http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/09/09/nyregion/09lamontweb1.ready.html
Here are key sentences that probably should have been included in the body of the story:
>"I reluctantly supported the moral outrage you expressed on September 3."
<...>
>"Unfortunately, the statement was the beginning of a process that has
turned more political and morally offensive."
<..>
">If Clinton has a sex problem, mature adults would have handled this privately, not turned it into a political crusade and legal entanglement with no end in sight.
>You have expressed your outrage about the president's conduct; now
stand up and use your moral authority to put an end to this
snowballing mess. "
<..>
>"We all know the facts, a lot more than any of us care to know and
should know. We've made up our minds that Clinton did wrong, confessed
to his sin, maybe he should be censured for lying--and let's move on.
>It's time for you to make up your mind and speak your mind as you did
so eloquently last Thursday."
So it does not seem that Lamont "continues to fumble". It seems like the press is distorting the record to play gotcha. There are lots of reasons for leftists (or even mainstream liberals) to be unhappy with
Lamont. (On global warming he is slightly to the right of Lieberman.)
But we don't have help spread rightwing gotcha memes - even when they are spread by a NY Times reporter. Follow Chomsky's law on this. Always read NY Times articles backwords, last paragraph first. Read supporting documents if included in the article before you read the Times own interpertation of the document.
On 9/9/06, mike larkin <mike_larkin2001 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/nyregion/09LAMONT.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
>
> September 9, 2006
> Lieberman Points Out a Turnabout by Lamont
> By JENNIFER MEDINA
>
> NEW HAVEN, Sept. 8 — Ned Lamont, who this week
> chastised Senator Joseph I. Lieberman for his public
> rebuke of President Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky
> scandal, wrote to Mr. Lieberman at the time praising
> the eloquence of his speech on the Senate floor.
>
> "I supported your statement because Clinton's behavior
> was outrageous: a Democrat had to stand up and state
> as much, and I hoped that your statement was the
> beginning of the end," Mr. Lamont, then a cable
> television executive, wrote in an e-mail message to
> the senator's Washington office on Sept. 16, 1998, two
> weeks after Mr. Lieberman's speech.
>
> Mr. Lamont defeated Mr. Lieberman in last month's
> Democratic primary in Connecticut, but will face the
> incumbent — now running on his own party line — in
> November. In an interview with reporters and editors
> on Wednesday night in Washington, Mr. Lamont said he
> shared Mr. Lieberman's "moral outrage" over Mr.
> Clinton's sexual misbehavior but thought the senator
> should have handled it behind closed doors before
> making a public speech.
>
> "You don't go to the floor of the Senate and turn this
> into a media spectacle," Mr. Lamont said of Mr.
> Lieberman's remarks. "You go up there, you sit down
> with one of your oldest friends and say you're
> embarrassing yourself, you're embarrassing your
> presidency, you're embarrassing your family, and it's
> got to stop."
>
> At the time, Mr. Lamont wrote that he had "supported
> the moral outrage" Mr. Lieberman expressed reluctantly
> because he "thought it might make matters worse,"
> adding that "unfortunately, the statement was the
> beginning of a process that has turned more political
> and morally offensive." He urged Mr. Lieberman to
> "stand up and use your moral authority to put an end
> to this snowballing mess," and suggested that "It's
> time for you to make up your mind and speak your mind
> as you did so eloquently last Thursday."
>
> "I'm the father of three and the thought that Clinton
> testifying about oral sex before the grand jury may be
> broadcast into my living room is outrageous," Mr.
> Lamont wrote. "This sorry episode is an embarrassment
> to me as a father and to us as a nation."
>
> A campaign aide to Mr. Lieberman alerted a reporter to
> the e-mail late Friday, after an article about Mr.
> Lamont's recent comments appeared in The New York
> Times. Mr. Lieberman's Senate office then faxed a copy
> of the message.
>
> Casey Aden-Wansbury, a spokesman for Mr. Lieberman,
> said that after Mr. Lamont announced his candidacy,
> the senator recalled corresponding with him, and the
> staff culled old files. She said the 1998 missive was
> the only correspondence found from Mr. Lamont.
>
> Mr. Lieberman's campaign aides pointed out Friday
> night that Mr. Lamont contributed $500 to his campaign
> shortly after the speech, in 1999, and did not donate
> to Mr. Clinton's legal defense fund.
>
> Mr. Lamont, who declined to discuss the 1998 speech
> when an Associated Press reporter asked about it on
> Friday, was unavailable to explain the apparent
> discrepancy between his recent remarks and his e-mail
> at the time.
>
> His campaign manager, Tom Swan, did not address the
> content of the message, but said in response: "It is
> clear that Senator Lieberman would prefer to try to
> cloud Ned's statements from eight years ago, instead
> of talking about the important issues of national
> security, the war in Iraq and health care. It is
> shocking to see that his Senate staff, at taxpayer
> expense, is spending their time trying to make up dirt
> on Ned Lamont."
>
> Senator Lieberman, asked about Mr. Lamont's recent
> comments, said on Friday that "it was important for
> someone who was a Democrat to stand up and call on him
> publicly to accept more responsibility for what he had
> done."
>
> Back in 1998, he wrote to thank Mr. Lamont, saying his
> "kind comments and words of support mean a great deal
> to me."
>
> "This was the most difficult statement I have had to
> make in my 10 years as a senator," Mr. Lieberman
> wrote, adding a handwritten "Thanks, Ned" at the
> bottom. "So it is very reassuring that you feel I made
> the right decision in speaking out."
>