Lieberman responds to NYT
We fully expected that the New York Times, given its strong anti-war stance and clear partisan agenda, would repeat their misguided primary endorsement of Ned Lamont for the general election. But we never imagined the Times of all papers would produce such an intellectually dishonest and shoddy editorial as they published Sunday.
Personally, I think it's a mistake for Lieberman's campaign to respond in such an angry manner. Instead, pointing out how in 11 paragraphs the only nice thing they had to say about Lamont is that he's not Lieberman as I did yesterday would have done more to educate the voters. After all, when even the NYT admits that Lamont is an empty suit...
On the other hand, the editorial was pretty dishonest, and it's understandable that Joe's campaign felt it deserved some sort of response. Now that Joe is outside the (D) bubble, he's having to deal with a vicious media just like us on the right. Hell of a learning curve he's got ahead of him - the NYT won't care about any facts Joe has to offer. Neither will many on the left, either.
Why, just responding at all is liable to make him seem desperate to folks in the land of blackface and bigotry. And here's a suggestion from one of their commenters on where someone like Joe could go if he loses the election:
That's two. I really hope it's not what it looks like. Very sad indeed.
