Redstate

to say the photo is accurate?

vote for Democrats?

the photo and left it at that. He also should stop appearing with her. Denial and defenseiveness make him look weak.

I agree with Mrs. Hamsher, if you have a beef with the picture, take it up with her. I certainly don't think Lamont approves of that type of imagery.

The fact is, if every politician was accountable for all of the views of his supporters, none would ever be worthy of office.

She wanted to support Lamont, she gave him an audience, he used it. Nothing wrong with that, and it doesn't mean he agrees with all of her views.

I don't have a problem associating Lamont with the netroots movement, as that is how he came to be where he is today, and he should rightly be tied to the sentiment they espouse. He espouses that same sentiment. That is legitimate criticism.

But the netroots on the whole don't approve of using blackface, and Lamont can't be expected to anticipate the hidden sentiments of one of his supporters. It's not as if anyone knew Mrs. Hamsher approved of such imagery before.

There is plenty reason to attack Lamont with regards to his ties to the netroots, but this is just trying to tear someone down using guilt by association, and has no place here.

Guilt by association works if you take no action after the fact to distance yourself from the bad thing that your associate did.

When Trent Lott said that idiotic thing during Thurmond's party, we distanced ourselves from him.  The least Lamont should have done is disinvited her from future events of his.

Morally weak like the entire Left. This is just another example of the lack of core values and moral equivalency of the Left. Defending it, excusing it is the proof of it.

to some extent, and Lamont should have been more forceful. But he would have been tarred with this regardless of how much he condemned it.

I've seen this before. You have someone that has supported you, maybe been your friend, made sacrifices for you. Then they say or do something stupid, and you are expected to disown them like they have the plague.

Was Ben booted from this site, did Red State disown him after his affair, despite calls from the left to do so? No they didn't, they condemned his actions but still supported him, because one character flaw or mistake does not define a person.

But I'd replace "weak" with "bankrupt". But perhaps that's just me.

...that you don't approve of portraying politicians that you don't like in blackface, the fact remains that this is the second time in the 2006 election cycle that this has happened - and both times it was done by elements of the netroots.  Elements, might I add, that routinely, loudly and profanely shout their moral superiority over us bloodthirsty Likudnik chickenhawk neocon theo-fascists.

So, how many times does it have to happen before you'll admit that the netroots need to be raked over the coals on this?  I ask because those same netroots would reply "Zero" if the situation were reversed...

but I think the problem here is that Lamont is are not willing to completely disassociate himself from this person. Any fool can post anything on their blog in support of someone, but this particular fool has connections with the campaign, and is not simply a partisan bystander.

vote for black people and Jews?

I said what I had to say about Ben while that was going on.

If you want to dredge that up, be my guest, for my comments are in the archives. But I'm not rehashing it here.

...that some oncology nurses stand outside the hospital entrance smoking cigarettes. For democrats, emotion trumps logic, and familiarity trumps commonsense. It's sad.

which is why we shouldn't behave like them.

Rake Mrs. Hamsher over the coals all you want, she deserves it and has explicitly asked for all criticism to be directed at her alone.

I just think trying to tie Lamont to this image is a stretch.

It smells really bad.

Nice comeback, though.

The excitable - "GEE, GANG!" - lefty netroots can only be a liability if left to their own devices.  They don't know how the game is played, they make stupid decisions, and the try to burn everything in their paths because they feel they are the powerless having been empowered.  Hamsher's little Lieberman in blackface graphic is just one of the symptoms.  She should have know better, when campaigning, than to publish her racist thoughts for all to see.

Bloggers with no real political experience can be a fine tool for campaigns, I think, with some proper guidance.  Here's Josh Trevino at Tacitus:

If you run a campaign, DO NOT CLOSELY AFFILIATE WITH BLOGGERS YOU DO NOT CONTROL. Sure, you may cultivate them. You may give them access. But when you end up de facto adopting a blogger the way Lamont adopted Hamsher, you're playing with fire. Most of us aren't ready for prime time: there's a good reason we're not doing actual journalism or writing commentary for a respectable print outlet. Perhaps that will change someday, but for now, be smart -- and safe.

Lamont now has the escape of some modicum of deniability, but how plausible will it be?  His campaign is all about the lefty netroots!  After kissing Jane Hamsher, Ned, you better indulge in a real Mentos.

  because he didn't find it objectionable.  Not objecting to what is not objectionable has been known to happen.   Am I stretching the limits of the possible?

      In any case they're both dogs and just another case where liberals prove that there is nothing they believe in, other then their primal selves.

Saddam would be lobbing Scuds into Israel today. And, just what have the Democrats done for black people that has worked out so well?

the disaster a/k/a his "campaign" will be a joy to watch. It's not good for the country, mind you, but the humor value will be quite high. And as an aside, Lamont can't credibly disassociate himself from the Netroots at this point because it created him.

to Lamont's Clinton?  Does Lamont smoke cigars, does Hamsher wear thongs?  Or is it the other way around?

I agree that Hamsher was an idiot for posting an offensive image like that, esp. with what happened with Gilliard and Steele earlier. And there's no doubt she's been one of Lamont's biggest cheerleaders these past few months, as evidenced further here.

But what is the appropriate response from the Lamont campaign here? Should she be banned from future Lamont events? Should they ask her really nicely not to post about the Lieberman-Lamont race anymore? How, exactly, do you define "cutting ties" with a blogger who can write about whatever they please? I don't see much more they can do besides what they already said about the picture.

But what is the appropriate response from the Lamont campaign here?

"Go away, bigot" would make for a nice start.  Not that this will happen.

Should she be banned from future Lamont events?

Yup.  Not that this will happen.

Should they ask her really nicely not to post about the Lieberman-Lamont race anymore?

Yes, except for the 'nicely' part.  Not that this will happen.

Also what won't happen will be the returning of the money that she raised for them - although donating it to a suitable charity would work, too - the immediate withdrawal from whatever remaining venue that the commercial that she made for them appears and a general statement saying that there are things that Ned Lamont won't do to become Senator, and that this was one of them.

Moe

... and they can't take out Republicans, so...

They take out a liberal Democrat who happens to support the war.

When they win the primary, they will behave as though they have finally taken down Bush.

But they haven't.

Hilarious.

What did the candidate know and when did he know it?  (Sounds like the Watergate hearings all over again)  

Exactly WHEN was he offended?  Was it when he saw the photo or after others were outraged and let him know it?

I expect the latter.

...if my Orioles can't beat the Yankees on the field, they can at least dress up their BP pitcher in a Yankee uniform, pound a couple dozen room service fastballs into the upper deck and celebrate like they've won the ALCS.

"Go away, bigot" would make for a nice start.  Not that this will happen.

So a candidate for a U.S. Senate seat is going to get in front of a microphone and say "go away, bigot" to a blogger. Okay. And I thought Israel's response was disproportionate.

Should she be banned from future Lamont events?

Yup.  Not that this will happen.

Well, let's see if she is in attendance of a Lamont even post-blackface.

Should they ask her really nicely not to post about the Lieberman-Lamont race anymore?

Yes, except for the 'nicely' part.  Not that this will happen.

And if they do this, is she obligated to listen? Do you think she will, considering the number of pixels she's already burned on Holy Joe these past few months?

Also what won't happen will be the returning of the money that she raised for them - although donating it to a suitable charity would work, too - the immediate withdrawal from whatever remaining venue that the commercial that she made for them appears and a general statement saying that there are things that Ned Lamont won't do to become Senator, and that this was one of them.

Ah. Shades of Jack Abramoff.

So how exactly do you parse that money from the other money he's raised from ActBlue? And what does the content of the ad (I wasn't aware that she had made a commercial for Lamont) have to do with the blackface drawing she posted? And while I suppose a general statement is a bit more tactful than your "go away, bigot" proposal earlier up, why would you assume these people would know/care what he would be talking about?

But I have an even better idea: let's round up everyone on the right and left blogospheres who's ever said anything offensive and stupid about their favorite candidate's opponent, make the candidate publicly condemn each of those people (especially if they've ever met and hung out the candidate and write on their blog about it -- then they have to double-condemn them), and sort out exactly what money said blogger is responsible for raising and get rid of it.

And now that it's been established that you actually don't know nearly as much about the situation as you thought that you did, I now know how seriously to take you and your suggestions.

Obliged.

Moe

PS: Take the Israel-bashing elsewhere.  Arguing with me on this is contraindicated.

And now that it's been established that you actually don't know nearly as much about the situation as you thought that you did, I now know how seriously to take you and your suggestions.

Because I didn't know she did a campaign ad with Lamont? That's a pretty minor point in this whole affair.

It's been referred to several times on the front page here alone, mostly because it rather graphically contrasts Lemont's first claim of ignorance of what his pet bloggers - I admit that I may have the power flow of that particular relationship reversed - were doing to 'help' his campaign.  

Look, you don't actually have to, you know, read our site if you want to comment on it.  God knows you wouldn't be the first.  But you do have a comment history here, so try to act as if you were a step above some drive-by trollbait from smrikingchimp.com with a banning fetish.