Clinton on opposing Lieberman: "the nuttiest strategy I ever heard..."

[ProSense]

07/20/2006

Bill Clinton to campaign for Lieberman in Waterbury

By Don Michak , Journal Inquirer

Snip...

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."

more...

http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16945479&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=6

[Atman]

1. No, invading Iraq was the nuttiest strategy I ever heard in my life, Bill

Having a democrat sucking George's Bush's balls and voting against the will of his constituents is a pretty nutty strategy, too.

[alvarezadams]

29. Het Atman!

Nice to CYA.

As for Bubba, what's a conservative DLC guy gonna say about another conservative DLC guy?

[Atman]

33. "Kiss me."

LOL! Good to hear from you! I just sent you an IM.

[Warpy]

2. Conservatives stick together, don't they?

Conservatives are the problem, Bill. Your time in the sun is over. We'd like to see you at the UN, but we're done with conservatives in elected office.

[sgxnk]

21. bill

bill is not a conservative

similarly, he is not a liberal (despite many in the rightwing media who claim that)

he is, has been, and probably will be a leftmoderate.

the last liberal president we had was carter

bill - pro death penalty, just say no, etc. etc.

clearly not a liberal. so where is the surprise?

[Warpy]

23. Carter was NO LIBERAL

He was a typical southern conservative Democrat.

Clinton was to the right of REAGAN on some issues.

Clearly, a lot of people are either to young to remember or who have completely forgotten where the middle IS.

[sgxnk]

24. i base

i base the terms liberal conservative, etc. on where i see the majority of US citizens falling on major issues

i get those statistics from www.pollingreport.com

a southern conservative democrat is ON THE OVERALL SPECTRUM a leftmoderate

conservative for a democrat =/= conservative overall

i look to the country as a whole, not my biases

i suggest you check polling data on various issues to find somebody's place on the spectrum

[calico1]

25. Johnson was our last Liberal President.

But we have gone so far to the right that what was considered Moderate Republican in the 60's is now seen as "Liberal."

[PaDem]

51. some would even say that Nixon...........

was our last liberal president.

[Greyhound]

80. By todays "standard" I think you could make that case. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

90. Carter was very much a liberal by today's standards

Back in the 70's he might have been considered moderate or conservative but today he would be considered liberal.

[NativeTexan]

108. Carter WAS a liberal.....campaigned more conservative than he was.....

Clinton is left-center, the way the political spectrum has shifted. Clinton just understood give and take. Give a little to gain a lot. Carter campaigned on being a Washington outsider, and the Democratic Congress hated him for it.

Reagan WAS a Roosevelt Democrat at one time.....a liberal. His conservativeness started when he married Nancy...and when he TOO fooled the "religious right" into believing what a Christian divorced man with two families he was. Clinton wasn't to the right of Reagan though. Clinton had to compromise on some issues to a further right then Reagan had to, because HE had a Republican Congress. Reagan mostly had to work with a Democratic Congress and had to, more than his base wanted, compromise more on the left leaning side.

Government WITHOUT compromise is a "bloodless coup"......such as we have NOW!!0

[alvarezadams]

31. No way

At the very BEST, Bubba was a center-rightist... leaning towards neolib on the economic. Carter was a little left of center-right.

[sgxnk]

52. i disagree

bill was on the right of the democratic party.

but overall, he was a left moderate, with emphasis on the latter
but we can agree to disagree, cause we probably will :l

[alvarezadams]

56. It's all relative

The political center has moved inexorably to the right over the past 30 years. Compared to New Deal dems, Bubba looks like a Goldwater Republican.

[Greyhound]

81. Forget the verbiage, look at what he did,

None of the traditional left-wing agenda was enacted, precious little even got lip service from him. He was, and is a corporatist through and through.

[Skip Intro]

3. Not gonna fly, Bill. n/t

[Paulie]

4. Careful Bill, your DLC is showing!

Let the people speak Bill, that's what the primaries are for!!!

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. He has never been shy about his ties to the DLC

[flyarm]

5. well where the hell was clinton when lie ber man bent over and sold

our collective asses in this country to the neo con murderers??

shut up clinton..enough is enough!

fly

[saltpoint]

6. The system allows primaries. Voters get to choose.

Bill's got this one wrong.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

26. And political leaders get to endorse

It I were a Connecticut voter, I probably wouldn't vote for Lieberman simply because of the double-game he's trying to play with running both in the Democratic primary and as an independent. It reminds me too much of the extremists I see here, who pretend to be Democratic, while all they do is bash Democrats.

But primary decisions go both ways. Democrats who like Lieberman have every much a right to back their candidate as supporters of Lamont. And that includes Bill Clinton. If the Big Dog wants to give his opinion on a primary, he has every right to do so.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[saltpoint]

30. Never said he didn't. Clinton can endorse Lieberman if he chooses.

That doesn't make it a good thing for Lieberman. It doesn't mean that CT Dems will be swayed. It doesn't mean that criticism of Lieberman's grandstanding betrayals is lessened.

And it's not likely to re-gain the ground Holy Joe has lost to Ned Lamont.

I hope Bill Clinton enjoys his trip to the Nutmeg State.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

36. Of course it's a good thing for Lieberman!

How could such a high profile endorsement not be?

I see this as a real test for Lamont. Will he be like some of the churls in this thread, attacking Bill Clinton for expressing his opinion? Talking about the DLC as if members of that organization don't vote on the Democratic side of the aisle?

Or will he laugh it off. Or perhaps saying something substantial, like people who constantly find ways to echo Republican opinion on Fox news aren't good for Democratic messaging - no matter what their voting record is?

These are the critical moments in the campaign that will determine whether Lamont becomes a Senator, or remains a mere multimillionaire businessman.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[saltpoint]

37. The celebrity endorsement is less in question than the good it will

or will not do.

I think the Lamont campaign changes nothing. What it's doing so far has been astoundly successful against the halfwits running the Lieberman effort.

[calico1]

39. Well if he loses the primary and runs as

and independent the Republicans here will remember the kissy huggy display with Clinton and that could come back to bite him in the ass since he is counting on some of them to vote for him. As for how much good it will do now, yeah, it might... if Clinton can get people who did not intend to vote or were not paying attention to go to the polls on Aug. 8. It will make no difference to people who are already committed to Lamont. In fact, I think it will piss most of them off even more and make them even more committed.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

58. Clinton is no where near the pariah he once was for the GOP

...there are a LOT of moderate GOP voters who have reevaluated during the Bush presidency. So as far as I'm concerned, Bill is nothing but a positive for Lieberman. A real feather in his cap.

Which is fine, as far as I'm concerned. If Lieberman looses the primary, but manages to win the general, I want him still caucusing with the Democratic party. That'll be a lot easier if he feels he owes Clinton.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Cha]

101. What? limpballs isn't

preachin' the hate on Clintons no mo'?

As an aside..I saw on buzzflash where limpballs told his stupidheads that you needed an abortion to get the embryos for Stem Cell research.

[TankLV]

118. "there are a LOT of moderate GOP voters who have reevaluated during the

Bush presidency"

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. That's a good one.

1 There are NO "moderate" repukes anymore.
2 Mentioning "Clinton" to ANY repuke is like throwing a beef in front of a starving dog - they just can't help it!

Thanks for the most inane post of the day.

[Cha]

100. And yet lieberman voted for

censure of Clinton and not bush..what's clinton getting out of this?

[calico1]

7. This is a very nutty and STUPID

strategy on the part of the Lieberman campaign. Don't have enough support? Get the Big Dog to come and talk people into voting for you because they like HIM? And if you lose the primary, how many Republicans are going to vote for you after seeing you all kissy huggy with their most hated Democrat?

[bleedingheart]

8. I don't see Chelsea in the Army???? Why not Bill?

don't feed me this bullshit when you aren't willing to put up your own flesh for this awful war.

[sgxnk]

9. ???

one doesn't "put up one's own flesh" for the military

people make their OWN choice

the choice is chelsea's, not bill's

your statement is meaningless

[bleedingheart]

15. It isn't meaningless for those folks whose children are being murdered

by the warmongers in this country....

Every day someone's father, child, brother, ...is being murdered in a senseless war and yet the majority of the politicians supporting this stupidity haven't got one of their own fighting in this war they love so much.

So if Bill and Hillary truly support this war effort, why not convince their Chelsea to enlist??

Hell why isn't Jeb's son Georgie over in Iraq???

If people love war so much...they should put up or back off....

[sgxnk]

20. illogical

it's an illogical meme

i find this line of reasoning (and i use this term loosely) - frankly... stupid

for or against the war, what your SON or DAUGHTER chooses is totally irrelevant

it's just a dumb, illogical oft-repeated meme i see and find stupid


if chelsea joined the military would that make ANY difference in whether or not bill was justified in his stance (or hillary)?

no

it's just a way to discount people's opinions based on their progeny's choices?

absurd

[TankLV]

119. See post 8 below.

But you knew that, didn't you.

You ain't foolin' anybody...

[oasis]

61. Do you know if Chelsea is for the war?

Would you be willing to give her a say in the matter?

[bleedingheart]

64. hmmm...if she was against the war it would be all over the news

wouldn't it be? the GOPers would have a field day with it...but nary a peep..

Hell I would respect her if she came out publicly and condemned the war and protested...but I don't see that happening. In fact since she is well educated (Masters) and intelligent by all accounts, she is taking advantage of the financial rewards of being the daughter of a US senator and a former US President....I am sure that helped her negotiate a fine living....the benefits of being well connected.

she landed a six-figure salary...hmmmm...that could be 100K...or 600K....but who knows....but I would venture it is somewhere in the high end or in between since she is living in the Chelsea area of NY City and living there isn't cheap....

http://www.talkleft.com/new_archives/002031.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/315170p-269596c.html

[tabasco]

42. Well said.

Easy to support a war for which you make no sacrifice.

[bleedingheart]

50. well apparently some think it is illogical...but for the rest of us grunts

it is hard to follow along with the warmongers when they are tethered to the war only by campaign contributions from companies that are profitting from it....and we know what that means.

I hate to say this but this is exactly why I support a draft. If all the eligible kid's necks were on the line in this war...there wouldn't be any debate about pulling out. They would already be out.

[tabasco]

53. I support universal service, myself.

The volunteer military is used like expendable mercenaries by the corporate cabal.

Let everyone serve out of high school. 18 months. No deferments. The rich go too if there is war.

My German friends are well-off but both brothers had to serve. 1 army, 1 navy.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

86. Most ruling class chicken shit hawks only sacrifice other people’s children

The biggest problem with the Clinton’s war mongering other than they are completely wrong is that they have never had their perfect lives blighted by the horrors of war. The ruling class calls for personal sacrifice but never on their part. The fact their brat is safe while putting others in mortal danger in an unjustified war is both evil and hypocritical. Screw the Clinton's and their insular world.

[Ian David]

10. Yeah! How dare Democrats run a Democratic candidate during a Democratic...

PRIMARY!

What do they think this is?

A DEMOCRACY?

[ProSense]

11. Bill Clinton can endorse whomever he chooses to.

By the same token, it's a free country. Challenging someone in the primaries is the democratic, not the "nuttiest" thing to do.

[SaveElmer]

12. Bill's general point is correct...

Seems like some are more concerned with purging unwanted Democrats than regaining the majority.

[ProSense]

13. Why are you linking the two?

Whether it's Lamont or Lieberman (as a Democrat) who wins the seat, it's a gain, that is unless you're implying that Lamont will lose despite his gaining popularity.

[SaveElmer]

17. Making a general point...

Spending extraordinary resources to unseat a Democrat seems short sighted when we are in the minority.

I think whoever wins the Dem primary will win the race!

[calico1]

19. WE are not trying to unseat a Democrat.

We are trying to replace a DINO with a REAL Democrat. Big difference.

[MrBenchley]

116. Sure you are...

Just because you want to posture and pout about it doesn't make it any less so.

[TankLV]

120. Exactly.

Hard concept for some here.

Especially for one in particular.

[BluGrl]

71. I agree!

After we win, then we can weed out the cons. But until then, losers can't afford to be that picky. At least Clinton was a winner. What have we won lately? We are shooting ourselves in the foot, folks.

[calico1]

18. And that is the right of primary voters, ins't it?

Isn't that what primaries are for? The Senator is supposed to earn his/her seat every 6 years. Besides, the Republican is not going to win. Either Lamont or Lieberman will be our Senator.

[madfloridian]

22. Only the DLC equates a primary with a purge. It is not a purge....

it is a primary. It is giving voters a choice.

[SaveElmer]

27. Not talking about primaries...

Talking about the extraordnary amount of bile spewed at fellow Democrats. More interest in ousting and demonizing fellow Democrats than Republicans.

While I do not support Lieberman any longer, I do not think that race should be the focus, but if you troll around here it gets the lions share of the commentary.

[Zhade]

66. Have you ever considered it MIGHT be because we expect better from Dems?

We know the Republicans will lie, cheat, steal, kill, screw the poor, the little guy, the environment, etc.

When people like Biden or Feinstein or Lieberman do so, of COURSE we get angry - we don't expect to get stabbed in the back by them!

Of course, if you're of the mindset that voting for things like the bankruptcy bill isn't screwing the little guy, or supporting the war isn't immoral, this argument is not going to mean anything to you.

[SaveElmer]

85. You expect the impossible...

You expect perfection from your politicians. That is not gonna happen, and is never gonna happen. Compromise, self preservation, constituent interests all go into the mix. ANd that is not going to change. I do not like when someone I have supported votes a way I do not like, but I do not immedietely withdraw my support from that person. I look at the overall record, and I look at the alternative.

As to your last comment I would like to know how you arrived at that conclusion...? Are you a mindreader? Some kind of Clairavoyant, or is it that I don't agree with you on your purity tests, so you just assume I approve of whatever is done by politicians I support?

[Capn Sunshine]

91. We Expect UNWAVERING SUPPORT FOR CORE DEMOCRATIC VALUES

And if you betray them often enough, you will face a stiff challenge to unseat you in the primary.

No one gets a free pass anymore. You have guys with a (D) next to their name, like Zell freaking Miller, giving the keynote address at the republican convention.

I mean, how many ways do you need it spelled out for you, Elmer?

[SaveElmer]

124. The old Zell canard...

Zell Miller is not a Democrat...he is a Republican...

Has nothing to do with sticking with core values...it has to do with single issue litmus tests that get applied on these boards ad nauseum...

One incorrect vote sends the purists off the deep end. Makes no difference if you vote with the party 95% of the time, make one wrong move and you are a DINO.

[calico1]

103. Lieberman has a right to vote

"his conscience" and stand up for his beliefs, etc. However, a senate seat is not a lifetime appointment. Any elected politican who consistently goes against the beliefs of his constituents will risk getting voted out of office. Its the risk of voting your conscience when the conscience of the voters is very different. That is just the way it is. On Aug. 8 Lieberman will find out if his conscience will cost him his seat.

[Zhade]

112. My last statement wasn't a decription of you, unless it was.

My point was that anyone who doesn't think that those things are betrayals of We The People won't understand my argument.

I should have said "if one", not "if you". My mistake.

As to the rest, well, yes, there are other considerations, but to me supporting an illegal war, or illegal wiretapping, or favoring corporate profits over the little guy, isn't "not being perfect", it's enabling criminality, and I WILL NOT support that shit.

Ever.

And I won't support those who do, anymore than I would support a mugger stealing an elderly woman's purse.

[western mass]

32. More amazing than Joe's supporters' utter divorce from reality?

It's that they think the rest of us are too. CT: deep blue state. The idea that this has anything to do with putting a Dem on the senate floor is roll-on-the-floor laughable. And drool-inducingly moronic. The only question here is: do we want a right-leaning, Bush-luvin' traitor in CT's senate seat, or a good liberal?

Bill, your corporate whoring never ceases to astound and amaze!

[SaveElmer]

35. Brother...

I was making a general point. Connecticut will stay Dem no matter who wins the primary. Take a look around this board and see which threads produce the most reaction...Lieberman and Hillary threads.

I truly believe there is a significant population of "Democrats" who could give a rats ass if the Democrats take control or not, as long as they purge as many of the undesirable Democrats as possible.

[Greyhound]

82. Ridiculous, the next Senator from CT will be a Democrat, just not the one

you like.

[Cha]

102. "Unwanted"? Because why?

Because they're turncoats that's why.

Sorry if I dont' get my violin out about poor traitorjoe.

[democrat_patriot]

14. Except Liberman's IS a republican.

If it votes lie a repug, talks like a repug, supports the repug Prez....

[mtnsnake]

28. Statements like that are just plain WRONG

I don't care much for Lieberman either, but he is far from being a Republican. What he is, IMO, is a self-serving politician who's desperate to hang onto his job at almost any expense.

He might be a right-of-center Democrat, but he's far from being a "republican".

[peacetalksforall]

16. I didn't realize it at the time, but I think the DLC is Clinton and I've

left the DLC behind. They ruined the 2000 recount and election and have not played by my evolving rules since. I can barely tolerate it when they are supposed to be representing Democrats on TV. The only Dems who get to appear on GE, Murdoch, Time-Warner corporate propaganda shows seem to be the DLC and I don't like what they say. They are Republican lite, therefore is is not too surprising to hear President Clinton defending and supporting Leiberman this way.

President Clinton is evidently a forgiving guy and that is admirable, but we are parting ways.

I worked hard for you Bill. I'm glad you're not running, it would be hard not to support you. I was a loyal defender.

Bill, you are an appeaser and we need appeasers in certain situations, but Republican lites don't fight for Dems and that is what the need is now and yesterday. Enough of the nicey-nice kissing of the enemy. We have to save the country and you are not doing your part.

[AtomicKitten]

38. For a minute I thought I'd accidentally landed on Free Republic.

Where else can you find such bashing of a former president of the United States?

It isn't enough to disagree with him (which I do); he must be destroyed.

This is why "we" lose elections.

Feh.

[ProSense]

40. Democrats lose election because

some posters in this thread don't agree with Clinton that another Democrat challenging Lieberman in the primary is the "nuttiest" thing?

OK, let's pretend he didn't say it (and dis Lamont's supporters) because he's a former president.

[AtomicKitten]

41. my point is broader than that

There is a concerted effort here to destroy those within the party that don't fall in line with the consensus de jour. No other opinions are tolerated. It isn't enough to respectfully disagree. No, in their view dissenting opinions within the party must be crushed, ridiculed, annihilated, or in some other way summarily dismissed.

The behavior of some people here at DU mimics the mindless GOP Wrecking Machine. We should be smarter than that.

[madfloridian]

44. Clinton is equating a primary with ousting someone. That is sneaky.

"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."

He makes it sound as though Lamont supporters are trying to oust Lieberman. He sounds like there should not be opposition at all to fellow Democrats.

If you follow that thought process, then you could also come up with many strange thoughts. Like his interference in the 04 primaries, wrong. Someone running against Hillary would be wrong as well.

Maybe he thinks there should not be primaries except in certain cases?

A primary is not a "nutty" thing. He is wrong to do this.

[calico1]

46. Correct. He is trying to make it sound as

though we are trying to get rid of Lieberman and replace him with a Republican. I don't appreciate his comments.

[AtomicKitten]

49. I don't agree with him, but he is entitled to his opinion & to express it

It's the abject lack of respect for probably the strongest Democrat we have that is disconcerting to me. I don't argue the content of your point in any other way.

I am very disheartened by the amount of bandwidth used at DU to trash, not discuss, but I mean trash Democrats. I whole-heartedly disagree with Clinton but some of the genuinely icky stuff I read here in lieu of a substantive counterargument really makes me shake my head.

Such vile recriminations for those within the party when there is so much material on the other side of the aisle - for crissakes the ME is on fire - makes me wonder if there is any fairness or perspective or insight to be had here at DU.

[Zhade]

67. "There is a concerted effort here..."

Do you have anything to back that up - like, you know, FACTS, rather than your paranoid fantasy?

[jonnyblitz]

68. the Clinton's are worshipped like gods by some people.

they can tear down the party all they want with their elitist shit but god forbid we criticize them and you have to deal with the "Cult of personality" crowd whining about "they are entitled to their opinion" and stop tearing THEM down. You just aren't entitled to your OPINION without hearing about it.

[AtomicKitten]

70. elitist shit?

your rhetoric is torn right from GOP talking points.

there is a big difference between "worship like gods" and civilized respect, but not to you because it doesn't fit into your scorched earth talking points.

You forget to factor in that most people are able to discern the difference and find your strawman arguments absurd.

[MrBenchley]

123. It's always revealing to hear "progressives" parrot the language

of Jim Crow isn't it?

I wonder who he thinks these elitists are....people who chew with their mouths closed? People who listen to classical music?

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[Greyhound]

84. What on earth ever gave you the idea that we are smart?

All of the evidence supports the opposite conclusion.

[NativeTexan]

89. Amen, Kitten! I agree with almost everything...........

.....that I read on DU. BUT this idea that it is their way or the highway really does smack of what the Bush Fascist Party has become.

We fight amongst ourselves, and come up with the best possible solutions for some of the toughest questions in the history of the world. Republican's fall behind whoever has the most money behind them and whatever "policies" that candidate seems to think is important.

The answers are NEVER.....EVER....found anywhere but in the middle. The only thing that changes thru the years is just where the "middle" is. Right now the actual "middle" is farther to the right than at anytime in my more than half-century on the planet.

Our job has Democrats is to pull to the left just enough to bring the middle back to some point of reality. Sometimes that will take some ideas that are a bit more to the left that I would normally approve of, but THAT has been a fight created by the damned Nazi's that took power in 2000!

Nothing is simple....nothing is easy....and NOTHING is BLACK OR WHITE!

But there is basic right or wrong.....that is where Democrats have always excelled!

Tex

[Zhade]

113. So the Dems who support illegal wars and illegal wiretapping...

...are excelling at protecting right from wrong?

What planet am I on, Bizarro-World?

[NativeTexan]

115. I am sorry....did I say that? OR did you read that into it in some...

....very general closed-minded way? In "general" I speak of ALL Dems, as compared to Republicans. We have a sense of right and wrong. Sometimes we disagree on what goes under which label, but we KNOW that there is a difference.

Fascists like this most recent version of the Good Ole Pedophiles, don't have an inkling as to what the difference is. There is just THEIR WAY...so it MUST be right......WRONG!!!

[Zhade]

121. No, of course you didn't say that. I'm not blind.

If you were speaking of Democrats as a whole, and not the (mostly) fuckups in Congress, my apologies for misunderstanding you.

I maintain what I said regarding those who vote with the Pedophiles on such things (great name for 'em, btw).

[NativeTexan]

122. Thanks.......we're on the same page!

[RedStateShame]

43. Et tu, Bubba?

Well, I guess Al Gore can cross him off his endorsement list now.

[Totally Committed]

45. "the nuttiest strategy I ever heard..."

Yet another Democratic Party leader insulting the voters of CT. I hope they are as incensed at this as I am for them! Shame on Bill... and indeed, as it was said upthread: His DLC is showing.

TC

[bemildred]

47. A guy who was impeached for a hummer wants to lecture us about strategy?

:rofl::rofl:
:banghead::banghead:

[RedStateShame]

48. So, the tally so far:

So, David Brooks, Glenn Beck, and Bill Clinton support Joe Lieberman? And which one of those are we supposed to trust?!

[Freddie Stubbs]

54. You forgot Barbara Boxer

[Sleepless In NY]

55. No, Bill the "nuttiest" is Hillary sending postcards to Chertoff

to "prove" there are monuments in NY & DC, instead of demanding he be fired. Didn't work did it? He couldn't even be bothered to look at them. Didn't exactly express the outrage we all felt by getting shafted by Bush and his "lets exploit 9/11 one more time" gang. But what the heck, Chertoff got away with it post Katrina, no one calling him to task for that either.


By the way, 3 years ago Hillary said that along with other democrats, they would filibuster Bush's EPA nominee, because the administration had been less than honest about the quality and safety of the air & water here after 9/11. Never happened. Lots of people sick & dying here now, but I wouldn't want that to disturb Hillary in her egomanical quest for the presidency. So don't bother her with it. I'm starting to think I was nutty for voting for either one of you.

[Freddie Stubbs]

63. What does that have to do with Barbara Boxer?

:shrug:

[applegrove]

57. At this point.. if you let yourself be wedged.. .. I mean.. why would you?

We know Lieberman is a wedge. Even if he doesn't. GOP works only in flipping small percentages of Democrats. They are working hard to flip Joe... and have been for years... why they hunted Al Sharpton like a roo facing truck spotlights in the outback... for years too. He realized he was a wedge and shut them up. He can do that with a few words.

Lieberman is more vulnerable. But still a wedge GOP has coveted.

[GreenTea]

59. Democrat Lamont does have a great platform on Iraq, health care,

the environment, our civil rights, etc., (http://nedlamont.com/) it's ridiculous for any democrat not to recognize that. Lamont is a true democrat. With better idea's and ideology...Lieberman doesn't have a lock or a deserved lifetime throne, Lieberman had his chance and has shown who he is and what he stands for...Lamont is the the far better democratic candidate!

[loudsue]

65. VERY well said, Green Tea!

:applause:

[Crunchy Frog]

60. Almost as nutty as

leading the charge to politically lynch a sitting President of your own party over a minor sexual indiscretion.

I wonder if Joe will be wagging his finger at Clinton over his personal lapses, just for old time's sake.

[zulchzulu]

62. This could be Bubba's last laugh on Loserman

Think of Bill as a lifeguard jumping in the water to save Lieberman, who is already being eaten alive by the Sharks of Reality.

He tried to save him....ha ha ha...Lamont will win and Bill can say he tried...but... now Lieberman will have to campaign for Hillary for the Uber-Jewish vote in NY and FLA in 2008...

[MarkDevin]

72. Hey, Slick Willy: who the hell asked you?

Will you out-of-state agitators (GOP and DLC alike) stop lecturing us Connecticut Democrats on who to vote for? Most of you have never set foot in my state in your life, so what makes you such experts on Connecticut politics, anyway?

God almighty, this is irritating!

[hatrack]

73. It's called "exercising the franchise", Bill

In the mean time, bite me.

[ProSense]

74. Perspective!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2733515&mesg_id=2733645

[AtomicKitten]

75. primaries are and have always been the essence of

...democracy within the party and no efforts at manipulation from any quarter are going to change that. Rather than getting ugly with these tag-team efforts to save Lieberman's ass, I just blow it off because nothing will change the momentum of Lamont's campaign.

[AzDar]

77. Why, the VERY IDEA of the VOTERS choosing whom they'd like

to represent them...it's MADNESS, I tell you.:sarcasm:

[NativeTexan]

78. I am a Moderate Dem who still loves Bubba, but.............

..........Ole Joe has to GO! Oh and keep in mind, that the right has gone so EXTREMELY RIGHT that the line has shifted to where even John Dean says HE would be considered liberal.

Lieberman IS a Republican.....or might as well be! BYE BYE JOE!!!

[MarkDevin]

79. I remember saying back in 1995...

...that I'd like to place a friendly arm around Clinton's shoulders and say, "Bill, please do us all a favor. Be a Democrat or be a Republican; but for god's sake, make up your mind!"

He never did take my advice. :dilemma:

[Totally Committed]

87. Amen to that.

But alvarez is right.... say it vewwy vewwy quietly.

TC

[AtomicKitten]

88. don't confuse

those your new buddy accuses of being pro-DLC with those that are pro-common courtesy. That puerile barb is not truthful nor does it have anything do with much discussion here. It is used as a tool (by a tool) to disrupt and derail debate. The irony is that he who accuses those of a shallow POV demonstrates his own over and over again. It isn't clever to be an asshole; it's just boorish behavior.

[Totally Committed]

92. I would never in a million years consider you "pro-DLC"!

You are one of the most "Pro-DNC" people on this board, though, and that is just fine with me. I respect your always being as courteous as possible, and have let you inspire me in that direction more than a few times.

Being as anti-DLC as I am, I would find it hard to be as proud as I am to have you as a friend if you WERE pro-DLC. Anyone who accuses you of being Pro-DLC because of your views about respect among posters is sadly misinformed. I'm sorry about that. We don't agree about everything, but I know there is no one more decent and kind in expressing their views and opinions.

Your friend,

TC

[AtomicKitten]

98. you are too kind

I'm just deflated when I'm tag-team assaulted here. The absurd accusations, scorched earth rhetoric, and school yard ridicule are so over the top. But what it does is shut down debate. It's bullying, boorish behavior by some here no different than that of the GOP Wrecking Machine.

What I am is pro-common courtesy. Even that is apparently too much to ask from some people.

I'm tired of the bullying on these boards, I'm tired of the grudge-holding, I'm tired of the fractious attitude that festers within this website. A different point of view doesn't automatically make one the enemy. We don't see eye to eye, TC, but I really value your input and enjoy your participation here. If we all thought the same, we'd be Republicans, and nobody wants that.

[Totally Committed]

105. The way I see it, the fewer Republicans, the better! LOL!

Who was it that said that getting Democrats to agree was harder than herding cats? I don't remember, but (s)he was right! There are many flavors in the Democratic Party Candy Dish, but they're ALL sweeter than anything the OTHER (monochromatic) candy dish, for sure!

TC

[MarkDevin]

93. So not kissing Clinton's butt makes me an asshole?

Sorry, but I don't believe in worshipping politicians like demi-gods. If I perceive anyone as doing something that harms democracy, or is detrmiental to the Democratic Party, I'm going to criticize that person.

Now, do you want to continue insulting me, or do you want to grow up and discuss the issues?

[Totally Committed]

96. I know this wasn't addressed to me, but if I may...

I am, not by a longshot in fact, a fan of EITHER of the Clintons for reasons I have stated many times in other threads.

But, even though AK and I disagree in how we feel about him/them, she has never ONCE called me an a**hole. As a matter of fact, she's never even intimated it.

If I may be so bold, I'd like to recommend getting to know the people you don't agree with before assuming you know them by their political "bent". AK is one of the most decent of people... a little worn down by all of the bickering -- as we all are -- but a nicer person you will never find on this board. I'd like it very much of the tone of the place could reflect our respect for each other more. I think a lot of people would agree with me.

And, I'll never think you are an a**hole for not kissing Clinton's butt... I promise! ;)

TC

[AtomicKitten]

97. FYI

I was referring to the post BELOW TC's (#83) that she was referencing in her post under yours. I thought my specific verbiage made that clear. Now I can see there are posts in between so I can understand the misunderstanding.

I hope this clears that up for you.

[alvarezadams]

83. Shhh

Don't say that to the pro-DLC crowd. You know - the ones who vote the shirt even if the shirt contains the enemy.

[fuzzyball]

94. Plz show some respect to Clintons, the most successful dems of 20th

century besides FDR. Bill Clinton remains popular worldwide
because of his policies, personality and record.

[MarkDevin]

95. Show respect to a man who calls my support of a real Dem "nutty?"

No, thank you.

[fuzzyball]

104. You can vote your choice, that does not mean disrespect a 2 time winner

of white house, which is more than you or I will ever achieve and only
ONE other democrat has achieved in a whole century.

[Totally Committed]

106. With all due respect, the man was charming, indeed....

but most of his policies sucked. He is revered around the world because of the disaster that took his place. In comparison to that, who wouldn't be?

He may have been "successful" in your eyes, but not all feel as you do. Mark has a real point inthat you are asking us to show someone respect when he disrespectfully refers to our beliefs and choices as "nutty". Think about that. Respect is a two-way street.

TC

[AtomicKitten]

107. I am appalled that he disrespects the primary process

as if CT voters owe Lieberman something. Lieberman serves at their pleasure, not the other way around. Bringing in the Big Dog like this means Lieberman is in the last throes of desperation.

CT voters will sort this out. I can't even imagine the Democratic Party machine supporting Lieberman if he runs as an indie in the general. That would be bizarro-world. There is no way in hell they could square that with the Dem rank and file.

[Totally Committed]

110. Wouldn't it be great if he had a re-think,

and decided not to go, but to abide by the choice of the CT voters? How's he going to support Lamont after he wins if he goes in during the primaries for Joe, anyway?

It's just disrespectful of the process.

TC

[DYouth]

114. Popular because he came after Bush and Reagan mostly

I'd say, personally.

[Cha]

99. I'll tell ya some "nutty" strategy

Mr President! Lying about the fucking "blue dress" ..now that was great strategy..where did that get ya?

As for traitorjoe, we'll be The Deciders on that.

[Hippo_Tron]

109. Mr. President, I respectfully disagree

Senator Lieberman hogs media attention in order to declare his staunch support for the war and that hurts Democrats. Defeating Senator Lieberman in the primary will send a strong message that Democrats are in line with a majority of Americans on this issue in that we want a new direction in Iraq and that we acknowledge that we were lied to by this administration. And with all due respect, we are seeking to retire Republicans as well.

[Cascadian]

111. This ranks right up there with Clinton defending Chimp Boy

"Aw shucks, give the guy a break!" Clinton told the world about the criticism of Bush's handling of Iraq. Anybody remember that?

And if anybody thinks that Clinton was a liberal president, then I have beachfront property in the Mojave Desert I want to sell. Sure, Clinton was better than what we have now but a liberal? No way! Clinton was pro-free trade, pro-death penalty, pro-corporate welfare, and don't forget "don't ask, don't tell" for the gays in the military.


John

[TankLV]

117. I remember. I remember a lot of things that Clinton has done regarding

his new found "buddies".

It is quite diappointing and sickening.

But I still miss the big guy and his COMPETANT SUCCESSFUL Presidency.

Sigh.

Those were the "good old days"!

All I can say is: "What's wrong with Bill?"

[Cascadian]

125. For what it's worth, Clinton was better as president.

I know much as this. I had a good paying job in the 90's, I was able to pay my bills, put food in my fridge, buy cool stuff, and go to Europe almost every year. There was this sense of optimism among people. I did not agree with much of what he did, but I would take 1 Bill Clinton over a dozen George Bushes.


I miss the 90's!



John