Lamont does a Clinton

I’m not a Connecticut resident, registered as a Democrat, nor a supporter of many of Senator Lieberman’s positions. But, I do admire anyone who has integrity in their behavior. Lieberman has long met that key test of qualification for responsible public office.

His further Left supported opponent in the primary, Ned Lamont, however, has graphically, and I specifically intend to use that word, demonstrated his lack of integrity.

Like Bill Clinton’s avowal that he didn’t have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, Ned Lamont disavows close relations with Jane Hamsher, whose graphic creation of Lieberman in blackface is clearly outrageous in itself and as racist.

Unlike, say, Mel Gibson who didn’t try the copout of “I apologize to anyone offended” by his anti-Semitic outburst, instead taking clear responsibility, Hamsher increases her offense. Contrast:

GIBSON: There is no excuse, nor should there be any tolerance, for anyone who thinks or expresses any kind of anti-Semitic remark. I want to apologize specifically to everyone in the Jewish community for the vitriolic and harmful words that I said to a law enforcement officer the night I was arrested on a DUI charge.

HAMSHER: I sincerely apologize to anyone who was genuinely offended by the choice of images accompanying my blog post today on the Huffington Post.

The only ones not offended by Hamsher are some of her fellow-travellers in Leftist extremism.

Ned Lamont hangs himself, as well, by his Clintonian reaction:

Lamont brushed past reporters Wednesday night in Bridgeport, saying: "I don't know anything about the blogs. I'm not responsible for those. I have no comment on them."

Yet, as Tom Maguire points out:

...here is a Hartford Courant story about Jane and Ned's excellent adventure with the Steve Colbert show:
Lamont arrived with an entourage: His wife, Annie; their campaign driver, Marc Bradley; a blogger, Jane Hamsher; and Bill Hillsman, the creator of his offbeat ads, one of which was played weeks earlier on `The Colbert Report.'

Lamont disavows knowing about this selected member of his small entourage, in effect, spitting in the eye of integrity.

Gibson has a long ways to go before proving his remorse by retribution. Hamsher and Lamont have far further to go, still not even admitting culpability nor sincere remorse. To send such a man to Washington can either be considered unacceptable or an endorsement of lacks of integrity there by others. Clearly, graphically, Democrat primary voters in Connecticut will be part of the solution or part of the problem.