I enthusiastically voted for Lamont.  My vote was about more than the war in Iraq.  In fact, I accept the fact that we are at war and we need to own what we have done.  My Issue with Lieberman has more to do with his chastising those who seek to voice dissent or investigate various attributes to the war. And this is the most glaring example of why I feel as though Liebermann is positioning himself as a national politician and not a senator from CT.  On many issues, right to life and gay marriage he is out of step with his constituency and I had the distinct feeling that he took for granted his elected position and was looking to places outside of Connecticut for approval.

Additionally, I am a 31 year old man who has only known Liebermann as the democratic Senate Candidate and this troubles me some.

His petitioning to run as an independent I feel is sour grapes.  The secretary of state here (a Dem.) is looking to propose legislation to close the loophole allowing a candidate to lose an election and still run for office.

Lieberman, who blasted Lamont for his petty partisanship, is now being quoted as saying that voting for Lamont is tantamount to supporting terrorism.  I trust that Connecticut is smarter than that.

As an aside, the majority of registered voters in CT are registered independent and much like Massachusetts, we are considered a bastion of liberalism, but haven’t had a democratic governor since who knows when.

There may be a difference in what lieberman dems think and what lamont dems think.

I would think as journalists you would want to get opinions from both sides of the dem party. If im not mistaken Joe did garner a fair % of the vote. Conn is a state with over a million people. Surely you could have found one Lieberman dem.

“Bloomberg’s Endorsement of Lieberman Hints at Plans of His Own”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/nyregion/10bloomberg.html

“Leaving open the door to joining a third party himself someday, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg offered a robust endorsement to Senator Joseph I. Lieberman yesterday, lending the senator’s struggling re-election bid the influence of a popular mayor with demonstrated appeal to both Democrats and Republicans.

“What I like about Joe Lieberman is he’s trying to run because he thinks he can make a difference for the people of this country and the people of Connecticut,â€? the mayor said at a news conference on the Far West Side of Manhattan. “This country needs nonpartisan elected officials who think that doing the right thing for the public is more important than supporting some party.â€?”

This is the real story!

Check out also an op ed piece in the NY Times on Lieberman by David Brooks.

Were we a newspaper in Connecticut on the eve of the primary election, we would have an obligation to ensure that both candidates were represented fairly on our site. As it is, we’re a national show, seeking to understand after the fact a primary result that doesn’t come around all that often: a three-time sitting Senator fails to get his party’s nomination. It’s a pretty fair question to get in touch with those who voted to deny Lieberman the nomination and ask them why.

We are not a polling organization. The best we can do is talk to as many humans as we can find, using the techniques we’ve developed for this site. Seeing as how we made it clear from the first paragraph that Henry’s interviews aren’t a statistical sample of the Democratic electorate in Connecticut, we’re pretty happy with what he was able to pull together in a half-day.

And fiddlesticks, please don’t call Henry or anyone else who works here “lazy.” We get it, you think we have a liberal bias. If you’re going to spend time in these threads, try working a little harder yourself; find someone in Connecticut who voted for Lieberman and have him send me an email, brendan radioopensource org.

You need to try harder! Fairness requires it. You are putting laziness in the service of your political bias.

Thanks for the quotes, Henry! I’m honored!