Hillary luvs Lieberman

Oy vey.... (0.00 / 0)

Yes yes yes it will be VERY interesting to hear what Obama and Edwards have to say in response to that question....

"Waiting....waiting on the world to change"  --John Mayer

---

by: tigergrrl74 @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 13:45:02 PM UTC

Your support for Hillary (0.00 / 0)

Tigergrrl74, when you have a chance, I would appreciate it if, in a separate diary, you would respond to my earlier question asking you why you think progressives should vote for Hillary over Obama or Edwards. Thus far, the only reason you've given for your support for her candidacy is her gender. I haven't heard any other reasons why you think she would be a better choice and it seems like, by calling her "experienced", you are really evaluating her based on her husband's record because, in terms of her own experience as an elected candidate, she really doesn't have much more senatorial experience than Obama. Besides, is "experience" really the best measure of a candidate? After all, Lieberman had way more "experience" than Lamont and that didn't do us very well at all.

Why do you think Hillary is better on the issues than either Obama or Edwards?  

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."--James Madison

---

by: sufi @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 16:31:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

With Apologies to Hillary Supporters (0.00 / 0)

She reminds me more of LIEberman every day.

---

by: CTPatriot @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 13:50:15 PM UTC

Why Bother To Apologize? (0.00 / 0)

N/T

"If those in charge of our society...can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves." ~~Howard Zinn

---

by: lakezoarian @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 14:34:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wasn't a big Hillary fan to begin with (4.00 / 3)

but I would x-nay her just because she used the term "Independent Democrat" when referring to Lieberman.

Anyone who uses that term is just slapping me, as a voter in the Democratic primary that elected Ned Lamont to be our Democratic candidate, in the face.

---

by: saramerica @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 13:51:51 PM UTC

I don't see that as OMG SHE LOVES HIM (0.00 / 0)

she gave an answer thats safe, and lets face it.. she has to give a safe answer. If she had said "jeez, that guy is a dickhead" it would have been a little more inflammatory.

I'm not a Hillary supporter, but I'm tired of people reaching into sound bytes to define a candidate. There are these things called ISSUES I GIVE A CRAP ABOUT. And Lieberman is NOT one of them.

.Adding Another Dimension of Vituperation Toxicity to Blogging since 1999!.

---

by: nolopro @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 14:13:52 PM UTC

Read it again (4.00 / 1)

saramaerica pegs the problem here, one I imagine is not confined soley to Hillary Clinton among democratic Senators. The question is one of legitimacy.

---

by: Scarce @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 14:23:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

meh.. its a label (0.00 / 0)

I don't get all caught up with that, life is too short.

it's like referring to Clinton as a 'progressive'. I dont see that either.. I'll look at the policies not the labels and decide for myself. Ever since 'LIBERAL' became a four letter word (I think it was in the 80s under Reagan) I try not to get my underwear in a bunch.

but that's just me.  

.Adding Another Dimension of Vituperation Toxicity to Blogging since 1999!.

---

by: nolopro @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 14:49:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Try These Labels (0.00 / 0)

And I'm talking about her...

CFR, Bilderberg

Not good.

"If those in charge of our society...can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves." ~~Howard Zinn

---

by: lakezoarian @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 14:55:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, great... (0.00 / 0)

a conspiracy nutter. You guys have always been such great allies to the progressive movement.

---

by: OGDem @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 15:30:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What the progressive rap against these groups? (0.00 / 0)

I mean, they certainly exist, but historically I've only heard them get trashed by John Birchers who have strong isolationist / anti-semetic feelings.

I mean, a bunch of wealthy influential people get together somewhere and don't invite us? Sacre bleu, there's a conspiracy around every corner! My feeling is always if it's a conspiracy worth writing about, it probably isn't posted on the internet.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 15:48:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's About Globalism (0.00 / 0)

Here's a good info source:

http://www.bilderberggroup.net/

"If those in charge of our society...can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves." ~~Howard Zinn

---

by: lakezoarian @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 16:19:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Globalism (0.00 / 0)

Anything specific, or just globalism categorically?

I actually tend to think that a lot of things would be addressable only on a "globalised" scale (think global warming / Kyoto), and I rather like the idea of an international criminal court. So what's particularly onerous about these groups in particular?

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 18:17:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

AD HOMINUM Attack Alert! (0.00 / 0)

That's OK, I've grown used to them, although I don't think less of the folks who hurl them. That's because we live in a world of unrelenting psychological "persuasion." I'd like to have a nickel for all the times the folks here have complained of media slant, especially during the height of the Lamont campaign... For those reading this comment, I would respectfully ask that you keep an open mind and do a little research, for you are the best and brightest we've got, or you would be doing something else right now besides posting to a political blog.

The phrase "Independant Democrat" could only work on the gullible.


"If those in charge of our society...can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves." ~~Howard Zinn

---

by: lakezoarian @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 16:05:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bilderberg? BFD (0.00 / 0)

Steven Spielberg, the Pope and  Dennis Hastert have also attended meetings in the past.

Bill Clinton went when he was still governor of the poorest state in the US (? poorest.. well okay it's down there at the bottom of the list somewhere)

Jon Corzine and Bill Richardson have attended, along with George Pataki and Bill Moyers. So has Chuck Hagel.

but no Bono not yet anyway

Informal and private networks like Bilderberg have existed for centuries.. stop with the crazy conspiracies, or save them for Mitt Romney and hte OMG MORMONS.


.Adding Another Dimension of Vituperation Toxicity to Blogging since 1999!.

---

by: nolopro @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 16:16:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Of labels, branding (0.00 / 0)

If the above doesn't make sense to you then let's simplify it:

Suppose someone higher up at Coca Cola decides that Pepsi makes a superior product, so he decides to say so at every opportunity, even going so far as to tell everyone out there to buy pepsi instead. Do you suppose the people at Coke should just smile, and laugh it off?

Lieberman damages the democrats brand. It makes no sense whatsoever for others to do so as well, especially not someone with presidential aspirations.

---

by: Scarce @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 00:34:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why say he caucuses with the Dems? (4.00 / 3)

Does she think we're not paying attention?  With the notable exception of environmental issues, Joe caucuses with the Democrats ONLY when it's for non-important, routine votes.  Anything to do with the war, with Bush appointees, with ANYTHING that Bush wants, he enthusiastically leaps aboard the Bush bus.  

I'd really love to hear Barack's answer to this question.  I know Joe was his mentor early on, but hopefully Obama hasn't been completely poisoned by Lieberman's toxic influence.

Connecticut Bob

---

by: Bob Adams @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 15:11:27 PM UTC

Obama "Poisoned" Early On? (0.00 / 0)

I remember back when Obama first took office. One day I happened to pick up a copy of the Danbury News Times to help pass the time on the train into the city. So I'm rolling along and I get to about page 8 or so, where there was a group of single-column national interest short (each about 2 column-inches long) stories, and down at the bottom of the page I see this one that was a fawning account about how the new Senator was summoned over to the White House to have a nice lunch date with Dick Cheney and Karl Rove on his FIRST day in the Senate...
Say Wha? Couldn't help thinking about it for the rest of the day, wondering, wondering. Like a bubble bursting. To this day I have to wonder what went on in there, and it has spoiled my respect for him.

(It's been a few years since that day now, but I'm pretty sure of the timing, that's why I was so aghast)  

"If those in charge of our society...can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves." ~~Howard Zinn

---

by: lakezoarian @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 16:13:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's your piece: (0.00 / 0)

From 11/29/04

Party time

Sen.-elect Barack Obama, D-Ill., described a congratulatory phone call from President Bush on "The Late Show With David Letterman" Friday night:

"He was very gracious. After the election, he gave me a call and we both agreed that we'd married up, and then he invited me over to the White House and we had breakfast with Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, and it was a real fun time."

Letterman: "Yeah, it sounds like Mardi Gras."

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 16:30:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Erm... (0.00 / 0)

Couldn't help thinking about it for the rest of the day, wondering, wondering. Like a bubble bursting. To this day I have to wonder what went on in there, and it has spoiled my respect for him.

Let me get this straight: A new senator accepts a congratulatory meal from the sitting president, and in your mind that taints him permanently as an ideological traitor?

Treating your philosophical "enemies" with basic politeness does not equal capitulation. People, we need to get over ourselves.

I'm concerned about how Obama would lead the country next year; I couldn't care less about who he had lunch with years ago.

---

by: dauphinb @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 23:10:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My Perception Back Then (0.00 / 0)

1). It's really hard for me to consider GWB as the "sitting president" considering the cloud over the election results and the fact that the recount was stopped and he (and the Cheney, etc. regime) was then installed by the SCOTUS.

2). Barak was "seen" as the antithesis of the conservative status quo, and the standard bearer of a new future for us "sometime in the future" (in my mind anyway).

I'm not sure what to say beyond that. Deep in my gut I worry, and I realize that's worth nothing here. But, what happens to a person when they get to Washington? Why did Chris Murphy vote to condemn the Move-On "Betray-us" ad or endorse the "Thought Crimes" bill?

"If those in charge of our society...can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves." ~~Howard Zinn

---

by: lakezoarian @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:25:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reality vs. Perception (0.00 / 0)

It's really hard for me to consider GWB as the "sitting president" considering the cloud over the election results

I understand; I'm as dubious about the 2000 election as anyone. But you don't really expect a freshman senator, regardless of party or beliefs, to say "screw you, you're not the real President," do you?

Barak was "seen" as the antithesis of the conservative status quo, and the standard bearer of a new future for us "sometime in the future" (in my mind anyway).

Yup. And what part of having breakfast changed your mind about that??

But, what happens to a person when they get to Washington?

Maybe what happens is they learn that actually doing the work of government isn't exactly the same thing as being an ideological warrior. Whether we like it or not, our progressive heroes have to serve with everybody else in the government. Poking their opponents in the eye at every turn may not ultimately be the best strategy for advancing our policy goals. If we're going to throw them under the bus every time they behave even civilly to one of our political opponents, or even when they cast a bad vote (as every working legislator eventually will), we're going to find ourselves pretty lonely.

---

by: dauphinb @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:15:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kucinich had lunch with E.T. (4.00 / 1)

So what?

---

by: CaptCT @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 23:38:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No surprise here... (4.00 / 1)

Ask a have-it-all-ways Centrist a legitimate question, don't expect a principled answer. Hillary can probably trot out a host of procedural votes that Lieberman voted with the Democrats; but make no mistake, on the big issues of our time, GOP Joe is the Republican's MVP.

The fact that Lieberman still chairs a committee, is the leading indicator of how hapless the Democratic congressional leadership is.    

But let justice roll down like waters...Amos 5:24a

---

by: Jake Blount @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 15:17:25 PM UTC

She is talking the party line... (0.00 / 0)

he caucuses with us. He votes with us. And, you know, I certainly believe that's important we continue that.

In other words, we play this game until we stop playing this game.

The Lieberman as VP line is being trotted out again so we may not be playing this game much longer - See Think Progress http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/... and the source item on the WSJ blog http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/... )

---

by: notcho @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 15:22:00 PM UTC

Think Progress article link (0.00 / 0)

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/...

---

by: notcho @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 15:23:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Joe: GOP Good for the Jews" (0.00 / 0)

Via TPM:

From the Miami Herald ...

Joe Lieberman, the one-time Democrat who narrowly lost the vice presidency, stumped in South Florida for a Republican presidential candidate this evening, putting his former party on alert: The GOP is after the Jewish vote.

Lieberman told about 200 Republican Jewish activists that he's backing John McCain because his fellow senator and Iraq war hawk best understands the nature of the radical Islamic threat faced by ''our ally Israel'' -- while much of the Democratic Party has forsaken it.

''The Democratic Party, I believe, respectfully, has left the strongest roots of its foreign policy and national security,'' Lieberman said, adding that McCain ``has always believed that Israel is our natural ally, from the beginning of its modern existence to this day in the war against Islamic extremists and terrorists.''

--Josh Marshall

Drinking Liberally in New Milford
ePluribus Media

---

by: Connecticut Man1 @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 15:35:47 PM UTC

Yes, Senator... (0.00 / 0)

when I think of "good for the Jews," I absolutely think of the party whose most influential members - the religious right - firmly believe that all the Jews will burn in Hell after Jesus comes back to Earth. What are friends for if they won't personally escort you to the fiery gates of damnation.  

---

by: OGDem @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 17:01:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

well, after all... (0.00 / 0)

...she and her husband are the two people most responsible for his still being a Senator. And as we all know, Clintons don't admit mistakes.

---

by: Jim4Lamont @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 17:49:16 PM UTC

To be fair (4.00 / 1)

Bill holding that rally (pre-primary) and going on TV (post-primary) for Lieberman was unhelpful. But the Clinton campaign was as helpful as they could be, post-primary, or at least that was my impression. She had her own election that year, but lent one of her top deputies and (as I understand it) offered to appear in-state for Ned.

They're married, so maybe it's unreasonable to separate them out from one another. But I never thought that she was on the shortlist of people who crapped on the Lamont campaign.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 18:23:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Advice? (0.00 / 0)

Somehow the advice I can hear her person giving might have sounded something like this, "Ned, you did a great job. Now how about we give Joe two or three weeks for him to sooth his crushed ego and then you can come out swinging nice and fresh from a vacation against the GOP in September."


The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 19:37:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

According to Tagaris's debriefing (0.00 / 0)

I think you are correct. Ned's campaign was not disappointed with HRC's support. If I remember correctly, they were most disappointed with two people: 1. Bill Clinton with his talk (in Larry King Live) of 2 Democrats running in this (CT) state (hence, "doesn't-make-a-difference" bullsh*t); 2. Barack Obama with his declining to campaign for a day in CT with Ned.

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: connecticutyankee @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 21:17:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In our world... (0.00 / 0)

Lieberman is obviously a disgrace and there is nothing Hillary cold have said short of, "not only should he not caucus with us, but he should be hung by his toes from any cherry tree in DC."

IS that what anyone expected her to say? She is running for President and, like all current candidates from both parties, she is only going after about 20% of the voters. The other 80%    are essentially committed.They generally distrust D's and R's and go with their gut on whether they "like" a person or not and anyone seen towing the party line or catering to a part of their party they deem "extreme" (yes, that includes us Northeastern Liberals) will be rejected for that  That 20% are a very fickle group, who despise anything "partisan." She also realizes that between now and the next Presidency, there is a lot of work to be done and that the D's need Lieberman.

Do I like her answer? No
Do I understand it is one she had to give? Yes

Oh and the Bilderberg thing...IMHO...is no big conspiracy. And I believe continued globalization is inevitable and can be a very good thing. Fearing and speculating about things we do not know seems a bit silly. As a Freemason, I love to watch all the shows about them for all the entertaining speculation and conspiracy theories.

I have the feeling I'm gonna get a lot of flak for this post.

---

by: famillionaire @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 19:03:47 PM UTC

She could have... (0.00 / 0)

...calmly, regretfully expressed her disappointment, reminded people that it was Bill Clinton, not John McCain, who pulled Holy Joe's chestnuts out of the fire in the summer of '06, talked about the difference between his rhetoric then (I'm still a Democrat and I want to end the war) and his actions since (not just Iraq and McCain but Susan Collins and Katrina). Subtlety and regret are the key, not bombast and anger, however angry she may (and should) be. The finer the blade, the deeper the cut. And it's not as if this question was unforeseeable

As for needing Lieberman, McConnell isn't taking his cue from, or counting on, his vote to block anything. The "moderates" up for re-election in '08 are far less likely to stand with McConnell et al than Lieberman.

HRC's been citing LBJ lately. LBJ didn't offer people tea and cookies, he grabbed them by the throat and backed them up against a wall until they saw reason. This would've been a good chance for HRC to signal that she, in her own way and in a way that fits our times, knows how and is willing to play hardball. What I see is the same sort of triangulation and timid compromise that brought us Joe "C.F.L"  Lieberman (and Iraq, and torture, and the Unitary Executive) for the last six years.

---

by: Jim4Lamont @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 19:25:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Exellent point!!! (0.00 / 0)

Hillary couldn't come out and say "we're going to strip that bozo of his seniority this Monday!"  The margin in the Senate is too narrow.  But we certainly have to strip him of his committee membership come January 2009 when the Dems have picked up a couple more seats.  

So Hillary should have said, "I'm very disappointed in Joe's actions.  We need unity against the Far Right, we need every vote we can get in order to stop the Bush administration's war on civil liberties in this country, and Joe's stumping for Republicans is most unwelcome.  Having said that, he continues to caucus with the Democrats, and we expect that to continue."

That would have put Lieberman on notice that a President Hillary Clinton intends to absolutely fry his sorry ass from day one in the White House.  So he had better shape up, and stop playing games with Democrats.  

That is the sort of stern, but guarded message she should have delivered.  So it is very troubling that she passed up the opportunity to stand up for our party and for CT Democrats.  She is much more conservative than Bill is, her foreign policy pronouncements have been way to close to Bush's, and her flubbing this question gives me no reason whatsoever to switch my vote from John Edwards on February 5.

---

by: thomashooker @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 23:58:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

H. Clinton (0.00 / 0)

H. Clinton always has been a sock-puppet for LIE-berman and B. Cintons is also a sock-puppet for LIE-berman both Clintons helped to defeat Ned LAMONT.

---

by: blackjack @ Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:06:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clinton... Tracy Flick (Reese Witherspoon) (4.00 / 1)

I just came across this, it's not directly related to the Lieberman part of the post but I thought I'd stick it here for fun:

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." - Warren Buffet

---

by: joesaho @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 21:13:24 PM UTC

Great, great movie (0.00 / 0)

Fun game to play the next time it's on TV: count the number of overt Ferris Bueller references.

---

by: tparty @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 21:17:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]