Connecticut is 2006’s Iowa
(Cross posted to Greater Democracy)
Over the past week, all the pundits have been explaining the meaning of Ned Lamont’s victory over Joe Lieberman. It is a victory of the liberals over the moderates some tell us. Others say that it is a victory of the anti-war crowd. Still others suggest it is a victory of the outsiders over the insiders. As a staffer on the Lamont campaign and a frequent contributor to Greater Democracy, I want to add my thoughts on this. It is a victory of good old-fashioned American Democracy.
Polls have shown that the war was a very important issue for voters in Connecticut. They have shown that many people voted for Ned Lamont because they no longer approve of Sen. Lieberman. Yet to me, the line that sums it up most succinctly was at the nominating convention when the Southbury delegation cast its vote saying, “Madam Secretary, Southbury, the town that invited Joe Lieberman to speak in February, and is still waiting for a return call, proudly casts five votes for Ned Lamont!”
To put it into the language of this blog, Lamont’s victory was a victory of post-broadcast politics. The disengaged beltway sound-byte isn’t good enough anymore. People want a representative democracy where candidates go out and engage in an honest and vigorous discussion about the issues. These discussions are not simply a candidate talking at potential voters, but a multi-way discussion.
This is why Connecticut has become 2006’s Iowa. People around the country have always complained that Iowa and New Hampshire get a disproportionate share of the attention of Presidential candidates. The Democrats have come up with a new schedule to balance this out a little, but the fact remains, we as Americans are starving for candidates that actually interact with voters.
Now that Ned has won the primary, sending ripples across the country, the Democratic 2008 Presidential candidates are lining up to find ways to help Ned and thereby help their Presidential aspirations. John Edwards was the first to call Ned Lamont and offer his congratulations. Hillary Clinton was the first to have her leadership PAC cut a check to Ned’s campaign. Wes Clark was the first to send out a mass mailing asking people to sign a petition requesting that Lieberman drop his third party bid. John Kerry has now sent out an email urging people to contribute to Ned’s campaign.
Tomorrow, the next part of the game begins with John Edwards showing up in Connecticut to campaign for Ned Lamont. You can be sure that other 2008 hopefuls will soon follow suit. The Connecticut voters will get a special opportunity to meet and speak with these candidates.
I am proud to be a citizen of Connecticut. I am proud to work on Ned Lamont’s campaign. The people of Connecticut have engaged directly in the political process. They have gotten the attention of the country and they will now be reaping benefits from this. They have made Connecticut 2006’s Iowa. It is a victory for democracy and will hopefully encourage citizens in other states to become more involved in their politics and will serve as a reminder to all elected officials that America draws great strength from its representative democracy. Perhaps 2008 will see candidates that are much more representative and interactive. I hope that the citizens of Connecticut will ask the Presidential candidates how they plan on engaging the voters.
Hi, Aldon
Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 08/17/2006 - 18:22. span>I hope you had a chance to speak to Senator Edwards today. I heard he'd be talking with some bloggers there in your home state and I thought of you.
- Jude
http://iddybud.blogspot.com
Yes!
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Sat, 08/19/2006 - 21:09. span>Jude,
It was wonderful to speak with Sen. Edwards before the rally in New Haven. The more I get to know him the more impressed I am with him.
Aldon
Well said and written... than
Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 08/18/2006 - 23:51. span>Well said and written... thanks.
Victory for Democracy, loss for Democrats?
Submitted by DavidMeyer on Sat, 08/19/2006 - 16:36. span>Hi, Aldon. I'm happy for you that your candidate won, but I can't help but think that the rejection of Lieberman is a great loss to the Democratic Party in the long run. He seems to be a man of integrity who is one of the few figures in polarized U.S. politics who can appeal to the center. The party that prides itself on diversity and tolerance needs to learn to tolerate a little more diversity of opinion within its own ranks if it wants to remain relevant.
I also find it ironic that the Democrats, who have chided Republicans for litmus test politics on the abortion issue for decades, have made the Iraq War into a litmus test of their own.
--
David Meyer
Takarazuka, Japan
papa@jtan.com
Integrity
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Sat, 08/19/2006 - 21:07. span>David, if I believed that Sen. Lieberman was still a man of integrity after speaking with him at my house, and after my wife visited him at his office, I would not have worked so hard for his opponent. However, from our personal interactions with him, we do not believe he is a man of integrity any more. If he were a true centrist, we would be supporting him. But he has become a 'self-centrist'.
There are some people, who aren't on the ground in Connecticut that believe that this is somehow a 'litmus test' about the Iraq War. The people I have spoken with here in Conencticut, however, do not believe that. They believe that Sen. Lieberman lost touch with his constituency, and failed in his role as our representative in Washington.
To so many of us, it is about defending representative Democracy, and not one issue or another.