Obama supported Lieberman in '06, in Connecticut, against anti-war candidate Lamont

[amborin]

<http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/04/02/164/90446>



actions, not words

[joeybee12]

1. In the primary, yes, all the Dems did...

the big issue is why, after supporting and campaigning for McLame, they let him have his chairmanship, no questions asked.

[karynnj]

79. All except Kerry and Feingold, who stayed neutral - which was itself an unusual stand

The reason they let him have his chairmanship was that punishing him would have worked against Obama's and others desires to have a less polarized Congress and country. It didn't work, but pushing him out would have guaranteed votes like this.

[still_one]

2. In all fairness, after Lamont won the primary, he supported Lamont. I am not defending

Obama, in fact, I am fumming at what they are doing with healthcare, and any Democrat who votes for this bill as presented in the Daily Kos, will NOT get my vote

[amborin]

12. by then, Lieberman had switched parties, and was an Ind

so, yes, by that time, Lamont was the ONLY Dem candidate, and Obama then supported him

[harkadog]

57. He supported Lamont in words not action.

He campaigned in Connecticut for Lieberman. He ignored Lamont in the general election and did not come to the state when Lamont wanted him to.

[debbierlus]

3. Obama laid his cards out early on -

I can't blame people. Although, my last choice, I wanted to believe with the country at his back, he would choose to do the right thing. The realization that this was not the case came very quickly for me, but I have to admit I didn't totally let it go until early summer.

I feel like a complete fool. I knew better. I SO knew better.

[karynnj]

80. What choice did you have that would have done better?

The Clintons, especially Bill, far more aggressively supported Lieberman in the primary. BC's endorsement speech was stronger and more complimentary than his speeches for Gore or Kerry.

Clinton is more hawkish on Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. She was no better on health care - their biggest difference was mandates, where he switched to her position. Neither had a long term record on global warming like Kerry or Gore.

I assume it is clear to everyone now that Edwards would have said ANYTHING to win, had no support in the Senate and that he would likely have lost.

Obama was our best choice as soon as the real race was limited to those three. In addition, I strongly believe that when we are able to look back, we will see that he has passed more real progressive change than any President since LBJ and that he has done so in his first year!

[Alexander]

4. But in the general election, Obama supported Lamont over Lieberman.

Interesting how you leave out facts like that.

[zulchzulu]

5. Wow. That wasn't indicated in the OP... hmmmm.... n/t

[amborin]

10. Obama supported Lieberman against anti-war cand Lamont when both were dems

Lamont won the Dem primary and was the Dem candidate for senator

whereupon, Lieberman switched parties from Dem to Ind, and ran against Lamont the Dem candidate

Obama was then supporting the only remaining Dem candidate....how could any Dem politician support
an Independent after all?

[Alexander]

24. So did just about every other Democratic lawmaker.

Then, just as Lamont beat Lieberman, most high-profile Democrats - including Obama - started supporting Lamont as the Democratic nominee.

BTW, you fail to mention that many Democrats continued supporting Lieberman even after Lamont defeated him in the primaries. Obama was not one of them.

[amborin]

7. LOL! only b/c Lieberman lost the Dem primary & switched to being an Independent!

[Alexander]

23. So? Obama supported Lamont as the Democratic nominee. You left that fact out.

I wonder why?

[harkadog]

43. BS

Obama came to Connecticut and campaigned for Lieberman and fundraised for him. After the primary he formally endorsed Lamont but did not come to Connecticut to campaign even though the Lamont wanted him to.

[Alexander]

51. My post was accurate, don't call "BS" unless you actually mean it.

If Lamont was so hurt by Obama not showing up, why did he become the co-chair for Obama's presidential campaign in Connecticut?

[harkadog]

55. You are so politically naive

He has political aspirations and doesn't want to burn bridges.

[Alexander]

60. And you are completely full of it. You have nothing except bullshit.

You know my post was completely factually accurate, you just refuse to admit it.

The facts are, Obama didn't do anything worse in this situation than every other Democratic lawmaker.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your Obama bashing.

I think I hear the nurse. It's time for your thorazine.

[harkadog]

64. Fail water carrier.

Other Democrats came to Conn. to campaign for Lamont. Obama turned away requests.

[Alexander]

68. Maybe if you repeat yourself again, people will become outraged.

I can only imagine what's going through your head, to want to resurrect threads that obviously nobody cares about.

You were wrong about Obama's e-mail, and you neglected to say that Obama donated money to Lamont's campaign.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your idiotic bashing, though.

[IndianaGreen]

35. Obama wanted to keep Lieberman in Democratic caucus

after Lieberman had campaigned for McCain/Palin.

[Holy Moly]

50. Interesting how you leave out facts like this

Dear Alexander,
Interesting how you leave out facts like this:

And after the election in which thy lieberman sctively and loyally campaigned body, heart, and soul for the enemy palin ticket,
it came to pass that our tripartisanshite-obsessed obaman
very quickly handed down from on high His Commandment Number One
to Hairy Reid, viz,:
"Hairy, Thou shalt not harm a single hair on my pal Joey's
gorgeous head of hair, or else!"
And so it twas that Pal Joey's chairmanships, privileges, and powers were duly preserved and protected from fuming irate Democrats.
Thus tripartisanite obama personally aided and abetted
and is complicit in His Pal Joey's insurance-industrial-complex
war for obscene profits on the hapless American people.

Interesting how you leave out facts like that.

[Alexander]

71. Crawling out from under your bridge?

You left out that we got Lieberman's vote on several issues this year, before the health care debate.

Somehow, I don't think he would've been as receptive had he been kicked out of the caucus.

[Brother Buzz]

6. To his credit, Obama supported Lamont in the general election

Lieberman was Obama's mentor when he first arrived in DC so he was obligated to support the ass in the primary.

I begrudgingly give Barack a pass on this point.

[amborin]

8. yes, Obama supported the only Dem candidate, since Lieberman was now running as and Independent

[Alexander]

29. So what, exactly, is your problem?

Just about every elected Democrat either initially supported Lieberman or remained neutral, and after Lamont won the primary, most of them supported Lamont, including Obama.

Were you just trying to bash Obama in the hope that nobody remembered the facts?

[amborin]

32. the facts were that Obama supported pro-war Lieberman, against anti-war Lamont

and then switched to support Lamont, only after Lamont had won the Dem primary and was thus the official Dem candidate for senate

what's your point?

[Alexander]

34. So did everyone else. What's your specific problem with Obama?

You keep repeating the same old tired phrases.

Can you play any other tunes?

[harkadog]

44. My problem is the he didn't campaign for Lamont despite requests

He did campaign for Lieberman.

[Alexander]

52. And Lamont turned around and became Obama's CT campaign co-chair.

Obviously Ned Lamont didn't care as much as you seem to.

[harkadog]

56. See post # 51

Been around politics much? I think not.

[Alexander]

61. My post saying my statements were accurate? That one?

Because that's post #51.

Maybe you can have the nurse bring your reading glasses along with your thorazine.

[harkadog]

65. I suspect you are familiar with those.

[Alexander]

69. Yes, I think you referenced the wrong post. Another idiotic display of yours.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. A half truth is a full lie.

[amborin]

11. no half truth; Obama supported Lieberman against Lamont

only after Lamont won the Dem primary, against Lieberman, did Obama support Lamont, who was the only Dem candidate for senate, since Lieberman was no longer a Dem candidate

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. IOW, he supported an incumbent Democrat who was guaranteed to

win against any Republican running over an anti-war Democratic newcomer whose chances against a Republican challenger were far less certain.

[amborin]

16. yet, it looked as if Schlesinger would not win against Lamont:

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1938835>

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. True, which revealed to me that Obama was not a fire-breathing liberal

as he was painted to be, but actually a cautious centrist - which is why he was my 4th choice in the primaries.

I really don't understand how he got the hard left, and why the hard left is so disappointed in him now, when he never gave any indication he was one of us. I support him now, because he's what we've got, and it would take an extraordinary candidate to make me support a primary challenge in 2012, but I never had any illusions that he was a liberal's dream or a conservative's nightmare.

[amborin]

18. then you were seeing through the smoke screen

so were a lot of people, whose voices got drowned out

[Telly Savalas]

77. So did Senator Boxer and many others. What's your fucking point?

[Lord Helmet]

14. ZOMG! Your selective outrage is bullshit.

---> It is traditional to support the incumbent in the primary. Your focus on one Democrat in particular is suspect and your past-pointing faux outrage is ridiculous. Spread the blame, baby.

http://www.irregulartimes.com/clintonliebermanletter.html">LINK



-- snip

If all this doesn't convince you that Hillary Clinton is becoming more and more like a right wing Republican with every passing year, consider this: Senator Clinton is now defending Joseph Lieberman. In fact, Hillary Clinton isn't just defending Lieberman, she is helping Lieberman defeat a true progressive Democrat, Ned Lamont.

Ned Lamont is running for United States Senate in the Democratic Primary against Joseph Lieberman because of Lieberman's repeated cooperation with the worst of the Republicans' right wing agenda. While the Republicans have been lying to America, running up record debts, cutting away our civil liberties, and selling out the basic needs of American citizens, Senator Lieberman has been lecturing Democrats that we need to be friendly to Republican ideas, and we should not contradict George W. Bush. Lieberman has actually suggested that criticizing President Bush is unpatriotic. He's said that Americans do not have the right to full religious liberty. He's supported George W. Bush almost every step of the way.

Hillary Clinton ought to be ashamed to be seen in the same company as Joseph Lieberman. But, she isn't. In fact, Senator Clinton has written a letter to the delegates of the Connecticut Democratic Committee, urging them to support Senator Lieberman, and help defeat progressive Ned Lamont.

The letter, which is shown below, contains many false statements. For example, Senator Clinton claims that " Joe Lieberman fought tooth and nail to protect the guarantee of Social Security that this country has honored for seven decades to its senior citizens." The truth is that Senator Lieberman tried to help George W. Bush's attacks on Social Security until they were all but certainly doomed. During the State of the Union Address, when President Bush announced his plan to destroy Social Security as we know it, Joseph Lieberman was one of only two to stand up and applaud. That's right - Senator Lieberman actually applauded the destruction of Social Security.

-- snip

Dear Delegate:

When Bill and I were at Yale Law School, he volunteered to work on the campaign of a young man who was running for State Senate. The candidate's name was Joe Lieberman.

When I started running for the Senate in New York in 1999, many people thought I didn't have a chance. One sitting senator, however, provided me significant help early on in my campaign. That was Senator Joe Lieberman.

In the Senate, I have had the pleasure of getting to know Joe even better. We work together on both the Armed Services and Environment and Public Works Committees and I have seen his leadership first hand. He has repeatedly led the fight against the big oil companies that want to drill in the Arctic, he has championed innovative alternative energy solutions and his bill to combat global warming is the most thoughtful and comprehensive that's been proposed.

As Senators from neighboring states, Joe and I have worked on many issues together: strengthening support for first responders, improving children's health care, and cleaning up Long Island Sound so that families in New York and Connecticut can enjoy it for generations to come.

Last year, right after the 2004 election, President Bush announced that privatizing Social Security was his highest priority. Joe Lieberman fought tooth and nail to protect the guarantee of Social Security that this country has honored for seven decades to its senior citizens.

And Joe has also fought the Administration's outrageous attempts to gut Medicare and Medicaid and he has been a consistent critic of their ill conceived prescription drug plan. Now Joe is working hard to see if he can help improve that plan.

I believe that the 2006 election is a particularly important one for our country. We have the chance to put Democrats in control of the Senate and the House, to curb the excesses of one party Republican rule and hold Republicans accountable for their actions. Keeping Joe Lieberman in the Senate is an important part of that victory plan.

I know that you may not agree with Joe on all the issues. I don't either. But I know that he is a man of integrity and of devotion to the people of his state and the future of his country.

I hope when you cast your vote on May 20th and then again on August 8th that you will vote to send my friend Joe Lieberman back to the Senate.

Many thanks,
Senator Hillary Clinton

[Clintonista2]

19. CLINTON DID IT TOO!!!111!!!!11!!!!!!!!!!

Do you guys ever give up?

[Lord Helmet]

21. Yes she did. Are you outraged? Of course not. That's selective outrage.

[Clintonista2]

27. I'm not the president

Neither is she. Though I doubt Hill would have played softball with Joe the way Obama has. Repeating the "Clinton did it too!" meme makes you look just as moronic as the repubs who have been doing it for the past 20 years.

[Lord Helmet]

31. lulz -- President Clinton woulda, coulda, shoulda.

[asdjrocky]

15. And there are reports that he's the one who told Reid to keep Lieberman.

[beachmom]

20. Please name an elected DC Democratic official who backed Lamont in the primary.

Hint: there aren't any.

Some stayed neutral, some went to CT and openly endorsed Lieberman (Barbara Boxer did as well), but no one backed Lamont until after he won the primary.

[Lord Helmet]

22. You're ruining the blame game here with those pesky facts.

The op wants you to think Obama alone supported Lieberman in the primary.

[Alexander]

26. The OP can't, because the OP is full of bullshit and nothing else.

[harkadog]

58. You are full of BS.

Elected democrats came to the state after the primary to campaign for Lamont. Obama did not.

[Alexander]

63. You've got nothing - just repeating the same talking points with your tag team partner.

Obama sent quite a bit of money to Lamont's campaign and his e-mail reached far more people than you claimed it did.

You expect DUers to believe your lies, but they won't.

[harkadog]

67. Your lies have been exposed a long time ago.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/10/175424/972/328/533607

[Alexander]

70. I didn't lie. I quoted the Lamont campaign. Take it up with them.

You are the one who has been lying through your teeth throughout this whole thread.

Not a word about Obama giving money to Lamont. Not a word about the many Democrats who either stayed neutral or kept endorsing Lieberman after the primary. No, you saved all your venom for Obama, who did more than a good number of Democratic Senators.

You are simply a pathetic human being. What's funny is that no matter how many times you two repeat yourselves, you fail to realize that nobody cares. This horse was beaten to death a long time ago. This thread sank rather quickly until you decided to post here again today.

Grow up, move out of your mom's basement, and take some thorazine.

[harkadog]

73. Third time you have mentioned thorazine in this thread alone.

You have a a real obsession with it and I'll bet you have been prescribed a lot of it.

[Alexander]

74. I took a cue from you, and decided to repeat myself.

"You have a a real obsession with it and I'll bet you have been prescribed a lot of it."

Hate to disappoint you, but I get by fine without any drugs of any kind.

You, on the other hand, must be smoking something wacky if you think DUers are going to get pissed over old news.

[grassfed]

25. VIDEO

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x238459

[dionysus]

28. not after holy joe lost the primary, he didn't. try again.

[amborin]

33. of course, b/c by then Lamont was the only Dem candidate, so

of course a Dem would support a Dem

but when given the choice to support pro-war Lieberman or anti-war Lamont, in the Dem primary, Obama supported pro-war Lieberman

actions, not words

[Alexander]

36. How many high-profile Dems supported Lamont before the primary? Zero. You FAIL.

You are repeating the same old garbage. No one here is buying what you're selling.

[amborin]

37. so, do two wrongs make a right? why not support the candidate whose

values were anti-war, over the pro-war Lieberman?

especially since Obama ran as an anti-war candidate!

[Arkana]

38. Obama knew and was friends with Lieberman. You support your friends.

When Lieberman ceased to be a Democrat, Obama stopped supporting him.

You're really failing to get anyone pissed here.

[amborin]

40. so, let me understand: cronyism over principles is what you're saying?

[Arkana]

42. I can't believe I'm having this conversation.

So because Obama supported Lieberman in his 2006 primary, that makes him a dirty filthy traitor who should be tarred, feathered, and burned to death?

Lieberman 2006 != Lieberman 2009. Even then, the only issue he broke with the party completely on was Iraq. Domestically, he was more liberal than a lot of other Democrats in the caucus. When the party kicked him out in the primary, Lieberman decided that if he won he was going to screw over those liberal activists who worked so hard to get rid of him.

How, exactly, was Obama supposed to know he'd do that? With magic Negro wizard powers?

[Alexander]

39. Obama never ran as anti-war, and he supported Lamont after the primary.

Unlike many Democrats, who continued to support Lieberman over Lamont, the Democratic nominee - Landrieu, Lincoln, Carper, etc., and others like Bill Clinton who said it was "win-win" no matter who won the election.

Sorry to ruin your poutrage party with facts. Most DUers simply don't care about this - it's not that big of a deal.

[amborin]

41. Obama never ran as anti-war? really? I thought he was always anti Iraq war!

[Arkana]

46. You can be anti-Iraq war and not be Dennis goddamn Kucinich.

[Alexander]

53. Yes, anti Iraq war. "I do not oppose all wars" was a specific quote of his.

You are just looking for a reason, any reason, to tear down Obama, no matter what the facts are.

[harkadog]

59. His support was to send an email to 250 people in the state.

That was it. He wouldn't come to the state even though Lamont wanted him to.

[Alexander]

62. Wrong. He sent Lamont money, and the e-mail you referenced reached 5,000 people.

Care to change your bullshit story?

[harkadog]

66. Emails went to 225 people

Care to change your BS apologist story? http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/10/175424/972/328/533607

[Alexander]

72. Allegedly. But still you ignore that Obama gave thousands of dollars to Lamont's campaign.

And he's not even close to the worst offender when it came to the Lamont-Lieberman race. Bill Clinton, for example, was much, much worse.

[Arkana]

30. Your outrage is flat and wrong and stupid.

Obama only supported Holy Joe until he lost the primary.

[depakid]

45. Showed poor judgment getting involved in the primary at all

and- lo and behold, look at what he's gotten for his trouble!

One would think there might be be a lesson or two in there for the administration....

[Arkana]

47. He was a colleague of Joe's at the time, not a Presidential candidate,

and several other high-profile Democrats endorsed Lieberman as well.

[amborin]

49. colleague? what about supporting those whose agenda is right, i.e. anti-Iraq-war?

why pro-Iraq war Lieberman?

your answer: Lieberman and Obama were colleagues.....

but that spells cronyism....voting for or supporting someone who's a friend, buddy, colleague....as opposed to supporting someone who is fighting for the same principles or goals you are

[Alexander]

54. So every single Democratic lawmaker fails your bullshit purity test.

Because none of them supported Lamont until he won the primary.

Tell me, is there a Democratic lawmaker you'd prefer? Or are you just here to stir shit up and trash Democrats?

[Umbral]

48. I remember well - it was a constant stream of Democratic Senators making a pilgrimage to Connecticut

It was a broad based show of support for Lamont and leading the charge was good ol' Harry Reid, ready and willing to welcome the new junior Senator to the great deliberative body. It must have been just like that, after all Lamont won the primary, he was the Party's choice. Yeah, must a bin.

[Dinger]

75. Was He "Present"?

Sorry, couldn't resist, just couldn't.

[LastNaturalist]

76. So did Connecticut.

What's your fucking point? Next opportunity to run against Lieberman in 2012.

[jillan]

78. And Al Gore picked Lieberman for VP - I don't think anyone realized how dysfunctional Lieberman is.

NO one will make that mistake again.