Former President (Clinton) to campaign for Lieberman

[Freddie Stubbs]

HARTFORD, Conn. -- One of the Democratic Party's biggest guns, former President Bill Clinton, is coming to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joe Lieberman.

Clinton's visit, planned for July 24 in Waterbury, comes as a new Quinnpiac Poll shows Lieberman and his Democratic primary challenger, businessman Ned Lamont, in a statistical dead heat.

Lieberman's campaign has not yet revealed details of the planned visit.

The two politicians have known each other since Clinton worked on Lieberman's first campaign for state Senate in 1970.

more: http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO23132/

[babylonsister]

1. Don't do it, Big Dawg! nt

[Acadia Blue]

75. DLC Bill Clinton lobbied for NAFTA. SUPRISE? He supports Lieberman

[dubyaD40web]

2. Why?

Has Bubba finally lost it? Incumbent or not, just stay out of it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. He believes wrong for Democrats

to challenge one of their own.

[IndianaGreen]

13. So Big Dog is opposed to primaries?

How un-democratic of him!

Or perhaps Big Dog shares the same prowar ideology of Lieberman, which explains why as President he was unmoved by the million dead Iraqi children that his Iraq policy caused.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. He would seem to be opposed to primary challenges to incumbents

Perhaps he thinks that resources would be better used to defeat Republicans.

[IndianaGreen]

34. Like Chuck Schumer?

Big Dog and Schumer! What a pair!

I guess this means that Big Dog could campaign for Lieberman if he runs as an independent, while Hillary continues to profess her support for the Democratic nominee.

[The Stranger]

37. Easy, now, Indiana.

You're hurting them!

[jobycom]

20. Delete

[ShortnFiery]

9. Hey, when he and George HW Bush were chummy ...

I realized that "the ruling classes" and Our Elected Representatives are playing the American People for FOOLS. It's all one big SCAM.

Here's one solution:

Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy ===> http://voidnow.org/

[Mist]

3. Wrong choice, Bill! nt

[TacticalPeek]

4. 1970?

I can almost understand that.

[w4rma]

6. Thus effectively ending his wife's chances at the Whitehouse.

The Clintons are never going to live this down.

[cgrindley]

7. Bill should butt out

Lieberman has to go.

[FormerDem06]

16. So we can get another Yale graduate, former Republican in the Senate

It's like cutting off your nose to spite your face. The guy running against Lieberman is as much a Democrat as Al Fraken is a Republican. If you don't believe me, check out his history, life long Repub, worth over 200 million dollars and his daddy served under Nixon and his granddaddy got Rich off of the Marshall Plan with the Walkers and the Bushes and all the rest of the rich folks in this country. Now, suddenly, he has a change of heart to go into politics in a state where Republicans just can't seem to get elected very much.

Yeah.........Right

At least with Kerry, you had a 20 year history of proving he would support the ideals of the party.

[karynnj]

Make that 60 years, Kerry was a Democrat for his entire life

He was publicly a Democrat at a NH prep school where he was very much in the minority. In 1960, he was the student who represented Kennedy's side. At Yale, he was head of the political union as well as the Democratic group, in spite of being a Democrat. Here again, he was a Democrat when they were in the minority. He first ran for office as an anti-war Democrat in 1970 - and stayed around to help get Father Drinan elected.

In his campaign in 2004, at one event that his sister, Peggy, was at, they both commented that his first "political activity" was that he as a very young kid (about 9) went with her to solicit money for Stevenson. So, why would you even suggest that Kerry had to prove anything about being what he was his entire life.

I guess Hillary and Bill are suspect for going to Yale Law School too. Get real!

[FormerDem06]

49. I didn't suggest Kerry has anything to prove....

The Clintons and the Kerrys are solid, I never thought otherwise, I like all three of them (though I'm not sure what Hillary is doing right now).

Kerry was just a really good example of a Yale graduate (and a Skull and Bones guy) who is true to the Democratic Party. He didn't come from multi-millions though (as the Clintons and John Edwards didn't either).

I still fail to see how someone who was born rich and has inherited hundreds of millions of dollars could have ANY clue about how a normal, every day American feels. And that describes Lieberman's opponent exactly in my humble opinion.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories too much, but check this out when you get a chance:

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/1611166.php

[karynnj]

64. I parsed the "at least" to imply a very grudging

acceptance that Kerry could be a Democrat, although you conceded 20 years of supporting Democratic values.

As to Skull and Bones, look at Kerry's life since college - he fought Nixon on Vietnam, Bush and Reagan on the Contras, Bush on BCCI and the various global criminal/terroist tentacles. These are his actions, all very public and each could have ended a promising political career and between them, they represent at least a decade of effort and passion. It would be hard to name any other prominent person who has fought these elements to even a fraction of this degree. The values he espouses in his speeches match these actions. Weigh the two sides: a privilidged fraturnity that he joined as a college junior (or senior) or the actions and words of his adult life. If anything, there's a good case to be made that things Kerry saw in Vietnam and the values he had caused him to reject the easy path he was born to and which was the direction he was headed in 1966 when he graduated school.

As to people who inherit millions, the obvious counter is: The Kennedys. Clearly Democrats, clearly rich. It's hard to beat Teddy Kennedy in terms of fighting for people with far less than he.

[FormerDem06]

76. Agreed......

And we see what happens to Kennedy's when they try to do the right things.

[saigon68]

46. Its time to say GOOD BYE to Joementum

[Minstrel Boy]

8. How can anyone be surprised by this?

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Should we expect Ted Kennedy next?

[bigluckyfeet]

90. Bye Joe,Won't Vote for Hillary

Bill you are such a let down.

[Freddie Stubbs]

122. What if she is the nominee?

:shrug:

[jonnyblitz]

11. I know I am not. I expect it. nt

[IndianaGreen]

12. Al Gore won't campaign for Lieberman

Gore has spoken against the war in Iraq, while the Clintons have been too chummy with the Bushes to take notice of the war crimes we are committing in that hapless country.

I'll say that having Big Dog campaign for Holy Joe as a proxy for Hillary is what we can expect from the Clintons as the 2008 Presidential campaign approaches.

[SaveElmer]

14. Personal relationships mean alot....

And Clinton knows Lieberman better than anyone here does...

I no longer support Lieberman, and I wish Clinton would not campaign for him, but it is hardly enough to make me think less of him.

And I guarantee when Lamont wins the primary (which I believe he will), Big Dawg will campaign for him in the general!

[IndianaGreen]

25. Big Dog is a proxy for Hillary

It is Hillary that shares the same prowar neolib ideology as Lieberman, but she doesn't want to publicly come out for him right after she said she would support the primary winner in the Fall, so she dispatches Bill to do the dirty work for her.

[SaveElmer]

27. I would take your comments far more seriously...

If you didn't constantly distort Hillary's views on the war in Iraq.

And if you have a SCRAP of evidence for this ridiculous assertion I would like to see it!

[IndianaGreen]

31. It is self-evident that Hillary is using her husband as a proxy

and this will become even more evident even to you as we approach 2008.

They are quite a tag team, aren't they? Too bad they are devoid of any core values other than their ambition to get back into the White House.

[SaveElmer]

39. It is self-evident...

To those with a pre disposed and IMO irrational bias against Hillary.

[IndianaGreen]

43. Hillary said that she would support the Democratic nominee

and she chided Lieberman for saying that he would run as an independent. This put Hillary out of the line of fire from the Democratic base that was outraged about Lieberman's declaration that he was going to start collecting signatures for an independent run.

Now we have Big Dog coming to Connecticut to campaign for the man that joined the Republicans in attacking him for the Lewinsky affair, a day after the Israel Lobby has gone all out for Lieberman (that story was posted yesterday on LBN).

I wouldn't be surprised if upon Lamont's defeat of Lieberman, Big Dog would return to Connecticut to campaign for Holy Joe, while Hillary would stay publicly committed to the Democratic nominee.

[BigDDem]

47. Who is it

that you support for president?

[IndianaGreen]

50. No one has announced for 2008 as of yet

and we won't hear anything until after the November elections.

[BigDDem]

107. So What?

Here, Ill put it another way...
Who would you like to see run for president that you could support.

[IndianaGreen]

121. "Who would you like to see run for president that you could support?"

Despite the DLC apologists on this board that constantly accuse progressives of being "single issue" or too concerned with "purity," the fact is that progressives are the ones that realize more than anyone else that we live in a complex world and that we need to make compromises in order to get along. The difference is that progressives are not willing to surrender core principles for the sake of political expediency. It is anathema for progressives to wave the flag of surrender when it comes to civil liberties, or to succumb to popular passions and vote for a misguided war, or to allow the rightwing to undermine reproductive rights, or to betray gays and lesbians by failing to fight for their God-given rights to enjoy the same benefits of citizenship as all other Americans, including the right to marry someone of the same sex.

A real progressive would stand in support of Israel against terrorism, and would defend the right of Israelis to live in peace and tranquility, but not at the expense of the rights of Palestinians to live as a free nation with no more foreign occupation of their lands.

When it comes to elections, progressives make pests out of themselves in defending the right of every eligible voter to cast a ballot, and for that ballot to be accurately counted in fair and honest elections with an audit trail that can be used to verify the integrity of the process.

There is not such thing as a perfect candidate, but at a minimum, the preferred candidate should generally represent those values that traditionally have been associated with the Democratic Party since the New Deal.

As to the specific question as to whom I would like to see run for President that I could support, I wish Dennis Kucinich or John Conyers were among those expected to run in 2008, but neither of them have given an indication that they are even considering entering the race.

The only person that can really walk into the White House without a learning curve and take the helm and take us toward enlightenment, and perhaps save the planet as he saves the country, is Al Gore.

John Kerry has more than redeemed himself, particularly now that he is free from the likes of Donna Brazile and the other handlers he had. Kerry's filibuster of Alito, which pissed the Democratic leaders in the Senate, earned him a lot of brownie points among those of us that despise the so-called "Vichy Democrats."

Russ Feingold is a maverick, which means that sometimes he is not going to make us happy as he did on Lebanon (Kucinich is on the ball on that!), but he is one that has been more right than wrong and he did vote against PATRIOT and the war in Iraq.

John Edwards? Let's see how much he has grown in the last four years. His being outside the Beltway may turn out to be a big plus.

Wes Clark? Can't hold against him the obsessive militarism of some of his followers. Let's see how he does on the stump, and whether he can be more than just a TV analyst. On paper, Clark has the potential of becoming another George Marshall. Needless to say, Marshall never became President, although two Presidents found him to be invaluable to the nation.

[SaveElmer]

51. Guarantee that will not happen...

Bill Clinton will support the Democratic nominee!

Like most good politicians, Bill Clinton does not hold a grudge, or unnecessarily burn his bridges...

Hardly unprecedented! In 1813 Andrew Jackson fought a duel with Thomas Hart Benton and his brother Jesse, in which Jackson was both shot and stabbed, and he carried that bullet in his body until he died.

Neverthelass, when Jackson became President, he and Benton buried the hatchet and Benton became one of Jackson's strongest supporters in Congress.

[IndianaGreen]

54. Among Hillary's major supporters are AIPAC & Co

and they will stick with Lieberman even if he were to lose the Democratic nomination. I find it unlikely that Hillary would take a position opposite to theirs. The Clintons will avoid being put in an uncomfortable position by having Bill continue to support Lieberman publicly, while Hillary remains on the sidelines giving lip support to the nominee.

Pro-Israel groups rally support for Lieberman
By Susan Haigh, AP Political Writer | July 19, 2006

HARTFORD, Conn. --Pro-Israel groups, afraid of losing one of their staunchest supporters in Congress, are pouring money into beleaguered Sen. Joe Lieberman's campaign as he tries to fend off a tougher-than-expected primary challenge.

The three-term lawmaker is struggling to dispatch millionaire businessman Ned Lamont in the Aug. 8 primary. Lamont's fierce criticism of Lieberman's backing of the Iraq war and perceived closeness to President Bush have won him followers among hard-core Democrats.

The primary is Aug. 8 and Lieberman has said he will run as an independent if he loses.

Pro-Israel political action committees have donated to his campaign and have urged their national membership to give generously now and later, if Lieberman is forced to run as an unaffiliated candidate.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/07/19/pro_israel_groups_rally_support_for_lieberman/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2399829

[SaveElmer]

56. Sorry...

Until you provide any scrap of evidence...this is just another conspiracy theory..

Bill Clinton will support the Democratic nominee.

[SaveElmer]

106. Guess this shoots your theory down the rat hole

Jay Carson, a spokesman for President Clinton, said that the former president and his wife share the same position. "President Clinton is looking forward to campaigning with Senator Lieberman on Monday and will work hard to help ensure he wins the primary, but he respects the primary process and will support the candidate that wins the Democratic primary."

http://www.mydd.com/

Bill Clinton has always been, and will always be, a loyal Democrat!

[rodeodance]

38. I do not believe Hil has a "prowar neolib ideology " mentality.

[SaveElmer]

41. A cursory look...

At her floor speech announcing her vote on the IWR, and her subsequent criticisms of W confirms what you say.


http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

[The Wielding Truth]

87. Yuck,,,, She bought and confirms bad intelligence. She backed regime

change. She spelled out a strange logic that has little to do with facts as we know them today. Hillary is not on the same page as me. I think she is a strong and caring leader,but on this I don't get her.

[SaveElmer]

88. Exactly...

How would she have made a speech using facts as we know them today...4 years ago.

Her reasoning was very sound at the time, and it is clear she was not voting for the initiation of hostilities.

[Ken Burch]

130. Her view is that we have to support whatever Bush says on Iraq, forever.

She's Hubert Humphrey in Chicago. Face reality.

Why defend Hillary when her position on the war would HAVE to lead us to defeat?

[liberalmuse]

17. Why, oh why???

Why does Pres. Bill Clinton still reach out to those who have viciously stabbed him in the back? Why be loyal to someone who's sanctimoniously ripped him apart on the Senate floor? I do not understand. :(

[karynnj]

44. Read the Senate record

Lieberman was one of the first and harshest, but many many Senators chose to speak. Even many who felt it was not sufficient grounds to overturn an election, condemned Clinton's actions. Because sex was involved, many ignored the real issue - thinking it was ok to lie under oath. The whole reason for taking an oath before giving testimony is that you are agreeing to tell the truth. Clinton gambled that he could lie and it could not be proved to be a lie. However he rationalized it, he put himself above the law.

[IndianaGreen]

52. Yes, Clinton broke the law, but Bush's law breaking is more egregious

Lieberman spoke against Clinton's law breaking, his perjury, yet has remained silent about Bush's massive law breaking and war crimes. Hypocrite is too mild a word to apply to Lieberman.

[karynnj]

68. I totally absolutely agree -

I had started to add a paragragh that Bush was worse, but felt it would submerge my main point - which was that nearly every Democrat chose to speak on this. Each criticised Clinton's actions while defending him from impeachment. The speeches are actually interesting in that they do show a lot about the Senators.

[Oleladylib]

103. Clinton's "crime" was about the personal, Bush's crime is against

every living American.

[Richard Steele]

125. And Bush's crimes have harmed a lot more than just "Americans".

Welcome to DU, Oleladylib! :hi:

[coalition_unwilling]

102. And there's the tiny little matter of "sexual harassment" and "sexual

discrimination," to wit, any of the other WH interns might have been able to present an ipso facto case for "sexual discrimination" b/c they were denied the presidential access that Lewinsky received through her willingness to have sex.

Pretty well established case law in employment to back that up.

But hey, that's just me. Clinton committed perjury and possibly sexual discrimination, but at least 100,000 civilians aren't dead as a result of it.

[Tellurian]

62. Simple- Godfather Logic!!!

You keep your friends close to you.

Your "enemies", you keep CLOSER!

(otherwise, they're out of reach!)

[AliceWonderland]

18. Curious how people will justify this one

Hmmm....

[acmavm]

21. Really. Some people are just convinced that there is no

stinky aroma to Bill's shit.

He is not, was not, all some people have made him out to be.

[Roland99]

59. Bill signed NAFTA. He's not far removed from the DLC.

[karynnj]

69. Bill was the DLC candidate and before that a major DLC leader

[Imperialism Inc.]

19. So the big question is will this help Lieberman or

hurt Bill Clinton?

[agio]

79. well it could hurt Lieberman

... if Lamont wins the nomination, and Lieberman runs as an independent, relying on Republican votes, this endorsement might hurt him.

[UTUSN]

22. So Joementum led the charge against him & Bill flaunts our will n/t

[SlavesandBulldozers]

36. that must be triangulation n/t

whatever the fuck that means

[screenplaya]

23. So Holy Joe...

...cowardly accepts assistance from someone's whose morals and values he trashed in the Senate. Joe is in panic mode. Good Job Ned.

[UTUSN]

26. Exactly - there's plenty of unscrupulous irony to go around &

welcome aboard, screenplaya!!1

[ixion]

24. score one for the DLC

doing all it can to make the Democratic Party irrelevant.

[leesa]

28. The DLC, pro Israel, pro big business PAC

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. Who are the anti-Israel people supporting?

:shrug:

[Jacobin]

32. There is a middle ground

I think the poster meant support of Israeli policies, regardless of their consequences to the interests of the United States, is not a good thing. I happen to agree with that.

[Jacobin]

33. "PNAC, its not just for Republicans anymore"

:thumbsdown:

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. I don't think that Hamas is interested in a middle ground

[Jacobin]

58. So, we're either 'for Israel or against Israel?"

Where have I heard that before?

:eyes:

[IndianaGreen]

60. And those that are against war and the killing of civilians are terrorists

and are placed under surveillance and their names put in no-fly lists.

[BillZBubb]

66. "I don't think..."

That is apparent by your comment.

[Ken Burch]

131. Neither is the right-wing Israeli government.

Olmert is STILL determined to prevent a Palestinian state from ever being established.
He's no different from Sharon or Netanyahu. These are men who don't give a shit about the population they govern, they just want a permanent state of war because that's the only way they can keep getting elected.

No one on the Israeli Right has EVER wanted peace. Begin proved that when he made Sadat repudiate the Palestinians at Camp David.

[rman]

35. hm?

:shrug:

[Cha]

30. Oh good, is hannity

and coulter gonna be there, too? Is angela merkle coming over from Germany to show traitor joe her support?

[jobycom]

40. Well, Ned can be proud of what he almost did.

Actually, this could be interesting. The whole opposition against Lieberman started as a fringe reaction to Lieberman's invasion stance, even though he's liberal on 90% of the issues. It caught on amongst the mainstream party, though, or else Lamont and Lieberman wouldn't be so close in the polls. Now we'll get an idea of how mainstream the anti-war stance has become. Lamont has made all of his inroads by claiming Lieberman isn't really a Democrat (basically). Now one of the two most popular living Democrats is going to support Lieberman. Unless Gore comes out against Lieberman, this is going to be a battle to determine a changing of the guard. This may well set a tone for the rest of the year, and 2008.

My own prediction is that Lamont now fades, since Clinton destroys 80% of his campaign just by being there. Lamont's hope was to make everyone focus on one issue, and on that issue he clearly beats Lieberman. Lieberman had to get the debate turned to the big picture--what all he is liberal on, what all he can do for the state and the country with his vast experience and image, etc. Clinton will now turn the debate that way, and I don't think Lamont can beat that. I'm not claiming Lamont is one dimensional or not capable of the bigger issues--I'd kind of like to see him win, too. But Lieberman's experience will trump him on every other issue. Or at least, it should. If it doesn't, that's a statement to the party as well as the country.

Just my thoughts. They can be changed. I'm not real excited by this race. The hatred of Lieberman seems very shallow and one dimensional, so I can't get excited by it, but I can't get behind Lieberman, either, for what he's done. I think I'd like to see Lieberman lose, but I'd also like to see the single-issue, hate-inspired politics driving his opposition (not Lamont, and not all his opposition, just some) lose, so it's a toss-up for me. Nothing Lieberman has done has lost us anything--those issues were decided before he betrayed us.

[alkaline9]

72. perfectly stated.... n/t

[agio]

80. "single-issue, hate-inspired politics driving his opposition"

Thanks for recycling a right wing MSM talking point for us. Cheers.

[jobycom]

81. Got an argument, or just like to hurl insults?

And you say I'M the one sounding right wing?

[agio]

82. insults?

Where did I insult you? I have no ill will toward you whatsoever.

I just pointed out that the meme that Lamont's candidacy is all about hatred, rather than a positive desire for change, is the way this race is being characterized by the Right, and most of the media. And it's not true, insofar as I can see.

[jobycom]

83. And then you deny it

Ok.

[agio]

84. ??

Point me to where I insulted you.

Or explain to me how I mischaracterized your argument.

Or not... I don't really care, I'm not out to score points. :) Peace.

[jobycom]

89. .

Thanks for recycling a right wing MSM talking point for us.

By any standard, that's confrontational and insulting. If your point stands on its own, make it without the attack. Much more effective. Peace.

[agio]

93. ,

So... you're saying that the characterization of Ned Lamont supporters as "hate filled" and "single issue" is not the way Republicans and the corporate media are spinning the Connecticut primary?

EDITED TO ADD: I guess we just have different criteria for what makes something an insult. I have no respect for ad hominem attacks, but snark /= insult in my book, particularly on the internet. YMMV.

[karynnj]

96. Very interesting comments

The other thing it might do is give some measure of the value of endorsements in a highly polarized election. In 2004, in a less polarized Presidencial race, the endorsements of high profile politicians seemed to not really help. Dean got both Gore and Harkin (a significant endorsement in Iowa). Of the endorsements this year, I think Webb was really helped by the Kerry endorsement, but that may have been an anomoly caused by the fact that there were many people leery of Webb because of his hateful comments on Kerry.

The question is whether Clinton can bring out enough conservative and moderate Democrats to vote for Lieberman. I'm not sure Clinton can convince people who already have decided to vote against Lieberman. If Lamont wins, what would you infer, if anything, about Clinton?

[jobycom]

109. Good points

I think this is different than the Dean endorsements, though, in some ways. Gore endorsed Dean, but I don't recall him campaigning state by state for him. And Dean was the frontrunner and the media darling at the time, so the only directions Dean could go were down or sideways. Dean made a lot of mistakes, and Kerry and Edwards made some smart campaign moves, and passed him. There wasn't as much of a single issue in that campaign as there is now. Electability was a strong issue, but not the only one.

With Lieberman, the single issue that makes or breaks him is whether he has betrayed the Democrats too far. Clinton's mere presence may be enough to counter that argument. I don't think it's a question of conservative or moderate Dems, I think there are a lot of people who feel that they are supposed to support Lamont, and Clinton may swing that. Clinton is hardly conservative, and neither is Lieberman on most issues. The task isn't getting conservatives or moderates to vote for him, it's convincing the rank and file Dems that it's okay to vote for Lieberman, that he really isn't a traitor to the party. It's hard to say from the few polls I've seen what is happening--whether peoplee are turning on Lieberman with any real conviction, or are just moving to Lamont because they feel party loyalty requires it. If the former, Clinton may not help. If it's the later, and frankly I think it is, then Lamont is in trouble.

Let me defend my assumption there. If Democrats opposed Lieberman over his war stance, that would have shown up as immediate opposition to him in the polls. Instead, it's been a stead gain by Lamont, which to me doesn't look like the same type of outrage. Obviously, I could be very wrong on this, I'm just saying that's my observation.

Anyway, if Lamont wins with Clinton campaigning against him, it means this single issue is more important to people than Clinton's memory. That's what fascinates me--this could be a big turning point. If so, think of the ramifications. The Dems would be immediately less electable, but at the same time might have refound their ideological purity. That would make them stronger in the long run, especially with people now doubting the Republicans have an ideology. That's a whole nuther discussion, though.

[karynnj]

114. That is interesting.

I wonder if the slow rise in the polls may be because there were 2 factors - people had to believe Lamont had a chance AND they had to be sufficiently convinced that Lieberman was wrong and would stay wrong on the war. Lamont doing much better than expected in the convention (?) might have started the shift of more mainstream people to Lamont.

The tipping point on the war issue may have occured when Lieberman spoke in the press and in the Senate (on Republican time) against both Kerry/Feingold and the Levin amendment mischaracterizing each with the RW lines. That he still (in June) said things were improving in Iraq, it could have hurt.

Then in the last week or so, the snarliness and the anger he projects that he is being challanged has hurt. I also think that endorsements from Hannity, Coulter et al hurt more than help.

I agree that it could be a major loss for Clinton if Lieberman loses after he campaigns for him. The Clintons grabbed power immediately after the Nov 2004 loss - with the media's blessing. The people in the party did not choose any of the Clinton favored candidates of 2004 - Lieberman or Clark. A Lieberman loss could subtlely shift power back from the right.

[woosh]

42. I just lost what little respect I have for Clinton

This is good for the democratic party, but it's bad for moderate democrats like Clinton and Lieberman.

[Malva Zebrina]

45. Clinton sees the danger in grassroot, netroots power

and is looking ahead thinking the same thing could possibly happen to his wife. It is an opportunity to save his friend and a better opportunity to show the netroots as impotent, brash fringe people, doing wild things--so he will kill two birds with one stone--doesn't matter if he is also inadvertantly killing another bird, that is the party. Right now, netroots is not very inclined to embrace his wife as a candidate.

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds. I hope Lamont wins--good luck to him.

[truebrit71]

53. WHAT? He is going to campaign for the sanctimonious prick that..

...eviscerated him on the Senate Floor?

Big Dawg Musta Gone Nuts.

[IndianaGreen]

57. No, this is a calculated move to shore up Hillary with the Israel Lobby

without having Hillary having to take a public position against Lamont were he to become the Democratic nominee.

Triangulation has been enhanced by the Clinton tag team!

Pro-Israel groups rally support for Lieberman
By Susan Haigh, AP Political Writer | July 19, 2006

HARTFORD, Conn. --Pro-Israel groups, afraid of losing one of their staunchest supporters in Congress, are pouring money into beleaguered Sen. Joe Lieberman's campaign as he tries to fend off a tougher-than-expected primary challenge.

The three-term lawmaker is struggling to dispatch millionaire businessman Ned Lamont in the Aug. 8 primary. Lamont's fierce criticism of Lieberman's backing of the Iraq war and perceived closeness to President Bush have won him followers among hard-core Democrats.

The primary is Aug. 8 and Lieberman has said he will run as an independent if he loses.

Pro-Israel political action committees have donated to his campaign and have urged their national membership to give generously now and later, if Lieberman is forced to run as an unaffiliated candidate.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/07/19/pro_israel_groups_rally_support_for_lieberman/

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Freddie Stubbs]

63. Campaigned AGAINST what-his-name or campaigned FOR Newsom?

:shrug:

[anotherdrew]

70. exactly - the clintons are not our friends n/t

[Oleladylib]

104. Guess that is only recognizable to those who know what that is.

Go Bill and Hill!!!!

[confludemocrat]

61. That's a good sign, he usually campaigns for those who end up losing

so it could worse, he could be supporting Lamont

[jonnyblitz]

65. HAHA

:thumbsup:

[Theres-a]

123. Right on! nt

[BillZBubb]

67. I guess Bill is still taking Dick Morris's calls?

Gotta triangulate to the right.

[IndianaGreen]

71. When you are married to an iceberg

wouldn't you find yourself a buddy to cat around?

[earth mom]

73. Wake up America!

The majority of the bastards in office-both past and present-are reTHUGlicans or DINOS! :puke:

[Bake]

74. I tend to agree with the principle

That is, I tend to think that if we have an incumbent WHO IS DOING A GOOD JOB (hypothetically) we should not waste campaign resources on a primary challenge. As a general rule. However, Lamont's challenge does not violate this general principle, because it is paintfully obvious that Joementum is NOT "doing a good job." He's basically become a Bushbot, and that's what the primary challenge is all about.

The problem I will have will be whom to support if Joe defeats Lamont in the primary. I've got a really bad feeling about Joe becoming a Puke FORMALLY.

Finally, I'm shocked that the Big Dog has forgotten the shiv that Joe stuck in his ribs during Monicagate. He's either got a very short memory or he's a lot more magnanimous than I would be.

Bake

[IndianaGreen]

77. Clintons are "calculating" rather than "short memory" or "magnanimous."

There is certain amorality about the Clintons and Lieberman than should be noticed in light of the carnage taking place in Lebanon. Both Bill and Joe supported war on Iraq. Bill went so far as supporting Bush's assertions of WMDs, even after David Kay said there were none to be found. Bill, Joe, and Hillary have spoken in favor of "doing something" about Iran and Syria. Joe and Hillary have voted for resolutions authorizing Bush to "do something" about Iran and Syria, and just yesterday, they all voted on a voice vote to commend Israel for her bombing of Lebanese cities.

There is a grand alliance of PNAC neocons and PPI neolibs that is hell-bent in imposing a twisted version of Pax Americana on the Middle East, even if they have to bomb that region into the Stone Age in order to achieve their ends.

[newspeak]

100. I remember when Clinton ran for president the first time

universal health care was the big push---I voted for Clinton, hoping that the American people would not only get health care but a social conscience would bring more to our communities. Reading and keeping informed about the Iran-Contra BCCI scandal, I also thought Clinton would pursue it and everything would be revealed to the people about how a nasty group was undermining the power of Congress, and orchestrating very dark deeds in foreign policy. Nothing--Clinton did nothing. NAFTA-GATT was poppy's baby (I guess it was more than poppy's baby) because Clinton signed the treaty, that has taken us further down the economic ladder. I remember Clinton publicly telling the American people that we will provide service--that we will be the service industry while our manufacturing jobs were sent overseas. Then, lo and behold, our service jobs started going overseas, too--well I guess McDonalds and Wal-Mart are also service industry jobs, so maybe he was telling the truth. Then, there was the Telecommunications Act (say goodbye to the Fairness Doctrine) and the Welfare "Deform" Act. I had it!!!!! What amazes me now, is that some do not notice that Clinton is always invited to all these afffairs with Bush, but not Carter. "You will know them by their acts." I'd say Carter has done more for the people, than those who have come after.

[agio]

86. I am not certain

... that the CW that money spent on a primary is "wasted" is at all valid.

Primaries get people interested in campaigns long before the election. They force candidates to sharpen their message and get their ground-game running before facing the Republicans.

The harm in primaries, AFAIAC, is not their expenses, but if they get ugly. When candidates in a primary start attacking each other on personal issues rather than debating the issues, they end up just giving their real opponents in the GOP more ammunition to use in the general.

[Bake]

91. I agree with you on all points.

The LIEberman/Lamont primary is a perfect example of a damaging (for Joe) primary. Even if Lieberman does win it, he's taken some major body blows. On the other hand, if Lamont wins it, he's got some genuine momentum going into the general election.

Bake

[agio]

94. self-inflicted imho

Joe's blows are self-inflicted, if you ask me.

I think if he could manage to summon up just a little bit more grace, rather than trying to present the whole thing as an affront to his dignity, if he could bring himself to say, "As a Democrat, I will support whoever is the Democratic nominee", he would be in a better position than he is now.

[Tellurian]

78. Simple- Godfather LOGIC!

You keep your friends close to you.

Your "enemies", you keep CLOSER!

(otherwise, they're out of reach!)

[zara]

85. Just more triangulation from the DLC poster boy. : (

[Oak2004]

92. If I were ablebodied and had a car

... I'd drive down to CT when and wherever Clinton was appearing with or for LIEberman, and stand outside, quietly holding a good sized sign (biggest I could manage), with choice quotes from LIEberman's attacks on Clinton during Monicagate in the biggest, clearest, most readable typeface I could manage.

Just to remind everyone, you know. Maybe Bill forgot ;-)

[Tellurian]

95. yeah right! Ya think?

when emotions overrule common sense, you know you're headed for trouble.

Eh-don't call or complain when they have you in lock-up!

[leftchick]

97. it seems bill is as out of touch with Democrats

as his wife is. :puke:

[coalition_unwilling]

98. Yet another reason to despise Clinton, backing a hack like

Lieberbush. Of course, Clinton gave us NAFTA, welfare reform and "don't ask, don't tell," so he's right at the same spot on the ideological spectrum as Lieberbush.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

99. Another example of how Bill is not a liberal and never was

[katinmn]

101. Just another out of touch politician. Pity

[ckramer]

105. "If I don't do it, Hillary won't have sex with me!"

I can only think of this is the reason of his supporting the Loserman.

[superconnected]

108. Oh don't worry everyone, bill and hill will throw us an imaginary

bone any minute now. We'll be like "oh they support our issues", and the lip service will make everyone feel better.

Then we'll return to this crap they've been doing all along.

Count the minute till the bone comes. It ALWAYS does.

[freedomburn]

110. Way to squander your political capital Big Dawg. n/t

[The Stranger]

111. Didn't Leibercon cross the aisle to IMPEACH YOU, BILL?

[cmkramer]

118. No

He voted no on conviction. And he was never ever considered someone Clinton needed to worry about. In fact, he ended up saving Clinton because at the time he made the speech there was a lot of anger among Democrats in the House and Senate and Clinton was in grave danger of getting the "Mr. President, for the good of the party and the nation, you must resign" ultimatum. By saying in public what a lot of them were feeling in private, Leiberman lanced the boil, so to speak.

[confludemocrat]

120. perverse logic

that is thinking appreciable only by someone out of touch with what the country was up against in the Gingriches Delays, Army's and such and that failure of awereness of the magnitude these Repubs undying hatred for liberalism even in it's mildest form has been carried through to present, but exemplified by the non-fight that Kerry put up against their methods

Lieberman did us no favor then or since.
but whatever gets you through the day...

[UpInArms]

112. and that means what to me? HolySmokin'ThumperJoe

still sucks.

[Mugsy]

113. First Dubai, now Liebermann?

Bill is turning out to have been a better sitting-Prez than ex-Prez. The anti-Jimmy Carter?

[President Kerry]

115. 'cause everyone knows Joe got your back when you were in trouble, Mr Pres

:sarcasm:

[Freddie Stubbs]

124. history would disagree with you:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00004

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

116. Clintons=self-serving rightwing yuppies

I've been sick of both of their dick morris followin', triangulatin' asses for well over a decade

[TankLV]

117. They're longtime friends. It's still the Primary.

He has a right to vote and choose whom he supports, like any of us.

Does this include the general election if LIEberman loses?

That would be a BIG Difference!

"holy" joe ceased to be "one of our own" when he PUBLICLY scolded DEMOCRATS who dared to criticize the War Monger Asswipe bush*!

"holy" joe has voted to NOT censure the War Criminal for his ILLEGAL WAR OF CHOICE BASED ON LIES, but was all too ready to criticize and censure a Democratic President!

"holy" joe deep tounged the rat basTURD bunkerboy IN PUBLIC.

There are at least 3 good reasons why this TRAITOR is no longer a Democrat!

There are countless more.

[Barkley]

119. Clinton really is the "first Black President" because

that's just how I'd imagine a Black former president behaving: bending over backwards for people who don't give a rat's ass about you.

Always 'going along to get along...'

No end of appeasing people who are intellectually inferior to you.


And he thinks they'll return the favor and support his wife's
Presidential bid...

[mvd]

126. Why get involved when Lamont can win?

I can understand Clinton doing this, but some of the others baffle me.

[Imagevision]

127. My,My,My...this certainly makes me wonder about Bill Clinton

It makes me think if Hillary got elected, we would haver a Clintonian version of this passing administration.-- Clinton chums up with Sr. Bush?? poppycock willy, pure poppycock...!

[Raine]

128. I don't trust Clinton anymore

he's always up to something and this has to have something to do with promoting Hillary.

[goforit]

129. Birds of a feather flock together! That does it! All these assholes have

got to go! Kick em outa Washington!!

[Toots]

132. Remember how far he ran from Clinton in 2000

What a hypocrite is Lieberman. In 2000 he could not get far enough away from Clinton. Clinton was toxic to him but now he is extremely grateful a man of Clinton's enormous prestige is willing to shill for him. Lieberman doesn't deserve any of the respect shown him by some very good people, IMO.