<xmp> <body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d11782355\x26blogName\x3dConnecticutBLOG\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dSILVER\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://connecticutblog.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d2618633873490899171', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script> </xmp>

Saturday, September 09, 2006

Lieberman campaign knows no shame

Grr. Why is it every time I'm away from my computer, Joe Lieberman does something that causes headlines.

I've been covering the Taste of Danbury and the Danbury Irish Festival for a report I'm doing on my local blog when all hell breaks loose over at team Joementum.

Hey Joe, it would be nice if you didn't screw up while I'm doing another assignment. Now I have to play catch-up to all the other blogs.

It seems like team Joementum's latest attempt to smear Ned Lamont has backfired again as a campaign aide leaked a private email Ned Lamont sent to Senator Lieberman in 1998.

What's wrong with that you ask? Well, let me walk you through this screw-up step by step.

1. Back in 1998, Ned Lamont wasn't running for senate, he was a fellow constituent when he sent Lieberman an email regarding the senator's very public rebuke of President Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

2. In 2006, Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, Ned Lamont had an on-the record dinner with several reporters and he criticized Lieberman for his over-the-top 1998 speech. NYT smear goddess Anne Kornblut had this lovely exchange with Chris Matthews about her time with Lamont (hat tip to the great Digby).
MATTHEWS: ... What's going on? You had dinner last night with Mr. Ned?

ANNE KORNBLUT, THE "NEW YORK TIMES": He came in and had dinner with a few of us and yesterday, of course, was back to school day.

[...]

MATTHEWS: Well why was Lamont carrying favor with you guys last night?

KORNBLUT: Well, we are a local New York metropolitan paper, for one thing, but I think at the same time he wants to come to Washington and thank a lot of the Democrats, the national Democrats who are supporting him and essentially turning against Lieberman, their long-time friend.

[...]

MATTHEWS: Is he too waspy?... Didn't he just drop out of the Greenwich Country Club so he could run?

KORNBLUT: Well that's why he can afford to run, right?
You can see where this is going right.

Lord knows why in 2006 with over 2600 American soldiers dead in Iraq, Osama Bin Laden still at large, that reporters like smear goddess Anne Kornblut feel the need to question Lamont about an issue which NO ONE IS THINKING ABOUT (two words: gotcha journalism) but here's Lamont's response (please remember the portion of Lamont's quote IN BOLD).
In answering repeated questions about the scandal, Mr. Lamont noted that he had young children at the time - his eldest, 19-year-old Emily, sat next to him during the first course but then left.

"Everybody condemns what he did," Mr. Lamont said, referring to Mr. Clinton. "But it's how our country responded and handled it, turned it into an impeachable offense and dragged it across the front page of the paper for a long time."
3. The brilliant minds at the Lieberman campaign somehow go through senator Lieberman's records, find the email Lamont sent to Lieberman back in 1998, and leaked it to the New York Times in a pathetic attempt to show that Lamont somehow flip-flopped because according to team Joementum, Lamont supported Lieberman's rebuke of Clinton before he was against it (cue up the smear machine Anne).

Ned Lamont, who this week chastised Senator Joseph I. Lieberman for his public rebuke of President Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, wrote to Mr. Lieberman at the time praising the eloquence of his speech on the Senate floor.

"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.

[...]

A campaign aide to Mr. Lieberman alerted a reporter to the e-mail late Friday, after an article about Mr. Lamont's recent comments appeared in The New York Times. Mr. Lieberman's Senate office then faxed a copy of the message.
Now, I'll get back to this hit piece from the New York Times and debunk it in a second. I need to finish this point before ripping that article to shreds.

4. Based on Senator's Lieberman own privacy policy, someone at team Joementum did a BIG boo-boo.
My office will not share any personal information communicated through my Web site with any outside organization or individual, except in the following situations: (1) when needed to perform constituent casework at your request; (2) in the course of an authorized law enforcement investigation or emergency posing an imminent risk to public safety; or (3) if you choose to participate in my interactive online E-Government comment page, and authorize me to publish your comment, your name, and the organization you represent.
Now personally, leaking a private constituent's letter to a newspaper for political gain is bad enough (if I'm right, the only way someone should have this access to this type of communication is through a FOIA request) but breaking you own privacy policy for political gain is just as outrageous. Whoever leaked this to the Times should be fired but since we're talking about Joe Lieberman, I'm sure no one will get the axe (he is running as a Republican you know).

OH YEAH: That debunking of that crappy article in the Times...

Remember that part of Lamont's quote I told you to store in your head.
"Everybody condemns what he did," Mr. Lamont said, referring to Mr. Clinton. "But it's how our country responded and handled it, turned it into an impeachable offense and dragged it across the front page of the paper for a long time."
Okay, lets go back to that piece of garbage hit piece in the Times.
Ned Lamont, who this week chastised Senator Joseph I. Lieberman for his public rebuke of President Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, wrote to Mr. Lieberman at the time praising the eloquence of his speech on the Senate floor.

"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.
Well, it seems like the smear machine at the Times cherry-picked Lamont's email to Lieberman to give the impression that Lamont was supportive of Lieberman's grandstanding.

Why don't we read Lamont's email IN FULL.

"I reluctantly supported the moral outrage you expressed on September 3. I was reluctant because I thought it might make matters worse; I was reluctant because no one expressed moral outrage over how Reagan treated his kids or how Gingrich lied about supporting term limits (in other words, it was selective outrage); I was reluctant because the Starr inquisition is much more threatening to our civil liberties and national interest than Clinton's misbehavior."

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.

Unfortunately, the statement was the beginning of a process that has turned more political and morally offensive. I'm the father of three and the though that Clinton testifying about oral sex before a grand jury may be broadcast into my living room is outrageous. The Starr report read like a tabloid, not a legal recitation, and that streamed into my home via every medium available.

This sorry episode is an embarrassment to me as a father and to us as a nation. If Clinton has a sex problem, mature adults would have handled this privately, not turned it into a political crusade and legal entanglement with no end in sight.

You have expressed your outrage about the president's conduct; now stand up and use your moral authority to put an end to this snowballing mess. We all know the facts, a lot more than any of us care to know and should know. We've made up our minds that Clinton did wrong, confessed to his sin, maybe should be censured for lying --and let's move on.

It's time for you to make up your mind and speak your mind as you did so eloquently last Thursday.

Sincerely,

Ned Lamont
Greenwich Connecticut

cc Sen. Dodd, Rep. Shays
The letter sounds pretty much the same as what Lamont stated earlier this week huh?

Now, clearly this letter was written because Lamont wanted Lieberman to denounce Ken Starr's shameful tactics back in 1998 and not about Lamont supporting Lieberman's statement. When Lieberman didn't do the right thing and chastise Starr and his Republican buddies, it's fair for Lamont (like everyone else in Connecticut at the time) to conclude the obvious, that Lieberman was just grandstanding when he gave his speech (and given the fact that Lieberman can't bring himself to publicly criticize Bush for the numerous screw-up during the war, it's even more apparent now that Joe let his ego get the best of him back in '98).

More cherry picking crap from the Times...and trust me, I'm for from being done with this story.

...still developing.