(Hillary) Clinton Urges Lieberman To 'Search His Conscience' In Senate Bid

[sabra]

http://www.wnbc.com/politics/9654496/detail.html

Clinton Urges Lieberman To 'Search His Conscience' In Senate Bid

NEW YORK -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton Wednesday stopped short of calling for Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman to abandon his plan to run for re-election as an independent, following his upset primary defeat to newcomer Ned Lamont.

But she reiterated her pledge to support the winner of the primary and urged Lieberman to "search his conscience and decide what is best for Connecticut and for the Democratic party" before going forward.

"I understand his feeling, it's a difficult time for him and his family," Clinton said at a campaign event in Harlem. "But I said more than a month ago that I would support the winner of the Democratic primary and that's what I intend to do in every way that I'm requested."

The senator said she had called Lamont to offer her help and would soon be contributing money to his campaign.

[Cassandra]

1. Too bad he doesn't have one.

[saigon68]

17. A Conscience is lacking in the Bush Bot

[Cassandra]

24. Awwww!

Isn't that the look of love? :loveya:

[saigon68]

37. Pretty scary look

that's for sure

[crossroads]

42. Love or Fatal Attraction?

Heheh CR

[BootinUp]

40. I wouldn't go that far.

His views are different than the majority of Dems, lets just kick his ass out and leave it at that.

[LincolnMcGrath]

2. The queen of 'non answers' weighs in.

:puke:

[gratuitous]

8. Well, remember the Senate is a clubby place

And publicly calling someone out when you have to work with them for another five months or so isn't a recipe for good relations, nor is it good politics. Love him or hate him, Lieberman's still in the Democratic caucus, still has his seat for a little while, and has the power to do great mischief though not much good.

It's not the toxic beat down that Lieberman deserves, but it is a public appeal to his vanity and his self-styled morality, calculated to give Lieberman an out and to preserve a shred of self-respect on his way out the door if he so chooses. Once he's gone, of course, nothing more needs to be said about him, and once again we don't get the public scolding he deserves.

It may be that we have to be satisfied with Lieberman losing two out of his last three political campaigns in order to avoid having him lose three out of his last four.

[Bretttido]

15. Well said. Your last line had me thinking for a while.

:rofl:

[saigon68]

53. ZELL LIMPMANN to squeeze blood from turnips

[Canuckistanian]

58. Look at that adoring gaze

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[saigon68]

64. Disgusting isn't it.

[OKNancy]

30. ?

... "But I said more than a month ago that I would support the winner of the Democratic primary and that's what I intend to do in every way that I'm requested."

The senator said she had called Lamont to offer her help and would soon be contributing money to his campaign.

[ThomCat]

3. He's NOT a democrat any more.

He does not care, and never truly seemed to care about what is best for the Democratic Party.
:grr:

Get a clue, Senator Clinton. They're cheap.

[muryan]

4. Shes growing on me n/t

[tinrobot]

6. Like a fungus?

n/t

[muryan]

7. no, like a legitimate candidate

[rodeodance]

19. Me too, but I have long since thought of her as a viable cand.

[Vidar]

5. This would be the best solution.

[kurth]

9. Conscience gotta be somewhere... Nope, no conscience over there, maybe

under here.

Maybe in his ass.

[Dr Fate]

10. Hillary is showing that she has class & loyalty. God bless her. n/t

n/t

[Tyrone Slothrop]

12. She always has

Too bad it seems like most of the people on this board have bought into the Republicans' lies about her.

[wakeme2008]

14. she support the Iraq War on KIDS and the Lebanon War on KIDS

:grr:

[Tyrone Slothrop]

21. Sort of like how Kerry and Edwards supported the Iraq War

against KIDS and how Russ Feingold supports the mass murder of all those Lebanese CHILDREN, right???

Yep -- pretty much every Democratic congressman is a mass child-serial-killer. You've certainly convinced me...

[McKinneyIsAHero]

63. Kerry and Edwards at least have repented

I don't forgive them, they should bear responsibility as all humans do for their actions (and votes).

But Hillary is still proud of the war. A year ago I saw her speak in person, saying the war was improving womens' rights in Iraq. 3 months later I saw some Iraqi unionists speak. They said womens' rights had been degraded to pre-1950's level.

Who should I believe?

[Dr Fate]

22. Not me- I praise her when shes right, disagree w/ her when she is wrong.

Which is my policy for all Democrats.

Let's not forget that it is not just Republicans who misrepresent moderate Democrats- a lot of DLC types go around calling moderate Democrats "far left" in the same dishonest way that Rush Limbaugh, etc. does.

It's not just lefties calling moderate Democrats Repub, it is also righties calling Democratic moderates "far left"- which shows us how silly these labels really are.

Either way- it is straight DEM at the polls, regardless.

[Demit]

25. What's too bad is accusing people on this board of not being able to form

their own opinions based on what they see. You do yourself a disservice by insulting your fellow Democrats & DUers. Do you sincerely believe that the people on this board have "bought into the Republicans' lies"? Shame on you.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

28. I call it as I see it

So, yes, I suppose I do sincerely believe that some members of this board have "bought into Republican lies" about HRC. I don't see why that's something to be ashamed of.

I frequently see willful misrepresentations of things that HRC says and does all over this board. I also frequently see people attack her based on how the headlines portray her rather than actually reading the accompanying articles and seeing what she actually said.

Personally, I feel that accusing someone of being manipulated by the media and the Republican Echo Chamber isn't nearly as bad as accusations of misogyny and the like, but maybe said misogyny is more to blame?

Or perhaps you have a better explanation for the utter vitriol that's thrown at HRC on this board on a daily basis? And maybe you also have an explanation for the fact that the article detailing her scathing attack on Big Oil in Chicago (something that I would hope everyone on this board would cheer) has languished on the Late Breaking News page for most of the day with a grand total of 6 posts so far?

[Demit]

38. I've seen, on this board, utter vitriol thrown at Mother Theresa.

That's the nature of a venue that invites people to express an opinion. Now, if you were to complain about the quality of some of the opinions--"What a moroon!" "She's so stupid!" "That sucks ass!" (my personal gross me out fave)--I'd be right there with you. But If posters backs up their opinion with reasons for why they think the way they do, even if their opinion happens to coincide with a Republican's, I don't see a reason to jump to the conclusion that they've let themselves be beguiled by a Republican or by the media.

I'm sure there is some veiled misogyny in some people's dislike of Clinton, the way there's prolly some anti-semitism in some people's dislike of Lieberman. We haven't wiped either disease off the face of the earth yet. But people have some very sound reasons for disliking Hillary. Rather than calling them out as being nonthinking bots, why not just try to get them to articulate why? You'll expose the nonthinking bots in very short order. And maybe you'll get to see why some very thoughtful people have some very well-founded reservations about Hillary Clinton.

As for why only 6 posters responded to a story, for heaven's sake! Is there some kind of obligation we have here to weigh in on every subject? Today happens to be basking in the glory of a successful election day. At any rate, I don't see how the viewer neglect of this story supports your point.

[Exiled in America]

41. I for example, have very well-founded reservations about Hillary

..and you can feel free to ask me why. ;)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

44. Which are?

[Exiled in America]

57. Thanks for asking!

The word "reservations" is key. Reservations implies that I have concerns, yet my mind is not made up.

My concerns stem from the fact that I was never a fan of the Clintonian "New Democratic" centrist approach to politics of Bill Clinton. How much do his politics equate to Hillary's politics? I don't know. But under Clinton quite a lot of things happened which I viscerally opposed. Some good things happened too, but not enough in my mind to leave me feeling supportive of his legacy. In my mind Clinton represented a pro-corporation democrat. They sometimes get called corporatist around here. Centrism in the form of corporatism is something that I fervently oppose.

Now, it has been pointed out numerous times that Hillary is "ranked" like the greatest liberal Senator to ever live by all these anonymous "ranking" places. I have reservations about that as well. For one thing, its not that hard to have a good "ranking" when Republicans control congress, and virtually every bill that comes to the floor clearly sucks. For another thing, I have no doubt that Sen. Clinton is strongly liberal when it comes to social issues. My concern comes when it comes down to issues of a more economic nature, or international relations nature.

I can't seen another Presidency in the model of William Jefferson Clinton as a good thing, and I'm worried that her Presidency would be much similar to his. People keep talking about the great economy of the 90s. The 90s were a time where the minority percentage of the population invested in Wall Street - a minority overwhelmingly dominated by the very rich - saw great economic prosperity. Meanwhile, wages for the other super majority of Americans fell. It was truly a decade where the rich got really rich, and the poor got poorer. That's unacceptable to me. I will never be a fan of a period in our history where things are so polarized.

PLEASE NOTE - I do not know if President Clinton is to blame for this disparity in the 90s; he very well may not be. Politics is complicated, and anyone who acts like it isn't is lying. But it leaves me with concerns. I did not consider the 90s to be a "glorious" decade.

I always felt that Clinton tried so hard to "triangulate" that he regularly made too many compromises that simply cannot be made if we are truly concerned about the ideals of justice and social and economic fairness. Hillary Clinton seems to me to be cut from a very similar mold - social liberal on many fronts, but economically corporatist (i.e. centrist by my definition, or sometimes I'd even go as far as to say conservative.) I have a hard time supporting that.

Another major obstacle to me are positions on globalization and international trade. Clinton was a strong proponent of what is inaccurately simply called globalization, but what should really be called corporate hegemony. I do not share the Friedman-esque vision of globalization. I strongly oppose the current structure of globalization, though I believe other more inclusive and fair models are possible. I don't believe in free trade - I believe in fair trade. As far as I understand Hillary Clinton, she is a very much a neo-liberalist in her views on international economics and globalization. I strongly disagree.

These are just a few of my reservations, and are a few of the reasons why my mind is not made up. There are a lot more, but I don't believe I could bother anyone to read that much. But now you know.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

43. Well, yes, America has turned into just about the most virtiolic place

on Earth.

In response to your second paragraph, I almost never see sound reasons for the hatred of Hillary. I'll be the first to admit that I don't agree with everything she says or does; I don't agree with everything *any* politician says or does. However, it seems like there is a switch for some people; if HRC says anything that can in any way be construed as "bad", they will leap all over her. In this post, for instance: HRC said over a month ago that, while she supported her friend Joe, she would respect the voters of CT and throw her influence and $$$ behind whichever candidate won the primary. So, today she comes out and says "I'm keeping my word, Lamont won the primary, all of my resources are his, I'm asking Lieberman to take a look at what he's doing and consider dropping the independent run." And what's the repsonse? Well, the second post here is a little smiley-face puking. Someone else called her a "fungus." She said and did what nearly every other Congressman did in repsonse to this situation (and kept her promise to do so) and is met with utter derision by a lot of people. Perhaps my reasoning as to The Why is off-base, but I just don't get it.

One would think that when another Democrat does something worthwhile we would applaud them. HRC is attacked no matter what she does; except when she does something that is utterly without fault. Then her actions are completely ignored by 99.9999% of this board. That's what my point was in mentioning the oil thread. And that's, I suppose, what I don't get about HRC. If you don't like her stance on certain issues, fine. However, people attack her for doing the same thing other Dems do and completely ignore it if she does something that's completely without fault or guile.

(And I will almost guarantee that if that Big Oil article had Feingold's name or Kerry's name in place of Clinton's, there would be at least 30 posts championing them in '08. However, you put HRC's name there, and all you hear are crickets chirping. To go back to the original disagreement we had upthread, I don't see how this factor can be atributed to anything except for misogyny or ripple effect from the RNC Echo Chamber; it's fine if you don't support all of her positions -- however, this is much deeper seated than that -- for all the reasons I've pointed out throughout this little discussion.)

[crossroads]

45. Well Said! nt

[harpboy_ak]

56. I don't need Repukes to tell me she's a Repuke Lite

Sorry, but she's just supported too many Repuke votes in the Senate for me to EVER vote for her or support her for any office. She and all the other wafflers and triangulators can go take a flying bleep.

We need real Democrats willing to stand up for traditional Democratic values and ignore all the bleeping "consultants" and lobbyists. We need reps and senators who haven't been bought by big business or bought into the myth that we should all race to the global bottom, that global corporatism is inevitable. We need candidates that truly represent the people in their district.

The only way we're going to get a decent Democratic president is to organize at the precinct level like we did back in '72 and throw out the self-serving and out of touch Losermans, Clintons, Immanuels, and their ilk. Too bad there aren't more Ned Lamonts running.

[Placebo]

39. Totally.

She is a class act all the way.

[frylock]

11. isn't that what the emperor asked of young skywalker?!

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. No. Vader asked Luke to search his feelings

Darth Vader: If you only knew the power of the Dark Side. Obi-Wan never told you what happened to your father.

Luke: He told me enough. He told me you killed him.

Darth Vader: No. *I* am your father.

Luke: No. No. That's not true. That's impossible.

Darth Vader: Search your feelings. You know it to be true.

Luke: Nooooo. Nooooo.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080684/quotes

[frylock]

16. my bad. I should have known that..

I just saw Charles Ross' one-man Star Wars Trilogy after all.

[rodeodance]

18. Thank you Hil.

[damntexdem]

20. He should be done by now:

after all, how much did he have to search through?

[KittyWampus]

23. Hill, you should have made support of Joe in the Primary CONDITIONAL

on his NOT running if he lost....

but then your primary concern will always be furthering your own career.

[leesa]

26. As usual she stops short of any real committment...typical.

[BigDDem]

27. Hillary supports Lamont and

will soon be contributing money to his campaign.

OK DU: Attack!!!!

[OKNancy]

31. really?

"But I said more than a month ago that I would support the winner of the Democratic primary and that's what I intend to do in every way that I'm requested."

The senator said she had called Lamont to offer her help and would soon be contributing money to his campaign.

[Canuckistanian]

29. The only thing he's searching is his wallet

For lobbyist money...

[rodeodance]

47. He is grieving his loss--give him some time.

[Protagoras]

32. A more forceful and direct message is in order Hillary.

something like "Joe you lost now stop acting like an arrogant child trying to sabotage the will of the people"

[loveandlight]

33. Hilary's tone is appropriate

I actually think it is best that she is being diplomatic in her tone, if it is to have any effect on Lieberman dropping out. I don't know that anything can appeal to his conscience, but I bet that pushing him with a heavy handed tone would make it completely impossible for him to listen. Diplomacy is sometimes the best way to go, we know this administration has no idea how that works, but I think the way Hilary is placing her comments is exactly what diplomacy is about and is the only thing that can possibly work to get Lieberman out of there.

[rodeodance]

48. yes, I agree, -demonizing him is not the wasy to go.

[Protagoras]

52. I disagree

I think demonizing him is exactly the way to go because he's been treated nice for far too long. His ego isn't really what I'm worried about at this point though. I'm a lot more concerned about Hillary and others being able to state things strongly and clearly with no appearance of indecisiveness. I think we've gone on too long pretending the opposition understands our language and I think we need to begin to speak a lot more like Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman.

That doesn't mean we abandon all diplomacy but if they asked privately and his response was to come out in a concession speech and attacked Lamont then I don't think there should be ANY lack of clarity about the response.

Some very tough love is in order here.

But I understand not everyone will agree with me. But I believe we've tried it the nice way and that hasn't worked. So I think we need to try another way.

[BigDDem]

35. Is that what Barbar Boxer said?

I mean once she was through supporting Joementum.

[Barkley]

34. Coming out against Lieberman's bid is a 'no brainer'

Let move on now and let's support Lamont.

[Barkley]

36. Let Cynthia McKenny run as an independent and Dems would do more than ask

ask her to 'search her conscience'.

[ckramer]

46. Well, maybe it's time for Hillary to 'Search Her Conscience' !

LOL, Herself is the same kind!

[nealmhughes]

49. Indeed, Hillary has worn more hats than I can keep count.

I have a long memory...

[shanti]

59. HELLO!!!!

:wow:

[IndianaGreen]

50. Hillary is wasting her time with Holy Joe

I saw Joe's pathetic speech last night: it was all about himself!

Lamont spoke about us and the future.

[HockeyMom]

51. I voted for her, she has screwed up, and I TOLD her so,

several times I have emailed her. To my amazement, she has personally answered me, point by point. I will give her credit for that. Chuckie never has.

I have both loved her and hated her. There is no middle ground with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[pitohui]

54. she is right

he must not be a ralph nader at such a time when we need to focus on regaining the congress

he must not focus on self at this time

clinton is right, if he looks inside, there are other ways he can serve, he does not need to be a senator, it is more important now to unify behind the democrat


i hope he sleeps on this and realizes that running as an independent can only be hurtful for his goals for the future of this country

[rug]

55. That search will take longer than the search for WMDs.

[AtomicKitten]

60. Good for Hillary, and all other Dems should urge him to drop out.

eom

[Irreverend IX]

61. Search your feelings, Joebi Wan. And drop out you will. nt

[scarface2004]

62. she should urge him to go jump in the lake...

effing ahole!!

[gorekerrydreamticket]

65. Her comment is nonsensical because...

He should "search his conscience and decide what is best for Connecticut and for the Democratic party" doesn't really apply to someone who has left the Democratic Party.