!

|Spazeboy.net|Spazeboy's Guide to Political Videoblogging|

---

by: spazeboy @ Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 19:07:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Too Negative (0.00 / 0)

What's all that negative bullshit about healthcare and futures and kids and education?

/snark

|Spazeboy.net|Spazeboy's Guide to Political Videoblogging|

---

by: spazeboy @ Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 18:55:40 PM CDT

Just to repeat what I said in the live thread. (4.00 / 1)

The opening statements really scared me in the first minutes Ned Lamont looked poor, starting off with staring in the wrong direction for the beginning of his opening statement to shifting his eyes to the side and downwards and slightly to the side (never do that. NEVER do that!).

But he buckled down and really gave some good hits. There were a few points that I wished he would have rebutted, such as the fact that his media guy helped get Bush in office because of his work for the Green Party.

I'd say he won this debate, 60-40, out of context. If you take such factors as the fact that this is Lamont's first real time on the national stage, as well as the fact that Lieberman has honed his debating skills for 18 years in Senate and more as a lifelong politician, this has got to be a crushing defeat for Lieberman. Anything less than making Lamont look like an idiot would have been a failure; clearly, this was a huge failure for the Senator.

Social libertarian.

---

by: Quarterly Prophet @ Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 18:58:46 PM CDT

Great Job Ned! (4.00 / 1)

thank you

---

by: dad @ Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 19:02:05 PM CDT

Didn't see it all, but... (0.00 / 0)

...what I did see was Ned looking calm and reasoned, and Joe looking concerned.  I agree with others who stated that as a 18 year US Senator and former VP candidate, anything less than a floor-mopping by Joe of Ned would really be a floor-mopping by Ned of Joe.  Joe got in a couple of points, but he needed a knockout and didn't get it.  The spinathon started at 8:01 pm, and I anticipate a good sized bump for Ned.  The trick will be sustaining the momentum from tonight for another month.

---

by: elmcitykid @ Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 19:21:39 PM CDT

lovin' it (0.00 / 0)

after lieberman's piss-poor showing i suspect that he'll be asking for more debates after this. to think, this guy sat at a table opposite dick cheney in 2000 and he couldn't even do anything impressive in the debate tonight.

i do wish that ned would stop making his eyeballs look HUGE everytime he talks though. it's like the way i hated how kerry used to swipe the side of his nose when he used to debate too, but i guess those habits i can't complain and they can't change.

more debates! let's kick this guy's ass even more!!!!

"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die." - Teddy Kennedy

---

by: bartletispresident @ Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 19:27:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't think it was a sound trouncing (0.00 / 0)

but, Ned did better, which is much worse for Lieberman.  I think everyone expected Lieberman to win, big-time.  That clearly didn't happen.  There is room for debate (not with CT-CIA), Ned could have done some things better.  All in all though, Ned shocked a lot of people, including me.  I can understand why Joe is running away from the primary.

---

by: Publius @ Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 19:35:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Local matters (0.00 / 0)

Somebody ought to tell Joe that in local issues people don't have time to go back and forth like Joes friends in Washington. I know - I am a School Board member - and we don't get paid either. We don't ask each other which party you belong to. The party stays in the hall.

---

by: oriole fan @ Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 19:51:00 PM CDT

angry joe, goes (0.00 / 0)

Senator Lieberman stormed out of the debate early, barely answering questions from the local media. He was hearing a lot about his anger during the debate and called it a day. Ned stuck around for questions for about 20 minutes. The result... Sean Smith, Senator Lieberman's campaign manager, fielding questions from a single reporter and Ned swamped by the press.

http://nedlamont.com/blog

---

by: dad @ Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 19:54:21 PM CDT

Lieberman sounded like (0.00 / 0)

an angry Elmer Fudd-trying to be a tough guy doesn't work when you are a 5 foot tall guy with a whiny voice

---

by: chris l @ Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 20:01:19 PM CDT

and another thing (0.00 / 0)

Lieberman made a comment about Lamont being for free trade in the past-does the school board in Greenwich vote on trade agreements? Joe has to reacquaint himself with the truth

---

by: chris l @ Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 20:15:26 PM CDT

Even if it's a technical draw, the decision goes to Ned (0.00 / 0)

Let me begin by saying I'm a pessimist when I watch debates. I hardly ever see the good points of the candidate I root for, because I've usually already heard the best lines before the debate.

The biggest question is not what substantive answer was better to a question, or who was correct on points and details. It matters to the base but it doesn't address the visuals and the emotional impact of the event.

The key thing is what will be most memorable about the debate? Will it be Ned's nerves, which only lasted a few moments - or Lieberman's petulance, his angry interruptions and out of order rebuttals. Joe acted like a king faced with a commoner. From that, we get "This is not Fox News" - probably the best soundbyte of the night.

The fact is that Ned went the distance in the debate. He didn't break down, in fact he got better as the debate went on, and did a great job with his closing remarks. Lieberman was clearly on the attack during the debate, and he was unable to deliver a blow that broke Lamont.

Now there is no denying that Lamont is a contender.

That said, I think Lieberman got some hits out of this. Since he was on the attack nearly the whole time, some of that crap is going to stick on the wall. You can tell what the next round of negative attack ads will say: Lamont doesn't have a plan for Iraq, won't tell us his financial records, voted with Republicans in Greenwich, etc. But Lieberman is fighting a losing battle on that angle - his negatives will go up just as fast if not faster than Lamont's. Any depressed turnout due to negative ads does not work in his favor.

I thought Ned hit some good points, in general looked like he was familiar with the issues and able to address them. Even better was his ability to respond to Lieberman's attacks on the fly, particularly on earmarks. And his "can't have it both ways" remark on Lieberman's Monday announcement was very good. Finally, the last lines were inspiring - the appeal to idealism and hope. After 18 years, Lieberman can't pretend he represents any new hope.

To summarize, Ned comes out looking better. Lieberman comes out looking worse. If you delve into the facts of the debate, Ned also wins, which is gravy.

---

by: OrangeTownBlueDem @ Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 20:17:47 PM CDT

This is my diary entry for today, but since I'm still relatively new to this site (as a contributor, at least) , I'm posting it as a comment here, because I doubt it will get read otherwise (0.00 / 0)

Lieberman won (if this were a general election debate) ... but it wasn't!

Ok, I know I'm known for the long rants, and this won't be as long as some of the others, but I promise it's the post you'll have the most fun reading tonight.

Here's how it breaks down: if an observer from another state without any strong opinions tuned in just to see a microcosm of the fracture in the Democratic Party over this war, then that person would have said that Lamont, a political novice, got his ass handed to him by a seasoned veteran of many nationally-televised debates.

**However**, a Connecticut Democrat (which, by the way, is not the same thing as a Democrat in the South or the Midwest) who is pretty likely to think this war was a bad decision, was just plain angry at Joe Lieberman for using clever debating tactics, spin, and trickery that sounded like it was borrowed from the GOP (IN FACT, some of it WAS! - see # 5 Below) to attack Lamont.

I *was* deliberative about the race (and I smashed Lamont in a recent thread about the AFL-CIO endorsement), but tonight I was screaming things at my TV screen and cursing Lieberman, and he did nothing tonight but alienate the very voters he should have been trying to reach so that he can be home-free after the primary.

And NOW, on to things I wanted Lamont to say to Lieberman that he didn't:

*(1)* "You claim your strength is 'working with the opposite side to get things done for the people of Connecticut' ... I come from Greenwich, Republican capital of the world - the richest city in America where Democrats could fit in a phonebooth downtown.  How could I get elected to that city council if I couldn't appeal to people on the other side.  Moreover, you criticize me for working with them and call me  a flip-flopper, but when you do it, it's "to get things done" ... you're a hypocrite!

Oh, and P.S., pal, You're citing the Greenwich paper for your claims about my voting record - why don't you just cite Bill O'Reilly for God's sake.

*(2)* "Joe, if you're so great about working with people of diverse political persuasions, how come you can't get any other Senators of note to endorse you unconditionally in this primary.  If they love working with you so much, how come they don't seem to excited to keep working with you."

*(3)* [After one of about 10,000 interruptions from Joe Lieberman while Lamont was speaking] "Joe, stop interrupting me --- you must really be scared of losing that Senate seat to me, huh?"

*(4)* After Joe said the Energy Bill had problems, which he "introduced legislation to fix" - Cue Ned: "Folks, here's yet another example of how Joe tries to pretend he's a Democrat - 'introducing legislation' (insert quote hand-gesture to mock Lieberman here) in the U.S. Senate is the biggest BS line that Joe and other career politicians in Washington like him use to cover their asses after they make a vote that will anger their constituents - in a Republican majority Senate, introducing legislation to take away giveaways to oil companies has about as much likelihood of passage as a resolution to legalize gay marriage across the country.  So Joe can say, 'Hey, I introduced legislation' but we all know it will die in committee - ***He probably only introduced that legislation so he could use it in the debate tonight.***  The fact is, when the chips were down and his party - the Democratic party - my party - needed Joe and called on him to vote against a huge piece of Republican legislation, Joe hung his party and its values out to dry in order to curry favor with the Bush administration."

*(5)* "I find it funny Joe uses the line, 'Now there you go again ...' not once, but twice - didn't he steal that from some other politician --- hmm, I can't remember who - OH, WAIT, THE PATRON SAINT OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY - RONALD WILSON REAGAN!!! - BORROWING THEIR VALUES IS BAD ENOUGH, NOW YOU HAVE TO BORROW THEIR TACTICS, TOO?"

*(6)* [An Aside] --- Ned, what was with that last question, dude?  "Is it time for a change?" - What the hell did you think he was going to say, "Yeah, you know, I think so - you win Ned, I quit"???  Ned, if you're reading this, please fire the adviser that gave you that one, or if you came up with that yourself, please hire me, and I will provide you a million better things to ask Joe.

*(7)* "Joe, you use my wealth to slander me, but your money comes from lobbyists and PACs - and as so many people have been trying to make clear, the oil lobby has too much money in Washington - innumerable campaign donors - individuals and groups alike, have much of their investment portfolios wrapped up in oil - Is that why you voted for that energy bill/free giveaways to big oil bill? --- did the lobbyists and the PACs, dressed all fancy in their suits, come a-knocking?  Isn't my wealth a help, not a hindrance, in that I can always follow my conscience when I'm Senator - will you pledge to stop using it in negative attacks on me?"

Anyone here can feel free to add more, but here's my prescription for both candidates: Ned Lamont needs to learn to debate and to perform on TV, and Joe Lieberman needs to mend fences with his base - *fast* - because he did nothing but piss them off tonight.

---

by: CTBob79 @ Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 20:51:42 PM CDT

good post Bob (0.00 / 0)

:)

---

by: chris l @ Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 20:58:21 PM CDT

Thanks ;) (0.00 / 0)

I try! :)

---

by: CTBob79 @ Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 21:12:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's how I framed the debate to NBC30 via their web page (4.00 / 2)

The page that asked us to vote for the winner of the debate and send comments to them.

Ned Lamont reminds me of Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith goes to Washington".  At first the Greenwich businessman looked a little shaky on his opening statements but about half way through his opening remarks Mr. Lamont found his confidence and came on strong.  My favorite response was when he told Sen. Lieberman, who was rudely interrupting him, "This is not Fox News, sir!"  That was a winning one-liner.  Mr. Lamont's closing remarks were excellent.  We need a man of Mr. Lamont’s character, sincerity, energy, and freshness of vision in the US Senate to oppose the corrupt Bush Administration and the Neo-con imperial agenda.

---

by: Larkspur @ Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 21:17:42 PM CDT

Debate postmortem (0.00 / 0)

I thought Lamont came off looking a little scared at first but he settled down.  But I think that just goes to inexperience.  Joe didn't blow up.  In order to Ned to win he needed to dazzle or Joe needed to implode.  Neither happened which I think tips it to Joe. 
His refusal to release his tax returns is going to become a major issue. 

---

by: wamer @ Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 07:40:53 AM CDT

Lamont will grudgingly do that (0.00 / 0)

Lieberman's prying into Lamont's and his wife's personal affairs is what ticked Ned off. Lamont wanted to stay on the issues and Joe went personal, as always.

Rovian tactics.

---

by: Scarce @ Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 08:24:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Tax returns (0.00 / 0)

If he releases them it defuses the issue and it goes away, the longer he waits I think the more it works to Joe's favor.

---

by: wamer @ Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 08:26:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

how and why? (0.00 / 0)

I don't care about a candidate tax returns.

I do care about the fact that they are Democrats. I vote FOR Democrats.

Lieberman has stated that if the Democrats in CT don't vote for him, he will respond by running as a third party.

He seems to have forgotten what it means to be a Democrat.

His votes over the last six years showed it. His actions on this election confirm it.

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 17:38:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

According to Lakoff's reframing theory, Lamont should not fall for Lieberman's trap (0.00 / 0)

If Lamont releases his tax returns, Lieberman won.  If Lamont allows the press to dog him on this issue, Lieberman wins.

So what is Lamont to do?

Based on George Lakoff's theory, Ned needs to reframe the debate on this issue.  1) Don't use tax return in his counter argument.  In his book, "don't think of an elephant" Lakoff says if you reuse the Republican talking points in youe counter argument, you are reenforcing Republican frames.  2) What is the larger issue Lieberman is hinting at?  That issue is that Lieberman is afraid/jealous of Lamont's money and his popular support among the netroots.  Lieberman's donors have maxed out for the primary and he has no real grassroots support to draw volunteers and contributions from.  Lamont should counter, as he has in the recent past, that he would settle on a spending limit for both him and Lieberman.  And Lamont should turn the tables on Lieberman by asking the press to ask Lieberman, "Why senator are you afraid of a spending limit for the primary race?"

---

by: Larkspur @ Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 21:46:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

smart! (0.00 / 0)

---

by: mikect @ Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 22:19:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]