Lieberman Loses Democratic Superdelegate Status
By bluegal Wednesday Feb 06, 2008 12:26pm
Because he endorsed McCain, or because he's actually a Republican?
WaPo: [Lieberman's] "Reuniting Our Country" PAC donated $5,000 to McCain's campaign in December....
Lieberman has at least been monogamous on the presidential front this year, but it will be interesting to see how hard he will campaign for McCain if the Arizonan ends up as the GOP nominee. With their two-vote margin in the Senate, Democrats can't afford to have Lieberman cross all the way over and caucus with Republicans. So they'll probably have to bite their tongues while he -- and his checkbook -- try to keep the White House (and a few Senate seats) in GOP hands.
Login or Register to post comments.
Finally, consequences for somebody!
GOOD
Why the hell wasn't this automatic when he ran against Lamont as an independent?
about fucking time the dems stuck it to LIEberman...
that said, get rid of the undemocratic, elitist, super delegates, in total
I wish there was more they could do to him, but this is a nice beginning.
He must have known about the rule when he endorsed McCain so I doubt if this comes as a shock to him. He probably thinks it's worth it to become the veep candidate with McCain.
Lauren @ 1:
Yeah, consequences for the Democratic Party, but not for Lieberman.
It's looking more and more like a McCain/Lieberman GOP ticket in November. Get ready people.
I'm just floored he actually HAD Super Delegate status. What numbnuts let him keep that?
I am going to step out on a limb and predict that McCain will choose Lieberman has his running mate. This would essentially cut the cord completely with the Democratic Party. I am glad that his super-delegate status has been revoked; hell, I say do away with all of them.
I say get rid of his traitorous ass now! It's not like the Democratic "controlled" senate has done anything anyhow...
Lieberman is a Democrat?
Kick him out of the party and his chair of oversight for DHS.
Failed loser.
If I was McCain and the way this seems to be going, I would choose a Dem thinking VP to run with. Someone who really isn't a Dem, but pretends to be. Wesley Clarke comes to mind. Conservatives love him and Dems think he is one of their own.
Does anyone else here think it's time to shitcan this mysterious 'superdelegate' system? Who, exactly, is it supposed to serve? Certainly not the american public.
getalife @ 11:
i second that!
no more chairman positions for this rat scaby
There are 49 dems in the senate.
There are 49 'cons in the senate.
There are 2 independents in the senate, one of which is a decent man and the other being Lieberman.
Do the math on why he's been treated with kid gloves by the dems.
Once more: He is the most dangerous man in the senate, and I can't wait until the '08 elections NEUTER this beast.
Anonymoo @ 13:
Count me in. It seems to negate the voters wishes or it could.
Scy @ 7:
Hillary Clinton for one. When asked about him supporting McCain earlier she still defends him with something to the effect that he votes with us. I'm just so glad he is not from the South. We have had our share of Zell Millers and others. At least we don't get to take credit for Lieberman. Congrats to Conn.
McCain and Lieberman should run together and start a jowely conservative party. I wonder how long it takes them to tuck their jowels into their collars every morning. I heard that's why McCain didn't have time to campaign in Iowa.
[Deleted]
Jonathon @ 8:
Ditto to all the "why the hell was he one in the first place comments." In response to this comment, I sure as hell hope he chooses Lieberman. It'll make it all the more easy for he and McCain to get their asses handed to them come November. McCain's a dumbass if he picks him.
Shouldn't he have lost his status when he quit the party? No brainer.
Yeah, McCain choose LIEberman as your VP, you're guaranteed Florida...uhh...
To just about every post already here:
BIG FAT DITTO!!!
And are the Democrats still caucusing with Alf's host-dad or what??? Go back to keeping phallic-faced aliens from eating your cat, Lieberman, you quavering voiced neocon!
He's not a Dem, why should he be invited to the convention?
Ok,
this is the kind of crap i was talking about that you OBAMA supporters are clueless about OBAMA voting record or positions. i said previously OBAMA would not piss off any republican in chicago and that he hasn't done anything here but vote present because he wants everybody to get along. you people are voting for a guy who you don't even really know where he stands on anything. i forgot all about the fact this guy supported lieberman over ned lamont. what are you OBAMA folks trying to give us?
Obama rallies state Democrats, throws support behind Lieberman
By Stephanie Reitz, Associated Press Writer | March 31, 2006
HARTFORD, Conn. --U.S. Sen. Barack Obama rallied Connecticut Democrats at their annual dinner Thursday night, throwing his support behind mentor and Senate colleague Joe Lieberman.
Article Tools
Printer friendly
E-mail to a friend
Conn. RSS feed
Available RSS feeds
Most e-mailed
More:
Globe City/Region stories |
Latest local news |
Globe front page |
Boston.com
Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts Obama, an Illinois Democrat who is considered a rising star in the party, was the keynote speaker at the annual Jefferson Jackson Bailey Dinner.
Lieberman, Connecticut's junior senator, is under fire from some liberal Democrats for his support of the Iraq War. He was key in booking Obama, who routinely receives more than 200 speaking invitations each week.
Some at Thursday's dinner said that while they were pleased with Lieberman's success in bringing Obama to Connecticut, they still consider Lieberman uncomfortably tolerant of the Bush administration.
Obama wasted little time getting to that point, calling it the "elephant in the room" but praising Lieberman's intellect, character and qualifications.
"The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it," Obama told the 1,700-plus party members who gathered in a ballroom at the Connecticut Convention Center for the $175-per-head fundraiser.
"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf," he said.
Obama received widespread attention for his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, delivered while he was still a state senator.
Lieberman became Obama's mentor when Obama was sworn into the Senate in 2005. They stayed close at Thursday night's event, too, entering the room together and working the crowd in tandem.
Despite the camaraderie between the two, the crowd was clearly more receptive to Obama's remarks than Lieberman's speech about party unity and the potential for Democratic victories at the ballot box this fall.
In fact, scattered boos greeted Lieberman when he took the podium, and he had to stop three times during his remarks to shush the crowd so he could deliver key points.
Ned Lamont, a Democratic activist and anti-war candidate from Greenwich, is challenging Lieberman for the party's nomination this year. Legions of supporters of Lieberman and Lamont both attended the dinner.
Lieberman, who is seeking a fourth term, also faces an Election Day challenge from Paul Streitz of Darien, who is trying to win the Republican nomination.
Some Democrats at Thursday's event said Lieberman's support of the Iraq War is still a sore point with them. In fact, the Democratic town committees in Windsor and Manchester both recently passed resolutions condemning Lieberman's stance.
"Those of us who've been on the shooting end of the war gallery aren't happy at all about what's going on," said Warren Packer, a Manchester Democratic Town Committee member and military veteran. "I think he's done some good things for the state, but he has to answer for the war."
But that view was not shared throughout the ballroom.
Former Connecticut Democratic U.S. Rep. Jim Maloney, who voted against the launch of the war while he served in the House, said he thinks Lieberman's other accomplishments will overshadow the concerns about his stance on the Iraq War.
"I'm still confident my position was correct, but I just as strongly believe that Sen. Lieberman voted his conscience," Maloney said. "Even those of us who don't agree with him on that one issue have to credit him for doing what he thinks is the right thing."
There is justice after all. After long 7 years of struggle in Bush's regime the best our party could do for the first time evaaar is to tell Joe he can't vote for Billary or Barack Obama. That really reinvigorates my faith in the Democratic Party again!!
I still blame Connecticut voters for Joe Lieberman. They realy didn't care of the mess that the Nation is in.
They had a fresh eager candidate that did win the Dem primary for the seat. And they saw how much that Senatorial seat meant to Joe. It was all about Joe and not the Senate seat representation of the people.
You know damn well Joe was backed by Republicans in his re election bid and now he is owned by republicans. Joe displays a sickness of selfishness for Congressional power(s). It is about Joe and not his state nor the people who pay for his seat.
Anonymoo @ 13:
It's time. Get rid of the electoral college and corporate debates while you're at it.
Well, we've known for months now that the GOP ticket will be MCCAIN/HUCKABEE, so what position does that leave for Lieberman in what is now guaranteed to be a McCain Presidency since Clinton nor Obama have any chance against McCain?
I shudder at the thought of Lieberman as Secretary of State.
Oh, God, no!
Talk about LOUSY JUDGEMENT!
Obama rallies state Democrats, throws support behind Lieberman
Lollimom @ 15:
Which is why the Dems should eject his ass from the caucus right now. I know it would cost them the Senate majority, but how much good has that 51-49 majority done them so far? Besides, even if Old Man John manages to win in November (and that, to me, is a very large if), it's likely that the Democrats will gain a larger majority in the Senate. So a few months of "pain" is worth the sacrifice of sending Joe to a side that, save McCain, doesn't have much room for him either.
Bipartisanship is one thing, but this is something entirely different.
The net effect of this is not good.
Now the Democratic nominee will have to do even more AIPAC-sucking-up than usual. You can now look forward to debates in the fall where McCain and Obama-or-Clinton fight to be the more aggressive towards Iran.
please eplain OBAMA's lack of judgement supporting lieberman?????????????
Oscar @ 27:
KEEP THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, because it makes smaller states relevant.
GET RID OF CORPORATE DEBATES. Every debate should be simulcasted on PBS and C-Span. The moderators should be Presidential historians, and the questions should be written by independents scholars and historians.
Oscar @ 27:
It ensures that the Democratic Party supporters do NOT get the most popular, or most voted for candidate against the wishes of the Dem leadership. So much for democracy.
Today Mitt basically said he was sacrificing his campaign to keep the Dems out of the oval office because they would wave the white flag to the terrorist. He tried to sound like the hero who was laying down his shield for the good of the country. I call bs
Lieberman knows he has the Dems over a barrel and he's enjoying the hell out of it.
michelle @ 32:
See what Hillary thinks of LIEberman. Same thing. She speaks of him the same way. Meet the two candidates. Can you spot the difference?
Our "elected" representatives need to end the games require Lieberman to become a republican and demand he run for election as a republican. I don't think this will happen because the game is being run on us, they aren't running a game on each other.
michelle @ 32:
Basically considering the FACT that Obama supported Lieberman over Lamont in the CT Dem Primary in 2006. Probably did so for the same reason that he (Obama) voted to confirm Condi Rice.
"I know that some in the party have differences with Joe," Senator Obama said, all but silencing the crowd. "I'm going to go ahead and say it. It's the elephant in the room. And Joe and I don't agree on everything. But what I know is, Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America."
Then, with applause beginning to build, he finished the thought: "I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate." That time, people cheered loudly.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/04/02/164/90446
Lollimom @ 15:
Ditto. And, the most REPULSIVE. Of which he must be aware, therefore even more dangerous - nothing to lose to an uberloser !
ConcernedCanuck @ 36:
Clusterbombs, the Iraq War, Liberman-Kyl, Citigroup, emulation of Mitt Romney's MA insurance scheme (aka collusion with the insurance industry), Goldwater, etc etc
ConcernedCanuck @ 34:
Electoral College doesn't have anything to do with primaries. How delegates are chosen is up to the political parties.
You mean the party of Reid and Pelosi actually did something against Joe? You'd think they wouldn't have the nerve to do anything to piss him off. It requires having a spine.
This was before he decided to run as an independent, and before he *actually* abandoned the party. Even Obama can't see into the future.
did she endorse him over ned lamont?
michelle @ 32:
please eplain OBAMA’s lack of judgement supporting lieberman?????????????
See what Hillary thinks of LIEberman. Same thing. She speaks of him the same way. Meet the two candidates. Can you spot the difference?
After the November elections, toad face will be the most irrelevant man on Capitol Hill.
framecop @ 33:
Bingo. Without the electoral college the choice of president essentially comes down to "mob rule" amongst a few heavily populated states.
Still, it's quite ironic the Democratic Party, the so-called "party of the people," deliberately avoids structuring itself as a pure democracy.
ConcernedCanuck @ 36:
Yeah, lovefest w/ the worst piece of trash. Sickening.
Reid and Pelosi didn't do this. Dean did.
goatsage @ 21:
GW as your VP and you're guaranteed FL. Of course you also die in the first month in office and GW gets to sit in the big chair again, but.........
I'm betting there might be some here who considered supporting McCain when he ran against bush in 2000. Of course your opinion of him has changed dramatically since then, right? So I don't think we need to get too caught up in what someone thought about someone else years ago.
Obama and The Clintons(both of them)supported Lieberman in the Democratic Primary. I
don't believe any of them really wanted to except that Lieberman was the incumbant Democratic Senator at the time. They did not actively support him after he lost the primary and I believe said they supported Lamont(in name only of course). Lieberman refused to give up his Senate seat during the election of 2000. He will refuse to give it up if he runs with McCain. He is totally obsessed with Washington power at any and all costs to everyone and everything else.
peaceful easy feeling @ 46:
Just an FYI:
PBS is corporate owned.
C-Span is corporate owned (cable companies).
Agree on other points.
Can't Connecticut just recall or impeach his ass?
Two little war-mongers sitting in a tree...k-i-l-ling kids you see. First comes Iran then comes China then comes nukes from everywhere! yea!!!! yea!!!
bomb bomb bomb...
oh god how I can't stand these two!!!
peaceful easy feeling @ 46:
uhm isn't majority rule the entire point of democracy?
Lollimom @ 15:
I just wanted this to be repeated, since someone posted that the Democrats have a two-vote cushion, which is nonsense.
Sanders will not caucus with either side. He might have a "better" voting record than a dozen Democrats, but he still wouldn't do it. So, if Lieberman even pulls back to being merely independent (i.e., not caucusing with either side), control goes back to the Republicans on the tie-breaker.
I can never stopping thanking CT enough. /snark
Well, at least they got the Presidential primary right!
Bullshyte...
this was when we were in the throes of trying to kick joe lieberman OUT of office. now hillary may have endorsed him too. i don't know but i am tired of you folks making OBAMA into something he isn't. you are making continous excuses for him and it is a big mistake. you don't know how he will vote because he hasn't really voted on anything to know his record. he is completely untested. all he has proven is that he is a good motivational speaker. i know this country is hurting and wants to unite but if uniting means we keep folks like JOE LIEBERMAN than i want a pit bull to kick ass and make the necessary chanes we need. that means we are going to have to piss some people off. OBAMA does not show the abiolity to do that. his kum bye ya crap is good and church and at a motivational conference. i want someone who can execute to save our economy on day one. if i recall OBAMA said he would need to lean on people like hilliary when electeed to geth things done. give me a break. if you can't execute change day one in this country all the good warm and fuzzies you OBAMA folks talk about mean crap. we can not survive economically 4 years for OBAMA to learn the ropes of the white house. it may have been ok before for presidents to have the time to learn but as this nation goes down the tubes in the next foiur years i want to see everyone talking the cum bye ya mantra in the unemplyment line. get real...you can not motivate a nation to greatness until you SAVE IT ECONOMICALLY.
if i have a financially strapped business and i need a change agent who do i hire? the feel good motovational speaker or the executive to financially turn it around first. i save it economically first. then i work on the morale of the employees. folks make a logical decision first and then put your emotion in it when we can not afford to make another mistake.
Obama rallies state Democrats, throws support behind Lieberman
By Stephanie Reitz, Associated Press Writer | March 31, 2006
This was before he decided to run as an independent, and before he *actually* abandoned the party. Even Obama can’t see into the future.
Oh snap is right! LOL at McCave getting pwned at the CPAC convention!!
michelle @ 32:
every dem supported lieberman, until he lost the primary.
at that time, obama and the rest supported lamont
its called loyalty to friends, even when they are going through a psychological crisis and/or unravelling, as lieberman has been for some time now.
his buddies-- which included dodd, clinton and obama-- were trying to help the fool from losing his mind and forsaking his entire life's work.
they failed.
but i think it was good of them to try.
but once lamont won the primary, they all endorsed lamont.
including obama.
At this point... or more correctly, in July... should he switch, there is of little consequence. Reid has proven he is not willing to take a stand against anyone - except Dodd of course!
The Dems SUCK!!!!!!
In that possibility, maybe the Dems will have learned, and fillibuster everything the lame duck Repub Senate majority tries to accomplish.
Jonathon @ 8:
McCain will choose Lieberman has his GUNNING mate.
sorry at work and no time to proofread but you get my drift.
that is so not true. there were many who endorsed lamont before the primaries. i may not remember them all but your comment is truly making up excuses for his lack of judgement and his propensity for the go along get along track record he has had. especially in chicago, illinois.
michelle @ 32:
please eplain OBAMA’s lack of judgement supporting lieberman?????????????
every dem supported lieberman, until he lost the primary.
at that time, obama and the rest supported lamont
its called loyalty to friends, even when they are going through a psychological crisis and/or unravelling, as lieberman has been for some time now.
his buddies– which included dodd, clinton and obama– were trying to help the fool from losing his mind and forsaking his entire life’s work.
they failed.
but i think it was good of them to try.
but once lamont won the primary, they all endorsed lamont.
including obama
My previous comment was for the McCave thread.
As for Lieberman, my question is what took the Democrats so long? Next step is to strip him from his chairmanship and kick him out of the caucus. I fully expect a filibuster proof majority in the Senate after this election cycle.
This is Lieberman flipping the finger at the dems. He knows after the November election, he will no longer be courted to caucas. He'll be irrelevant. He should have been relieved of his duties by Reid. He remains to flip his finger because of Harry Reid.
In case anyone forgot, Joe Lieberman single-handedly guaranteed that republicans would control the senate after the 2000 election:
Source: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/07/26/lieberman/index.html
It's ALWAYS all about Joe.
michelle @ 64:
How about remembering ONE
Hey, if he REALLY wanted to skullfuck us, he'd endorse Nader.
goatsage @ 21:
Worked for Gore, well only that FLA was stolen.
JTM, in fact Sanders does caucus with the Democrats. The vote tiebreaker if we completely kick Loserman out of the caucus this time around would be Darth Cheney. As far as Senate rules go, which were agreed on when the 110th Congress started. I think the Democrats still officially hold control of the Senate for the rest of this Congress.
Smarmy @ 66:
Exactly right on the irrelevance factor.
Harry Reid has been between a rock and a hard place since 2006. He waited years to be majority lead, and that seat is meaningful in the party system, it has value.
I don't like what Reid has (not) done, but I appreciate his predicament, which I sometimes forget (when I'm in a rage).
They're waiting til they have a winning bumper sticker to announce the ticket:
Old & Ugly '08
Demented/Meshugennah - Moderate(ly) in '08! (but just wait)
It's Our Turn - Uturn/Turncoat '08
or
Vote Straight '08 - cause teh gay is a sin!
McCain '08/Huckabee '09 - cause the old guy ain't gonna last!
Vote Maverick/God '08 -Feel the Rapture!('09)
Robt @ 26:
R's will vote with stategy. They all voted for Indy Joe (with small exceptions for the hard-core conservative that was running). Just like in the general we will likely see the Dem that is the most agreeable to the R's (since this time the D's actual have a chance of winning).
michelle @ 32:
There was no lack of judgment on Obama's part. Keep in mind that Lamont won the Democratic nomination because a relatively small, but well-orgainized anti-war contingent took advantage of the typically low primary turnout, compounded by there being a complacent electorate generally in support Lieberman, but thinking their primary vote didn't really matter. Lieberman's ultimate win as an independent in the general election, especially in light the negative publicity from going against the party, confirmed Lamont's rather fringe appeal. A similar thing happened on a national level when Mondale won the Democratic nomination in 1984.
Holy Joe is about the closest thing to a jewish fundamentalist we've ever had in the senate. It's not much prettier than Falwell.
pissed off patricia @ 35:
He has nothing since he votes with the R's anyway (since he is one), and the committee assignemnts are written by name already. Only thing he can play at is grand standing and if the D's do not pick up seats in the Senate in November of this year.
lieberman is about as sad and pathetic as the britney spears story.
we should pity the man, not revile him.
he lost his marbles.
the corrupting influence of power on those beneath the qualifications of the office they hold
I still don't understand why he didn't lose that status when he ran independent. Why is this just coming up, now? Is it only because he donated to McCain's campaign?
Anonymoo @ 13:
Aye... count me in for that, and to allow for instant run-off elections and primaries too.
Think carefully of those Senators, Congressman, Bush Regime, the MSM, and their corporate establishment and the spineless speaker of the house that got us where WE are today.
-stocks are wavering on economic worries.
-disappointing retail sales
-Jobless claim straining the market
-Foreclosures at record hign.
-Oil/Gas (not through addiction but out of necessity)prices and gouging are out of control.
-American Manufacturing jobs and a losing competetion to China and India from a faulty foriegn trade policies.
-faulty bankrupsy policies,
-illegal occupation of and pre-emptive war against other nation based.
-Misappropriated of tax payers treasury to subsidize corporation bailout.
-Misappropriation on tax payers treasury and military forces for personal issues decieving the public that it is for National Security.
-for the millions of death and wounded and unrest throughout the world and the environmental impact and destruction it has inflicted.
-Mis USE of media for political propaganda rather than reporting FACTS for the public.
-Monopolization of Media corporation to use it to sway and manipulate public oppinions for an end result. Use sing means eventhough it is based on false and unsubstantiated information.
-Allowing Money to control DEMOCRACY rather than JUST a tool drive action. Allowing money to drive 'ACTION', eventhough the action is based on lies, deception, and baseless of facts.
-Using tax payers treasury RESERVES to stir economy ("Stimulus package") that tax payer will eventually pay for the DAMAGES arising from the mistakes, bad judgements, and crimes of those at the top (Corporate CEO, Elected Officials, and their cohorts).
-FOR ALLOWING the distruction of one of the greatest skyscrapers of our nation, for negligently allowing to get those responsible in destruction of a whole city caused by the Katrina catastrophy get away it, and for the illegal war against IRAQ and Afghanistan to continue without accountability.
-for the illegal spying of our citizens, and defying the laws of the nation and derelection of public duties.
-for the no-bid contracts to Halliburton, and the collapse of Enron, and attempted control of our nations PORT to Dubai
-Our tarnished national reputation for sitting and doing nothing to repair these damages caused by the failures of our elected officials
-for not defending our U.S. CONSTITUTION from DOMESTIC enemies "A coup d'état" government.
-for allowing the religious hypocracy of our elected official to sell to us that killing is not a sin so long as it is WE that does the killing and for us to sit in idle for it to happen and continue in the name of GOD and patriotism. Probably the greatest mortal sin committed by the so called religious persons.
Then there is no other to blame but the AMERICAN PEOPLE for allowing an out of control capitalism that is allowing facism to comprome and/or dismantle DEMOCRACY.
These are ONLY some of the Objective COST that can be accounted for and there are many more which does not include other hidden cost for the future to repair all the damages that has been done.
If YOU AMERICA still DO NOT suspect that YOU have been HAD and will NOW become the "MODERN DAY SLAVES of the Elected official you voted for (a Public SERVANTS) and the CORPORATE PUPPETEERS, responsible for the unprecedented DEFICITS and debts that have fallen in our laps. If this does not MOBILIZE you to ACT NOW...........
THEN YOU partake RESPONSIBILITY for our demise.
-
@81 Proud American
agreed
thats why i'm voting Obama
he'll change all that
They're waiting for the right bumper sticker to decide on a ticket. Let's help 'em out:
Old & Ugly '08
Demented/Meshuggenah '08
Our Turn - Uturn/Turncoat '08
or
Straight '08 - 'cause teh gay is a sin!
McInsane & Speaks For God '08 - Feel The Rapture!('09, we promise this time it'll happen)
McSundowner '08/pHuckleberry '09 - cause ya know the old guy ain't gonna last
michelle @ 32:
it was a quid pro quo...lieberman took him under his wing, obama repayed the favor
look, he bamboozeled the ct electorate too
No way Lieberman gets the Veep nomination, especially after his wimpy campaign and debate performance in 2000. Joe give McCain no new states in the election and the right wing would walk out of the convention rather than accept his "liberal" social agenda. After the election sweep to a supermajority of Dems in the Senate, "Say it ain't So, Joe" will be a backbench indie with no committee or political power. Without a voice or attention, obscurity will soon lead him to retire to a lobbying job like the others. Good riddance!
i will look for who supported ned lamont while working but i defintely remember there were some. as for as mainstream democrats supported lieberman..that's not correct he won because republicans crossed over and voted him in office.
Travis @ 55:
Yeah, and the avoidance of "majority rule" was primarily why our god-fearing founding fathers established a republic instead of a democracy, a.k.a. "mobocracy."
Get rid of the gangreen asap! Cut all ties with the traitor.
pissed off patricia @ 16:
I would go for popular vote wins...with instant runoff at the ballot
michelle @ 24:
Hey Michelle: How do you explain this? Notice the date is almost 4 months later than your little article!
Top Stories
Bill Clinton to campaign for Lieberman in Waterbury
By Don Michak, Journal Inquirer
07/20/2006
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman is rolling out the big gun in his increasingly close primary battle with Greenwich Democrat Ned Lamont.
Former President Bill Clinton is slated to campaign on behalf of the three-term incumbent Monday in Waterbury, Lieberman's campaign spokeswoman said today.
"We are thrilled to have President Clinton come to the state to campaign for Senator Lieberman," the spokeswoman, Marion Steinfels, said. "It is not only a big day for our campaign, but it is a big day for Waterbury and Connecticut."
Steinfels said Clinton was expected to speak in the late afternoon, but added that plans for the event are still being made.
Clinton and Lieberman have known each other since Clinton worked on Lieberman's first campaign for state Senate in 1970, when Clinton attended Yale University in New Haven, she said.
She also noted that Lieberman was the first senator from outside of the South to endorse Clinton in his 1992 presidential campaign.
Lieberman famously broke with Clinton in 1998 when he took the Senate floor to condemn the president's marital infidelity as "immoral" and denounce his "premeditated" deception. The speech was widely interpreted as Lieberman's stepping-stone to the Democrats' vice presidential nomination two years later.
Clinton, in a recent speech at the Aspen Institute conference, defended Lieberman and his staunch support for the war in Iraq. He questioned why antiwar Democrats are seeking to oust a fellow Democrat, saying that instead of seeking to retire Republicans they were pursuing "the nuttiest strategy I ever heard in my life."
Lamont is opposed to the U.S. war in Iraq and accuses Lieberman of being too close to President Bush and the Republicans who control Congress.
Clinton's wife, U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., has said she supports Lieberman but wouldn't back him if he loses the primary and runs as an independen
F U holy joe.
Look I hate Joe Lieberman like any other Dem. But give the old ugly fool credit: he played everybody in the granite state. He didn't cheat, he manipulated the system and won. He should never be trusted. He's treated the entire state of Connecticut like his personal meth whore.
:(
Don't you wish Joe Lieberman was vice president right now? Don't you wish he was running for president? Don't you just HATE Ralph Nader for preventing that?
Oscar @ 27:
it's all working as the DLC planned it. here comes shillary.
Left&Left @ 91:
THATS why he looks like that... He's not just the president of MethClub for Connecticut, he's also a client...
michelle @ 32:
Hilary and Barak have both supported Lieberman. AIPAC is good at getting funds to candidates and smearing those who disagree with their goals, don't want to tick them off.
JasonS @ 93:
very good point jason
i had forgotten how pathetic he was as a candidate, long before he had his nervous breakdown, and how much he compounded and intensified gores anti-charisma
again, i understand hillary supported him. my point is OBAMA.. you folks want to act like he is some great candidate. he is as flawed and untested or more so than hillary as far as i am concerned. i know hillary is not the best candidate in the country but you want to try and present OBAMA like he is and it has become tiresome as hell these days listening to your messiah BS.
he is my senator and he has not stood for much of anything here but amnesty. if he gets in office he will back down from his amnesty promise just like every other sane politician. he does not vote or votes PRESENT more times than i consider acceptable and has been campaigning the majority of his time in office. (ask yourself...did he not vote because he planned to run for president and would have had to put his views on record?) this is dishonest at best. he sides here with the republicans more than i am comfortable with in negotiations and he says he supports one position but when the bills are signed he guts the bills in favour of big business. (the recent EXXON WASTE bill is a perfect example of where he hoodwinked the voters and sided with the oil company. again, he was dishonest by saying he supported the environmental positions...took out the substance of the bill..gave EXXON what it wanted...and then touted he pushed through good policy. you folks are letting a LOT of serious demoscratic issues go unvetted . you let mesmerized noses look the other way and this country can not take the mistake of your not vetting him more closely.
all i am saying is enough with this OBAMA is the saviour of the world crap. he is no better than the others and is actually LESS qualified. you folks act as though you have run into a tonic water salesman. if you don't look into his positions more closely, vet his past votes and legislation nor ask him how he plans to pay for all his world saving promises it is just talk that's not backed up with any substance. this country can not survive another four years in this state. if you put someone in office beyond the fact he makes you feel good then it will be your fault and undoing the same as connecticuts for voting lieberman back in office.
peaceful easy feeling @ 75:
This CT Dem will tell you that the 2006 August Dem Primary had the highest turnout in a long time in CT. The Lamont-Lieberman race got people excited about politics and we had near record number of people registering as Dems to vote in that primary battle. That battle and the excitement it created is still fresh in CT voters minds and it helped Obama win CT on Tuesday.
Lieberman got financial support from Bush's pioneers and rangers and won the general election with 70% of the Republican vote, 54% of the Independent vote and about 33% of the Dem vote. Gov. Jodi Rell (R) backed Lieberman over the Republican nominee. Also, in Chris Shays district, Lieberman's GE Campaign coordinated with the CT Republican party to turnout the Republican vote to help Shays defeat his Dem challenger.
Scott in Chicago @ 9:
Maybe Democrat controlled but they did not have a majority
It should've happened sooner.
lopaloo102 @ 97:
I don't. It would mean that we would be that much closer to AIPAC and Likud interest calling all the shots in the US
I say let him go, is it really a majority with him on the dem side? nope.
JasonS @ 93:
No. I do not wish he were in the Whitehouse. That would mean we would have the spineless, elitist Kerry in the Whitehouse. Kerry; the wimp that stood by idly while an innocent man exercised his Constitutional right to free speech speaking the absolute truth. It would also mean that Lieberman would be that much closer to having the US make decisions in favor of Likud/Neocon.AIPAC./JINSA in lieu of the interests of the US. Thos two losers deserve each other and their slow, steady decent into public disgust.
The Public knows he is a double agent for a long time now.. more so for the republican side.... But oh well money talks..
dewey_m @ 104:
michelle @ 98:
even those of us supporting obama realize he is human-- he's made mistakes.
but he's the best and only chance this country has to make fundamental change. He's not a made man, as is clinton, who's been in dc forever, knows the game, helped rig the game, and plays by the dirty rules.
so don't think we're in any way unrealistic about obamas goofs.
it's just that his faults are indiscernible when compared against clintons. For every real scandal/bad vote that obama is guilty of, clinton has multiples of the same, sometimes worse.
he's got less experience, and that makes him more qualified. In fact, clinton's experience in many ways disqualifies her.
how's he gonna pay for his policies-- well he was the first to have the cahones to say he'd let the bush tax cuts expire-- or raise taxes as they like to say
The Republican ticket for 2008 will be McCain/Lieberman.
You heard it here first. I mean frist.
Check the website for more political insights: FOX DEBATE OFFER ACCEPTED BY CLINTON
http://www.markmartinezshow.blogspot.com/
Awesome! This man doesn't belong in office, he's a bloodthirsty fundamentalist.
"Lieberman Loses Superdelegate Status"
... but retains Superdouchebag Status.
Call it a wash.
Ahem.
I have decided to vote for McCain because he has always been supportive of the bills imposed by the democrats. He is level headed. I heard Limbaugh on the radio stating that if a republican talks to a democrat then he is not a good candidate, in other words, republicans have to refuse every bill that is initiated by the democrats. That is extremism. Huckabee is another religious extremist. We do not intend to elect extremists.
Limbaugh should be aware that when McCain went to war with Veitnam, the intent was to protect Limbaugh and the nation. McCain has shown tolerance to both parties. I wish McCain well in this election. He is a war veteran and has experience to run the nation.
Hillary's mouth and foot is on both aisles; she can sway with the weather conditions.
You get the gist.
If Obama elects Edwards as his VP, I shall vote for him.
This is why Gore lost. WHo the heck would pick LIEbeman as a running mate?
How about Al Gore, the real president of 2000 running again and Edwards as his VP?
Great ticket!
We might have to move to Alaska since he is a proenvironmentalist.
I'm new to this whole superdelegate thing that is being talked about everywhere now, and my question is ... why did Lieberman have Democratic superdelegate status in the first place? He's an Independent, or a Connecticut for Lieberman-er, or whatever ... not of the Democratic party. Another honorary title? Shouldn't you technically be in the party for which you are a delegate? What don't I get about this?
what happened to your 107 comments previously posted?
WWWWWWAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH.....too bad LIEberman, YOU'RE FIRED!
Remember, a vote for Mccain or LIEberman is a vote for bush/cheney
McCain Confirms It: A Vote for Him Is a Vote for a Third Bush Term
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 1:24pm. Alerts
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
DNC Press
Washington, DC - During appearances on Fox News Sunday and CBS's Face the Nation, John McCain made it clear: a vote for him is a vote for a third Bush term. Echoing his earlier statement that we could be in Iraq for 100 years, he said again that he would continue Bush's never ending civil war in Iraq. "We have to take care of the world's security," McCain said.
"The choice between the Democrats and Republicans couldn't be more clear. A vote for John McCain is a vote for a third Bush term with a never ending war in Iraq and an economy that favors those at the top. A vote for a Democrat is a vote to bring our troops home from Iraq, for an economy that works for all Americans, and a return to America's priorities," said Democratic National Committee Press Secretary Stacie Paxton.
McCain: A Third Bush Term
"They want to have the government run the health care system in America. I want the private sector to do it. On the issue of national security policy, there are very sharp differences... They want to withdraw from Iraq and if we do that al Qaeda wins." [Face the Nation, 2/3/2008]
"I have a strong conservative record and I'm proud of that record and I also believe on the national security side it's going to be a clear difference between me and Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. A clear difference on whether we're going to increase spending or decrease spending, increase taxes or decrease taxes, whether we're going to withdraw from Iraq or we're going to see this thing through to the success." [Fox News Sunday, 2/3/2008]
McCain's 100 Year War in Iraq: "We have to take care of the world's security"
"...This strategy is succeeding. Ad I believe that if we had set a date for withdrawal or if we do set a date for withdrawal, al Qaeda will then win and we'll see chaos and genocide in the region. That's another significant difference that Senator Clinton and I have...and I look forward to discussing it. It's not a matter of how long Americans stay. It's a matter of American casualties. And those casualties are coming down and we can eliminate them. Look, we're in Kuwait right next door to Iraq. We're in turkey. We're in Bosnia. We're all over the world. One of the obligations, unfortunately, of being a great superpower is that we have to take care of the world's security." [Fox News Sunday, 2/3/2008]
McCain: More of the Same Bush Supreme Court
"I would appoint justices such as the ones I've strongly supported and gotten through the Senate with the help of many others or help along with others. Only those who strictly interpret the constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench... If you have justices that have a clear, conservative, a clear, strict interpretation of the constitution of the United States, then you don't have to worry about what their decisions will be." [Fox News Sunday, 2/3/2008]
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/331
that's okay, joh nomomentum LIEberman can suck up to jon mcpain and rudy ghouliani and formally change his affiliation to his real masters, the GOP PNAC'rs.
EZ @ 113:
McCain has NOT always been supportive of Democratic bills. He has one of the most conservative voting records of all active senators. Yesterday, McCain called Democrats the enemy.
McCain has also said he doesn't mind if we're in Iraq for 100 years. Does that sound level headed to you? Do you really think we can afford to stay there?
Barack and Hillary both agree that we need to leave Iraq.
EZ, I implore you to do your homework. Everything you've just said about McCain is demonstrably false.
President PNACcio @ 109:
Oh I hope and pray to see Lieberman lose a vice presidency AGAIN!
I would rather lose the majority in the Senate that continue to mollycoddle this DINO. Heck, Senate majority status isn't helping the Democrats (or the country) at all when the leadership won't get off their @$$3$ and do their job.
John McCain booed at CPAC
by smintheus
Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:30:53 PM
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/7/122025/6733/646/451921
121, nonbeliever, McCain uses the rhetoric just to please Limbaugh and Co., but he is a democrat at heart.
My only concern, why is Lieberman hanging around McCain? Beware, Lieberman brought bad luck to Al Gore during 2000. McCain might easily lose this election due to Lieberman.
McCain might bait the slumbering Christians with Huckabee, since he won the southern states with only four dollars spent from his pocket.
If Huckabee is the VP, I shall not vote.
We have given awful choices; Obama & Clinton will work for Lieberman. Republican side, McCain is no doubt will carry out Lieberman's wishes.
Actually, there is no good excuse for Harry Reid to pander to Lieberman. My understanding of the organizing rules for this Congress is that the Democrats retain the majority control, regardless if they have a numeric majority or not. So Joe can take a hike and it won't change Democrat's control of the Senate.
This will free up his time to campaign for his fellow war-mongers.
What does Lieberpuke know that has him backing McCain?
It seems to me,the only way McCain can win (thereby insuring Lieberpuke a position of power) is if there is another major military action that once again gets boobus americanus running for cover.
I'm wondering if this action is already in the works...
I certainly wouldn't be surprised.
*Scratches head in confusion*...shouldn't he have lost it a long time ago? Say for example, when he decided to leave the Democratic party and run as an independent? Seems to me that opting to leave the party should be more than enough reason to lose your superdelegate status...but of course, that actually would have made sense which is probably why they didn't do it.
Lieberman is neither a Democrat or a GOP... he is simply an ASSHOLE of epic proportion who happens to have MUCH in common with the GOP... coincidence? I think not.
McCain Skipped Stimulus Vote, Other Senators On His Plane Returned To The Floor In Time
Yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) skipped the Senate’s vote on the economic stimulus package, which fell just one vote short of the 60 needed to end debate.
On the stump, McCain has repeatedly claimed that passing a package was a priority for him. Yet his missed vote yesterday was not an accident due to a late flight or scheduling conflict. It was deliberate. Some evidence:
1. He was already thinking about skipping the vote yesterday afternoon. Yesterday afternoon, hours before the vote, he hinted to reporters that he might not return to the Senate that evening. “I haven’t had a chance to talk about it at all, have not had the opportunity to, even,” McCain said. “We’ve just been too busy, focused on other stuff. I don’t know if I’m doing that.”
2. His plane landed in DC with plenty of time to make the vote. McCain’s plane landed at Dulles Airport at 5:00 p.m., “leaving plenty of time to make the 5:45 p.m. make or break procedural vote.”
3. The other senators on his plane returned for the vote. ThinkProgress has confirmed with Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (I-CT) office that both he and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) were on the same plane with McCain. Yet both Lieberman and Graham returned to the Senate in time to cast votes. (Lieberman voted for the stimulus, Graham voted against.)
McCain’s move was certainly not a profile in courage. His spokeswoman said that the senator would have voted against the package anyway. By missing the vote, however, he didn’t have to go on record denying benefits to 20 million seniors and 250,000 disabled vets — both key blocs of support for his campaign.
As ABC’s Jake Tapper notes, “In fact, in the 110th Congress, out of 450 votes, McCain missed 56.7% of them. The only one who missed more was a senator who had a brain hemmorhage.”
Digg It!
Filed under: Economy, Congress
Posted by Amanda at 12:56 pm
Permalink | Comment (41)
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/07/mccain-stimulus-2/#comments
EZ, did you just say McCain is a Democrat at heart? I'm not talking about rhetoric here. I'm talking about voting record. You're on the internet, please research John McCain's voting record before you throw your vote away on a warmonger like him.
Someone that votes wit Bush well over 90% of the time is no Democrat.
McCain and Lieberman both agree on what we're doing with Iraq while Barack and Hillary don't. I don't get it. If you know McCain would do Lieberman's bidding why would he get your vote at all?
We have 2 Democrats running for office. The nominee of the Democratic party will get my vote.
If you like George W Bush's presidency and think that we should pour billions into Iraq while we allow our levees to fall and bridges to collapse, then by all means vote for McCain but don't kid yourself into thinking he's some kind of Democrat.
It will be party time when the Dems can remove him from his Oversight Committee. How does a fricking Democrat end up impeding the Senate from investigating Executive corruption? Let him caucus with himself.
Lollimom @ 52:
I know that they are corporate-owned, like all media basically is. The point is, PBS and C-Span still have more of a "public" obligation than the major television networks do.
peaceful easy feeling @ 87:
Ah the old herring "republic" line. A republic by definition elects its representatives democratically, therefore the two terms are synonymous and interchangeable as anyone who wasn't born yesterday knows.
Why the hell doesn't he switch parties to what he really is? I'm sick of having to cater to this jerk and am tired of having to have anything to do with him.
Travis @ 55:
No, majority rule is not the entire point of democracy. First of all, without an INFORMED ELECTORATE, which we don't have, the majority is DUMB, and unable to make wise decisions. We live in a country where people get most of their information from a BIASED AND MANIPULATIVE cesspool of television news star wannabes.
You can't just have majority rule, you must have an informed electorate for democracy to work. IN THE WORDS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, "if a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be. The people cannot be safe without information.........When the press is free and ever man is able to read, all is safe."
In the words of ABRAHAM LINCOLN, "I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts."
Besides, we don't live in a PURE democracy. We live in a representative democracy, a democratic-republic. They knew that most people were too stupid for mob rule to work, so it made sense for us to elect people to represent us at all levels of government.
And what does that mean? It means we have INSTITUTIONS, systems, and rules.
Why?
Because there can be no democracy without an INFRASTRUCTURE in place for democracy to work. Otherwise, what's going to make sure that the majority (the mob) doesn't mistreat the minority?
I'd say the entire point of democracy is to advance civilization open dialogue, understanding, and participation, instead of just to getting what you want (mob rule).
EZ @ 113:
Edwards will not be ANYONE'S VP because he doesn't WANT TO BE and they don't want him to be.
Travis @ 55:
No, majority rule is not the entire point of democracy. First of all, without an INFORMED ELECTORATE, which we don’t have, the majority is DUMB, and unable to make wise decisions. We live in a country where people get most of their information from a BIASED AND MANIPULATIVE cesspool of television news star wannabes.
You can’t just have majority rule, you must have an informed electorate for democracy to work. IN THE WORDS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, “if a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be. The people cannot be safe without information………When the press is free and ever man is able to read, all is safe.”
In the words of ABRAHAM LINCOLN, “I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts.”
Besides, we don’t live in a PURE democracy. We live in a representative democracy, a democratic-republic. They knew that most people were too stupid for mob rule to work, so it made sense for us to elect people to represent us at all levels of government.
And what does that mean? It means we have INSTITUTIONS, systems, and rules.
Why?
Because there can be no democracy without an INFRASTRUCTURE in place for democracy to work. Otherwise, what’s going to make sure that the majority (the mob) doesn’t mistreat the minority?
I’d say the entire point of democracy is to advance civilization open dialogue, understanding, and participation, instead of just to getting what you want (mob rule).
EVERY man is able to read
I’d say the entire point of democracy is to advance civilization THROUGH open dialogue, understanding, and participation, instead of JUST GETTING what you want (mob rule).
pissed off patricia @ 16:
peaceful easy feeling @ 6:
and diebold wins again!
michelle @ 24:
fool them once!
pissed off patricia @ 35:
ok mitt send your kids out with thier hands up in the air!!!!
framecop @ 38:
and then democracy slowly died of strangulation!
McCain / Lieberman 2008? This is rich! I know McCain is getting on in years, but he's seriously considering Holy Joe as a running mate for his "crossover appeal" then he's officially lost! Gimmee a break....
This may come as a shock, but in the City of Stamford where LIEberman is not calling home, he is registered as a DEMOCRAT.
Even though he ran as an independent, he never changed his registeration to the Conn. For LIEberman party. Before he relocated to Stamford, he lived in New Haven. During the time between the DEM Primary and the General Election, several progressives tried to use State Election rules to get the Dem. Registrar of Voters in New Haven to toss him out of the Democratic party. She turned the effort away.
See the New Haven Independent and "City Asked To Un-"Democrat" Lieberman"
ShorelineCT @ 147:
Oops, "not calling home" should be "now calling home"
rend @ 104:
Considering that Reid has made a new requirement for Dems to win in the Senate -- from 50 votes to 60 votes -- they may as well kick Lieberman out and let him join his Repub losers in caucus.
framecop @ 138:
These points might be well taken if our representatives were less DUMB than we are, if our reps were informed, if they weren't just as gullible in falling for biased and manipulative information, and if they weren't just as ignorant (or apathetic) about the constitution's requirement to protect the minority's interests from mob rule.
Then add corporate-bought politicians to the mix...
Login or Register to post comments.