David Sirota writes on OpenLeft that he got an email written by Lieberman, forwarded to him by a fan that Lieberman still opposes the public option.
Here's what Lieberman said
A broad coalition is needed when addressing an issue as large, and as important for our nation's citizens, as health care reform. While, in general, I would prefer not to see a public plan option because of cost concerns and the possibility that it could potentially prevent the formation of the coalition that will be necessary to pass reform, I am very open to all options that have been laid on the table.
Now as Sirota notes, Lieberman did not say he would vote against a healthcare bill with a public option, so looks like he's got his finger testing the political wind again.
This article by David Sirota in The Nation hit home for me. It's a clip adapted from his new book, The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington.
(Photo from 2006 election, with Lamont supporters (L-R) Matt Stoller, Tim Tagaris, and David Sirota and lifted, totally without permission, from CTBob - thanks, Bob!)
Thanks Ned Lamont. I've never said it before, but I feel I need to pay you some gratitude.
Thanks, Ned, for reminding how valuable Habeas Corpus is. You spent $15 million or so of your own money - a sum that boggles my mind. You could have bought yourself a 100-foot sailboat and run it with a full crew for four years or so. You could have bought a bunch of houses out of foreclosure and made a mint flipping them.
Instead, to speak for the Constitution, you put yourself through hell. And you survived. Anyone who doubted your sincerity should eat their hats. I heard you on Jon Dankosky's Where We Live Wednesday not once, but twice. I tuned in at 9 a.m., driving to New Haven. I even called in, and asked a question - 275-4266.
On my way home at 8 p.m., I tuned in again. I wanted to hear my question, and I wanted to listen to David Sirota again. I agree with him. You are a revolutionary. I'm sorry I didn't see it sooner.
You bought a platform, and you took a huge defeat. You invested $15 million and you lost, yet you stood back up, dusted yourself off and jumped back on your horse. You demonstrate self-confidence and maturity.
David Sirota, who many of you may remember as a strategist and rapid response staffer for Ned Lamont's Senate campaign, now has a weekly syndicated column.
Creators Syndicate asked David to write the column after the tragic death of legendary journalist Molly Ivins.
For those of you who don't know David, he is one of America's leading progressive voices. Author of the book, Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government and How We Take It Back, David also blogs at WorkingAssetsBlog.com, and he writes a monthly column for the San Francisco Chronicle.
If you would like to read a progressive point of view in your local newspaper, stop by David's blog and follow the instructions he provides for contacting editors.
As David explains:
The more these editors hear from you - their local readers - that you would like to see the column printed in your local papers, the better the chance there is that they will run the column.
So, if you support my writing and think we need a strong, progressive populist voice to counter the glut of right-wing syndicated columnists on the editorial pages of local newspapers, then please email or call your local editorial page editors and let them know you'd like them to run my weekly Creators Syndicate column.
You can read samples of David's work here and on his blog.
To get an idea of David's view of the world, here's a clip from a panel discussion at the Center for American Progress:
Here's David taking on Ann Coulter (courtesy of CTBlogger):
Furthermore, my article neither states nor implies that anyone, candidates or bloggers, is "corrupt" because of ties between the two. I don't believe that. Candidates have the right to pay for Internet advice, blogging, etc., and bloggers have a right to be paid for that work -- or to do it on a volunteer basis, if they so choose.
I do think it's interesting that some bloggers made a name for themselves by fighting the establishment and billing themselves as revolutionaries but at the same time are willing to work for campaigns. That, to me, is part of the establishment -- at least in a broad sense. And that is the point of my article.
That's very nice. Just out of curiosity, I wonder how much Susan Haigh of the AP received for her work covering the election. BTW, her stuffed parrot caricature will be available at the party Wednesday in Norwalk.
or as Brad DeLong notes at Mydd:
Which of twelve webloggers you named yesterday do you believe billed themselves as revolutionaries who disdained to work for candidates?
Aldon, you sure don't strike me as a 'revolutionary'.
The New York Times names names, and Aldon made the list (as did Tim Tagaris, Jerome Armstrong and David Sirota):
Over the past few years, bloggers have won millions of fans by speaking truth to power - even the powers in their own parties - and presenting a fresh, outsider perspective. They are the pamphleteers of the 21st century, revolutionary "citizen journalists" motivated by personal idealism and an unwavering confidence that they can reform American politics.
Ned Lamont was one smart cookie to get these guys.
David Sirota has a piece in the Baltimore Sun today backing Jack Murtha for Majority Leader. On Iraq and free trade, there is a definite choice to make - the more progressive choice is Jack Murtha.
Mr. Hoyer's reaction to Mr. Murtha's Iraq announcement was telling. He ran to The Washington Post, not to praise Mr. Murtha for his courageous leadership in shifting the debate on the most important national security issue in a generation, but to say Mr. Murtha's announcement "could lead to disaster."
Mr. Hoyer, by contrast, voted for the China pact and a number of other trade agreements opposed by Mr. Murtha and progressive Democrats. He has parroted much of the rhetoric of the Democratic Leadership Council - the corporate front group that has relentlessly pushed Democrats to provide the crucial congressional votes necessary to pass free-trade pacts.
Neither candidate, of course, is perfect. But this is far more than merely a lesser-of-two-evils choice.
If Democrats are looking for a follower to speak for their majority - a person who regurgitates the Beltway's conventional wisdom of the day, no matter how bad for the party and the country - then they have their candidate in Steny Hoyer.
But after a mandate election such as this year's, Democrats do not have to settle. They have a rare opportunity to define themselves for the long term on the crucial national security and economic issues key to changing our country and keeping control of Congress. They must find the courage to choose not a follower but a majority leader. His name is Jack Murtha.
In fact, Lieberman's name has become so synonymous with Washington's propagandistic definition of "centrism" that some of the most insulated Establishment spokespeople are using the term in a pathetic attempt to defend him from grassroots primary challenger Ned Lamont (D).
MLN is powered by