Chuck Hagel bitchslaps Lieberman over scare comments

Dodd is afraid of Lieberman.  He has broken the rules of his old political strategies, and is adrift as yet in anchoring himself in new ones.  He feels unable to defend himself and unsure what to do, because a bold style is still a concept to him -- he hasn't stepped into it.  And he may not, though I welcome his doing so.

At the heart of it, politicians who view "bold" as consultant advice to follow will imitate boldness and follow the PT Barnum road to incremental poll bounces.  Those who are genuinely up against the wall as regards a change their political approaches and feel they MUST speak out and cause a change (as opposed to feeling they MUST run for president and have everyone like them) will have a palpable change in tone that no one will wonder about.

Dodd may still be unsure as to whether he really wants to get on the boat, and has one foot on the dock, longing for the comfort of terra firma, while the boat is leaving. 

Ship or shore?

Time will tell, but don't get caught standing up in the canoe while you're deciding, Chris Dodd.

I'd also add that Lieberman is one of the most shrewd, calculating politicians in recent memory.  It's why he didn't wilt after his loss in the primary, and why he was very confident going into the general election.  He doesn't apologize because he doesn't really need to: he continues to come out on top, if not by the most ethical means.

He reminds me quite a bit of James Traficant or Tom Delay, both of whom were only toppled due to legal troubles.  And that's the only way that Lieberman will be brought down, barring his appointment to a higher political position.

It's sad that the Connecticut voters put Joe back in office for another six years.  But hindsight is 20/20, and it has been discussed ad infinitum, both here and on other liberal blogs, why the Lamont campaign didn't overcome Lieberman. 

But there's one thing that can't really be disputed: like him or not (and I don't), Lieberman is a very talented politician.

Track my journey at randomduck.com

--John F. Kennedy.

Contrary to his public perception, Hagel actually supported Bush more frequently in 2006 than any of the others seen as potential Republican nominees.

Name / Pres. Support Score (%) / Party Unity Score (%)
Sen. George Allen (VA) / 91 / 96
Sen. Sam Brownback (KS) / 92 / 83
Sen. Bill Frist (TN) / 93 / 94
Sen. Chuck Hagel (NE) / 96 / 84
Rep. Duncan Hunter (CA) / 92 / 94
Sen. John McCain (AZ) / 89 / 76
Sen. Rick Santorum (PA) / 86 / 92

And further down in the comments on the same piece:

"The problem is that while Hagel is rhetorically against the war in Iraq, he has never made a single vote in the United States Senate to express his opposition. Progressives like to point to Hagel as a "liberal" Republican, when nothing could be further from the truth. "

Look if you all want purity post and track for Kucinich. He's in, committed, wants the troops home, willing to cut the funds, solid progressive voting record, so....?

No, instead let's beat up on Dodd. A 25 year Senator who won't fight with the Lieberman - the dimwit now thought to be a genius because he won a 4th term - bet if you took a poll in CT, he'd get at least the same number of favorables.

For some Dodd is showing class, to others he's a "good old boy". He's a self-admitted "dark horse" whose yet to make his case.

As for the show. Let's get real. Russert did a ROUND table. I'm not much of a Russert fan, but it's a pretty countrolled (civil?) show. And if anyone cared to follow how the discussion flowed they'd note that Dodd wasn't positioned to rebut Lieberman - Hagel was and did a helluva job.