Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton - What's the difference

[madville]

They have almost identical voting records. They both voted for the war and support it. Why is Joe Lieberman so evil when Hillary Clinton has done almost the same thing and is under the radar ? I see them as the same type of politician, hardly any difference. Both are going for the "center", Joe Lieberman because I think he actually thinks that way and Hillary Clinton because she is trying to play all sides for 2008. I just don't get why he is evil and she gets a pass on an almost identical record.

[babylonsister]

1. madville, welcome! I'm awaiting answers and will instigate this in

the a.m. Good question!

[larrysh]

2. She gets a pass because she is a woman

It wouldn't be polite to attack a lady!

[babylonsister]

3. Huh?Hillary or the OP? No one gets a pass here. nt

[Cornus]

4. Tasini will insure that she doesn't get a pass

He's already gaining support and by the Sept. primary we hope he will do the same that Lamont has done in Conn.

[onenote]

13. LOL! Smokin' the good stuff, eh?

There is absolutely no indication that Tasini has a snowball's chance in hell of catching (or even being competitive) in his race against Clinton. The most recent poll numbers I saw (from yesterday) showed him 70 points behind. http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/

[SOS]

24. 13% of Dems in NY

Will never vote for a pro-war candidate.
Result?
Hillary coasts to Senate re-election.
Loses all hope for the White House.

[ndcohn]

5. the difference is

hillary is a liberal that tries to talk to the center
lieberman is a centrist

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[onenote]

21. if you can back that up, do so. I don't think you can

There are plenty of differences. Just to give one example, Clinton gets a 100 percent rating from NARAL on pro-choice issues; Lieberman gets a 75 percent rating. There are numerous other examples. YOu can check out the various interest group ratings (including those of conservative groups that rate Lieberman more highly than Clinton)
http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm

[NativeTexan]

41. I am a centrist...I know many centrists.....

....centrists are friends of mine, and Joe, sir, is no centrist. (Joe is a conservative in all the areas that really count, and NOT a Goldwater or Eisenhower conservative....a Village Idiot Conservative).

[AJH032]

6. She gets a pass?

No, there are daily anti-Hillary posts here. Also, if you look at their voting record, Hillary is actually more liberal than Lieberman, so even if she did get this fictional pass, that would be why.

[MADem]

7. She's not threatening to run as an independent. She is female.

She's never yet run for Vice President. Her spouse is more interesting than Joe's is.

There are many differences.

She's more liberal than Joe, too.

[countmyvote4real]

8. She has more money to influence her policy and subsequent votes.

They are both "centrist" whores that cannot be trusted when it comes to people like me. (I'm gay, but she won't stand up for my civil rights; I can't afford health insurance, plus it's not offered to me as a free-lancer of a major corporation and she has stayed smacked down for proposing something better. I want our trroops out of Iraq, she won't say.) In short, they are both opportunists and I do not trust either with my vote or endorsement.

I will vote in the primary, but it will not be for Mrs. Bill Clinton. (How are THESE two not the same?)

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[ChipsAhoy]

14. This is the kind of rudeness I've been noticing here.

To tell this poster to "go home" is out of line, IMO.

It's a good question. Why the need to be rude?

AND - to answer the question, there's not much of a difference between the two other than the Repub's hate Hillary more than Joe. But, neither of them can carry off a victory for us. Nor would I want them to. I think they are both kind of fake people.

[paulk]

18. it's perfectly ok to be rude and worse, frankly

when confronted with flat out lies from the hate hillary krew.

if you think hillary and lieberman are the same

then you've been believing the bullshit these people are spreading on DU

on the other hand

the tenor of YOUR post seems to be along the same lines as the OP

more hateful ignorant bullshit

"fake people"

thanks for spreading the RNC meme

the same one they trashed Gore and Kerry with

[ChipsAhoy]

25. Ah well, more rudeness - and WHY?

See, this is what tears our party apart. The internal attacks. There is NO need for it and frankly, no room for it.

I believe we ALL want the same outcome --- to take our country back!!! We are long overdue! For you to wish us to all be in lockstep is toting the Pub memo. Our party stands for diversity and freedom of opinion. Why try to silence any of us or lower yourself to name-calling??

In the end, it gives the other side such a huge advantage. Gee, if we can't get along with each other how can we ever get back in power?? We are not always going to agree on everything, but we are still together. We need to be.

Oh -and if you have ever read any of my prior posts, my man is Wes!! I think HE has a chance of winning. Care to trash or attack that view?

[AtomicKitten]

28. I agree with that sentiment

There is no need for the snottiness and personal attacks within these message boards. Some people behave like we left of center are the enemy, not the Republicans. They choose up sides because of certain POVs and are flat-out rude to those that don't think the same way. It's tough to remain civilized under those circumstances; I struggle with it. Very disconcerting. I know people that have left or are thinking of leaving because of it.

Ps: I support Al Gore. Fingers crossed.

[ChipsAhoy]

31. Beautiful post!

I struggle with it too and felt the urge to speak up this time. Perhaps if we call out the rude posters when we notice it, it will slowly subside. Just a wish.

[paulk]

30. do you think calling HRC and Lieberman "fake people"

is somehow constructive? You don't consider that an "internal attack"?

The kind that tears our party apart?

--------------

[ChipsAhoy]

33. No sirreee

It's an opinion, not an attack. Telling posters who have differing views to "go home" is just over the line. The two have nothing to do with each other.

Further, Hillary tries to play both sides and that, IMO, makes her not real, i.e., fake. And Joe L. -- well, he's just a mess. He shouldn't even call himself a Democrat. Gee, I don't have to like every Democrat, do I?

PS: I would vote for either of them over a Pub ANY day.

[paulk]

38. it's an opinion based on information that isn't true

one might even say it's an opinion based on ignorance, and I don't mean that to be an insult.

The problem with so much of what gets posted on DU; what gets to become almost the "common knowledge", is that a lot of it is based on disinformation - or outright lies - much of it spread by persons who have motives detrimental to the Democratic Party or to a particular candidate.

Like you repeat the idea that Joe L "shouldn't even call himself a Democrat". There is certainly a lot to dislike about Mr. Lieberman, but that statement is simply not correct. Lieberman votes with the Democratic party over 80% of the time. You don't have to like Lieberman - but to spread lies about his voting record - that, to me, is "over the line". That is what tears the party apart. Let the Republicans spread lies and disinformation about Democrats - don't help them!

That goes for the "fake" thing, too. The same kind of things were said about Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. It's the number one tactic the RNC uses to go after our candidates. Why help them?

You're going to say - Dems don't walk in lockstep - well, maybe we could take a lesson from Ronald Reagan and his eleventh commandment - "speak no ill of your party members" - it's worked pretty damn well for them.

[alvarezadams]

43. You speak of disinformation

and point to a sippery slope. Lieberman votes with the party 80% of the time? Have you considered that the "party" votes against its purported ideology 40% of the time? Have you pondered the fact that Lieberman votes with the party on talkingpoint issues, but with the admin in the two most important areas, economics and foreign policy?

And have you considered who backs the DLC and what the DLC's objectives and strategies are regarding "liberals"?

"You're going to say - Dems don't walk in lockstep - well, maybe we could take a lesson from Ronald Reagan and his eleventh commandment - "speak no ill of your party members" - it's worked pretty damn well for them."

Ah yes - the ends justify the means. To succeed one must surrender. Vote the shirt, don't waive it!

[paulk]

50. a couple of days ago you made a post on this board

were you said you would rather see a Republican elected than a "DLC Dem"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2732380#2733097

one of the stated goals of this website is the election of Democrats...

why should anyone here take you seriously?

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[paulk]

54. LOL

"what if a Nazi ran as a Dem"???

That's such an absurd argument it doesn't even qualify as a strawman.

You want Democrats elected as well? Like, right after you replace the 20 Senate Dems who are DLC members with Republicans - cause, really, what's the difference?

That's a brilliant plan.


-------------------

As far as discussing the DLC's economic and foreign policy - why should I bother? Your POV is so far out there in ... should I say left field? I'm not sure - anarchy isn't necessarily a leftist philosophy... that wasting time "debating" you on it is just that... wasting time.

[alvarezadams]

55. As usual

DLC supporters avoid talking about the issue. In this case because "I am so out there" - even though the funding links between the Bradleys/Olins and the DLC are in the public domain and the fact that the head of the DLC's thinktank is a signer of more than one PNAC letter.

Close your eyes, stop up your ears and yell "I CAN'T HEEEEAAAR YOOOOUUUU".

Pathetic.

[ChipsAhoy]

46. I didn't speak of Joe's voting record, didn't even mention it.

But, if you wish to discuss that subject, the poster who replied to you seems to be up on that information and made some very good points, by the way.

And it's true, I don't walk in lockstep with anyone. Thank you.

[paulk]

51. so... you're not basing your opinion of Lieberman on his

voting record? Wouldn't his actual votes be a pretty good indicator of whether he's a "Democrat" or not? Of where he stands on the political spectrum?

What are you basing your opinion on?

-------------

What "poster who replied to me" are you referring to? "Alvarezdams"? The poster who would rather see a Republican win than a "DLC Dem"? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2732380#2733097

[alvarezadams]

53. Food for thought. Or not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2733900&mesg_id=2736951

[ChipsAhoy]

56. No, I was correcting your "misinformation"

about my words.

You said, "You don't have to like Lieberman - but to spread lies about his voting record - that, to me, is "over the line".

To that, I replied that I didn't even mention his voting record, so it's not true that I'm spreading lies. That's what I am correcting in your post. Misinformation.

As for what I base my opinion on, gee, I don't have to tell you how many times ol' Joe has sided with the Bush admin, do I? Isn't it clear enough that he shouldn't be representing himself as a Democrat?

And if it's not clear to you, so be it. Again, it's my opinion and should be free from attack, especially on a Democratic board where we are all wishing to take back our country. Sometimes we just have a different view on how to do that.

[paulk]

58. you don't need to tell me how many times Joe has sided

with the Bush admin. It's a matter of public record. Like I posted above - it's around 20% of the time. That means that Lieberman has voted with the Democratic Party position about 80% of the time. I don't know - for most people that can count to a hundred, I would think that voting with the Democrats 80% of the time would make a person a "Democrat" and not a "Republican".

If your "opinion" is based on the notion that supporting the Republican position 20% of the time makes someone a Republican... well, I don't have a response to that.

-------------------

This is a discussion board - no opinion - especially the sort of "opinion" you have given here, is free from rebuttal.


---------------------

as for the "correcting the misinformation" section of your post... your logic there is equivalent to the logic you use in arriving at the conclusion that Joe Lieberman is a Republican...

[alvarezadams]

59. Sigh

"you don't need to tell me how many times Joe has sided with the Bush admin. It's a matter of public record. Like I posted above - it's around 20% of the time. That means that Lieberman has voted with the Democratic Party position about 80% of the time."

You don't need to tell me how many times Franz has sided with Adolf. Its a matter of public record.

Who cares if he invaded Poland (Iraq)? He's in favour of public health. Who cares if he's in favour of vertical trade unions that yield to corporate interests? He built the autobahns.

Voting progressive on minor issues, even if its 80% of the time, doesn't erase the fact that on the MOST IMPORTANT issues he votes lockstep with the GOP. It's called "bait and switch". It's a simple ploy.

You've fallen for it.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[NewJeffCT]

10. Joe has equated questioning the "war" in Iraq with treason

And Joe spouts long debunked Republican Talking Points in support of the war.

While Hilary voted for the war, she had at least not been afraid to criticize Team Bush over how they have run the war.

When a local writer & radio host in CT was mildy critical of Lieberman, he went on the air with that host the next day & had a temper tantrum, on air. And, a few months later, Joe would not rule out running as an independent if Connecticut Democrats voted for Ned Lamont. And, then he started gathering signatures for his run.

Joe is to the left of Hilary on flag burning, so I'll give him that. However, Hilary has gone through a meat grinder of constant negative publicity for 15 years now and has not had anything close to Joe's on air meltdown in that time, she has not threatened to become an independent or anything like that.

[calico1]

11. She doesn't blast her own party

all the time, she doesn't get all kissy huggy with bush and his administration, she isn't thretening to bolt the party if voters reject her........

[western mass]

12. She hasn't been endorsed by Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly...

[MercutioATC]

15. Hillary hasn't formed her own political party, perhaps?

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Clinton either, but she didn't go out and start her own political party because Democrats wouldn't vote for her.

[oasis]

16. Hillary is presidential material. Lieberman is a second rate loser.

Got it?

[Greyhound]

45. Upon what do you base your assertion that HRC is "presidential material"?

I don't see anything extraordinary in her. OTOH, she is very committed to her corporate donors.

[SaveElmer]

17. You are wrong...Hillary more progressive, and loyal Democrat!

Hillary Clinton's voting record is more progressive than Liebermans. Hillary votes the Democratic Party position 95% of the time, Lieberman is in the mid 80's (still not bad).

Hillary is not a cheerleader for the war the way Lieberman is, and has been very critical of Bush's handling of it, unlike Lieberman.

Most of all, Hillary Clinton is a loyal Democrat, which Lieberman is not!

[Township75]

19. Great question! Which I am sure will give you some...

very emotionally charged answers.

My feelings are that Hillary does a better job of hiding when she votes with the administration, while Joe tends to talk about it more.

I also feel Hillary benefits from Bill's presence...some Dems love him, so she is loved by association.

Futhermore, I think many are resigned (or excited) that she is likely to be the Dem nominee in 08, and as such, are starting to convince themselves about how much they like her right now.

I tend not to care very much for either one, and in fact have more respect for Joe as he at least stands up for his votes with admin rather than just ducking for cover. When Hillary votes with the admin on an issue like the PA or war, she then later blasts the admin on those same issues (once they go down the crapper)...she just strikes me as voting with them for purely political positioning.

I wouldn't miss either one, but I am willing to bet I won't miss either because they will both be reelected.

[Totally Committed]

22. Hillary is a female. She also rarely criticizes her fellow Democrats.

That's about it. They are pretty close as far as I'm concerned.

I am not a CT voter, not am I a NY voter, but if EITHER OF THEM should get the Democratic Party nomination for president, NEITHER OF THEM would get my time, energy, $$$, or vote.

TC

[zulchzulu]

23. File under: Who Gives a Rat's Ass

Neither matter to me.

Lieberman helped Gore lose in 2000 and Hillary would guarantee a loss in 2008 if she was the Democratic nominee.

[ChipsAhoy]

26. Accuracy and reality! thanks!

Your second sentence has very concisely summed up my feelings on the matter. REALITY.

[LincolnMcGrath]

27. Hillary ISN'T this sexy baby!

[Pushed To The Left]

29. Lieberman might run as an independent if he loses the CT primary.

If Hillary Clinton lost her primary, but then ran as an Independent (potentially splitting the progressive vote), she would be taking the same heat that Lieberman is now.

[Vidar]

32. Quit making sense. We just hate that.

[mtnsnake]

34. That's a total lie what you posted, & the premise is a total crock, too

They have almost identical voting records.

Bullshit. Clinton ranks 10th PROGRESSIVELY out of all senators and Lieberman is way down the list at 39th. There is little remotely similar between the two of them.

FYI, Hillary Clinton is even more progressive than Senators such as Feingold (19th) and Kerry (23rd), as far as Senators ranked by their progressive voting record.
http://www.progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?member=HI1&search=selectScore&chamber=Senate&zip=&x=65&y=6

[AJH032]

49. Please

don't ruin a good "bash Hillary" thread with hard facts and data. It spoils everything.

[fujiyama]

35. Unlike most

I don't think her sex has much to do with it...and I don't think she's getting a free pass for that matter either. Many including myself have been critical of her on many occassions.

But there are some reasons, people aren't as keen to take her out in the primaries in quite the same way they are with Lieberman.

Here's a few:

Lieberman has stabbed the party' back on several occassions. First during the recount in '00, he undercut the Gore campaign on military ballots that may not have been cast legally.

He later criticized the campaign's "leftward turn", when Gore started running on populist themes.

He has defended the war from day one. He has constantly defended the administration on this war. He made half assed objections on how the war was "conducted", though Hillary hasn't been very good on this point too.

He made excuses for the torture that occured at Abu Ghraib. He parroted RW talking point wondering why "terrorists didn't apologize after 9/11". This was also the point at which I decided I would never defend him again.

He has been on Fox News on numerous occassions "questioning" his party and their stance on the war. He has gone as far as to say that those that question the president make themself irrelevant. He basically said that dissent is wrong in a time of war.

And of course, most recently, he exposed how great his ego was in declaring that if he lost the Dem primary, he'd jump ship, and run as a party named after himself.

Shit, I hate Ben Nelson's voting record, but I don't see him every other week on Fox or CNN vocally kissing the administration's ass. Plus, he's a senator from freakin Nebraska, a state Bush won with some 60%+.

[fuzzyball]

36. Hillary and Joe are both fine & loyal centrist democrats n/t

[alvarezadams]

44. Read it and weep

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463

"Writing shortly before the November 2000 election, John Nichols observed that the DLC had been founded “with essentially the same purpose as the Christian Coalition,” namely, “to pull a broad political party dramatically to the right.” According to Nichols, “the DLC has been far more successful than its headline-grabbing Republican counterpart.” (9) Although the DLC can rightly claim to have yanked the Democratic Party to the right, it has repeatedly failed to sideline what Progressive Policy Institute President Will Marshall has disparaging labeled “the party traditionalists.” Since its founding the DLC has aimed to subsume all Democrats under its ideological umbrella. But persistent (and resurgent) resistance to neoliberal prescriptions, neoconservative foreign policy, and social conservative domestic policies has curtailed DLC ambitions and obliged it to operate more as a powerful agenda-setting and lobbying group within the party. In effect, the DLC has focused on controlling the party’s platform and leadership rather than on selling “big tent” politics to all Democratic Party constituencies.

As Kenneth Baer observed in his book Reinventing Democrats, the DLC, after several clashes with the leadership of the party’s progressives and traditional liberals, refined its mission to function as “an elite organization funded by elite—corporate and private—donors.” (10) However, leading DLC voices such as Al From have continued to harbor hopes that the DLC and its think tank will one day constitute the core of the Democratic Party, not just a fifth column working within the party’s elite."

"The DLC and its close associate, the Progressive Policy Institute, are the recipients of grants from many Fortune 500 companies and such right-wing foundations as the Bradley Foundation. Corporate contributors to the Progressive Policy Institute include AT&T Foundation, Eastman Kodak Charitable Trust, Prudential Foundation, Georgia-Pacific Foundation, Chevron, and Amoco Foundation. (17) The Third Way Foundation, an umbrella group of the New Democrats in the DLC, receives funding from the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation, Howard Gilman Foundation, Ameritech Foundation, and General Mills Foundation. According to one magazine report, the DLC enjoys funding from Bank One, Citigroup, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric, Health Insurance Corporation, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, Occidental Petroleum, and Raytheon."

Who funds the DLC? Amongst others:

"The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation is "the country's largest and most influential right-wing organization." (3) Along with John M. Olin Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation, and Smith Richardson Foundation, it is one of the “four sisters” described as the leading foundations of conservative philanthropy."

[Cocoa]

37. one thing they have in common

they both have critics with honest criticisms, and on the other hand they both have dishonest critics that are really just trying to stir up shit.

[TankLV]

39. Well, you see, girls anb boys are DIFFERENT...boys have a ...

well, you get the idea...

Hope that clears it up for ya!

[saltpoint]

40. If I'm in a store whose clerk is playing hate radio on AM -- say Limbaugh

or one of the other manipulative, treasonous slugs -- I often hear Senator Clinton slammed.

New York voters elected her to the U.S. Senate and their satisfaction with her performance remains high, possibly high enough for her to win a landslide victory in November. Very likely to happen, IMO.

So Limbaugh can just cram it. If the oxycontin isn't strong enough to get him to stop ridiculing an accomplished professional woman, then either more powerful tranquilizers and/or misogyny therapy are required. He's a wuss.

Many DUers have been fair about Lieberman when he casts votes for many social issues. On these he has been fairly consistent. And I have seen a good handful of praise for his work as a young attorney in the civil rights movement in the South. You could argue that these tend to be passed over, but in any case, many are aware of them and have not been stingy in acknowledging them.

My problem with Joe is that he's wearing a blue uniform but he's sitting in the red dugout. Or he pops up every other week on FOX to extol the virtues of Bush's foreign policy, which has been a disaster in and of itself, and a high-profile Democrat endorsing it has the effect of stifling debate within our party and in the Senate. It subtracts from others' opposing voices and strengthen's Bush's hand.

I resent that.

It's not personal, it's political, and it is strongly partisan. I'm for Ned to whip Joe August 8th.

[oasis]

42. "Joe's wearing a blue uniform but he's sitting in a red dugout".

That's a good one.:thumbsup:

[ChipsAhoy]

47. lol - like a player without a team! n/t

[AnnieBW]

48. One Has A Giant Set of Brass Balls

and the other is the Senator for Connecticut!

[ChipsAhoy]

57. and leaves the toilet seat up. lol n/t