The New York Times reports Connecticut’s millionaire anti-war Democratic Senate candidate, Ned Lamont wasn't always critical of Senator Lieberman's 1998 rebuke of President Clinton over Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinski.
Lamont wrote to Senator Lieberman in 1998 praising Lieberman's speech:
“I supported your statement because Clinton’s behavior was outrageous: a Democrat had to stand up and state as much, and I hoped that your statement was the beginning of the end,” Mr. Lamont, then a cable television executive, wrote in an e-mail message to the senator’s Washington office on Sept. 16, 1998, two weeks after Mr. Lieberman’s speech.[. . .]
He urged Mr. Lieberman to “stand up and use your moral authority to put an end to this snowballing mess,” and suggested that “It’s time for you to make up your mind and speak your mind as you did so eloquently last Thursday.”
“I’m the father of three and the thought that Clinton testifying about oral sex before the grand jury may be broadcast into my living room is outrageous,” Mr. Lamont wrote. “This sorry episode is an embarrassment to me as a father and to us as a nation.”
Lamont's Criticism of Senator Lieberman's scolding of Clinton was as insincere as it was a pathetic attempt to revise history. As I posted yesterday, contrary to Lamont's assertion that Senator Lieberman's takedown of Clinton made the Lewinski affair a media spectacle, news of Clinton's Monica Lewinski affair was instantly a "media spectacle." News anchors Rather, Brokaw, and Jennings all left Cuba, where they were covering Pope John Paul's visit, in order to report on Clinton’s sexual misconduct.
While Lamont is flip flopping his position on Senator Lieberman's lament. Lieberman is defending his rebuke of Clinton:
"It was important for someone who was a Democrat to stand up and call on him publicly to accept more responsibility for what he had done," Lieberman said Friday. "In that case, I stood up and did what I believed was right for our country."The senator said his personal dismay evolved into "a larger, graver sense of loss for our country, a reckoning of the damage that the president's conduct has done to the proud legacy of his presidency."
In the end it may well be Lieberman's willingness to take consistent principled stands he believes are right, even though unpopular, that will win the Senator reelection.
UPDATE: As any story concerning the Lamont/Lieberman tussle does this one has become popular among the political blogs. At Hullabaloo, Digby has a different take. Digby can't understand why Lieberman's Lament is all the Times had to write about after spending hours with Lamont. Its a valid question. Sort of leaves you wondering whether Lamont really isn't just a single issue candidate.
I strongly disagree with Digby's assertion that the Times Loves Senator Lieberman. After all, the Times did endorse Greenwich millionaire anti-war candidate over the Senator.
At The Next Hurrah, DemFromCT posts Ned Lamont started working the Monica Lewinsky scandal into his political rhetoric, suggesting this week that Sen. Lieberman's harsh attitude towards President Clinton in 1998 were merely for public show — implying that the Senator was a man willing to turn his back on a friend in favor of media spectacle. Lamont is a few fries short of a Happy Meal if he believes that. Lieberman’s speech on Clinton is praised for helping Clinton's presidency. Even Clinton Counsel Lanny Davis said "a lot of people around the Clinton White House thought that Joe Lieberman saved Bill Clinton’s presidency." Lieberman enabled Democrats to condemn Clinton's conduct without calling for his removal.
At Blue Crab Boulevard, Gaius posts that Lamont literally shot himself in the foot here. I think that sums it up well.
This is one of those "mission accomplished" or "riding in a tank" moments for the Lamont campaign. also see: comfortofopinion.blogspot.com
Posted by: Orips Wenga | Sunday, September 10, 2006 at 01:23 AM