Balz: Lieberman loss could prevent Clinton 08, lead to Gore 08

[AlGore-08.com]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/05/AR2006080500963.html

Lieberman Loss Could Be a Party Watershed
Antiwar Wing May Gain in Influence

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 6, 2006; Page A01

FARMINGTON, Conn., Aug. 5 -- The passion and energy fueling the antiwar challenge to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in Connecticut's Senate primary signal a power shift inside the Democratic Party that could reshape the politics of national security and dramatically alter the battle for the party's 2008 presidential nomination, according to strategists in both political parties.

(snip)

An upset by Lamont would affect the political calculations of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who like Lieberman supported giving Bush authority to wage the Iraq war, and could excite interest in a comeback by former vice president Al Gore, who warned in 2002 that the war could be a grave strategic error. For at least the next year, any Democrat hoping to play on the 2008 stage would need to reckon with the implications of Lieberman's repudiation.

(snip)

None (of the other potential 2008 candidates), however, may be as attractive to the grass-roots activists as Gore. He has said he cannot conceive of circumstances that would put him in the race. But he may be coaxed to reconsider if the sentiment for him grows after the November midterm elections.

(more... )

[NMDemDist2]

1. go Al go! n/t

[davidinalameda]

3. amen to that

I like Gore

he wouldn't necessarily be my first choice in 2008 but I would work my butt off for him in the general

[Mojambo]

2. All good news to me.

Go Ned and Go Al.

[saltpoint]

4. I wouldn't count Senator Clinton out just yet. But Senator Clinton had

better not count Al Gore out just yet either.

Al is no slouch on the issues. It really depends on how badly he wants back in the arena.

[NativeTexan]

14. She is smart enough NOT to count ANY ............

....chickens before they are hatched....as we say down here. Gore/Clark would work for me too.

[saltpoint]

23. She has to survive the Iowa caucuses. The field is going to be

jammed with talented Democrats with a lot to offer.

She's going to have to whip them all to be considered "frontrunner."

At this point, I don't believe she wil win the Iowa caucus, and may even place third, fourth, or fifth.

[Iowa]

35. I agree...

At one time it was suggested that Tom Vilsack's candidacy existed to provide an excuse for HRC to take a pass on Iowa. But a few weeks ago, Vilsack's numbers with Iowa Dems were pathetic. She'll need to find a better excuse to avoid Iowa, because she'd be buried here, IMO.

[saltpoint]

39. Hi, Iowa. I love your lighthouse avatar. Just excellent.

'Appreciate also the insights from someone on the ground in Iowa.

It's going to be a wild night, at least looking at it this far away from the first votes. Keep us updated! We're politics junkies and the Iowa fix is powerful!

[Iowa]

56. Thanks Old Crusoe...

I'm looking forward to meeting the candidates. We get to meet them and visit one-on-one with them; Iowa is a fun place to be once every four years.

[Recursion]

46. Didn't WJC take a pass on Iowa and leave it to Tsongas?

And then became the "comeback kid" in New Hampshire?

[NativeTexan]

52. yep

[Iowa]

55. No, Clinton passed on Iowa because of Tom Harkin...

...and Harkin went on to win big in Iowa in 1992. Furthermore, Clinton didn't win New Hampshire - Tsongas did. At least that's my recollection.

[NativeTexan]

57. I think you are correct....I was actually yep'n on............

........him passing on Iowa......and then winning the White House.

[Iowa]

54. No, if memory serves, WJC passed on Iowa in 1992 because...

...Senator Tom Harkin, Iowa's home boy, ran (and won big). So I don't think Clinton was leaving it to Tsongas - he was leaving it to Harkin. And I believe Tsongas then went on to win in New Hampshire.

[NativeTexan]

64. Actually...nobody seriously wanted to face GHWB because........

.......of his win over Saddam in the Gulf War. BUT, my man WJC decided that he wasn't afraid because he had answers for it all......and HE DID!

Oh the good old days of having a president with a BRAIN!!

[Iowa]

65. Yep, those were the good old days...

...a president with smarts and legitimacy.

[NativeTexan]

69. Yep, Iowa...and..........

.........keep on truckin' to 1000 posts!!

[blm]

77. Uh - except all the headlines turned AGAINST Poppy when Iraqgate and

indictments came out on IranContra and more BCCI info was hitting the news. Last half of 91 and all of 92 turned into a really bad news year for Poppy.

That was the last election that this country had any semblance of balance in its newsmedia.

[adigal]

67. I just read that she knows that she would probably not win

and that she is not as enthusiastic about running as her husband is for her.

God, I hope she stays the hell out.

[Clark2008]

25. Clark will not be V/P.

That's an underuse of his skills.

[NativeTexan]

53. Probably......but at this point, I believe that for many........

.....they are not closing any options. It is way too early. Too many variables exist now.

[Baselinereality]

19. Half the Country Counts Senator Clinton Out...

So I hope that she is nothing more than a red herring.

[saltpoint]

22. If she is a red herring, she is among the best-funded red herrings

ever to hold office.

[Baselinereality]

27. Well...Ross Perot Had a Hefty War Chest At One Point, Too.

I think America is ready to accept the Democratic Party back into its evangelical bosom. The ONE candidate that would assuredly NOT heal the rift between conservatives and liberals is Hillary Clinton.

There are too many things wrong with America in the hands of the Republican party to entrust the 2008 election not only to a WOMAN, (which would be historic within itself), but HILLARY CLINTON.

Everyone who realized that Ralph Nader running in 2004 was a bad idea should recognize that Hillary Clinton running in 2008 is just as horrible, if not worse, an idea.

The Republican Party is running on fumes, not so as you'd know it from the Democratic Party. So many of their issues have no more impetus. The ONLY thing that would TRULY rally the base, at this point, would be the nomination of Hillary Clinton to the Democratic ticket. I have moderate conservative friends who hate that woman.

Not only that, but she SUPPORTED an anti-flag burning amendment. What's up with that?

[saltpoint]

28. Other Democrats woo me with redder roses than Senator Clinton,

but I think it's foolhardy to dismiss her.

She's a player, a major player, with a fat wallot and significant support.

I am still calling her for a third-, fourth-, or fifth-place finish in the Iowa caucus in a year and a half.

[Baselinereality]

31. I Know She's A Major Player In The Democratic Party,

Because they tell me so.

But, I also know that she is ACID to conservatives and evangelicals.

I haven't done any polling, I've just lived in North Carolina for the past year, and what I can tell you is that people, even conservatives, hate what this country is doing and where it is heading. The people WANT a strong leader with vision.

Hillary Clinton is NOT the person. She is young, however. I'm not ruling 2012 or 2016 out for her.

Unfortunately, it's not up to me.

[saltpoint]

33. I understand your point about her being off-putting to many voters,

but she also has significant strength.

Articles promoting her as a world-profile figure will explode after her landslide win for re-election to the Senate this November. The NY State Republican Party has rarely been this hapless and lame. They are in for the drubbing of their lives, and Senator Clinton will be piped through every cable news service on earth by midnight Eastern Time, if not before, as those vote totals roll in. Talk of her White House ambitions will be on the lips of every pundit in the land.

And don't forget -- the Rethugs have nominated and elected some of the most un-electable creatures in Satan's realm. Richard Nixon -- a cadaverous thug. Gerald Ford -- an elderly Boy Scout with bean mesh for brains. Ronald Reagan -- a shitty actor and an immoral dunce. And the two Bushes, the second even worse than the first and the first just barely sentient to begin with.

[Baselinereality]

34. I HATE Conservative Politics. Frickin' Hate It. BUT!

If Hillary Clinton is the 2008 Democratic Nominee, I will TOTALLY understand why Bill Frist or Mike Huckabee or Sam Frickin' Brownback becomes president.

I'm not saying that the Madame Senator from New York is not a brilliant woman. I know she is. I'm sure she is. If we were drinking merlot together I'm sure I would attempt to seduce her, just as I would Angelina Jolie or Terry Gross.

But, that's not really important right now.

(Although, if you'd like to hear more about my fantasies, I'm sure you can call me for $3.99 a minute. Maybe even $3.89.)

She is too hot hot hot to be even remotely serious a candidate. I mean, it's just insanity to think that she has a chance. Evangelicals see her as THE DEVIL.

No amount of campaign funding can overcome that.

[saltpoint]

40. Agree that she faces an uphill climb with many voters and that she will

not change the votes of the fundie nutcases.

Sam Brownback is one of those fundie nutcases, and I hope he is thwarted by GOP primary voters. I could see him splitting off and forming a Jesus-in-the Schools Party and running that way, especially if "secular" McCain is nominated. A split GOP vote would be ok by me.

Senator Clinton's national profile will have to be re-evaluated after her likely win in November. If she somehow loses ground and is less than impressive in that race, it might tarnish her image a little, but right now it looks as if she and Spitzer are going to float all Democratic boats in NY. Big headlines, early in the evening on Nov. 7th. She seems positioned to charge out of that event with a full head of steam toward a presidential run.

I hear you completely on constituent voting difficulties for her, but feel she is competitive for the nomination, the outcome of the Iowa caucuses notwithstanding.

[Tansy_Gold]

68. Would ANYONE change the minds of the fundie nutcases?

Emotionally, I'm not behind a run by HRC, but I do think it's foolish to worry about what the ultra right wing conservative bible-thumping fundamentalists think of her. Yes, they hate her, think of her as the whore of Babylon or worse, but they aren't going to vote for Gore or Clark or Corzine or Biden or Kerry or Edwards or any other Dem anyway!

Write them off. Leave them to the pukes. FORGET ABOUT THEM. Nothing short of running Jesus H. Christ would get their vote, and I'm not sure they'd vote for him.

If you must worry about the people on the other side, worry about the moderate Republicans, the fiscally conservative but socially moderate ones, and point out to them that the boooooshies are NOT fiscally conservative by any means and the Dems are (at best) socially moderate.

But for crying out loud, PUH-LEASE stop worrying about trying to get the ultra fundie Jesus-freaky vote! It ain't gonna happen!


Tansy Gold

[Bucky]

72. That said, most Republican voters aren't "fundy nutcases"

There's a lot of good reason to think that Democrats can make inroads with people who've been voting Republican for a long time. To appeal to middle of the road voters who are starting to wake up to who their economic friends and enemies are is not the same thing as "appealing to fundy nutcases". Many people have been conditioned by years of right wing smears to think that Democrats are anti-family, anti-religion, and even anti-American. That's a reality we all have to deal with if we want to flip red states blue.

In order to have a dialogue with these voters, we have to communicate to them the reality that we are the sensible party and the Republicans are the party of intrusion into personal lives. It is necessary to signal to many people--and to constantly sell that message--that we are in their corner and wish only to protect their rights as citizens. That's not pandering to right wingers. That's just decompressing a lot of bloated lies about us. Any smart candidate will understand from the gut that that's what we need to do in order to save our country from this barbaric mob of confidence men who've taken over the White House.

[saltpoint]

76. Tip of the hat to you, Bucky. Hell of a fine post.

I'm glad you're on the blue side!

:toast: :dem: :thumbsup:

[saltpoint]

75. Classic misread of context.

And for the record, I'll worry about robin eggs or screwdrivers if I want.

Clinton's demographic appeal is less than her profile and war chest. The GOP nevertheless has fewer talented candidates, unless you count the fundie nutcase appeal of Sam Brownback. He's a star, of that ilk, anyway, insomuch as he can motivate the crazies.

[Bucky]

73. Clinton and the flag burning amendment

The Republican Party is running on fumes, not so as you'd know it from the Democratic Party. So many of their issues have no more impetus. The ONLY thing that would TRULY rally the base, at this point, would be the nomination of Hillary Clinton to the Democratic ticket. I have moderate conservative friends who hate that woman.

Not only that, but she SUPPORTED an anti-flag burning amendment. What's up with that?

Actually, she opposed the flag desicration amendment, but did support another bill. It was designed to "give cover" to Democrats on the absurd flag burning issue. I don't think we need to have cover on this issue, but I don't blame Mrs Clinton for seeking cover either--just like I wouldn't sneer at a crime victim who gets skittish when hearing harmless fire crackers go off. Mrs Clinton was very much a mugging victim by the well funded right wing lynch mob that went personally after her and her family for 10 years--and continue to sharpen their claws on her public image to this day.

Her bill specifically made it a crime (punishable by fine) to burn a flag on federal property. It still won't pass judicial muster. Only a Constitutional amendment can ever make flag burning anything other than an act of political speech protected by the First Amendment. It's a dumb idea with no practicable reality. Why should federal property be places exempt from some political ideas? On its face the suggestion is ludicrous. But in regulating behavior on federal property, there's an off-side chance that the Supremes could let this regulation slide. In theory this compromise might forestall the wingers from further defacing the Constitution---that's the theory, anyway.

Of course, the whole issue is stupid and confusing. Try not to be confused about which dumb law she supported, however.

[mcscajun]

5. OOOhhhhh..be still my beating heart.

That's just a beautiful thought.

[elocs]

6. The Democrats cannot, cannot, cannot

have a candidate in 08 who supported the war in Iraq in any shape or form. It will be the kiss of death.

[otohara]

7. Fine With Otohara & Family

We love Mr. Gore and the lovely Mrs. Gore too! I'm over the whole record label stuff - glad it's there for parents, grandparents and the musically uninformed.

[Punkingal]

8. Yes, yes, yes!!!!!

President Gore running for President again....wouldn't that be too wonderful??????

[wanpete]

9. no problem with this for me.

[Baselinereality]

10. Is This Story Planted By The Gore Campaign?

(Which he isn't encouraging or backing?) Good for him.

But, wait...

So, let me understand this...

If Joe Lieberman fails to win the democratic party nomination in tiny little Connecticut on Tuesday, (which doesn't mean that he wouldn't retain his Senate seat if he ran as an Independent in the November election, mind you), that will somehow BENEFIT Al Gore's 2008 presidential bid? Al Gore? The man that selected Joe Lieberman as his Vice Presidential candidate in 2000?

Tell me why I should begin to understand the nature of American politics? Because it all makes sense to who, exactly?

Does anyone actually believe that the Democratic Party isn't completely confused?

[NYCGirl]

12. If you actually read the story, it's quite thoroughly explained.

I think you may be the one who's confused.

[Baselinereality]

21. Isn't That A Picture Of...

Emperor Palpatin? Or however you spell it?

Sigh.

I'm on your side, you that have the wherewithall to scan and upload the EW cover of Al Gore.

Is it that Democrats have no sense of humor or, rather, simply, that intensely political people have no sense of humor?

It's not going to stop me; I'm just asking.

[NYCGirl]

41. You know what's funny? People who seriously say really dumb things and

then claim, "I was just kidding. Don't you have a sense of humor?" That's what's funny.

BTW, no scanning involved. The pic was on the EW site. This one, too:



Edited to add: I realize your first paragraph was a joke. I was responding to the rest of it.

[Seabiscuit]

13. Gore didn't pick Lieberman in 2000. The DLC did.

They gave Al an ultimatum: if you want our support, Liebeman's your running mate. That was back when the DLC actually had some clout. They've cost us so many elections by now that they're as relevant as a diplodocus.

[Baselinereality]

18. You Say Diplodocus Like It's A Bad Thing.

I've drank diplodocus milk and, actually, it's quite healthy.

I think that the addition of Joe Lieberman on the 2000 ticket cost the Democrats the election: not because he was Jewish, but just because he was a boring, staid, dead weight. The only people that REALLY wanted to vote for Joe Lieberman voted for Pat Buchanan instead.

Ha ha.

(That kind of humor is only funny when it's coming out of Jon Stewart's mouth.)

I simply find it ironic that the fall of Joe Lieberman, (who was an insignificant nobody prior to Al Gore's--you say the DLC's--plucking him from obscurity), is somehow going to signify a shift toward Al Gore in the 2008 campaign.

At this point, two years out, I am all for Al Gore. I love an underdog; he has our attention with the documentary; Hillary Clinton is a sure-fire disaster, etc.

It's just IRONIC that this discussion is even being conducted, particularly in the press.

We have to laugh a little bit about it.

I know things are tough right now for us left-leaning people; but we have to laugh a little bit. And Al Gore profiting from Joe Lieberman's failure is FUNNY.

[Seabiscuit]

44. If you know where I can get some diplodocus milk, don't bogart it!

One of my favorite dinosaurs. :)

[MrBenchley]

51. Wow! Another Seabiscuit fact pulled out of his shorts!

[Seabiscuit]

74. OMG! Another weo dgnj l; f jngnqw z xzyre 'aro9 g7

pulled out of Mr. Benchley's shorts.

What's next?

wero8iblak anasdg ay ab09oiauy aclckiaut cyroitu>?????

Well, of course.

What else could one expect?

[Dr.Phool]

15. I wasn't crazy about Gore in 2000

I almost voted for Nader, but voted for Gore instead.

This time, I'll work my ass off for a Gore campaign!

[Samantha]

63. It has ALWAYS been the Liebermans and Clintons who were connected

at the political hip -- not the Liebermans and Gores. It was the Clinton influence that got Lieberman the second spot on the 2000 ticket. The idea was he could help Gore carry Florida.

Hillary Clinton and Al Gore HAVE ALWAYS been at political odds (since 1992). They really, really do not like each other.

Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman are political bedfellows. A Lieberman loss signals a severe decline in Hillary's political stock. That decline does nothing but make Al Gore's political chances at the presidency nothing but rosier.

I have attempted to explain this because you asked. That's the lay of the political landscape.

[hippiechick]

11. PLEASE OH PLEASE OH PLEASE LET IT BE SO !!!

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[AtomicKitten]

16. Nothing would please me more.

eom

[Vidar]

17. Nice to see it in print. Here's hoping.

[Redneck Socialist]

20. It's not the war stupid, it's bush.

Is it just me or is the media (perhaps deliberately so) totally missing the point of Lamont/Lieberman?

It's not the war, or even Joe's full throated support of it, plenty of Dems support the war to one degree or another, it's bush. More specifically it's the fact that Lieberman has had his tongue stuck down bush's throat for the better part of five years now. It's the sense of betrayal that that engenders that pisses people off about lieberman, not simply his pro war nonsense.

I'm sick to death of the media portraying Lamont's campaign as somehow fueled by a bunch of left wing crazies out on the internets. While I'm no fan of Lieberman, my opinion of him means fuck all since I don't live in Connecticut. I hesitate to speak for Connecticut Democrats, but I suspect that they are less pissed at Joe because of his stance on the war than they are by his embrace of bush.

That's what this is about, bush and at least appearing to be in opposition to the republican regime.

[rosesaylavee]

38. That's why the float following Lieberman

around has been so effective. I don't have it handy right now - but it is of two heads kissing - one being Joe and the other B*shbot.

It's not just the war. It's whoever has allowed this administration to run roughshod over the country and the world no matter their political affiliation.

If I were a DEM running for anything for the next ten years, I would have a solid list of ACTIONS (legislations introduced/voted upon, letters written, etc.) that I personally took to protest what this man and his administration has done to the Constitution and our economy.

[eviltwin2525]

50. No, it's the abject failure of "conservatism" to deal with reality

Bush is just the (incredibly dangerous) buffoon standing in front of the doomsday machine: all he knows about it is which button to push to start it.

[Clark2008]

24. Um... Al's not running. eom

[saltpoint]

26. Ya never know. He just might.

[Baselinereality]

29. What does "eom" mean?

I know it makes me look the jackass to ask, but I am really ig'nant.

[saltpoint]

30. "End of message" (EOM)

--but you could also say it stands for "evangelicals or morons," as in, "The Republican party is comprised of evangelicals or morons, take your pick."

Posters sometimes use "End of Message" or "No Text" (EOM or n/t) to indicate to others that their only remarks are in the subject line and not in the text box below.

Welcome to DU.

[Baselinereality]

32. Oh, God Bless You. Valuable Information You Gave Me. EOM!!!

[readmoreoften]

59. Hey baseline, belated Welcome to DU.

I enjoy your posts. You've already become a lovely asset to DU. I'm glad that Terry Gross has somewhere to turn in case she needs a lil sumpin sumpin. I would oblige myself, but in my fantasies the women look like a cross between young Elvis and John Goodman back when he was on Roseanne. :toast:

[JNelson6563]

37. Hope springs eternal, doesn't it?

I don't blame you for hoping Gore doesn't jump in. ;-)

[Mabus]

58. Neither is Clark

yet I see a lot of people wanting Clark to run.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Wesley Clark - Not running, or just not running yet?

In the Austin American-Statesman's 'Reporter's notebook' column a few weeks ago we find this slightly cryptic comment from retired General Wesley Clark. Actually, maybe it's not the comment that's cryptic, just the way it's reported. (Scroll down for the story - it's the second headline in the column).

After reporting on Clark's remarks about Bob Gammage, an unsuccessful candidate for the Democratic nomination for Governor of Texas, who Clark supported, the American-Statesman says: "He added that several presidential hopefuls have started gearing up for 2008."

"I'm not one of them," the American-Statesman then quotes Clark as saying.

Not a presidential hopeful? Or not yet gearing up for 2008? I think the latter. The American-Statesman seems to think the former. "Maybe he's biding for a call on running for vice president," it concludes. http://www.ovaloffice2008.com/2006/07/wesley-clark-not-running-or-just-not.html

[Hippo_Tron]

36. I look forward to seeing Senator Clinton campaigning for Ned Lamont

Or at least offering to do so.

[leesa]

42. Works for me. We've had enough of the warmongering corporate whores.

[johnaries]

43. Draft Gore!

I know he's still not polling that well across the country, but that will change. We need to get as many people as possible to see him in Inconvient Truth, and tell them about his private rescue efforts in NOLA.

While Bush was playing guitar and eating birthday cake, Al chartered 2 747's to fly out hospital patients hit by Katrina. Talked directly to the President of American Airlines and promsed over the phone to guarantee payment. As the Pres of AA said, "If Al Gore gave his word, that's good enough for me!"

THAT's a HERO!

[Uncle Joe]

45. Thanks for posting AlGore 08

Kicked and recommended

:kick:

[MsMagnificent]

47. Won't you join me in a Hallelujah Chorus?!

Joy Joy Joy!!! :bounce: :toast: :party: :loveya: :grouphug: :woohoo:


& here's a thought:

How about Gore/Clark '08? :patriot:

Please God... please God...

[robbedvoter]

48. Clark is the Gore who accepted draft, didn't bail out on me.

At least to this grass roots activist.
But hell, yeah, I won't vote for any "tea cups/this time the votes will be counted" fraud - not for any warmonger that makes a U-turn because poll numbers changed.

[Cha]

49. Ideally, Gore would come

back to win in 2008 and go two full terms and bring the country back from the abyss bush and his mad puppeteers have pushed it into.

And the jackoff fascist media would be replaced by Edward R Murrows and Walter Cronkites.

the bushitlers would go to the Hague and spend the rest of their lives on Earth behind bars and it would not be an Abi Ghraib. The rest of humanity is not as inhumane as they are.

[BelgianMadCow]

60. I too think the Lieberman-Lamont race has pivotal qualities. K&R for Gore

It would show the politicians on all sides how far the spectrum of public opinion has shifted, and confirming how far "left" a political stand is "allowed".

People who missed it : check out Al's MLK speech!!!

[janx]

61. The "watershed" has already happened. Lieberman

is the first casualty. Congress has every reason to feel a bit nervous.

[BrklynLiberal]

62. Is that supposed to be bad news?

[Skittles]

66. that's what I was thinking

I want these war-supporting bastards to know the score, whatever the fallout may be

[politicasista]

70. Gore is focused on Global Warming and the 06 elections

I wouldn't count anyone out yet. We don't control the media. We haven't fixed the voting machines. We don't control three branches of government (as of yet. :)).

Without this everyone is a longshot.

[Snivi Yllom]

71. now how's that for incentive?

;)