Obama to left-wing blogosphere: Drop dead. I'm backing Joe Lieberman

[dolstein]

Obama rallies state Democrats, throws support behind Lieberman

By STEPHANIE REITZ
Associated Press Writer

March 30, 2006, 10:20 PM EST


HARTFORD, Conn. -- U.S. Sen. Barack Obama rallied Connecticut Democrats at their annual dinner Thursday night, throwing his support behind mentor and Senate colleague Joe Lieberman.

Obama, an Illinois Democrat who is considered a rising star in the party, was the keynote speaker at the annual Jefferson Jackson Bailey Dinner.

. . .

"The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it," Obama told the 1,700-plus party members who gathered in a ballroom at the Connecticut Convention Center for the $175-per-head fundraiser.

"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf," he said.

. . .

Lieberman became Obama's mentor when Obama was sworn into the Senate in 2005. They stayed close at Thursday night's event, too, entering the room together and working the crowd in tandem.

. . . .

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--obama-lieberman0330mar30,0,6449054.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut

[leyton]

1. That's rather harsh of you.

I'm ambivalent about Joe, who does have a progressive voting record on many issues but has ridiculously jingoistic rhetoric. But its Obama's prerogative to support whoever he wants, and he's no more beholden to the netroots than he is to any other sector of the party. Why let this divide the party, unless bashing Democratic Senators is your hobby or something?

[dolstein]

2. Compared to what? The Lieberman bashers?

Sorry, but nobody around here seems to care when people attack Lieberman in the harshest of terms. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Tigress DEM]

123. Obama should stay away from people who nearly give * tongue

Where is the picture of that "KiSs?" Made me sick to my stomach for days. :eyes:

Lieberman has been trying to distance himself from *ush, but it's really late in the game, doncha think?

Well, if Obama drags Lieberman's carcass through this, Lieberman better become a model DEM - and Obama too. That's all I got to say about it.

[Vincardog]

3. So long Obama we hardly knew ya.

[The Magistrate]

6. Sen. Obama, Sir, Will Be Around For A Long Time

A man stands by his friends: people like that more often than not.

[Lostnote06]

11. stated well....character alone is a life success story.....

........I'll side with Obama on this one although his allignment with Lieberman wrt the middle east bothers me.......

[saltpoint]

43. Your post suggests that the emotional loyalties which comprise an

individual human being must eclipse the immediate political concerns of a given circumstance or alliance.

Would that U.S. politics ran on your engine instead of the one that drives it now.

Gleaming post, Magistrate. Thank you.

[sellitman]

111. Stands by his friends?

You couldn't say that about LIEberman.

He fried his good friend Bill. The son of a bitch lost my respect right then and there. I have already donated to Ned Lamont and will do so again before pulling the lever for him ...gladly.

Joe has got to go!

[Pachamama]

130. Well, we all know that is Bush's philosophy and look how well that has

served the American people and voters! :eyes:

Blind loyalty to friends is not necessarily an admirable or good thing except for by the people giving and receiving it....

[Joe Fields]

148. A man certainly stands by his friends.

But one measure of a man is based on which type friends he associates with.

Politically speaking, I believe Obama's stock dropped dramatically by standing with Lieberman, whom many within the party believe to be more Republican in values than Democratic.

Obama may stay a senator for awhile, but if he continues to back people like Lieberman, he will no longer be a darling of the party. He can kiss bigger aspirations goodbye; that is, if he has any.

[Southsideirish]

12. Two fewer votes for Obama in Illinois. Buy bye! nt

[AusGail]

18. There's gotta be someone better than Joe

When Obama won in 2004 I found him to be very impressive. If he has started endorsing Joe Leiberman (especially seeing he was 100% in favor of invading Iraq) then my opinion of Obama has taken a nose-dive.

[kaygore]

19. Ned Lamont is running against Joe the Jerk in the primaries

Obama may love to kiss the A of that Bush A kissing Lieberman, but the people of Connecticut are fed up as we all should be with Joe. If he loves the soul-selling Republicans so much, then he should be honest enough to switch parties.

Joe's a loser and a coward.

Obama has lost my vote and support, too.

Guess he's another Clarence Thomas.

[AuntiBush]

106. Totally Agree

Noticed since last year Obama's change. Sorry, but Leiberman in my opinion is not a sincere Democrat and everytime he smooches *'s butt, its enough to make one :puke: He should run as what he seems to truly be, a neo-con supporter.

[roguevalley]

114. I disagree MIGHTILY with Obama on this issue. Since when does

anyone have to agree with this or follow some line here just because Obama has this stance? I think he's damned, damned wrong. Lieberman makes things harder, not better. His support of Lieberman makes me rethink my opinion of Obama's judgement. If he's making this kind of decision on Lieberman, given what old Joe has done, then I find myself trusting Obama less and less. A leader is the sum total of his/her ACTIONS, not words. Words are cheap. Obama is siding with a DINO who has hurt real people with his bullshit stands. Therefore, Obama is less in my eyes than before. Seriously, I don't have respect for anyone who would support this old fossil.

[immoderate]

137. Obama has not lived up to the hype.

Obama has never impressed me. Touted as an orator, I've never heard a great speech from him. I've never heard any great policy statements from him.

Lieberman is his mentor? That explains it.:shrug:

--IMM

[zann725]

145. O's alignment with Lieberman shows us EXACTLY why we were TOLD

"O" had such great potential (by WHO exactly?) I too am baffled by all the hoopla over O's oratorial skills. O's "votes" are calculated to please the "right" people...not we-the-people.

No new news...O's VERY D.L.C., and therefore MUCH in alignment with Lieberman.

[Eric J in MN]

16. Let's support Ned Lamont.

http://www.nedlamont.com/

[autorank]

4. It's all a game to these guys...they're so special, such "brothers"

Who cares about either of them if they're not there slugging it out with * and company.

Have they not noticed that there's a absolute consensus that the sea level will rise by 20 -23
feet in the next 90 years. Bye bye Florida, NOLA, NYC...WE ARE IN CRISIS and they're rearranging
deck charis on the Titanic.

There is no lifeboat for planet earth and there is no chance of salvation unless we get busy immediately.

So WHAT'S THE MAJOR MALFUNCTION OF ANY POLITICIAN WHO FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE IMMEDIATE AND DIRE
NATURE OF THE THREATS TO ALL PEOPLE EVERYWHERE?

Apparently it's mandatory that NO Senator say the planet is currently fucked and that we need the
greatest effort in the history of the human race to salvage things.

Thanks for nothing all of you.

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

"I think the greatest threat to American people -
what they really have to worry about - is the threat
to liberty and Democracy right here in America."--Wes Clark

That's what I want my party to say 24/7 until we get a real government in place.

[dolstein]

7. Well, if it weren't for the left-wing nutjobs like Ralph Nader . . . .

George W. Bush would never have been elected president.

Apparently, Al Gore just wasn't liberal enough for these people. Better to let George Bush win, these people said and nominate a real liberal in 2004.

Seriously, I'm not making this stuff up.

[autorank]

13. I can't stand Nader, he was a ringer BUT Katherine &Jeb stole it

far beyond any margin Nader provided.

Tens of thousands votes thrown out in predominantly black precincts because of "spoiled" ballots;
rigged machines; machines in adjacent precincts 20 or more, producing EXACTLY THE SAME MARGIN (by %) OF BUSH VICTORY; and
50,000 mostly minority voters wrongfully "purged" from the registration rolls by a bogus "felon" purge with software from a Republican run company and based in large part on a list of Florida "felons" with Texas records (provided by the Texas government btw).

I think Nader was a ringer.

I think Nader colluded with the Republicans and I think he hurt but Florida would hot have been close with any of the above corrected.

We were robbed and I'm glad Nader has taken his bitter, complaining mug out of the public debate.

[Tigress DEM]

121. My take was that in 2000 Nader was sincere, but it was still a mistake,

because the stakes were so high and *ush was so bad.

In 2004 there is evidence(1) that he took RNC money to be a diversionary vote getter "real or imagined" as some malfunctioning Ohio machines picked him or * when Kerry's name was selected. Only one factor among many disenfranchisement techniques, but still he didn't have to do it.

(1)
NEWSWEEK July 19 2004 Issue
<snip>
In his run for the White House, Ralph Nader is getting help from an unexpected source: Republicans. Of the $1 million that Nader has raised for his campaign so far, about $50,000 is from donors who have also given to President George W. Bush's campaign. One in 10 of Nader's biggest contributors—individuals who've written checks of $1,000 or more—are longtime GOP donors.

Among the notable: Richard Egan, Bush's former ambassador to Ireland. Egan raised more than $100,000 as a Bush Pioneer in 2000 and at least $200,000 this cycle as one of the Rangers, the Bush campaign's most elite fund-raising circle. In 2001 Egan contributed $100,000 of his own money to help pay for Bush's Inauguration, while he and his family rank among the biggest contributors to the Republican Party in general, giving nearly $1 million to the GOP since 1999, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. And according to Nader's campaign-finance reports, Egan, his son John and his daughter-in-law Pamela each contributed the maximum $2,000 donation to Nader's effort. Egan declined to comment to NEWSWEEK.

<<< more >>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411492/site/newsweek

[Tigress DEM]

122. And following their duet - a solo malfeasance by Ken Blackwell -2004

I could go on and on, but most of DU owns John Conyer's book, "What Went Wrong In Ohio."

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[dolstein]

25. You're the one who needs a shovel

Lieberman is anything but weak or wishy washy. He knows where he stands and he's comfortable taking positions that can get him in hot water politically.

And the fact is that the left-wing has inflicted far more damage on the Democratic Party that Lieberman ever has. It was the left-wing that actively worked to destroy the Johnson administration, It was the left-wing that nominated George McGovern. People didn't leave the Democratic Party because it wasn't liberal enough. That's a typically narcisitic left-wing fantasy.

[autorank]

28. It was Johnson who killed millions of Southeast Asians...how about that.

Johnsons insane war, pursued by elitists in the WH who had no intentions other than salving their own vanity. Given that, it was incumbent on all Americans to get rid of Johnson.

Johnson was a nightmare and he and his supporters ruined the Democratic party. I like much of what Johnson did domestically but Viet Nam was an assault on our country and Southeast Asia. He did it and he bears the blame.

LIEberman is owned by insurance and other interests, which explains his pathetic voting record when the rubber hits the road.

Sorry, I support his opponent and will give to further the campaign.

The days of an opposition party that is afraid to oppose are over. Pack your bags Hadassah! We're moving to Darien.

[Douglas Carpenter]

36. some people just don't believe morality has any place in government

and the slaughter of millions of peasants is nothing to them

[autorank]

70. Amazing isn't it...back then the term for dead humans was "body count"

Mundane sounding but Orwellinan i its scope and implications.

[Zhade]

73. self-delete

That was out of line on my part, even if said about a conservative like Dolstein.

[cmkramer]

50. True

I turned 11 around the time of the 1968 election, and even at that young age, I could see how the Left were screwing things up. Not that they were wrong issue-wise, but their insistence on 100% purity was not helpful at all.

I still have trouble trusting anything leftists do or say since then.

And I have yet to hear anyone who doesn't vote Democratic -- and isn't an obvious right-winger-- say the reason why they aren't Democrats is because the party isn't liberal enough. Usually it's something like "I can't be a Democrat because I don't like the way they treat people who believe in God but I can't be a Republican because I'm pro-choice" .
I'm thinking this could end up kind of like what happened with Ted Kennedy in 1994. Now-Governor Mitt Romney ran against him, and there was a lot of talk that Kennedy might be in trouble. But, obviously, he ended up winning. I'm guessing Lamont may do better than Lieberman supporters would like, but when all is said and done, Lieberman will pull through.

[Douglas Carpenter]

83. what the American public thinks about things:

recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News

http://alternet.org/story/29788

1. 65 percent say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.
2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").
3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.
4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.
5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.
6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.
7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."
8. 69 percent believe America is on the wrong track, with only 26 percent saying it's headed in the right dire

Borrowed from:
LynnTheDem

a super-majority of Americans are liberal in all but name
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051107/alterman
Public opinion polls show that the majority of Americans embrace liberal rather than conservative positions...
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2002-04-16-liberal.shtml
The vast majority of Americans are looking for more social support, not less...
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/borosage-r.html

http://people.umass.edu/mmorgan/commstudy.html

Some more polls:

http://www.democracycorps.com/reports/analyses/Democracy_Corps_May_2005_Graphs.pdf

http://www.democrats.com/bush-impeachment-poll-2

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html

http://www.cdi.org/polling/5-foreign-aid.cfm

[BootinUp]

94. Sure

without looking at all the details on the polls, demographics the actual questions etc, I don't think they are way off my gut feel, but I'm sure some of the numbers are on the high side where some details are left out. One thing I do note is that its all economic stuff. Theres more to winning today than economic issues.

[JeffR]

55. The Johnson administration destroyed itself

McGovern would have been one of the best presidents of the 20th century.

There's room in my personal vision of a Democratic Party big tent for people who think the way you do, but these absurd statements ain't going to win you many friends in the reality-based wing.

[BootinUp]

56. not that dolstein really needs help

but the reality wing...I guess thats the one that has even less power than the main wing I guess?

[JeffR]

57. That's the one

And if the "main" wing would embrace a little more reality too, they'd get a whole lot more powerful. But the ghost of their patron saint, Neville Chamberlain, keep telling them to run the other way.

[BootinUp]

58. alas

the main wing disagrees with the version of reality put forth by the reality wing.

[JeffR]

59. And we can see what great results that thinking has obtained

Yep, everything's coming up roses and daffodils for the Democratic Party. Dukakis '08!

[BootinUp]

60. The issue I take with that point

is it suggests the reality wing of the party has had no effect itself on the success of the party as a whole. Thats plainly false.

[JeffR]

63. It's had a salutary effect

But an insufficient one. I don't hold out the various factions as being diametrically opposed, and there's a potential synergy to be had by achieving practical cohesion between them.

I for one don't find Obama's endorsement of any particular import one way or the other, and I don't have a litmus test for ideological purity in elected Democrats. Having said that, I also think the progressive wing of the Party is far less out of touch with majority views than the centrists would like to believe.

I for one think there are aspects of Lieberman's voting record that are admirable. But he's forfeited a lot of respect for his sycophancy to the Right, on Iraq and other issues.

What's far worse is the Beltway braintrust behind politicians like Lieberman. They've dug a shallow grave for the Democratic Party, and they need to be countered before they succeed in kicking the Party into it.

[BootinUp]

67. I have never seen a post

That made a fact based case for the theory advanced. In other words that took a particular race and explained the loss with the support of say exit poll data. And showed that the reason the Dems lost was because of an overall flawed strategy related to issues and centrism.

What is true is that flip flopping, or trying to satisfy different factions with nuance on the issues, gets us into trouble.

In order to win a primary and to win certan states that are key battleground states, a compromise must be made. It is on the issues and between the primary voters and the GE voters. The negotiation is very limited and the primary voters only get one chance to offer a solution. The "reality wing" (activist left) plays a larger role in the primary position than they do in the GE since they are more dedicated participants. But they certainly do play an important role.

Shifts to the right or left by the voters at large are not only due to the actions of elected officials. More commonly it is reactions to changes in society/lifestyle/security. The best way to deal with these changes is to be a part of a coalition that has a voice and power and not to limit the appeal of our party to only the states where we are the strongest. By definition then the more extreme a position the more you weaken your coalition. On some issues there are not a variety of acceptable positions to the coalition on some there are. We have failed to make the right equation in recent history.

I prefer to avoid laying all the blame for our failures on the media or on black box voting. Because neither party has total control of those variables. I advocate improved transparency in voting systems. I resist media consolidation. I favor public funding of elections and public television and other forms of public communication. But we must deal with the basics of politics to win again. Or we can just keep going like we are and wait for the next major change in society to propel us back into the driving seat. All of my adult life we have been losing ground. I know the story. I don't need bloggers to tell me what to think. I need their help to actually measure the success of our platform in the battleground states and change it as needed to win. Campaign, Measure, adjust, win thats the ticket.

[JeffR]

69. As a socialist, I guess my next move is supposed to be

Accusing you of apostasy and other thought crimes. :) But there not a thing in your post I (substantially) disagree with.

I'd still posit that genuine leftist positions on certain issues are not so far from the mainstream as is sometimes represented. A lot of it comes down to presentation.

What the centrists have in common with the far-leftists is an inability to articulate proposals in a cogent fashion given the reality on the ground. I think we'd all like to have a system where policy discussion, unfettered by the influence of money, will allow voters to see just which side is really determined to represent their interests and the strength, security and promise of America. The reality is that political campaigns are popcorn-strings of soundbites, veiled or unveiled attacks on the other side, and the mainstream media's adolescent fascination with the horse-race paradigm of politics. And we just don't play that game as well as the Republicans. Until we do... well, here we all are.

[LittleClarkie]

82. Do you think there is a difference between a centrist and a moderate?

I often consider myself a moderate. But perhaps I have my own definition of that. I feel like I'm standing in the middle, and trying to get the centrists, and the lefties, and the far lefties et al to talk in a civil manner. Meanwhile the centrists and the far lefties are baiting each other. It can be quite maddening.

Just trying to be "Unity Girl"

[JeffR]

84. All these terms are pretty subjective

But I've seen some subtle distinctions between what I consider centrists and what I consider moderates.

It is maddening to see this artifical Great Divide. I'm way out on the left (see that little waving dot there?:hi: ), but I'd rather disagree politely with a Democrat than have any kind of conversation with a Republican.

[dolstein]

62. Coulda, woulda, shoulda

Sure, McGovern would be just dandy as a president. Too bad we live in a democracy where the people get the final say. And in this case, the people (including an very large number of Democrats) voted overwhelmingly for Nixon.

Personally, I find it hard to argue that this country was better off because of Lyndon Johnson's decision not to seek reelection. Johnson could have beaten Nixon. It would have been ugly, but I'm confident he would have pulled it off. It's hard to imagine the Vietnam War ending any later than it did under Nixon, and at least Johnson would have been able to appoint more liberal justices to the Supreme Court.

Frankly, I'd be just as defensive as the left-wing is if my greatest political accomplishment were driving from office someone who was quite possibly the most liberal president this country has ever seen -- and prolonging the Vietnam War in the process.

[JeffR]

66. LBJ was a liberal titan

But "his" war destroyed his presidency.

What you describe as left-wing defensiveness, I'd describe as exasperation with the status quo. A lot of centrists are exasperated with it too. And a lot of independents, and a lot of registered Republicans.

And not to veer off topic, but it should be pointed out that, since at least 2000, the people's say in who gets elected has been fundamentally usurped. When I hear more concern about salvaging the electoral process from the moderate camp, I'll be that much readier to meet them halfway on various and sundry other issues.

[The Magistrate]

68. An Interesting Suggestion, Mr. Dolstein

It is certainly obvious Mr. Humphrey would have been immeasureably superior to Nixon, and again, was unlikely to have prolonged the war much beyond the actual event. There is little doubt that left defections from the ticket, as well as working class defections to Wallace, put Nixon in his first term.

The regulars of the Party in those days, though, and particularly our Chicago Mayor Daley Sr., must however bear a good portion of the blame for that. The protests at the convention in '68 were atrociously handled. The brutality of the police, which without doubt was sanctioned from the highest levels of City government, rehearsed earlier at local demonstrations in the spring and planned for in some detail, had a tremendous alienating and radicalizing effect on many, and made the regular Party organization seem very clearly an enemy to a great number of people. It was not necessary to deal with the protests in that way, and dealing with them in that way was a damnable mistake, that has had long repercussions in our political life.

What those at the further left of our Democratic spectrum must deal with, however, is the fact of the Wallace defections, which mostly consisted of working class persons. These people were repulsed precisely by the manifestations of Liberalism in that period: the anti-war movement, civil rights, and the various "liberation' movements in their early stages. The cry heard so frequently here, that the Party has abandoned the working class by "not being liberal enough" and will regain working class allegiance by being "more liberal", has the matter, viewed in light of history, exactly backwards. Working people began to abandon the Party because they perceived it as being "too liberal" when Liberalism became identified with opposition to the war and with the counter-culture movements. The identification of Liberalism remains precisely that in many left quarters, and it will make no greater appeal to working people today than it did then.

[dolstein]

71. Of course, the response to the protests cut both ways

Sure, the heavy handed repsonse to the protestors alienated the more liberal elements of the party, but I would suggest that an even larger number of people in America actually sympathized with the police rather than the protestors. And an awful lot of these people were Democrats, at least at the time.

While I don't condone the police response, I don't condone the tactics of the protestors either. And if the goal of the anti-war protests was to end the war in Vietnam and bring about a more just society, you'd have to say they were a dismal failure.

[The Magistrate]

76. Certainly Many Did Sympathize With The Police Action, Sir

It was, of course, easier to do at a distance, than if actually present as an uninvolved witness. It was an unprovoked exercise in brutality that reminded me forcefully of the newsreels of East Berlin and Hungary they showed us at school in my youth. There were no particular "tactics" employed by protesters: there were some idiots shooting off their mouths and saying rot that officials were only too pleased to believe, though a moment's consideration would have demonstrated they were nonesense as a practical matter.

But in its political effect, it did only harm to the Party. It did split off a good number of people who otherwise would have actively oposed Nixon, and did not solidify and gain support among those who might have approved of it: the people moved in that way were easily taken by the "law and order" campaign, and by Wallace, because it was not quite brutal enough for their tastes, and they wanted people who would shoot.

The protestors were certainly political naifs, and strike me on reflection as something resembling what recruits to some old medieval millenial peasant rebellion must have been like, to see and move among. Many genuinely thought they were living in the early stages of a revolution, and imagined things would move a great deal more directly and greatly and suddenly than really was (or for that matter is) possible. They were certainly not bad people, and had no intent to do harm. Over the long run, the demonstrations certainly did contribute to the U.S. withdrawl from Viet Nam, reaching in the "Moratorium" days a sufficient scale as to have real impact: it does not strike me now, and did not strike me then, as any accident that the end of sending conscripts to Viet Nam took place at the time the marches reached their peak numbers.

[Warren Stupidity]

131. The protesters were in large part kids who were in serious

danger of being packed up and shipped out, whose peers were packed up and shipped out, or had just returned from being packed up and shipped out. We were running 300 dead/week on our side, and we were killing on the order of thousands of Vietnamese each week.

The question of if the protests helped or hurt the presidential ambitions of George McGovern is irrelevant. The issue of did the protests bring the war to a close sooner is just about beyond dispute. We ended the draft. We forced Nixon into 'vietnamization'. We made the situation at home so unsettling to the ruling elites that they divided among themselves and, without a consensus to continue the carnage, the war came to its slow but inexorable end.

The political picture, despite Dolstien's rightwing revisionism, is not as simple as he makes it out to be. As Johnson stated as he signed the civil rights legislation that was the hallmark of his domestic reign, he lost the south for the Democratic Party. The solid south became the not so solid south. Ask Kevin Phillips about the political dynamics that ran through the 68 and 72 campaigns. But I digress. The issue was not political expediency or the advantages or disadvantages that opposition to the war bestowed on George McGovern. The issue was the ethical responsibility of the citizens of a nation to stand and oppose criminal behavior by their government. That issue is what confronts us again today, and it is why many of us here want no part of Mr. Lieberman.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

113. Clarification?

These people were repulsed precisely by the manifestations of Liberalism in that period: the anti-war movement, civil rights, and the various "liberation' movements in their early stages.

Why were they repulsed by those "awful" manifestations?

Peace and equality don't seem to arise to the level of repulsion. But maybe I'm missing something. :shrug:

[The Magistrate]

116. We On The Left, Sir

Are sometimes tone deaf to the attitudes of people who are not very political in their own lives. This is particularly the case in matters touching on national patriotism and tradition.

As a general rule, people love their country and its ways, and it is not an examined thing; indeed, it seems to run so deep as to suggest something biological is involved. People who have little and lead hard lives find a great solace in identifying themselves with the country, viewing it as a great thing. Doing so elevates them out of themselves somewhat, and makes them feel a bit of that greatness is their's, and resides in them. Something that seems to be attacking the country they take for an attack upon themselves. A political movement that loudly announces the country is engaged in cruel criminality will meet the same hostile reception in many hearts that someone upbraiding them personally as cruel criminals would receive. Whether or not it is true is quite beside the point; it will be denounced as untrue and rejected as unwholesome, because it threatens a part of such a person's psychic furniture, one that they value greatly.

Similarly, the suggestion of a wholesale alteration of social roles and mores will always strike many people as an unsettling and frightening prospect. It will often strike directly at one or another of the few advantages or superiorities people who, again, have little and lead hard lives, perceive themselves to actually have. A housewife may as easily feel she is getting over on things by not having to go out and deal with bosses and a workplace as a husband may feel that even if everybody out there can tell him what to do, at least his wife thinks he's the boss. Neither really wants the arrangement upset. Many people do not like change and novelty, and people who have little are often most resistant to it, because they fear it may threaten the little they have, and they cannot face any risk at all of losing that, lest they end up with nothing. Such feelings might be viewed from some angles as mean or base, but this does not change their reality, nor does it mean the people feeling them perceive them as in any way wrong.

Further, people who work, and work hard, tend to look down on those who do not work, unless the form their not working takes is the enjoyment of real wealth and ownership. It is hard to work hard, and most people who do really would rather not, and so they resent the spectacle of people who manage to avoid that effort without some societal lisence to do so. The counter-culture movement was rather conspicuously and spectacularly made up of people who were doing just that, and seemingly having a damned good time of it to boot. It made a great many working people very angry, and they viewed counter-culture people as something very different from themselves, and as something pretty despicable. Ideas seeming to emanate from the counter-culture milieu, and identified with the counter-culture milieu, thus in many hearts started out as offensive and despicable, because they came from people who offended and were despised. Whether they were good ideas or not hardly entered into the thing; there was something wrong with people who thought like that.

We are still dealing with the reverbrations of this. It is what underlies a lot of working people's attitudes towards liberalism today, as can be seen from a number of the standard tropes of Limbaugh and his acolytes about "long-haired pot-smoking FM-listening types" who will always "blame America first" and "never worked a day in their lives". It is not true; in many respects it was not even true then, but it struck a great many people as true, and has been handed down in family lines as a sort of brand identity, and it sticks still in many hearts.

[Douglas Carpenter]

126. I do see your point Sir, but do you see a way around this without being

complicit in crimes against humanity and perpetrating a fraud on the American public? And it would be unthinkable to me that liberal minded and knowledgeable Americans could live in isolation from world opinion.

And to be fair this is nothing unique to Americans. Even our more politically aware European friends are frequently quite oblivious to mistakes, wrongs and evils done in their name. And it certainly is nothing unique to America that history demonstrates that nation-states are not moral institutions especially in matters of foreign policy.

However, there is also the point that failing to correct such evils is frequently self-destructive in the long term in both the Democratic Party and the country as a whole as we have seen with Vietnam War policy of a liberal administration. Just as European dreams of imperial glory turned into self-destructive institutions.

Is there not a particular moral burden now that the U.S. is the worlds one superpower with powers unparalleled in world history and there are few counter balancing influences beyond the domestic opposition?

[The Magistrate]

135. There Seems No Obvious Way Out, Sir

Between the choices of complicity and fraud you mention, my preference is for fraud. What is necessary is to get people thinking and moving in the right direction; whether they are doing so for the correct reason, from a political sophisticate's point of view, is not so important. To give one more illustration from the Viet Nam period, it should be remembered that the collapse of political support for the war that led to U.S. disengagement was not a wholly left phenomenon. There arose a good deal of opposition to the venture on the right as well, by the end, but it followed a very different line. The opposition on the right held that if we were not going to fight to win, there was no point to the thing, and it was just a waste of lives and effort and a disgrace overall. But people who held that view were, effectively, allies of the anti-war movement, though they doubtless detested demonstrators and thought them Communist dupes at best. Still, they made an effective contribution to forcing the end of the thing; indeed, it might not have ended without them.

Probably our most widely shared priority here in this forum is the end of the war in Iraq. What we do not seem to agree on, within this wider agreement, is how that is to be done, and what line is best suited to solidify popular support for ending the thing. That the war is an exercise in criminality conducted with an abhorrent degree of atrocity is an accurate statement of fact, but that is a matter of minor importance in assessing whether or not it is a political line useful for appeal to the mass of the people in the matter. In my judgement it most emphatically is not, because it is certain to offend and drive away a great many people, and among those enraged by it would be a great many people who, if asked today by a pollster for their opinion, would say that they do not support the war and want it ended. What is necessary is to conceive a line that will have the widest possible appeal, and get the greatest possible number of people on board with the idea of ending the matter quickly, which is certainly the correct action. Such a line must be tailored to the sensibilities of the audience to be reached, not to the sensibilities of those pressing the line.

An important element of such a line must be an appeal to the native interests and patriotism of the mass of the people. This must concentrate on the harm being done to the country, and to them, by the current policy. The expenditure of treasure and lives, treasure that could benefit folks at home, and lives that as American lives are worth more than any number of foreigners, and that these expenditures that bring no benefit to the people are being made without the slightest chance of achieving anything worthwhile, provides the basis for the most popular possible line to press. Does this line appeal to a variety of base motives many here, myself included, will find offensive in parts? Yes. It appeals to selfishness, and it appeals to undercurrents of cultural and even racial prejudice. It is precisely these things that give the line its potential force, for though these are bad things, they are real and predominant things that actually shape and move the actions of most people. The point of the exercise is not to foster moral improvement among the mass of the people, it is to move them to agree, and agree passionately and with a vocabulary of demand, with the right course of action, and that as quickly as can be contrived.

In support of this over-all line, it is most adviseable to lay great stress on the incompetence with which the exercise is being conducted. People who denounce a political figure as simply saying he or she could fight the war better when one raises this matter are missing the point entirely. It is the incompetence with which the thing is conducted that gives great edge to the line set out above; it is the incompetence that guarantees the sacrifice of treasure and lives will bring no good result, no conceivable benefit to the people. Further, people do not like incompetence and incompetents, and do not want to associate themselves with that, at any remove. They view incompetence in leaders as a tremendous and harmful failing, and if convinced a leader is incapable of doing things right, will withdraw support in a hurry. Incompetent leaders harm the country: everyone knows this.

Any pressing of the line of criminality and atrocity must be done carefully, and always in a way that appeals to the people's tremendous affection for their country. Saying, for example, that torture of prisoners is what the U.S. always does, and simply demonstrates again the evil nature of the United States, is a horribly counter-productive thing. Again, it does not matter that a fair enough case could be made for the truth of the proposition, because it is certain to enrage a great proportion of the people who hear it, because they will hear it, owing to their identification with the country, as an accusation they are themselves evil criminals. The line that will gain the greatest and widest support is one that appeals to the people's affection for and pride in their country. Denouncing such acts as profoundly un-American, as not what this great country is about, not the way we do things here, is the line on this matter that could have the greatest appeal. It makes opposition to these things an expression of idealist patriotism, perhaps the most potent political force in existance, and it isolates those who do and support such things as foreign to the spirit of the country. That is what most people want to believe, and what we want is for the greatest possible number of people to be moved to despise the torturers and the leaders that promote torture, and be eager to take political action against them at the ballot box.

In the context of these lines of attack, the issue of the lies that put the country into this venture is extremely potent, and can be blended not only with the incompetent and un-American conduct of the damnably futile and destructive thing, but with the issue of money corruption and profiteering, something working people in particular deeply abhor and despise. People do not like being lied to, and to be decieved into dangerous folly enrages people. To have been decieved into dangerous folly so someone could line his pockets at their expense can put people into a damned dangerous temper. To state that "These pissants lied to us and sent our soldiers out to create the Islamic Republic of Iraq just so they could line their damn pockets with our tax dollars!" may not be a textbook expression of left progressivism, but it is quite likely to resonate with a tremendous number of people, and move them towards the actions we desire them to take.

[Douglas Carpenter]

143. perhaps an appeal to isolationism?

I don't actually think it is possible for a political economic entity as massive as the U.S. to actually be isolationist and I doubt that would be all together a good thing; depending what one means by isolationist.
But perhaps a message that America is excessively preoccupied with the affairs of the world and it is high time that it takes care of its own for a change. Personally, my objection is on grounds of militaristic-hegemony and the short-term and long-term results of the brutal realities of war; but I agree that that might be a hard sell in Peoria.

Is there not a time, a place and a way for Americans to simply learn more about the affairs of the world and the realities of war? I guess I have enough 19th century optimistic humanism in me to believe that if the mass of people knew a number of things that they simply do not know that it could create a sea change in political thinking on both domestic and international matters.

[The Magistrate]

144. That Is An excellent Idea, Sir

It is a pretty deeply rooted America instinct to allow the rest of the world to go to hell by the route and conveyance of its choice. "We aren't the world's policeman!" is a line that has had an excellent run in the past, and doubtless retains great visceral appeal. As a great deal of imperialism amounts to being the world's policeman, there is certainly some overlap of concepts there that could serve as a wedge for further education once contact, so to speak, is made.

"War is how Americans learn geography."

"You can chart the course of empire by the corner restaurants."

[Hippo_Tron]

115. I'm not so sure that Johnson wanted to be re-elected

Sure, Gene McCarthy embarassed him in New Hampshire, but it's not like McCarthy was a nobody. He was a United States Senator who was actually campaigning, unlike Johnson who wasn't even on the ballot.

Johnson arguably couldn't handle the job of being president after he escalated the conflict in Vietnam. There was too much pressure and he had a failing war on his hands. Johnson probably had the machine and the know-how and the incumbency advantage to defeat Nixon but whether his heart would have been in it is a different story.

What bothers me about Johnson is how naive he was to simply follow the Truman Doctrine and go into Vietnam. As much of a fucking asshole as Nixon was, he knew from the day that he took office that Vietnam was not going to end successfully. Nixon at least had the potential to do the right thing with Vietnam because he was smart enough to know what the right thing was. Of course, Nixon didn't do what was right, he did what would benefit him politically. Johnson wasn't smart enough and didn't surround himself with people to tell him that Vietnam was not a good idea. Of course, in '76 we get a president who is incredibly intelligent and also a great human being and America throws him out four years later for a lame cowboy actor... go figure.

The x-factor in all of this is Bobby Kennedy. He had the Kennedy name and the broad appeal at the same time that he was running on an anti-war platform. So of course, he had to be killed. God forbid that we get someone like that in the White House.

Also, assuming that your theory holds up that Lyndon Johnson was forced into retirement by the left, doesn't that say something about Johnson? Are you suggesting that the mighty LBJ was able to be taken down by a bunch of hippies?

Finally, I have to mention this thought. I fully appreciate how much better Humphrey would have been on all domestic issues than Nixon and perhaps the war would have ended earlier (no guarantee, though). That said, I'm 18 and of draft age. If there was a possibility that I would be drafted and have to go die for that useless war, I would be doing everything in my power to make sure that Gene McCarthy got the nomination.

[coalition_unwilling]

78. Humphrey would have been one of the best presidents of the 20th century,

IMHO. He waited too long to break with LBJ over Vietnam, allowing Nixon's "secret plan to end the war" to beat him out by a nose and a whisker. Of course, Nixon's secret plan was basically to expand the war into Laos and Cambodia, draw down U.S. ground forces and ramp up the air war in South Vietnam.

[martymar64]

87. If you are complaining about the left wing so much . . .

That means you must be right wing. Verdad?

[JeffR]

92. Ha!

Like your sig line, too. Though it might offend the centrists on the thread, let me just say, "Salut, comrade."

:patriot:

[dolstein]

93. Just because I'm not left wing doesn't mean I'm not a liberal

There's a difference. Henry Fonda was a liberal. Jane Fonda was a leftist. If you can't understand the difference, that probably means you're a leftist.

[mmonk]

125. nobody in history

is doing more damage to the democratic party than those that agree with neocon foreign policy. That's the truth as I see it and I see such democrats in the same vein of the republican party and do consider them political enemies. If that makes me too liberal then so be it. The definition has changed so much as the country has moved so far right as to become a rightwing nation.

[autorank]

27. I agree, LIEberman took a fall .. in the debates and in Florida..

He probably cut a deal for this or that. He's so preoccupied with ethics because he displays absolutly nothing that could be confused with ethics in his political behavior. He is a blow hard.

[martymar64]

88. Joementum routes his decisions through AIPAC

Whatever AIPAC wants is AOK with Joe, even permanent war.

[MrBenchley]

42. How many posts from the left do we see crying for purges?

Their tiresome Democrat-bashing isn't fooling anyone.

Nancy Pelosi doesn't support an impeachment motion now....so according to our "left Democrats" she's a "lameass", "gutless wonder", "useless, spineless, posturing, fingerintheair asswipe", part of the "Elite Ruling Class who are there to protect the status quo of fascism", a "Pro-War Monger", "stupid, irresponsible", "worse than Tojo!...practically Adolf Eichmann to Bush's Milosevic", "another politician not willing to enforce the laws of the United States when it comes to the executive branch", "wimp", etc. etc. etc...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2489288

Non-Democrat Bernie Sanders doesn't support an impeachment motion now....but he's just "pragmatic"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2502793

The wonder is how transparent this crap is.

[400Years]

53. just yours

[MrBenchley]

129. The relentless honesty of the left on display again (snicker)

In fact there have been hundreds such posts, always from the "progressive purists"...and all of them childish, tedious, futile and hilarious.

[martymar64]

89. There you go with your RW talking points again!

Ken Mehlman is that you?

[MrBenchley]

128. No, there I go with the facts about our "progressive purists"

[0007]

44. Nader didn't have a goddamn thing to do with Gore being robbed

and you know it dolstein. So knock off your cheap propaganda!

[The Magistrate]

51. That Statement, Sir

Does not accord well with the vote totals in Florida, nor with Nader's own polling which indicated that, had he not been in the race, about half his voters would have voted for Vice-President Gore, about a quarter for the Republican, and the remainder not have gone to the polls at all. On his own showing, he subtracted about ten thousand votes net from Vice-President Gore's tally. Certainly there were other problems, but they were insufficient to have defeated Vice-President Gore without the presence of Nader on the ballot. Further, it is hard to know how much damage Nader's energetic promotion of the "not a dime's worth of difference" line may have done, in suppressing vote totals over-all, by helping to move people to apathy in the belief the outcome would hardly matter. It is also a fact that Nader devoted much more time and energy to criticizing Vice-President Gore and the Democrats than he did to criticizing the Republicans and their standard-bearer. His purpose in running was to harm the Democrats, and put the Republicans in office, hoping the latter would do enough harm to the country to provoke a backlash he would benefit from. In this case, two out of three is damned bad....

[LittleClarkie]

80. I'm no fan of Nader and the "dime's worth of difference" brigade

But we reaped the benefits of a similar situation when Ross Perot ran. It's plain politics. Nader is not to blame if Gore couldn't energize the base until AFTER the election, and ran a lackluster campaign to boot, regardless of how wrong he is about there being little or no difference between Bush and Gore. He spent more time criticizing Kerry as well. I violently disagree with him in both cases.

But there's something about declaring that our current situation is Nader's fault that grates on me. I'm not sure I can explain it any better than that. It seems... undemocratic somehow... to suggest he shouldn't have been there.

[The Magistrate]

85. Certainly We Benefitted From Perot, Ma'am

And Republicans complained of it mightily during President Clinton's first term: it was rather enjoyable to me. Fairness is not my strong suit in real political conflict: what benefits my side is good and right, and what harms my side is damnable and wrong. To my mind, any other view betokens a lack of seriousness.

Therefore it does not bother me at all to point out the facts of the matter concerning Nader, and the question of whether he had a right to do what he did does not arise, for what he did was not the right thing to do, from the point of view of anyone who takes seriously the proposition Republican reactionaries of religious and "free-marketeer" stripe must be denied control of the national government in the interests of the country and our people. Events seem to me to have borne out conclusively the soundness of that proposition, and only increased my own dedication to it. Nader is quite to blame for the consequences of his actions to the country and our people, as are those whom he duped, who ought to have known better than to swallow his snake-oil. It is not my practice to bring the matter up myself, but when people deny the obvious fact of the thing, rebuttal is on occassion required.

[Hippo_Tron]

112. Clinton polled at 51% when Perot dropped out in the summer

And I believe that was with a heavy amount of undecideds, Bush was at 39%-41%. Perot was pro-choice and against free trade. The exit polls showed that roughly 1/3 of Perot voters would have stayed home, 1/3 would have voted for Clinton, 1/3 would have voted for Bush. Perot might have helped Clinton win states like Montana and Kentucky but there's very little evidence to support the case that he threw the election to Clinton.

However, it would be intersting to study whether Perot had a long term effect on the political alignment in this country. Perhaps he was part of what made the socially liberal wing of the GOP realize that their party was being taken over by the religious wrong and as a result they started voting Dem.

[BootinUp]

54. I'm sure you can do better

than that at making your case. My own review of the facts in the past made it quite clear that thousands of votes could have gone to Gore had Nader withdrew in Florida. There never would have been a court case. Your turn.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[Zhade]

72. Why do you care about the liberal nature of Gore?

You're not a liberal.

[coalition_unwilling]

77. Gore violated the first law of politics: secure your base before

you move to the center. Instead, Gore went to the center assuming his base would stay with him come hell or high water.

[LittleClarkie]

79. Oh that's just ridiculous

Are you saying that no one but the two parties should EVER run for president? Nutjob or not (and I'm thinking his nutjobiness really kicked in AFTER 2000) Nader had every right to do what he damned well pleased. I wildly disagree with him, but it was his right to run.

And calling people nutjobs, some of whom are on your side and some of whom include your fellow DUers btw, ain't exactly productive.

I'm really getting sick of watching the left most and the right most sections of the party bait each other. It's gets really, really tiresome after a while. All y'all are going to have to figure out how to work together because none of you are going anywhere. Deal with it.

[Hippo_Tron]

107. To be fair, Nader didn't know that he was going to cost Gore the election

That being said, he isn't all that remorseful about it either. He still thinks that there's no difference between Gore and Bush. I'll give him three right now: Iraq, Roberts, and Alito. Also, had Gore run a better campaign and I don't know beaten the fucking retard chimp in the debates, the margin would not have been so close and stealing Florida would not have mattered. Also, if he could have accounted for the possibiliy of Nader defections by balancing the ticket with Wellstone or Feingold. Nobody votes for the Vice President except for very small targeted constituences and potential Nader voters would have been one of them. Why vote for Nader when you can vote to put Paul Wellstone a heartbeat away from the presidency?

Of course, Nader wasn't all that interested in supporting Wellstone in the 2002 senate race. While he said that Wellstone was the best senator on capitol hill, he insisted that he had to support Tricomo in order to help build up the Green Party in a state like Minnesota where they actually recieve a decent percentage of the vote. Then of course, he leaves the Green Party about a year later. So yea I'm not a huge fan of Ralph either.

[Erika]

5. This is about the 3rd or 4th post on this tonight.

Does anyone check to see if others have posted the article? Do the moderators check?

Joe was booed and Obama was criticized.

Obama might very well lead Joe back into the fold. Obama has been given the tough assignments.

If Joe wants to be a Bush Lite, let him go.

[dolstein]

8. But the first to focus on Obama's endorsement.

Everybody else wanted to focus on the boos.

[Erika]

9. No, it wasn't n/t

Posting the same article every 15 minutes gains nothing in my opinion.

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. that may be and it does not change my essentially favorable opinion of Sen

Obama. But Sen. Lieberman is still an apologist for an arrogant, dangerous, reckless, irresponsible and immoral foreign policy that threatens and ruins the lives of Americans and countless others, destabilizes the Middle East and pushes the whole world closer toward catastrophe.

" Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut reproached fellow Democrats for criticizing President Bush during a time of war.

"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril," Lieberman said."

link:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/08/democrats.iraq/?section=cnn_latest

and this interesting comment from Sen. Lieberman while in Baghdad

"Time magazine Baghdad bureau chief Michael Ware on Morning Sedition this morning:

I and some other journalists had lunch with Senator Joe Lieberman the other day and we listened to him talking about Iraq. 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."

link:

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_11_27_atrios_archive.html#113328407009752558

[Solon]

14. No offense, but why support a candidate that is removed from reality?

I mean this seriously, in case you are wondering, but a couple of facts are in order, fact one, and this is an obvious one, the Iraq War was based on falsehoods. Fact two, staying in Iraq will neither increase our national security, nor will it defeat terrorists, the war on terrorism itself is dumb, to be frank, and will accomplish nothing. I don't see why anyone would support people who believe in fantasy based worldviews.

[Old and In the Way]

15. Obama is free to endorse whoever he wants.

I suspect that there is an unwritten rule that transcends party affiliation which stipulates "incumbants wil support felow incumbants" in primary races. Obama's probably does the political calculus and figures that's the safe bet. Personally, I think he's hitching himself to the wrong horse and he's going to see a hit from his netroots support, but I respect his right to endorse whomever he wants in the primary.

Who are you supporting Dolstein? :evilgrin:

[kaygore]

20. Sure Obama has the "right" (and I mean that doubly)

and we have the right as the left to drop our support of him.

If you lie down with dogs, you'll rise up with fleas.

I hope Obama can stand the itch!

[politicasista]

22. I agree. Even though I am not a fan of Lieberman n/t

[madrchsod]

21. well if we don`t like him here in illinois

we`ll vote him out..he still has time to redeem himself for one bad choice in political "friends".

[WildEyedLiberal]

24. Obama is NOT going to lose in Illinois

Period. The biggest percentage of the vote he would lose in Illinois from outraged bloggers would be one half of one percent. If that.

The vast, overwhelming majority of the populace is thankfully not so schizophrenic in its support and condemnation of candidates as the lefty blogosphere.

[nickshepDEM]

26. Correct. Obama has a 70%+ approval rating. He aint goin nowhere.

[w4rma]

31. And apparently he's not planning on using any of that political capital

for anything progressive.

[saltpoint]

149. Hi to you, WildEyedLiberal. Can I ask you a question since you're an

Illinois DUer?

I think you're right on Obama's election approval ratings -- he looks to me as if he is going to remain pretty popular, probably for a long time. But I'm only reading that in newspapers and a few political journals.

Is it so that Cook County alone would put him over the top in any "ordinary" election? Or are there other counties or cities where his support is also strong? I was guessing that he'd do pretty well in Carbondale and your city, and maybe some others.

The only really familiar part of electoral Illinois to me is Cook County. After that, I just don't know Illinois politics very well at all.

[nickshepDEM]

23. Good for him...

[ToeBot]

29. And this is surprising?

I recall the last message he had for the blogsphere and leftist activists in general - it amounted to several pages of eloquent verbage(sic) that could have been condensed to a single line, "Sit down and shut up!".

http://obama.senate.gov/blog/050930-tone_truth_and_the_democratic_party/index.html

[radio4progressives]

30. Thanks a lot Obama.. You Do Know the Right Wing is Supporting Lieberman?

Right? and You do know that they're FUNDING his re-election.. right?

And what's the point of throwing your support behind someone who the people over at Fox News and National REview and the Weekley Standard want to make Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense in Bush's "third term" cabinet?

Huh, Obama? What's the point Obama?

You lost what little credibility you might have had me...

[Hippo_Tron]

105. Lieberman getting appointed Sec of Defense would be a good thing

Jodi Rell would get to appoint a repuke, but a real dem would have a shot at the seat.

[BlueIris]

32. 'Kay, I'm done.

Good luck, Barry.

[Peace Patriot]

33. This doesn't surprise me at all. I thought Obama's speech to the

Democratic Convention was a whole lot of nothing. I couldn't understand why anybody thought it was "impressive." At a time when our country was torturing people, and still slaughtering people in a completely illegal war, and Diebold and ES&S were preparing to the steal the election with "trade secret," proprietary programming code in the new, Tom Delay/Bob Ney-designed election theft system, and the Bush junta was looting this country blind, and destroying honest people in the military and intelligence communities, and our economy was being ruined and our democracy was being destroyed, and Bush-inspired military recruiters were measuring our young, black, poor "cannon fodder" for body bags in the oil wars, he mostly talked about himself, and preened over himself and all the great "opportunities" he'd been given. I thought it was an egotistical speech. None of the other speeches were any better. Kerry's sucked. ("Reporting for duty," my ass. What? --to unjustly slaughter more innocent victims of US imperialism?) But everybody was getting all gooey over Obama's speech, and I just didn't get it. It left me cold.

I worked for Martin Luther King in Alabama in 1965. I understand something about poverty and oppression, from the inside, and what kind of spiritual resources it takes, and what kind of greatness it takes, to be a REAL advocate for the poor and the oppressed. Obama is a fake. He trades on his black skin and spouts pablum, and avoids the extraordinarily difficult, gritty matters that we face now, brought upon us by Bush fascists and their Democratic Party colluders.

We need to strategize on the basis of truth and reality--and not be deluded in our assessments of Democratic Party leaders or anyone else. We may choose to make compromises, because we have no other choice, or because we seek some strategic advantage for restoring our democracy and our country--and TRANSPARENT elections. But we need to do it with our eyes open. This may be the main thing that we can contribute to saving this country: the end of delusionary politics, delusionary "news," and delusionary government, in which emptiness and lies qualify as thought.

Joe Lieberman is part of the same semi-fascist camp that Hillary Clinton is part of--war profiteering and war mongering with a few sops to the liberal base, such as women's rights, which are under assault because of Democratic Party MALFEASANCE in failing to protect our right to vote. Let us not be deluded, please. And Barack Obama is sucking up to the them because they have huge financial backing and have made deals with the fascist Bushites and, undoubtedly, with their fascist voting machine companies. That's my assessment of him. Doesn't mean I might not support him, for what it's worth--or Hillary, for that matter--if I thought it might be a step toward restoring democracy, or gave the people of this country some advantage toward that end.

Truth and reality. That's my motto these days. There is not a chance in hell that any real representative of the people can become president, or that the Congress will become anywhere close to being representative of the majority of Americans. Bushite corporations control the vote tabulation with SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code! That is the reality. And the truth of it is that we have a long battle ahead of us JUST TO restore our right to vote, let alone to reform this country and make it into the country it could be and should be. That's what we have to work with. We mustn't fool ourselves about it. We have to face it--and FIX it. It's OUR country. It doesn't belong to these mandarins--these privileged people in the Senate and House, with fat salaries and the best medical care in the country, who dare to call themselves our representatives and vote to give their war powers away to George Bush.

We must make our leaders responsible to us once again. Step one: Throw Diebold and ES&S election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW!

[ProSense]

41. He's got a good record on key votes

Voted against that weak lobbying bill, joined the filibuster, and voted against Roberts, Gonzales and the bankruptcy bill.

[Robeson]

146. Great post Peace Patriot....

...I share those thoughts.

[Andromeda]

34. Will Obama ever redeem himself...

from the unpardonable sin of endorsing DU's most loathed DINO?

Former supporters will probably hit the taverns to drown their sorrows over Obama's perceived indiscretion.

Instead of issuing ultimatums and declaring damnations of Obama why not just shrug your shoulders and chalk it up to politicians being politicians. That's what they do. Wheeling and dealing is their stock and trade. There's always a trade-off and you don't know what kind of backroom horse-trading transpired prior to the endorsement.

Maybe there wasn't any; maybe they just like each other.

It's just the way Washington works and it's been that way for years.

I know this disappoints all of the purists and idealists out there but nobody is going to live up to your expectations. I've seen too many good Dems trashed here on DU when they do something somebody doesn't like.

[martymar64]

91. Obama can be forgiven, but not Joementum

His endorsement of war without end on behalf of AIPAC is unforgiveable.
Innocent Iraqi children are dying right now as a result of the actions of this POS.

[rucky]

35. If I were a politician...

I wouldn't get involved in primary endorsements. You never know which bridges you'll be burning.

[RogueTrooper]

37. Agiprop dolstein?

I don't think Barack Obama said "Drop dead. I'm backing Joe Lieberman" to the "left-wing" blogsphere at all.

Did he now? I think that may be what you wanted him to say. An I think that is what you want us ( the erstwhile left-wing blogsphere ) to believe he said.

but he didn't. He said this:

"The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it,"

Desperate times for your boy, dolstein if you have to come to the left-wing blogsphere and make shit up.

[DFW]

38. Obama

My daughter goes to college in DC and works part time for Emily's List. They had a meeting
with Obama, who is also working for Emily's List women Democratic candidates, most of whom
are progressive. She said he was right in step with them, so I have to assume his support
for Lieberman is a personal payback and a favor, that may or may not have been distasteful
to him. To his credit, he still insists he is learning the ropes, and is in no way ready to
be on a national ticket, even if there are calls for it. He has time to develop it, and has
the smarts to do so if he so desires. I'm in favor of giving him a chance to deliver. Once
this election is over, his debts to Lieberman are paid, one way or the other.

[Disturbed]

39. Peace Patriot laid it out .

I agree with his statements.

[sendero]

40. Who would be surprised....

.... they are peas in a pod. Useless politicians the both of them.

I've been waiting for Obama to do ONE GOD DAMNED THING to justify all the love he gets around here. Good thing I didn't hold my breath. He's just another centrist, appeasing, triangulating pile of bullshit.

His "endorsement" is worth a bucket of warm spit.

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. There will be a lot of prominent Democrats who will support Lieberman

this year. If Senator Obama's support of Leiberman outrages some people, just wait!

[CTLawGuy]

134. unfortunately yes

the entire state party will stand behind him as well as national dems.

Thankfully Town parties are less intertwined with Joe.


This race will be the people vs. the establishment.

[Totally Committed]

46. Sorry, implicit support for Joe-kster is bad enough....

but, explicit? He's lost me. I was willing to give Obama a pass for all his mis-steps up to now for being new, but this is it... he's off my list. Just another Belt-way suck-up.

TC

[mucifer]

47. Obama has done some good work as a senator

The major issues he works on are AIDS in Africa and securing loose nukes. I'll be voting for him again.

[leesa]

48. GOP Joe and Obama...a cute couple. Is Obama going for Asst

Secrectary of Defense? What a couple of tools.

[truebrit71]

49. Sorry Obama, but NO he DOESN'T serve on our behalf...

...keep talking pal, the more you speak the less I like...

[Radical Activist]

61. Incumbent Senators always back eachother.

Its a personal and professional courtesy. Doing otherwise would be pointlessly stupid and political suicide for Obama if he expects to get support in the Senate for anything at all ever again. Obama has to live in the real world.

[WillyT]

64. Damn... And I Had Such High Hopes For Obama...

The 'courage' of the Centrists...

:puke:

[Capn Sunshine]

65. If you have a problem with this

send money to Ned Lamont. If you are a Conn. citizen, or want to do netroot work,http://nedlamont.com/page/signup"> volunteer manpower.

It's called a primary, folks. Get used to it.

[Zhade]

74. Well, that's certainly his right.

Fortunately, I don't live in his state, and thus don't have to start looking for another candidate for next time.

But I do think Obama is niave if he really thinks Lieberman "serves on our behalf".

[LittleClarkie]

75. How about not putting words in the man's mouth

He disagrees with those who dislike Lieberman. But didn't tell anyone to drop dead.

I call flamebait.

[motocicleta]

103. Seconded

I've never experienced the misrepresentation that is dolstein before. I'll wash my hands next time before reading some dreck he dishes out.

[Larkspur]

81. I'm so glad now that I never donated to Obama in 2004

Lieberman is the wrong choice for a mento. Russ Feingold would have been much better. Feingold has political courage. Lieberman has greed and ego.

[enough already]

86. Oh, I see now.

So those of us that see Joe-mentum as the corporate bushit sell out that he is don't have "good sense".

F you very much, Senator Obama.

[iconoclastNYC]

90. It's dissapointing but I'll over look it.

You can't demand that every politician do every single thing you want.

Liberman is a jerk but most D.C. insiders think that Lamont has no chance in hell.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[Bushfire]

96. Joe's losing his "momentum" if he needs to drag Obama to CT

go Ned Lamont!

[Hippo_Tron]

109. Agreed, that is what I make of this story

Obama's trying to make his friends and that is somewhat understandable. Of course, why would such a "safe" incumbent feel the need to bring someone like Obama to speak for him?

[Canuckistanian]

97. Obama's political dumpster-diving

Why, with all the fine statesmen out there, would Obama choose Lieberman to align himself with?

Sorry, I know Lieberman has the right stuff legislatively, but he's a walking disaster in the leadership area.

And he's offended lots of people who used to support him.

[Lerkfish]

98. just as an aside, I hear a lot of trashing of "leftists" ....

when I hear terms bandied about like "purists" and "Lala lefties" and "leftists" on this board I keep getting this visual image:



I dunno why. :shrug:

being called a "lefty" by another democrat always puzzles me.

[Tom Joad]

99. You sir, are exactly right.

Whole lotta red-baiting going on here. Or should i call it green-baiting.

[Lerkfish]

100. I don't want to think bad things, but I AM confused by it.

I pretty much think "progressive" SHOULD describe the party. So it make me scratch my head when people, supposedly in the party, keep attacking what they consider "leftists" and "progressive purists".

To me, it seems equivalent to attending a NOW meeting and referring to other meeting goers as "feminazis".

:shrug:

[Warren Stupidity]

132. True.

However I get to call Dolstein a rightwing zell miller 'Democrat', so I guess its fair play.

Seriously, you have a point. Exactly when did it become ok on DU to puke all over the left wing of the party?

[dpbrown]

101. Just another symptom of the backbone problem

Now Obama's an "insider" and they all stick together...when they should be sticking it to Bush and his corrupt cronyism, his secret governmentizing, his Constitution-shredding, and his war-hardon flogging ministers of hate.

[MindMatter]

102. Joe-mentum, meet Joe-bama

Or "How to become a loser in 7 easy steps."

[DS1]

104. DS1, via blogosphere, to Obama

I don't have to tell you to drop dead, supporting Joementum has already put you there

[V. Kid]

108. "Lieberman became Obama's mentor"...

...Oh dear, I suppose Obama doesn't want to be a rising star anymore.

[Hippo_Tron]

110. I don't buy that Lieberman became Obama's mentor...

just because some article says that. If it came out of Obama's mouth, that would be a different story.

[V. Kid]

117. That's a good point...

...because taking political advice from Joe"mentum" Lieberman would be questionable to say the least.

[BigBearJohn]

118. Obama has lost my support. Something about him I just don't trust.

[rman]

119. The RW blogosphere will love him for it

Good to know where he stands

[Festivito]

120. Notice what he says. Not Lieberman OVER another.

Just that Obama says that Lieberman is worth supporting. (Perhaps over a Republican.)

Note that he has not stopped himself from supporting another D running against Joe, as he shouldn't, considering that anything can happen in the future.

I think some people around here are drunk on their power to topple, not to build, to topple.

[AtomicKitten]

124. duly noted

I prefer to support than tear down, but that's me.

[fujiyama]

127. I think

you are reading too much into this (as are some others as well).

An incumbent senator supports a fellow party incumbent. No surprise here. As long as Obama isn't stupid enough to form a foreign policy world view as deluded and twisted as Lieberman, I have no problem with him.

However, Lieberman has undercut Dem talking points on several occassions. Funny, Dolstein, you frequently criticize those on the far left when they divide the party (and sometimes they certainly deserve it), but how come you don't do the same when Lieberman lashes out at Dems claiming "they undermine the credibility of the president at the nation's peril"? These are RW talking points, basically saying that dissent hurts national security.

Lieberman did the same during the election, basically apologizing for torture at Abu Ghraib, his response being "Why didn't the terrorists apologize for 9/11"? Or let me see, at another point he gave half hearted support of Kerry when addressing a Jewish group basically saying that, Bush has been great for Israel...I'm sure Kerry will be good. Lieberman like many RWers believe that the only way to support Israel is by supporting Likudnik policies.

Lieberman has no sense of national security or foreign policy issues whatsoever. His support of the war completely proves it. He had no forsight before it and continues to hold on to his misguided beliefs that somehow removing invading Iraq will be beneficial to the world. Instead it has resulted in the deaths of likely over a hundred thousand Iraq lives and over two thousand American lives, and brought about a civil war.

Also please note the reason why Lieberman gets attacked more than other conservative Dems is because of his willingness to go publically and vocally on TV and defend Bush. He gets more attention than say, Nelson of NE, because he was on a national ticket at one point. He lends credibility to Bush, giving them a "bipartisan" cover ("see we have a Dem supporting us!").

[newfaceinhell]

133. Dishonest flamebait. He didn't tell anyone to "drop dead"

Obama appears to be capable of respectfully disagreeing with others in the party, as he doesn in this case with most left-wing bloggers. Apparently, you not only lack that ability, but are incapable of grasping that others do not.

[IndianaGreen]

141. The words ascribed to Obama in the thread's title are the OP's

not Obama's words. I have seen another pro-DLC DUer use the same tactic on another thread involving another Congressional race.

Having said that, I find nothing in Obama's conduct and words that give me any comfort as to his commitment to the Constitution and the Republic. When it comes to Profiles in Courage, Obama's bio won't be meriting a chapter in it.

[dolstein]

142. If you knew your history, you'd realize this is a reference . . .

to the famous New York Daily News headline: "Ford to City: Drop Dead." Of course, President Ford didn't actually use those actual words, but his actions in refusing (initially -- he eventually relented) assistance to New York City in the form of loan guarantees was clearly interpreted to mean precisely that.

And I don't see how any left-winger who's part of the Lieberman lynch mob can draw any comfort from Obama's endorsement of Lieberman.

[rocktivity]

136. Obama said this at a DEM fundraiser FOR Joe who was IN ATTENDANCE

What else COULD he say--that we was going to back Lamont?

:crazy:
rocknation

[depakid]

138. Bottom line- won't help Lieberman, but will hurt Obama

Yet another in what's become a series of misteps for the junior Senator from Illinois.

Hitch your wagon to the discredited wing of the party. Brilliant move. Kinda like backstabbing the DNC chairman and mouthing off about the filibuster.

[IndianaGreen]

139. Did Obama kiss Holy Joe like Bush did?

When Obama says that Holy Joe should be the one to win the nomination, what did he mean by "serve on our behalf"? Who is "our" in Obama's universe? It certainly it isn't those that oppose Lieberman's views on the war, on PATRIOT, Bush's gulag, the Constitution and an imperial presidency. Obama is not on our side of the barricades!

[JNelson6563]

140. Sad picture

Lieberman having to hide behind the psuedo Dem hero Obama. It's come to this has it? *sigh*

Julie

[saltpoint]

147. Absent an unseen personal tragedy or unexpected political scandal,

I believe Senator Obama will one day be President Obama.

If this happens, and I would support it enthusiastically, I would welcome the energy Obama brings to issues with his very considerable command of language.

I watched with a group of grizzled veterans the C-Span coverage of Obama's keynote address to the Boston convention in 2004. It was a magnificent address in both content and context, and delivered deftly. Americans who missed it missed a resonant part of their own future and an opportunity for genuine uplift.

Obama is a politician, and possibly he is a very skilled one. His record as a U.S. Senate is in its very early stages and his alliance with an incumbent senator from Connecticut, even one whose support for Bush sticks in my craw, is less the point than what Obama brings to the collective table.

It is also very possible, given his editorial background and skills, that Senator Obama is aware of and very appreciative of, Lieberman's outstanding early work in the South during the civil rights conflicts. As Southern governors stood in school doorways with axe handles, Lieberman volunteered time and muscle to freeing those doorways so that all could attend colleges. I suspect that Obama acknowledges this as more than a political expediency and regards it as genuine soulwork. So do I.

I argue that those gifts are considerable, significant, history-worthy, and inspirational. I'm a fan. A supporter. I believe it is untoward and finally undemocratic to dump a champion over one or two issues. The long-term trajectory suggests significant beneficial outcomes when a gifted few people represent all the rest of the people.

Obama exceeds those expectations, even early on, and I salute him for it.

[Nutmegger]

150. FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, OF THE PEOPLE!

My, my, my, we sure don't understand that whole "democracy" thing huh?

Oh well, I'm going to participate in the process.