Sen. Clinton Hedges Lieberman Support

[Demeter]

Sen. Clinton Hedges Lieberman Support

Associated Press
Wednesday, July 5, 2006; A02 WaPo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/04/AR2006070400736_pf.html

ALBANY, N.Y., July 4 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), a longtime supporter of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, said Tuesday that she will not back the Connecticut Democrat's bid for reelection if he loses their party's primary.

"I've known Joe Lieberman for more than 30 years. I have been pleased to support him in his campaign for reelection, and hope that he is our party's nominee," the former first lady said in a statement issued by aides.

"But I want to be clear that I will support the nominee chosen by Connecticut Democrats in their primary," Clinton added. "I believe in the Democratic Party, and I believe we must honor the decisions made by Democratic primary voters."

Facing a stronger-than-expected Democratic primary challenge from millionaire businessman Ned Lamont and sagging poll numbers because of his support of the Iraq war, Lieberman said Monday he will collect signatures to ensure a ballot spot as an independent for the November election if he loses the Aug. 8 primary.

LIGHT DAWNS ON MARBLEHEAD

[Jacobin]

1. "I believe we must honor decisions made by Democratic voters"

I find it both fucking amazing and fucking fascinating that a senator would find it necessary to even utter that phrase

[BigDDem]

2. Too bad Barbra Boxer

wont utter that phrase.

[Johnyawl]

4. Why do you think Sen. Boxer won't do the same?

[LynneSin]

7. I think Boxer is with a host of other Dems supporting him in the primaries

and I think that is a smart move.

Because if some bizarre reason Lieberman pulls this off and wins both the primary AND general election, we still need him in the "D" column to help get our majority.

But if Lieberman goes independant then, like Sen. Clinton said, we need to support the democratic nominee

[Bucky]

18. Oh, politicians state the obvious all the time. Clinton is right on this.

That's a hard line to take, saying that senators shouldn't have to state the obvious. There's no reason to think, when she says this, that she's not sending a clear signal to her buddy Joe not run as an independent--or at least a signal to her fellow moderate Dems in Connecticut not to support him.

Altho I'm not a Clinton supporter (very often, anyway) I don't think we should apply double standards to her. If someone I liked said "Because we're a democracy, I think we and Joe should respect what the voters decide," while making it clear that they'd support Lamont if he gets nominated, I would find no honest reason to scorn them.

It would not "fucking amazing" to me if someone I supported took this moment to reaffirm the principles of democracy. It would be hypcritical of me to sneer at someone who I don't want to see nominated if they say the same thing.

[Elidor]

3. This was last month

As noted by the date on the article, July 5

[graywarrior]

5. Fake.

Fake fake fake.

They all bend with the wind.

[w4rma]

6. I disagree that that is her reason in this case.

She supports LIEberman over Lamont (because, imho, she supports the war) in the primary. But she is more loyal to the Democraic Party than to LIEberman so she supports the winner of the primary.

That's the only position you can have if you support either candidate and don't want general election challengers from independent spoilers all around the country.

I, myself, support the Democraic nominee, whomever that is. I wholehartedly oppose LIEberman for that position tho.

[mtnsnake]

9. Fake your ass

If there's one thing she isn't, it's fake. The problem you and the rest of the anti-Hillary lynch mob have is that you fear her chances of winning just as much as the righwing does because she's willing to compromise and you're not.

[Bucky]

17. Good job (telling off someone who you don't even fucking know)

Mrs Clinton is right in this. It's a core principle of democracy that you accept who the voters support. I'm glad she's showing some class in this regard. I wish her supporters (in this case, that means you, Mtnsnake) would show a similar level of respect. If you wish the party to rise above the divisive, uncompromising mindset, then you need to quit saying divisive uncompromising stuff like "the problem you and the rest of the anti-Hillary lynch mob have is that you fear her chances of winning."

Altho I'm not a "Hillary-lyncher", it's technically true that I fear her chances of winning. Specifically, I fear that she doesn't realize that she has no chance of winning in November '08. The fact that her supporters employ language and rhetorical tactics identical to right wingers' support for Mr Bush (conflating support for the person with loyalty; accusing all critics of being hateful and jealous; employing cheap psychobabble in denigrating opponents) does not inspire support for Senator Clinton.

I strongly dislike the smell of smug. Mrs Clinton I don't mind so much--I agree with her far more often than I disagree with her. But her supporters all too often trigger my yellow flags.

[mtnsnake]

20. Oh gimme an effin break

What might appear to you as being Hillary "supporters" are in many cases actually Hillary "defenders", and that's because there's more innuendo, spin, outright lies, and propaganda started about her on this forum than about any other politician.

Hillary ranks around 3rd on my own personal list of who gets the Democratic nomination, but the untrue shit that's said about her here is rampant enough to keep any "defender" busy.

[graywarrior]

24. Sorry I got back so late. I have to work for a living.

Thanks for your polite response in this matter. Have a nice night.

[ronnykmarshall]

8. Hillary Clinton Finds Cure For Cancer!

But she's still an enemy of "the people".

:sarcasm:

[paulk]

10. "hedges" - a word with such negative connotations

when what she's saying is pretty standard stuff.

But, anything and everything will be used by both sides to trash HRC.


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


like calling her "marblehead", for instance.

[bunkerbuster1]

11. I don't see it as hedging either.

It's pretty much stating the obvious, or what ought to be the obvious, that the Democrats will support the Democratic primary victor, whoever that will be, in the general election.

[oasis]

16. "hedges" . That's some kinda journalism.

:eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

12. Hedges? I found her statement pretty straight-forward.

It is truly pathetic when HRC is interviewed and says precisely what we would expect a Democrat to say, that she will not support Lieberman in an indie run, and yet she continues to be vilified.

I think some of you many want to do a bit of introspection and try to pinpoint exactly where you lost all sense of fair-play.

Edited because "hedges" was not the OP's word (thanks paulk).

[paulk]

13. to be fair to the OP, despite the "marblehead" comment

the word "hedges" is from the AP article.

Maybe this kind of puts the lie to the idea that the MSM (and by extension the right wing corporate pigs who own the media and that Hillary whores for) wants HRC to run because they know she will lose!

[AtomicKitten]

14. good point

I find the virulent HRC paranoia/hatred just a huge waste of energy here at DU. It has gone well beyond reason and truth.

When will people realize that the media Heathers are going to pound the Democrats regardless? Why would we want to assist them and the GOP in their dirty work?

We better muster some sense of family/community within the party because, if we don't and in conjunction with election fraud, we will be forever screwed.

[paulk]

15. a lot of the HRC hatred is being fueled

by just this sort of thing - the AP using a word like "hedges". It enforces the negative image of her that the media is trying to create. It's the same thing that they did to Gore. It's the same thing that they did to Kerry. And it works - witness DU.

It works out in the real world, too. Just last night I was at a neighbor's houseparty and her daughter, who's in her forties, started talking politics. The first thing she said was, "I'll never vote for Hillary - not because she's a woman, but because.... I just don't like her."

[Bucky]

19. I don't think it 'puts the lie to' the fact the media shill for Clinton

Look at the facts. Mrs Clinton states the obvious. Probably a dozen other Democratic senators have already said something like this. But she gets the headline. Why? Because "it's news when Senator Clinton says it." They always give her more publicity. Always.

But then, what's the spin? Is it "Mrs Clinton sends signal to Lieberman not to run as Independent"?No

Is it "Senator Clinton reaffirms basic premise of electoral democracy"? No

The spin is that, when Mrs Clinton states the obvious, it's really a case of "hedging her bets." Any other senator states the obvious, they're just being banal. But when Mrs Clinton does it, it's cynical, calculating, possibly even back-stabbing. This headline is the very picture of a "below the radar" smeer.

[mtnsnake]

21. Hillary gets the media's attention by saying the tough things that other

Dems are too afraid to say in public. Who else besides her has said in the national spotlight that the Bush administration will go down in history as the most corrupt administration ever? What other high profile Democrat has taken advantage of LIVE NATIONAL TV COVERAGE to tell Rumsfeld off to his pathetic face?

Maybe if the others had her kind of guts, maybe THEY'D be leading in the polls instead of her.

[paulk]

22. I think the MSM think she will be the Dem nominee

and they're already working to define her as cynical, calculating, and a back stabber. Like they "defined" Gore as a stiff, humorless policy wonk. Like they "defined" Kerry as an effete upper class New England snob. Like they "defined" Bush as a good ole boy from Texas, the kind any regular fellow could sit down and have a beer with.

[Bucky]

23. Megadittoes, Paulk.

:bite my tongue smily: :shoot me in the head now smily: