<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Donklephant &#187; Connecticut</title>
	<atom:link href="http://donklephant.com/category/connecticut/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://donklephant.com</link>
	<description>Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:01:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Obama Wins New Hampshire, Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2008/11/04/obama-wins-new-hampshire-connecticut-maine-new-jersey-delaware-and-maryland/</link>
		<comments>http://donklephant.com/2008/11/04/obama-wins-new-hampshire-connecticut-maine-new-jersey-delaware-and-maryland/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 01:23:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Justin Gardner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2008 Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maryland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Hampshire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Jersey]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=10535</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
New Hampshire was expected, but still a swing state in the grand scheme of things.
The others were not surprises in the least.
A total of 56 electoral votes.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/02m3eT03Vr5cc/610x.jpg" width="420"/></p>
<p>New Hampshire was expected, but still a swing state in the grand scheme of things.</p>
<p>The others were not surprises in the least.</p>
<p>A total of 56 electoral votes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://donklephant.com/2008/11/04/obama-wins-new-hampshire-connecticut-maine-new-jersey-delaware-and-maryland/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Courts Legalize Same-Sex Marriage in Connecticut</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2008/10/10/courts-legalize-same-sex-marriage-in-connecticut/</link>
		<comments>http://donklephant.com/2008/10/10/courts-legalize-same-sex-marriage-in-connecticut/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:50:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alan Stewart Carl</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sexuality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Homosexuality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[same-sex marriage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=8987</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Same-sex marriage is now legal in Connecticut by decree of the stateâ€™s supreme court. 
Once again, a matter that should be decided through the democratic process is usurped by the courts. 
Whatâ€™s really unfortunate is that Connecticut was the first state to allow civil unions not because of a court order, but because of a [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Same-sex marriage is now legal in Connecticut <a href=http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/10/connecticut_sup.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed1>by decree of the stateâ€™s supreme court</a>. </p>
<p>Once again, a matter that <a href="http://donklephant.com/2008/05/15/the-problem-with-court-mandated-gay-marriage/">should be decided through the democratic process</a> is usurped by the courts. </p>
<p>Whatâ€™s really unfortunate is that Connecticut was the first state to allow civil unions not because of a court order, but because of a law passed by the state government. With enough time and effort, Connecticut could have become the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in a democratic manner.</p>
<p>I do not place all the blame on the courts. They have the right to interpret the law and certainly people of good conscience can disagree on such interpretations. What really irritates me is politicians who support civil unions but oppose gay marriage. Thatâ€™s political expedience boarding on cowardice.</p>
<p>During the Vice Presidential debate, when Joe Biden affirmed his and Barack Obamaâ€™s opposition to gay marriage, I thought I heard chickens bawking in the background. I donâ€™t for a minute believe politicians like Obama and Biden have a moral problem with gay marriage but are just fine with civil unions and homosexuality in general. </p>
<p>If they and other elected officials had the courage to fight for same-sex marriage in the court of public opinion, we might not see so many courts of law preemptively deciding the matter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://donklephant.com/2008/10/10/courts-legalize-same-sex-marriage-in-connecticut/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rasmussen: Obama Up 17 In Connecticut</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2008/07/03/rasmussen-obama-up-17-in-connecticut/</link>
		<comments>http://donklephant.com/2008/07/03/rasmussen-obama-up-17-in-connecticut/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:23:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Justin Gardner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2008 Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Independents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[McCain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=6208</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obama &#8211; 52%
McCain &#8211; 35%
Connecticut is usually a pretty faithfully blue state, so the sole reason I post this is Obama only lead McCain by 3 points last month.
The demo details&#8230;
In Connecticut, Obama has a solid 58% to 30% lead among women, but just a five point advantage among men. 
Among voters not affiliated with [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>Obama</b> &#8211; 52%<br />
<b>McCain</b> &#8211; 35%</p>
<p>Connecticut is usually a pretty faithfully blue state, so the sole reason I post this is Obama only lead McCain by 3 points last month.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/connecticut/election_2008_connecticut_presidential_election">The demo details&#8230;</a><br />
<blockquote>In Connecticut, Obama has a solid 58% to 30% lead among women, but just a five point advantage among men. </p>
<p>Among voters not affiliated with either major political party, Obama leads 44% to 37%.</p></blockquote>
<p>And on likability&#8230;<br />
<blockquote>The Democratic nominee is viewed favorably by 62% of Connecticut voters, up from 54% last month. He is viewed unfavorably by 43%. </p>
<p>McCainâ€™s numbers are 54% favorable and 43% unfavorable, which have remained unchanged since the last poll.</p></blockquote>
<p>Unless these numbers get significantly closer, I probably won&#8217;t be posting anything else on the Nutmeg State.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://donklephant.com/2008/07/03/rasmussen-obama-up-17-in-connecticut/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When Will Lieberman Apologize To Lamont?</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2008/04/10/when-will-lieberman-apologize-to-lamont/</link>
		<comments>http://donklephant.com/2008/04/10/when-will-lieberman-apologize-to-lamont/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:22:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Justin Gardner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Independents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lieberman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=5187</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Back in Fall 2006, Joe&#8217;s website went down and his campaign blamed the rival Ned Lamont&#8217;s campaign&#8230;mostly because the netroots were backing Lamont and it was an easy accusation to make against bloggers.
Well, it turns out that not only did Lamont not have anything to do with it, but Lieberman&#8217;s people knew the real cause [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/05zH9x1bE26zF/610x.jpg" width="420"/></p>
<p>Back in Fall 2006, Joe&#8217;s website went down and his campaign blamed the rival Ned Lamont&#8217;s campaign&#8230;mostly because the netroots were backing Lamont and it was an easy accusation to make against bloggers.</p>
<p>Well, it turns out that not only did Lamont <i>not</i> have anything to do with it, but Lieberman&#8217;s people knew the <i>real</i> cause soon after an investigation by the FBI was conducted&#8230;back in 2006. That&#8217;s right&#8230;Lieberman knew about this back in 2006. And the information is only coming out now because a Connecticut newspaper filed a Freedom of Information Act request.</p>
<p><a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ixx4WeGguGfjhhNMAaDTiKEB7lFQD8VUJOIG0">From AP</a>:<br />
<blockquote>WASHINGTON (AP) â€” Sen. Joe Lieberman&#8217;s re-election campaign caused its own Web site to crash on the eve of the August 2006 Connecticut primary, federal investigators have found â€” not supporters of Democratic challenger Ned Lamont, whom Lieberman implied were responsible.</p>
<p>&#8220;In short, the server that hosted the joe2006.com Web site failed because it was overutilized and misconfigured,&#8221; according to an Oct. 25, 2006, e-mail included in FBI documents obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press. &#8220;There was no evidence of (an) attack.&#8221;</p>
<p>Once reported by the media, the accusations by Lieberman&#8217;s campaign helped overwhelm the Web site on primary day, too, the investigators said.</p></blockquote>
<p>Fair&#8217;s fair and for Joe to sit on this for more than a year and a half says a lot about his character. This type of nonsense gives Independents a bad name, and it&#8217;s time to apologize, and soon.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://donklephant.com/2008/04/10/when-will-lieberman-apologize-to-lamont/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama Wins Connecticut</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2008/02/05/obama-wins-connecticut/</link>
		<comments>http://donklephant.com/2008/02/05/obama-wins-connecticut/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2008 03:19:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Justin Gardner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2008 Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2008/02/05/obama-wins-connecticut/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fox just called it, but it&#8217;s a close race and they&#8217;ll probably split the delegates.
Still, Hillary didn&#8217;t get the tri-state sweep, so that&#8217;s a good win for Obama tonight.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fox just called it, but it&#8217;s a close race and they&#8217;ll probably split the delegates.</p>
<p>Still, Hillary didn&#8217;t get the tri-state sweep, so that&#8217;s a good win for Obama tonight.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://donklephant.com/2008/02/05/obama-wins-connecticut/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Polls Show Obama Closing On Hillary</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2008/01/30/polls-show-obama-closing-on-hillary/</link>
		<comments>http://donklephant.com/2008/01/30/polls-show-obama-closing-on-hillary/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:51:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Justin Gardner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[2008 Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connecticut]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2008/01/30/polls-show-obama-closing-on-hillary/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[First the national poll from Gallup, which shows that last week Clinton was up by 16 points. Now the gap is 6 points.
Clinton 42% (-2)
Obama 36% (+3)
Edwards 12% (-2)
Then Kennedy&#8217;s endorsement has helped Obama in Massachusetts&#8230;
A Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the Massachusetts Democratic Presidential Primary finds Hillary Clinton attracting 43% of the vote while [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First the <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/104044/Gallup-Daily-Tracking-Election-2008.aspx">national poll from Gallup</a>, which shows that last week Clinton was up by 16 points. Now the gap is 6 points.<br />
<blockquote>Clinton 42% (-2)<br />
Obama 36% (+3)<br />
Edwards 12% (-2)</p></blockquote>
<p>Then Kennedy&#8217;s endorsement has <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/massachusetts/election_2008_massachusetts_democratic_primary">helped Obama in Massachusetts&#8230;</a><br />
<blockquote>A Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the Massachusetts Democratic Presidential Primary finds Hillary Clinton attracting 43% of the vote while Barack Obama earns 37%. The survey was conducted on the night that Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama but before John Edwards dropped out of the race.</p></blockquote>
<p>Next, <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/california/election_2008_california_democratic_presidential_primary">California shows signs of swinging Obama&#8217;s way&#8230;</a><br />
<blockquote>The first Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Californiaâ€™s Democratic Presidential Primary shows Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama by five percentage points. Itâ€™s Clinton 38% Obama 33% and John Edwards at 12%. Dennis Kucinich picks up 3% of the vote and 13% are not sure.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/poll_hillary_only_up_by_12_over_obama_in_new_york.php">Obama is also gaining in New York&#8230;</a><br />
<blockquote>A new poll from Public Policy Polling (D) shows that Barack Obama might be sneaking up on Hillary Clinton in her home state of New York. Hillary leads with 45% of the vote, followed by Obama at 33% and John Edwards with 10%. In the demographic breakdown, Hillary leads 44%-29% among whites, Obama 44%-32% among African-Americans, and Hillary 64%-31% among Hispanics.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/connecticut/election_2008_connecticut_democratic_presidential_primary">And he&#8217;s tied in Connecticut&#8230;</a><br />
<blockquote>New York Senator Hillary Clinton attracts 40% of the vote and so does Illinois Senator Barack Obama. John Edwards is a very distant third at 11% while 3% say theyâ€™d vote for some other candidate and 6% are not sure.</p></blockquote>
<p>Lastly, <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/2008_democratic_presidential_primary">Rasmussen proposes an interesting scenario&#8230;</a><br />
<blockquote>Today, Clinton is leading in most of the Super Tuesday states and is expected to walk away from February 5 with more delegates than anyone else. But, since the Democrats award delegates proportionally, Obama will pick up a decent share as well. John Edwards will get some too.</p>
<p>Add to that the fact that 20% of the delegates are so-called Super Delegates&#8211;Democratic National Committee members, members of Congress, Governors, and other party leaders formally unpledged to any candidate. Theoretically, any candidate who wins 30% of the delegates through Primaries and Caucuses could end up grabbing the nomination with the support of the Super Delegates. For Obama, that becomes even more possible if he were to ultimately win the endorsement of John Edwards.</p>
<p>It is now possible to imagine a scenario where Senator Clinton wins battle after battle, primary after primary, but loses the nomination. If the Democratic Party establishment becomes disenchanted with the tone of her campaign, anything could happen. Eventually, Obama would have to win some more primaries, but a few late victories could be enough to win the hearts and votes of the Super Delegates.</p></blockquote>
<p>One thing&#8217;s for sure. There&#8217;s still a lot of time between now and Tuesday. Actually, almost an eternity in this wild primary season. Will Obama continue to close on Hillary?</p>
<p>More as it develops.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://donklephant.com/2008/01/30/polls-show-obama-closing-on-hillary/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
