Clinton on Lieberman: "He'll do you proud"
"[We Democrats] don't agree on everything. We don't agree on Iraq...the real issue is, whether you were for it or against it, what are we going to do now? And let me tell you something, no Democrat is responsible for the mistakes that have been made since the fall of Saddam Hussein that have brought us to this point."
"I don't have anything against Joe's opponent. He seems like a perfectly fine man. But I know that on the issues that I believe are critical to our future, Joe Lieberman's past is good evidence of his future...He is a good man, a good Democrat, and he'll do you proud."
UPDATE: From the Danbury News Times's coverage of the rally:
Democrats and the public were impressed by the event.
"It was a highly charged environment," said former Danbury mayor Gene Eriquez. "It shows the wonderful, broad support for Joe that people would come out on a Monday afternoon."
Jasmine Jeffrey of Waterbury, who sat in the balcony, said Clinton's visit was "excellent, phenomenal. It was awesome, so inspiring."
Sandy Healy of Waterbury had planned to vote for Lamont until Monday.
"This will make a big difference," Healy said. "I wasn't going to vote for Lieberman, but I am a big fan of Clinton and with Clinton's endorsement, I am going to do volunteer work for Lieberman."
Sounds like people power to me.
posted by Matt Smith at 7:43 PM
84 Comments:
To the radical, vicious, shallow minded Kos krowd, Bill Clinton is a right winger.
They're more persuaded that Maxine Walters endorsed Lamont.
"He'll do you." Clinton nearly had it right, just one word too many....
lieberman4leiberman:
if you folks would be completely honest what this election to you is all about: wanting Waters and her ideological like, not Leiberman and his like, run the Democratic Party.
Centrists versus uber-leftists.
Ken Blbari asks about Lamont: Is he really ready to be a Senator from Connecticut? because Ken could not find position statements on crime, etc.
This is another area where the Lieberman campaign has acted against its own interests. By continually characterising is challenger as having a "one-issue" campaign, Joe has implicitly conveyed the message that there is no difference between the two candidates, except for the war. Unfortunately, the vast majority of CT voters agree with Lamont on the war.
(Of course, Lamont showed in the debate, and many other venues, that he does not view this as a "one-issue" campaign. It is only the Lieberman campaign that repeatedly makes this obviously false, and self defeating, claim.)
"Suffered a minor injury on the way back from work today"
What happened, trip while leaning over to kiss Holy Joe's ass? Too bad it was only a minor injury.
Yeah, its interesting, 1/3 of the Connecticut delegation who voted for Ned at the Hartford convention are NUTTY, FAR-LEFT EXTREMISTS. George Jepson, former head of the Connecticut Democratic party, is a NUTTY, FAR-LEFT EXTREMIST. All of the people in Connecticut who just said they preferred Lamont in the latest Rasmussen poll are NUTTY, FAR-LEFT EXTREMISTS. We're just all nuts.
Oh BTW, what is nutty about Ned:
We should get out of this disastrous war?
We need fair trade agreements?
We need universal health care?
Voting for extremist Alito is a bad thing?
The Democratic party should give REAL opposition to Bush?
Bush's wiretapping is illegal?
Bush is violating our civil liberties?
Goes, that's all just so nutty and extremist, isn't it?
The reason Bill Clinton doesn't say bad things about Ned Lamont is that he doesn't bash other Democrats.
To be honest, both Lieberman AND Lamont should take note of that.
Let's review the list again of why we oppose Lieberman:
* Interference in the Schiavo matter (meanwhile nothing about Texas Futile Care law with which people who cannot afford life support are yanked)
* Support of Nafta/Cafta
* Support of the Bush energy policy
* Willingness to deny rape victims emergency contraception
* Support of someone from the International Arabian Horse Association to run FEMA
* His unwillingness to demand censure on wiretapping
* Support of No Child Left Behind'
* Support of School Vouchers
* Support of a non-provoked attack on Iran
* Interest in privatizing Social Security
* Support of Gonzales and the torture policy
* Vote on cloture for Alito
* Yes confirmation vote on Rice
* Support of the Bankruptcy bill
* Support of Defence of Marriage Act (Clinton did too, BOTH were wrong)
* Supported our ports being run by Dubai
* For telling Democrats they criticize the president at their own peril (of course, NO Republican ever criticized Clinton)
* Friends with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, who call Democrats terrorists
* Friends with convicted felon, former governor John Rowland
* Does not comport self like opposition party member, e.g. one of the few Democrat attendees at a Valentines soiree with the Bushes
(http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/feeds/ap/2006/02/14/ap2527187.html)
* Supported Bush on faith-based programs that spread lies about choice and abortions (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/images/20020207-9.html)
* Has essentially endorsed John McCain for president. “I hope he runs.”
* Against universal health care.
* Against gay marriage, not proposed anything on domestic partner benefits
* On Iraq: Time magazine's Baghdad bureau chief Michael Ware: “Either Senator Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he's completely lost the plot or he knows he's spinning a line. Because one of my colleagues turned to me in the middle of this lunch and said he's not talking about any country I've ever been to and yet he was talking about Iraq, the very country where we were sitting “
* Yes vote for John Roberts
* Voted to stop federal aid to public schools that used materials "supportive of homosexuality"
* At Memorial day parade, marched with Republican Nancy Johnson while ignoring Dem. candidate Chris Murphy
* Formed his own party, to run AGAINST the Democratic opponent, if he loses the primary
* Was hostile and boorish to opponent Ned Lamont in primary debate, treated Dick Cheney with kid gloves in vice presidential debate.
* Has been seen on Fox News more than in Connecticut
* Has been in downtown Baghdad more than downtown Bridgeport
Also according to Keith Olbermann:
Clinton came to CT to tell Joe: If you lose in the primary, I'll be back to campaign for Lamont.
Really? Can't do the job? Getting earmarks to Connecticut that have helped create tens of thousands of jobs isn't getting things done? Or pushing through bills on stem cell research that could save untold millions of lives? I could make a much longer list, but you won't care anyway, because you just ignore facts if they disprove your ridiculous arguments.
But then again, no one here expects L4L to say things that make sense. After all, he's...
"liebermanforlieberman": Trolling, lying, and deriding stem cell research as frivolous since 2006.
- The reason Bill Clinton doesn't say bad things about Ned Lamont is that he doesn't bash other Democrats.-
Um, when you're at a campaign event for someone, you generally try to support them. Hell, Clinton even brought up Terry Schiavo, you know where Joe favored government intervention into a family's affairs. Everyone said Clinton's talk was lukewarm re Joe.
- Getting earmarks to Connecticut that have helped create tens of thousands of jobs isn't getting things done? -
Which is why Connecticut is 49th out of 50th in the amount we get back for every dollar we pay?
Which is why our Connecticut infrastructure is terrible (traffic gridlock gets worse monthly)
However, Joe is good at giving favors to pharmaceutical companies due to the influence peddling of his wife Hadassah.
What I find interesting about Lieberman is what a hypocrite he is. Oh, you should not remove me from office because I have the experience as your senator. Um, then why try to take out Lowell Weicker, Joe? It's the same thing. Yes, he was a Republican but one of the most decent Republicans I have ever met. So, let's review: If it's Joe doing the challenging, ok. If it's someone challenging Joe, not ok.
Thank you Lieberman for Lieberman. Or let's take another one:
Joe's "It should just take a short ride" comment. He was NOT NOT NOT misquoted and never tried to rectify the quote for months.
So a pharamcist or a hospital can deny someone emergency contraception, birth control, cervical cancer vaccinations based on their beliefs. I find that repulsive.
Or for Joe to say Democrats critisize Bush at their own peril? Imaging if some Republican had said Repubs critisize Clinton at their own peril? That Repub would be skinned alive. I find Joe's comment repulsive.
Joe finds it is his moral responsibility to speak out about Clinton's affair but does not want to scold Bush on illegal wiretapping without a warrant? Repulsive.
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
http://liebermania.blogspot.com
lieberman4lieberman:
you can't argue that if you look at his FULL record, he doesn't come out in the CENTER of his fellow Democratic Senators.
its a compete LIE the picture you create of him.
L4L and his cronies (probably the same person) are boring. It's a deductive way of "proving" their hatred for Lieberman: come up with the conclusion first and select only the quotes and facts that fit. It's the Rovian technique, the freeper technique and Daily Kos technique. True Democrats don't need to adopt those tactics.
Glad Bill came out to support Lieberman. As the only recent 2-term Democratic President, he represents the mainstream. I, too, don't dislike Lamont: he seems nice enough. But what I dislike about his is that he attracts supporters that are extremists. Not all his supporters are, but enough for me to know that those aren't the people that I want encouraging Lamont. I'd rather be in a more mainstream Democratic crowd and share company with Lieberman's supporters.
Go Joe!
The Moose is Rovian? Methinks not. I'd call spreading misinformation Rovian. Like when Daily Kos posted that Lieberman was considering to be the Republican candidate - a link to another blog, that did not provide a link, no verification, and then when Lieberman denied it, Kos waited forever to put an update, but still played it off as if it was true. Kind of like how he played it up that Lieberman was going to be Bush's pick for UN Ambassador, or Homeland Security Chief or Defense Secretary. All not true. But truth doesn't matter. That's a Rovian technique. That's a Daily Kos technique.
Frankly, I find it very Rovian when Democrats say that Lieberman is a Republican. Hyperbole anyone? So, yes: DailyKos and Freeperville are two sides of the same coin - misinformation, not truth, seems to be the way to get votes. The ends justify the means. Sounds like Karl Rove to me. Shame on them, shame on them.
What I have learned about this episode as well as a few others is that the so-called left is as capable of lying as the right.
Yet far too many people believe the nutroots crap.
If you nutroots are going to bring up Schiavo, at least know what in the hell you are talking about.
There was no federal "interference" any more than there would be federal "interference" in a death penalty case.
The original judge was in error, and a de novo review would have helped reopen the matter.
A lot of Democrats, you know REAL Democrats like Tom Harkin voted for the "intereference," which shows you don't know what you are talking about.
But hey, you of the nutroots aren't very careful with accuracy, are you?
Cut and run routine? Nah. There is nothing inappropriate about what he is doing. Just as there was nothing inappropraite about Nader running. It isn't a two-party system. If voters want to vote for Lieberman in the Primary, they will. If they want to vote for Lamont, they will. If voters want to vote for Lieberman in the general, they will. It's up to the voters. If they don't want a candidate to win, they won't vote for him. If Lieberman loses the primary, he will most likely win the general because more people will vote for him than the other two candidates. That's not a spoiler: that's allowing the voters to choose the candidate that they want the most. Nader had no chance of winning and that's why people were angry at him running. Lieberman, however, has not only a chance at winning the general, but is most likely the candidate that will win the general - as most polls have shown, more voters want Lieberman as their Senator than the other candidates.
Funny, L4L talks so much, it's like he thinks that the more he types, the more his posts become truthful.
I would be more willing to trust L4L if he weren't so selective in the quotes that he chooses, ignoring context, ignoring quotes in their entirety. L4L's philosophy seems to be that if a quote counters the beliefs he holds dear, the quote isn't relevant. Only the quotes that prove him right are the ones that matter.
And, yes, L4L before you chime in with the "funny, when they can't debate the facts, then they attack me", that's exactly what we're doing: because we can't debate the facts because you aren't bringing up facts. Facts are derived from an array of evidence, quite often contradictory, quite often made from shades of grey. They are not derived from a faceless blogger who edits facts as he pleases to find black or white when only middle grounds exist. So until you can have a discussion, it is about you.
Sorry, you may have your own opinions about this. But prominent Democrats, whether locally here in CT or nationally like Maxine Waters, etc. are in agreement.
Funny, I heard a national Democrat - probably THE quinessential national Democrat - talking before a large crowd yesterday, and he wasn't in agreement with anything you've written.
Maxine Waters is no Bill Clinton. You're delusional.
L4L seems pretty truthful, sorry........
Hey: I'm positive about Lamont. He's a nice guy, and if Dodd retires to run for Pres, Lamont might want to think about running for Dodd's seat. I am not positive about some of the creepy, lying, cliquish, my-way-or-the-high-way people that Lamont attracts.
anonymous: L4L doesn't seem pretty truthful, sorry....... I'm sure he appreciates your support, though. Or at least, I'm sure he appreciates it if people are assuming that you and he aren't the same person.
howmany -
Don't worry, we all know that L4L doesn't care about facts here. In case you'd forgotten, here's what he said this weekend:
"To me, worrying about stem cell research right now seems pretty frivolous."
"liebermanforlieberman": Trolling, lying, and deriding stem cell research as frivolous since 2006.
(seriously, that should be a tag to every comment made on this board, to remind people what this troll really is)
L4L,
Funny, I find no record on Lieberman being a Republican at any Republican Site. I do notice, however, that Bill Clinton, who you may recall as the last Democratic President, campaigned for Lieberman yesterday. Surely you are not suggesting that Bill Clinton campaigns for republicans. And didn't you read my post about you using dishonest statements to try to "prove" yourself right. Lieberman is not a Republican. In your mind he is, but in the world where facts exist, he is not.
And, centristdem, thanks for L4L's quote. That's appalling. L4L, I hope that you or a loved one never wind up with a disease for which stem cell research would have brought about a cure. For the record, more people have died of alzheimers, diabetes, paralysis, cancer or any number of diseases for which stem cell research could bring about a cure than all wars combined.
L4L, it isn't stem cell research that is frivolous. It's your posts.
"liebermanforlieberman": Trolling, lying, and deriding stem cell research as frivolous since 2006.
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
http://liebermania.blogspot.com
Don't you love how L4L puts up some posts as "anonymous" to make it look like more people agree with him? Proof is that he has made that same post from just above before under the L4L name.
It's really sad that he has to create the illusion that people agree with him.
I know! L4L creates anonymous posts so that it looks like people trust him. Kind of creepy.
I'm sorry, L4L, I don't trust a guy who says this:
"To me, worrying about stem cell research right now seems pretty frivolous."
If that's what you believe, then you don't know how the world works and probably should do more listening than typing.
Hey, we'll quote your callous dismissal of research that could save the lives of people suffering from cancer and paralysis anytime you want.
Obviously we're not neo-cons, and people certainly wouldn't take the word of someone like you anyway.
"liebermanforlieberman": Trolling, lying, and deriding stem cell research as frivolous since 2006.
Nah. Give Ned some credit. He's obviously smarter than this guy.
I would like to thank The Balbari and the other neoconservative apologists on this site for quoting my prose.
You're welcome. And if you continue to make ridiculous, hurtful, insensitive comments, they will be quoted, too, so that everybody's clear about the context from which your posts come.
The LieberDems advocate "reasoned discourse" on this supposedly high-fallutin' site. But the truth is all they can do is BASH, BASH, BASH.
I'm afraid I have to repost one of my earlier posts:
And, yes, L4L before you chime in with the "funny, when they can't debate the facts, then they attack me", that's exactly what we're doing: because we can't debate the facts because you aren't bringing up facts. Facts are derived from an array of evidence, quite often contradictory, quite often made from shades of grey. They are not derived from a faceless blogger who edits facts as he pleases to find black or white when only middle grounds exist. So until you can have a discussion, it is about you.
Besides, a guy who thinks worrying about stem cell research is frivolous isn't worth debating anyways.
There are several instances of you and an "anonymous" poster saying exactly the same thing, L4L. Although you've cleverly deleted a few of those comments since - just like you deleted the insensitive comment you made about stem cell research. Sorry, but you can't hide the truth.
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
Say it. Believe it.
Actually, L4L, I am working on a front page post responding to that laundry list of disingenuous charges against Lieberman. You probably will just change the subject again, since I've noticed that you never actually respond to the arguments of others in these comments - all you do is ignore anything that would hurt your argument, and focus on telling half-truths instead.
That laundry list was obviously posted by you since its contents are identical to an email you sent me two days ago. You thought I wouldn't respond? Well, you know what they say about people who assume, L4L.
This is the last time I'll ever directly address you or anything you say, L4L. You are dishonest and closed-minded, and your mentality of ignoring or dismissing anything thing that reveals how thin your arguments is so distasteful that you simply aren't worth the time.
We're here to ensure that the truth of Lieberman gets told.
We are. But you and your "anonymous friend" (i.e. you) are not.
Ken Balberi,
Yes, a managed stock account is a private account. But not all managers will do what you tell them to do. Some investment managers give you two choices, you being a wealthy "accredited" or "institutional" investor. Invest with me and give me total control, or don't invest with me at all. Many create their own "funds", over which they retain complete control. You cannot ask the manager of such an account to simply sell a particular stock, because it is often part of a much larger holding. If you don't like what you are investing in you can get out of the "fund", but often with tax consequences (e.g. long term gains become short term ones and are taxed at a higher rate).
I don't know if this was the case with Lamont's account, but it would explain both the "mutual fund" comment (as this is the most basic way to explain such funds without saying "I'm much richer than you'll ever be and you have no clue the investment options I have that you'll never even contemplate) and the lack of initial knowledge over what exactly was held and in what amounts.
I have worked at such investment firms and have been investing in a fund such as this. I didn't like one of the holdings the manager had chosen, so I took a corresponding short position in the stock, zeroing out that particular position. This too has tax consequences and ties up money in both the long and short positions, earning a "negative" interest rate on double the money originally invested in the stock - one needs to pay a fee to short the stock. I did not do it lightly. Most people wouldn't do it at all.
Again, I'm speculating. But if this is what happened, it makes a lot of sense. I doubt Lamont, with his senate ambitions, told his broker to buy 500 shares of HAL at $30 because he thought it would go to 60. For a guy with his money, his ambitions, and his intelligence that would make zero sence.
If he is so rich that a $40,000 position means little to him, so he wasn't paying attention, that makes sense too. But that would be an oversight, not necessarily a judgement problem.
But hey, Martha is a smart lady too, and look what a trade saving her 50K or so cost her in the long run.
howmanyblahblahblah said:
I am not positive about some of the creepy, lying, cliquish, my-way-or-the-high-way people that Lamont attracts
I'm a Lamont supporter. I've written a few posts here and there. What about me do you find creepy? When have I lied? What makes you think I'm cliquish? What gives you the impression that I have a "my-way-or-the-highway" attitude?
"Excuse me, but those cheerleader posts are not of sufficent quality to have been written by me."
Wow...lying and vanity in the same sentence. You sure are being efficient with your sins today, L4L.
LieberDem actually concedes points and has even criticized the Lieberman campaign in his posts, L4L. So his criticisms seem perfectly justified to me, and most definitely aren't hypocritical.
And if the two lists were so similar that he couldn't tell the difference between them, then it just shows that someone copied most of the list, and LieberDem simply overestimated the ability of the Lieberman-haters to come up with original arguments.
It's ok, we don't want you to go anywhere. Your very presence hurts your own arguments because you are...
"liebermanforlieberman": Trolling, lying, and deriding stem cell research as frivolous since 2006.
He might not. But that doesn't mean we won't call you out on your lies. We don't have to let people forget that you are...
"liebermanforlieberman": Trolling, lying, and deriding stem cell research as frivolous since 2006.
Lie(berman)forLie(berman:
the question remains- why don't you put your time, energy, talents to gaining a Dem majority, i.e. defeating Repubs?
you people's obsession with defeating Joe is a boon for the Repubs races nationwide, and is turning off
1: centrist Dems
2: reasonable, non fire breathing folks
3: young folks like me that believe in civility in politics
If Joe Liberman is a democrat, would he support the democratic party nominee from state of connecticut?. It is a biggotry of highest order to say that I am a Democrat only if I am winning party primary. I salute Ned for his courage and steadfatness. He will surely support whoever will be the Democratic party nominee for US senate as I am certain and hopeful that he will be the one on ballot in November and not a biggot
Wow...Lieberman's ADA rating is only 10 points better than the most liberal Republican of the past 20 years. Yeah. That's a good argument.
Besides, you want vote ratings? Look here:
http://lieberdem.blogspot.com/2006/07/truth-about-liebermans-voting-record.html
I don't think lie(berman)forlie(berman) (great thinking, leksah!) even read that post. He didn't even address it in his comments. He was probably too busy looking for his next lie.
We didn't say you do all of them. Just most. It's ok. You spend so much time trolling here that you obviously don't have any friends, so it's not like you have anything better to do.
There goes your civility... HYPOCRITES!
".. Ejected from Clinton Event"
who can blame them?
judging from blogs, lamont supporters are eratic, hatefull & out for the throat!
I heard that person was swearing at the Lieberman staffer...
Isn't it odd that the ticket in her hand is intact? But I thought the campaign was supposed to be tearing tickets! Interesting that there's no evidence of this AT ALL.
I guess I was right - lying runs in the blood of the Lieberman-haters.
Why do you believe that blogger any more than the anon one here?
They are both relying on people taking them at their word.
I just find it interesting that in 30+ years of Lieberman running for public office, including runs for VP and President, there is not a single instance of someone from his campaign staff acting like that.
And then an unsourced report to that effect appears just after the biggest rally of this campaign.
Oh, puh-leeze. Their motive to lie about it is to make Lieberman look bad. Same motive you have when you troll and lie here.
And what court of public opinion is that? The court of people who agree with you? According to Wikipedia, here are a couple defintions of trolls:
- Advertising another forum, especially a rival or a hated forum.
- Messages containing a self-referential appeal to status
- Intentionally posting an outrageous argument, deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error. Often the poster will become defensive when the argument is refuted, and may continue the thread through the use of further flawed arguments; this is referred to as "feeding" the troll.
- Plural or paranoid answers to personal opinions expressed by individuals
(Has anyone noticed how often L4L uses the plural voice here? It's like the royal "we." That's how self-important he is.)
And here's the big one, and my favorite:
Off topic messages: Those that are irrelevant to the focus of the forum. This can also be done in the middle of an existing thread to attempt to hijack the thread, or otherwise change the topic at hand. Off topic messages usually occur when a member has been completely disproved in a serious debate, thus causing that member to use his or her other multiple pseudonyms for the purposes of changing the subject matter. These disruptions may result in the degeneration of a well informed thread into a heated juvenile exchange consisting of insults and childish accusations between multiple parties.
Meet L4L, folks - troll extraordinaire.
While you're exercising your new-found computer skills, why don't you look up the term "sore loser"?
How are we "Democracy-Haters?"
Because we think that all CT voters rather than just a few thousand Democrats should get the chance to decide on Lieberman's re-election?
That seems pretty thoroughly Democracy-Loving to me.
The Democratic process does apply to him. If he loses the Dem primary, he won't be able to run with a D next to his name. But he has every right to run as an independent. He's not breaking any "rules" by doing that.
Hey, I don't like him running as an indy either. It's a bad call and I can see how some can question his party loyalty because of it. But to say that it's somehow "Democracy-hating" or that he's "breaking the rules" is just not true.
Really? You've talked to all the CT and Congressional Democrats yourself?
Let's say that while most disagree with his decision to run as an indy, most Democrats don't think that Joe Lieberman is a bad Democrat.
Just ask Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, or any of the other tried and true Democrats who are supporting him.
"Connecticut for Lieberman Elementary". PRICELESS.
Funny how there were no witnesses to this. Or any media coverage of it, considering that the media was swarming that rally.
You still haven't explained why you're taking him at his word. He seems interested in the same thing you are - spreading lies about Lieberman and his campaign in order to make him look bad.
To your credit, at least there is usually at least A FEW other people to corroborate your story. But this charge hasn't been backed up by a single other soul who was there.
centrist, I would point out that this is not a court of law.
Ah, so then it's ok: go ahead and make up stuff, lie, and use unverified, biased information as evidence. It's not a court of law. Nor is it unethical. Nor does it speak to your lack of character.
You're right, it's not a court case. Watergate was. So when you use "ticket-gate," remember that you're catapulting a claim made by one (anti-Lieberman) blogger without anyone else backing up their story.
But I thought that you all weren't running a one-issue campaign! Oh well. People who live in CT know that things like education, the environment, choice, and jobs matter just as much.
Besides, who would want to hear advice on priorities someone who calls stem cell research "frivolous"?
"LIE(berman)forLIE(berman)": Trolling, lying, and deriding stem cell research as frivolous since 2006.
The truth hurts, doesn't it centrist?
Hey, if you Lieberman-haters ever want to talk about the topic of the posts, we'd be happy to. But you never do.
The Kos kooks are shrinking the Democratic Party.
Some way to become a majority party!
Why don't you ask L4L. He's the one who loves bringing them up.
And maybe you didn't read the comment, but LieberDem is responding to that laundry list of distortions that the Lieberhaters have made about Lieberman.
I am getting tired of this "everyone should get a chance to vote for Joe" argument. That's not what a DEMOCRATIC primary is for. Its for Democrats only, unless your state allows crossover voting, like GA does. If Joe wants to let everyone have a say, he should have either, one, behaved in a way that will allow him to win the Demo primary OR quit the Democratic party and run as an independent from the get go. What's the point of having primaries if a crybaby loser simply keeps running as something else afterwards?
A note to Y.G. Brown: I am in fact a native of Connecticut. Born in Newington, raised in West Hartford, and worked for the Hartford Courant (living in Hartford) for four years after college before moving down to Washington. You and your fellow Nedheds may want to check your facts before casting aspersions.
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
CentristDem said:
But I thought that you all weren't running a one-issue campaign!
Well, I'm not running any campaign, but I suppose that's nitpicking.
The Iraq War is an important issue, if not the most important issue facing our country today, period. Regardless of whether Ned Lamont is running a one issue, two issue, three issue, or three hundred issue campaign, it doesn't change the fact that the Iraq War is an extremely important issue, and Senator Lieberman is at odds with the voters of Connecticut and the American people on this issue.
Senator Lieberman hasn't changed his position on the Iraq War one bit, while a large majority of Connecticut voters and the American people have completely changed their minds. Because he refuses to change his mind, Senator Lieberman therefore no longer represents the will of the people on this very important issue.
There is no getting around that, LieberDems. No matter how many times you stereotype me and other supporters of Ned Lamont, the fact remains that Joe Lieberman no longer represents the will of the people.
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
It was a very impressive event.
Have you seen this?
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
I saw an article about the Clinton/Leiberman event this morning where they quoted a guy who came in as a Ned Lamont supporter and left a Ned Lamont supporter (he was there to see Bill Clinton). Hmmm, so doesn't that mean Ned's supporters were allowed in?
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
Wow.
"Making clear in as condescending a manner as possible that you used to live in Connecticut?"
Snap!
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
That's the first time I've seen Dan mentioned directly in a comment, so it makes sense that this is the first time he's felt the need to respond to a comment.
Dan is working two campaigns right now (read his second blog entry on this site), so it's not like he has time to respond to every criticism that some commenter makes about Lieberman.
So yeah, it's not that embarrassing at all. You directly addressed him, he responded, and told you that you were wrong. I don't see why you're so surprised; someone who tells distortions as much as you do should be used to being wrong by now.
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
Somebody ought to ask Ned if he agrees with his buddy Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, whose opinion of American contractors killed serving their country overseas is "I felt nothing. Screw them." I understand that you have to put all types together in a coalition, but this guy was actually featured front and center in a TV spot.
Lord Lieberman is the Dean Scream of 2006
<< Home