Ned Lamont, the man who made Joe Lieberman an Independent, said today that Democrats in Connecticut are fuming about Lieberman's public option posturing in the same way they were about the Iraq war back in 2006. That was the year Lamont soundly defeated Lieberman for the Democratic senate nomination, only to lose to him when Lieberman reentered the race as an Independent.
"National Democrats said [our race] was all about the war in Iraq," Lamont told TPMDC this morning. "They said that except for that, Joe was a good Democrat."
But with the health care vote and other matters, Lamont said, Lieberman has "not been working hard with Democrats to get universal health care as he promised. He's been sort of obstructionist."
In 2006, national Democrats figured prominently in the Connecticut senate race, but mostly on the side of Lieberman. During the primary, prominent Democrats, including Reid, encouraged Lamont not to run and stumped for Leiberman. Their claim was that Leiberman was a strong Democrat, despite his unpopular support for the war in Iraq.
Two years later, he was giving a speech at the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis on behalf of the GOP's presidential nominee, John McCain. Lieberman strongly endorsed McCain and was said to be his first choice for runningmate. Lamont said that Democrats in Connecticut haven't forgotten it, despite Liberman's causing with Democrats and his renewed promises to be a Democratic ally after McCain lost the '08 race.
"I would think so, yes," Lamont said when asked if Lieberman will face a strong challenge from his former party after his health care posturing.
For the record, Lamont said, had things gone differently in 2006, the Senator from Connecticut would not be standing in the way of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's health care reform proposal. Though he remains an advocate of universal coverage, he said that health care proponents "can't afford" to squander the chance at reform offered by Reid.
"Everybody would do things differently [if they were there,]" Lamont said, "But I think it's a big step forward. I would vote for it, yes."
As for the motivations behind Lieberman's threats to stop the Reid bill if it is not significantly changed, Lamont wouldn't speculate.
"Your guess is as good as mine," he said. "But I would have thought that after all that transpired in the last year, he would have shared his concerns in private, rather than making all the public pronouncements against the bill."
Correction: This post originally stated that President Obama stumped for Lieberman during the general election. That is false. Obama supported Lamont with at an email and public statements during the general. It is true that before and during Lamont's run in the primary, he was seen as running against the wishes of the establishment Democratic party.

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

Stroszek
October 28, 2009 2:35 PM
Actually, most Democrats, including Obama and Clinton, supported Lamont in the general election.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 28, 2009 2:37 PM in reply to Stroszek
Wow, I thought you just omitted to mention that, but this part of the article is 100% false:
Again, Obama (along with most Dems) supported Lamont when he won the nomination and opposed Lieberman's independent wrong.
What's happened to TPM's fact-checking? First the Chuck Todd nonsense, now this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 28, 2009 2:38 PM in reply to Stroszek
Independent wrong should be independent "run," but it really works both ways.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chris
October 28, 2009 2:51 PM in reply to Stroszek
Very true. And didn't Obama let Uncle Joe keep his leadership?
So how long until Republicans start comparing Tea Baggers to the freedom loving protesters in Afghanistan also wanting their country back???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 28, 2009 5:18 PM in reply to Chris
Obama has nothing to do with who keeps what chairs . He's not in the senate anymore. Also, and if Obama did support Lamont he wasn't President then and supported Lamont in his capacity as a senator
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 28, 2009 5:03 PM in reply to Stroszek
The myth that Obama campaigned for Lieberman in the general election is common among Hamsherites. Fits so neatly into their corporate-shill sellout narrative that there's no shaking it out of them. Great to see TPM add some Google fuel to it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 28, 2009 5:28 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
It's like dealing with birthers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BohemianBill
October 28, 2009 11:00 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
The only thing is that Obama didn't campaign very hard for Lamont. At one point, Obama had campaign stops in Boston and New York, with the better part of the day available for a stop-over in CT to attend a rally for Lamont. Lamont could have used the help in particular in the Norwalk-Bridgeport axis, which might have had the benefit of electing Dianne Farrell in her campaign against Chris Shays. Obama turned down the opportunity. The turnout in Stamford-Norwalk-Bridgeport was very low, which helped fuel Lieberman's margin in that area. Farrell lost as well, in part because of the low turnout. This sequence of events accounts for the persistent feeling that Obama didn't support Lamont in the general election.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tom Betz
October 28, 2009 3:03 PM in reply to Stroszek
Not true. Read what Lamont's campaign manager had to say about it after Lieberman squeaked out a general election win.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/14/122820/27
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 28, 2009 3:25 PM in reply to Tom Betz
No, it is true. Obama endorsed Lamont for the general election. He did not advocate for electing Lieberman as an independent.
These are facts.
Lamont's campaign manager may have felt that Obama could have contributed more to Lamont's campaign, but that doesn't change the fact that Obama did endorse him and did oppose Lieberman's independent run.
Sorry, it doesn't matter if you felt Obama's support wasn't intense enough, you can't just change the facts. That is still lying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dilirius
October 28, 2009 3:32 PM in reply to Stroszek
You have a link, right, to where Obama endorsed Lamont?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wilsonjm2003
October 28, 2009 3:43 PM in reply to Dilirius
I do: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102601187.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dilirius
October 28, 2009 4:00 PM in reply to wilsonjm2003
Hmmmmm . . . don't see the word "endorse" in there anywhere.
And don't reporters and editors inevitably use the word "endorse" in characterizing "endorsements?"
They certainly did when characterizing Lamont's support for Obama.
Where are the dozens, score, and hundreds of web references to Obama endorsing Lamont . . .
Still looking . . .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 28, 2009 5:15 PM in reply to Dilirius
Don't be disingenuous:
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 28, 2009 5:21 PM in reply to Stroszek
Obama wasn't President when Lamont ran against Lieberman. That was in 2006. Obama was barely a senator himself so I can't imagine his endorsement at that time was so crucial. Obama had not even thought about (or admitted) he was running for President until late in 2007. Are you sure about all this?????
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dilirius
October 28, 2009 3:38 PM in reply to Tom Betz
You know, "Lamont endorses Obama" produces a lot of Google results showing Lamont endorsed Obama, but I can't seem to find a single Google result that shows Obama endorsing Lamont.
Must have not been much of an endorsement, if there even was one, if one has to work that hard to find it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 28, 2009 5:32 PM in reply to Dilirius
Refer to my posts below for your pwning.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
October 28, 2009 5:50 PM in reply to Stroszek
Dilirius/Nobama is a self-pwning organism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dilirius
October 28, 2009 3:42 PM in reply to Tom Betz
"Obama opposes Lieberman" doesn't seem to produce anything either.
Maybe some folks just have different definitions for "support," "endorse," and "oppose" than other folks.
One thing is certainly true, fabricated definitions are as unacceptable as fabricated details.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 28, 2009 5:24 PM in reply to Dilirius
Here is Ned Lamont's campaign highlighting Obama's support on their blog: http://web.archive.org/web/20061130061724/http://nedlamont.com/blog/1976/barack-obama-writes-emails
Well, you've certainly made an ass of yourself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 28, 2009 5:32 PM in reply to Dilirius
Here is an article noting how Obama's PAC sent money to Lamont after Lieberman's defeat: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=2291430&page=1&page=1
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 28, 2009 5:36 PM in reply to Dilirius
Ah, I see from your profile that you are, in fact, Nobama posting under a new alias.
How's the PUMA movement going? Ever find that Whitey Tape?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Aexia
October 28, 2009 4:37 PM in reply to Tom Betz
Lieberman won by 10 points. That's not "squeaking by".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 28, 2009 2:40 PM
Nuance has not been a strongpoint around here of late.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
October 28, 2009 2:50 PM in reply to Dorn76
Nuance I can live without, but fabricating details is unacceptable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 28, 2009 2:45 PM
FYI, here's the weakass response I got from Sen. Lieberman's office today...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Cassidy
October 28, 2009 7:26 PM in reply to Dorn76
Is it OK to say that Lieberman is just a dick. Is there some other word for such self-serving people?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve Garrett
October 28, 2009 3:20 PM
I'd be curious to know how much money Lieberman is getting from the health care industry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
October 28, 2009 5:09 PM in reply to Steve Garrett
His wife works for them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
October 28, 2009 3:25 PM
Nice job, Connecticut Voters. What part of "We told you so" did you not understand?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 28, 2009 3:29 PM in reply to traitorjoe
I'm a CT voter, and though I voted for Lamont, I still hang my head in shame.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
October 28, 2009 4:57 PM in reply to Dorn76
You shouldn't. Liebermann got elected by Connecticut Republicans, not Connecticut Democrats. Kicking him out of the party was the next best thing to kicking him out of the Senate, altogether.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 28, 2009 6:21 PM in reply to agio
Still, it's embarrassing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wilsonjm2003
October 28, 2009 3:44 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102601187.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stan A
October 28, 2009 3:58 PM
The democrats blew it big time in 2006 with Lieberman. Because of senatorial courtesy or other reasons, (maybe they were afraid he'd caucus with the GOP if elected,) Lieberman was not punished for running as an independent and the support for Lamont was weak. They should have made it absolutely clear that he would not be welcome in the caucus should he run as an independent, sending CT voters the right message. But they were so hungry for the majority in 2006 (which was kind of useless, given how narrow it was, especially with Bush in the white house) that they went soft on Joe.
And now they're paying for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MonicaDickey
October 28, 2009 5:07 PM in reply to Stan A
Definitely. I appreciate they were trying to play nice and act inclusive, but with the way Lieberman has been behaving for many years now, they should have just cut him off at the first chance they had.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Decider
October 28, 2009 4:16 PM
Joe the Lieberman loves America! He is my favorite democrat!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
October 28, 2009 5:56 PM in reply to The Decider
Thanks for weighing in, Decider!
=D
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sherifffruitfly
October 28, 2009 4:23 PM
A wonderful reminder of the great electorate of CT.
Sigh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
October 28, 2009 6:31 PM in reply to sherifffruitfly
Thankfully I never voted for the guy, but give us a break, we're not mind-readers. He flat-out lied. He supported the PO in a debate with Lamont in '06 and may I remind you he was the Dem VP nominee in '04. My fellow Nutmeggers may have unleashed this snake amongst you, but we aren't the only ones who have been taken in, and then kicked in the gut by Lieberman over the years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
October 28, 2009 5:23 PM
Lamont blew it. After he won in the primary, he did nothing but sit on his hands and that's how Joe got his momentum back.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CharlesBrown
October 29, 2009 6:51 AM in reply to lousgirl84
He sounds like a genius too ... at saying the obvious. Where did the DNC find this guy?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BohemianBill
October 29, 2009 10:00 AM in reply to CharlesBrown
First, Lamont wasn't "found" by the DNC. In fact, if you knew anything at all about CT politics at the time, you would have known that the DNC did not want Lamont to challenge Lieberman at all. It was the CT Democratic party rabble (I use that word - and proudly too I might say - because the CT party apparatchiks didn't want him to run) who supported Lamont's campaign. After the primary, the party apparatus persuaded Lamont to stand down while they tried to talk Lieberman into not pursuing an independent run. They failed, the media in CT savaged Lamont for the next two months and the national party did nada, zip, zilch to try to help Lamont regain any momentum. I know because I was there volunteering for the campaign on the ground.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
October 29, 2009 1:20 PM in reply to BohemianBill
The CT Democratic Party did a pretty shameful job at not encouraging democracy in their own state.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dannyluv
October 29, 2009 1:02 AM
Joe is a douchebag and will get what he deserves next election. We are done with him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?