Yesterday's item headlined "Michael Bennet Camp on How the Hell He Avoided Being Swept Under by Republican Tsunami," posted shortly after the incumbent senator was declared the winner in a tighter-than-tight contest against Republican Ken Buck, generated a slew of intriguing comments, with precious few of our readers openly celebrating Bennet's victory. Indeed, Bennet came in for more than his share of criticism.
Here's a prime example, courtesy of Eric. He writes:
We dodged a bullet by beating buck, but Bennet's no progressive. I expect he'll be weak kneed and cowardly, the same as Udall, as far as his votes go. I believe the Democrats got smoked in this election precisely because they were elected in '08 to get health care costs under control, create jobs, and bring reason and common sense to Washington. They failed, more because of cowardice than repub obstruction (although the repubs did everything they could to derail every bill and resolution to the tune of 200 filibusters since January 2009.) Failing to do the job you're hired to do, that's what doomed the Democrats this cycle. Bennet's win was more about buck's creepyness, his very obvious anti female leanings, his slimy behavior as DA, and his hypocritical "anti gummint" campaign, from his position as a 25 year "gummint" employee looking for 6 more "gummint" employee years. No, Bennet won in spite of Bennet. I voted for him because as cowardly and duplicitous as he is, he's infinately less dangerous than buck. Andrew Romanov would have smoked buck. And I'd be a lot happier than I am with Bennet. But at least he ain't buck.
To check out more memorable takes, visit our Comment of the Day archive.