Something is stirring in Connecticut-- both anti-war and pro-woman--
...where Ned Lamont, a truly progressive Democrat, has challenged Joe Lieberman successfully enough to be guaranteed a spot on the primary ballot this fall.
Lieberman must be pretty dissatisfied with his own tactics right about now. Borrowing a page from Bush & Co, he tried his hand at creating expectations, but instead of lowering them for himself, he set a pretty high bar for Lamont, twice what he needed to get on the ballot. Ooops! Lamont surpassed even Lieberman's intentionally high expectation of getting 30% of the delegate votes when he garnered 33%! Incredible!
There is a lot of buzz lately, not just in the blogosphere, but also in the MSM, about the Democrats' chances for taking either house of Congress this fall. If tonight's result is any indication, the odds are at least even/steven, if not better for, the Democrats to recapture at least one house; but let's be clear... if it happens, it won't be because of anything done by the consultants advising the Democratic leadership. No, it will happen because of the netroots, and the organizing power of Firedoglake, and MyDD, and Digby, and the Connecticut blogs, among others, because they were able to inform, organize and inspire the troops on the ground.
So, what was it, really, that caused the netroots to swarm, and target Lieberman so fiercely? Was it really all about the war and Lieberman's continually providing cover for the Republican party? Or was it the dissatisfaction at feeling ignored* in small Connecticut towns? Or that Lieberman is simply a primary enabler and appeaser of the GOP? Sure, all of those things. But, Jane Hamsher also attributes it to three words: "a short ride," and I think she's right. Lieberman just doesn't get it, and apparently, neither do his advisors.
Why is it so easy for a man like Lieberman to say something stupid and insensitive like "it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital?" He simply doesn't get what's wrong with suggesting that a Catholic hospital's principle should take precedence over a rape victim's need for standard health care. [Like those pharmacists who want to decide which prescriptions they will fill. Get into another line of work!] With that short sentence, Lieberman demonstrated that he-- and the rest of the lip-service-only liberals on women's rights-- have sorely misunderestimated the fury that is rising in women everywhere... because of the assaults on our autonomy and because of the grossly mistaken decision to let GWB wage war. Among other things.
* "We asked for a visit from Lieberman in February and we’re still waiting for a call back. Southbury proudly casts 5 votes for Ned Lamont." quote from the convention via Firedoglake
Lieberman must be pretty dissatisfied with his own tactics right about now. Borrowing a page from Bush & Co, he tried his hand at creating expectations, but instead of lowering them for himself, he set a pretty high bar for Lamont, twice what he needed to get on the ballot. Ooops! Lamont surpassed even Lieberman's intentionally high expectation of getting 30% of the delegate votes when he garnered 33%! Incredible!
There is a lot of buzz lately, not just in the blogosphere, but also in the MSM, about the Democrats' chances for taking either house of Congress this fall. If tonight's result is any indication, the odds are at least even/steven, if not better for, the Democrats to recapture at least one house; but let's be clear... if it happens, it won't be because of anything done by the consultants advising the Democratic leadership. No, it will happen because of the netroots, and the organizing power of Firedoglake, and MyDD, and Digby, and the Connecticut blogs, among others, because they were able to inform, organize and inspire the troops on the ground.
So, what was it, really, that caused the netroots to swarm, and target Lieberman so fiercely? Was it really all about the war and Lieberman's continually providing cover for the Republican party? Or was it the dissatisfaction at feeling ignored* in small Connecticut towns? Or that Lieberman is simply a primary enabler and appeaser of the GOP? Sure, all of those things. But, Jane Hamsher also attributes it to three words: "a short ride," and I think she's right. Lieberman just doesn't get it, and apparently, neither do his advisors.
Why is it so easy for a man like Lieberman to say something stupid and insensitive like "it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital?" He simply doesn't get what's wrong with suggesting that a Catholic hospital's principle should take precedence over a rape victim's need for standard health care. [Like those pharmacists who want to decide which prescriptions they will fill. Get into another line of work!] With that short sentence, Lieberman demonstrated that he-- and the rest of the lip-service-only liberals on women's rights-- have sorely misunderestimated the fury that is rising in women everywhere... because of the assaults on our autonomy and because of the grossly mistaken decision to let GWB wage war. Among other things.
* "We asked for a visit from Lieberman in February and we’re still waiting for a call back. Southbury proudly casts 5 votes for Ned Lamont." quote from the convention via Firedoglake
posted by Karen M at 6:58 PM
5 Comments:
Thank you Karen M, my impulse is to give Joe the single-digit victory salute. I think that's how another FDLer put it.
Lieberman seems to agree with certain unnamed Catholic activists who suggest that the "dignity" of the rapist's spermatazoaspawn is more important than the dignity, health, safety and psychological well-being of us, our women friends and G** forbid, family.
These activists seem to be in the minority. A recent Quinnipiac poll had 75% of all Catholics in CT supporting a law that required Catholic hospitals to dispense the meds. In fact there seems to be overwhelming support for the law regardless of party or religious background.
Thank you, Both, for checking out the link in my comment at firedoglake!
Our intent here is not exactly the same as at Firedoglake, but that site certainly makes the job here easier, and more fun. And because I think there is some overlap, so I check out what's happening over there pretty frequently.
I really think that the blogworld, even though it has gotten a lot of grief for being so male-dominated, really makes it possible for women to be heard in ways not possible before.
Mui ~ There's a small subset of both Catholics and Protestant evangelists who are really the ones with the anti-woman agenda. Their days may be numbered. The WaPo had an editorial today about the history of movie "codes," in Hollywood, and the Catholic church's once-significant role in determining them.
At first I thought the protests about DaVinci Code were a new crest, but perhaps they're really "last throes," because they no longer exercise the background control they once did?
Hi, Karen. Thanks for your invitation to post to Lyssa Strada, and your personal note earlier several days ago. Actually, I'd tried to respond to you a couple of times, but could find not email icon on either of your blogs. Here I am, finally, with a piece that I think fits your format.
Karen, I am always on the lookout for good women's blogs.
IMHO think it's pretty timely to talk of the resistance to male-dominated religious authoritarianism. If you look at issues like same-sex marriage, that have been gaining support in the Northeast, it makes sense. CT and Massachussetts are probably among states that have the highest percentages of Catholics in the country, which is why marriage/commitment for same-sex couples is so important. I think a lot of same-sex couples can be very "catholic." It is completely understood that for the sake of dignity many have to disagree with the church on many matters. If that makes sense at all. That is my two cents.
Thanks, Karen A, for bringing your considerable writing skills here. Don't worry too much about format. Everyone here is already a known factor, in terms of the We're hoping to have all kinds of work from all kinds of voices. Something like a chorus or the cast of a play.
Poems, essays, actual news (or news you'd like to read), short dialogues... maybe even some cartoons if we find an artist.
We also want to have some fun. Molly Ivins, one of my heroes, always says how important it is "to have fun when you're freedom fighting." (her words)
mui: Thank you, and we want to confront male-dominated anything at LS; we just want to do it as thoughtfully & creatively as possible. And with some really excellent writers. And some exceptional thinkers.
Post a Comment
<< Home