OD'd on Nedrenaline

|

Connecticut's anti-war, anti-Lieberman Senate candidate Ned Lamont is going to spend some of his time today doing what every politician does to boost his career: appearing on the Colbert Report. This comes as "Scarce," a videoblogger who had been compiling video of the Lamont campaign for YouTube—a significant component in Lamont's ability to build buzz—posts a 150-second music video of about the way total awesomeness of the campaign.

Question: Why do these insurgent liberal campaigns always end up wasting their time on this stuff? Remember that the Howard Dean, in the crucial last month before the Iowa Caucus, also had a campaign apparatus that was developing cool, hype-worthy tools (a MySpace-style Dean voter-to-Dean voter meeting place) and blowing a not insignificant amount of time doing it. Lamont's Colbert jaunt and Scarce's distraction (to be fair, Scarce isn't actually working for the campaign) come from the same playbook. Joe Trippi, who groused about the way the Dean campaign lost its footing before Iowa, pointed out that his effort turned attention from the candidate (aren't I special?) to the volunteers (aren't you special? Although Trippi consdidered this basically a good thing.). So, are these hot blogger-boosted campaigns cursed to get distracted and self-congratulating at the 11th hour? Or does twice not make a trend?

UPDATE: The Connecticut excitement continues. In Joe's corner, Joe Biden. In Ned's corner, Al Sharpton. Only one of them can lose!

Advertisement

NEXT: Fly, Fetus, Fly!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well, twice doesn’t make a trend, and since “Scarce” isn’t part of Lamont’s campaign the two aren’t comparable anyway, and also we won’t know if Lamont’s campaign is a success until November (lots of time to screw up before then for other reasons, of course). Otherwise, good post.

  2. I think Lamont has an edge over Dean, as long as Lamont can refrain from screaming in front of a live microphone.

    Also, the press corps isn’t being as petty and catty as they are during a Democratic Presidential primary season.

  3. Lefties I know still brag about how great Dean’s internet organizing and fundraising was. When I hear them say this stuff I always ask them, “Wait, didn’t Dean do absolutely terribly in the primary, like, not even second?” but it never gets through.

  4. “In Joe’s corner, Joe Biden. In Ned’s corner, Al Sharpton. Only one of them can lose!”

    In my heart, both Joe Biden and Al Sharpton will always be losers. (Although maybe Sharpton more than Biden because of the Tawana Brawley thing.)

  5. Lefties I know still brag about how great Dean’s internet organizing and fundraising was. When I hear them say this stuff I always ask them, “Wait, didn’t Dean do absolutely terribly in the primary, like, not even second?” but it never gets through
    In this case, it’s critical to note [i]he did better than Joe Lieberman[/i]. 🙂

    In all honesty though, it’s really a mistake to look at that way. There were 9 candidates — all but two of them lost badly. Hell, almost every political run ends in failure.

    What made Dean special was that he came out of nowhere, grabbed the spotlight, garnered the cash to make a serious run of it, and became the man to beat. That was an unusual feat in a primary — especially when the forecast had been a Kerry/Edwards matchup just months before.

  6. Can this fucking primary just fucking happen? I’m so very sick of hearing about it.

  7. Yeah, have to echo that. We just might not need daily updates on the Connecticut primaries.

  8. You know what’s funny about this whole super-hipster Ned Lamont thing? If he gets elected, within eight months be’s going to be the same corrupt, deal-making macaroon the rest of the Senators are.

    Try watching “The War Room” and feel the same “Yeah! Change is in the air” mood you felt when you saw it the first time. Well, ok, some of us didn’t feel it the first time, but it was on the Sundance Channel, so… some youthful arty types must have felt it.

  9. What made Dean special was that he came out of nowhere, grabbed the spotlight, garnered the cash to make a serious run of it, and became the man to beat. That was an unusual feat in a primary — especially when the forecast had been a Kerry/Edwards matchup just months before.

    Well, yeah, maybe in the arena of “Politics as Sports” or “Politics as Entertainment”. But as “Politcs as you gotta fricking win something” it was a big zero. In the end… in the long term, Howard Dean’s meaning will amount to absolutely nothing.

  10. Paul,

    “But as “Politcs as you gotta fricking win something” it was a big zero. In the end… in the long term, Howard Dean’s meaning will amount to absolutely nothing.”

    You mean like Barry Goldwater?

    Howard Dean was poised to win the Iowa Caucuses. If his campaign hadn’t sent thousands of ferocious, east-coast volunteers to Iowa to scare the hell out of the caucus-goers, he very well could have.

    There were a lot of revolutionary tactics deployed by the Dean campaign. Some worked, some worked brilliantly, and some failed spectacularly. The good ones are being copied by savvy campaigns everywhere, and the bad are being discarded.

  11. Yeah, I have to agree with joe. Dean’s campaign did break new ground in a lot of areas.

    I hope the Barry Goldwater metaphore is wrong, though. God knows we don’t need the equivalent of a leftist Reagan coming to office in two years.

    One final note: does anyone seriously think that Dean would have become DNC Chairman had he not run the campaign that he did?

  12. Why is it that Lefties like Ned talk about “orking with our neighbors and allies”when they really mean appeasement?

    Iran won’t be appeased until the USA, UK, Australia, and Israel are under their perverted form of that pedophile’s religious law.

    When you see a poison snake in your house, do you:
    (a) kill it, or
    (b) form committees, hire consultants, apply for government grants, research the motives, diet, habitat, and philosophy of the snake, write papers, and blame the folks who get bitten for making the snake angry?

    Looks to me like Ned is a “(b)” kinda guy…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.