This is horrifying.

The Lieberman Legacy.

Sounds like it could be another Scott Brown election where the Dems take the seat for granted and lose big time.

I’m not surprised. How many gazillionaires are there in con-necticut? Isn’t that where a lot of the wall streeters who hate Obama live?

Second times the charm? She is getting at least some return on the mass advertising she did two years ago. Obama has so weakened the Democratic brand in the Northeast that it is going to take real money to build it back.

It’s time to bring out the ads about the early deaths of her employees in WWE.

Democrats, particularly those in the northeast should be running away from Obama. Not only he has no coattails, but he is a drag. The man has been a disaster for the Democrats.

Ever have the feeling this election could be a blood bath for dems rivaling 2010?

You know that how?

Money wins all the time bc voters simply do not understand the,issues and bc , well, face it, they lie too.

How do you know it’s not?

It’ll be a shame if he loses, on paper he looks like a decent progressive.

I don’t for sure, but I also don’t know it is true, especially where money matters.

My guess is that Murphy thought it would be a cakewalk and he and the Dems are taking the seat for granted. Boy, that worked well in Massachusetts with Kennedy’s old seat.

The closeness of the race may force national Democrats to start spending limited resources on behalf of Murphy.

Yeah, right.

That will be the day: when that selfish, greedy Obama + DNC “share” any of the millions they’re devoting solely to Obama.

“Progressive” is a word that seems to mean different things to different people.

However, Johnson does not seem to be a member of the House Progressive Caucus. And according to his wiki, in July 2010, he urged the netroots to “take the long view” as to their agenda, promising that the Democrats would return after their 2010 election with “steel in their spine.”

IOW, keep re-electing us, even though we did lousy when we had the chance to do very well. Why? Well, because we want to be re-elected. Duh!”

And then, there is the economy.

Lieberman?

What does Lieberman have to do with this?

Lieberman was as close to a Republican as it gets. So close that he had to run as an independent last time because Connecticut Democrats refused to nominate him, despite all the campaigning Obama, Clinton, Schumer, et al. did for him and against Lamont.

And after Democrats were finished discrediting Lamont in the primary, they left him twisting in the wind for the general election campaign. For his part, Bush didn’t back the Republican candidate, who was a sure loser anyway.

The Republicans bet on Lieberman and won; the Democrats bet on him and lost.

But shat does Lieberman have to do with this?

For people who hate Obama, Wall Streeters sure gave Obama a bundle of money.

Have you ever considered the possibility that the Democrats wanted Coakley to lose?

If you have an amazing majority in the House and 60 Senators in the Democratic caucus, explaining to the American public why are still not responsible for anything is harder than if you can point to the sixty vote Senate rule and blame Republican obstructionism for everything.

Sure, you can blame Lieberman all you want, but, hell, they still left him with his Homeland Security chair after he campaigned for McCain. And, if you can’t control one Democratic Senator, how much of a leader are you?

They worked on Kucinich until they got his vote–and they didn’t even need House votes. And Kucinich is not an easy sell, which is probably why he no longer has a seat.

If they deliberately did not help Coakley, either with money or with people to campaign for her, it makes some sense. if they lost that seat by accident, they just may be too dumb to be given control of the country.

Either way……