Why is it a DU shocker that Democrats "Kerry/Clinton/Bayh" and others are

[gully]

supporting the Democratic Nominee in Connecticut?

If Lieberman had won, Dean, Kerry, Clinton, Bayh and others would have also issued statements supporting the nominee. It's how we do things.

[rodeodance]

1. It is no shock to me. It is what I expect.

[Caoimhe]

2. I agree n/t

Joe should have some grace and bow out now.

[blm]

3. Is that how it's being spun? I haven't watched tv today so haven't

caught the big spin.

[gully]

9. People here seem surprised, I've not tuned in either.

nt

[rodeodance]

4. and add H. Dean to your list (I posted it on DU(

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

5. The Same Folks Surprised The Corporate Media Is Pushing Joe

People here thought that they would give more exposure and credibility to Lamont, just because he won a little ol' insignificant primary.

They'll SPIN whatever they feel like SPINNING, and it will usually result in coverage for the conservative, which is why they will continue to push Lieberman, and treat Lamont like some sort of outcast.

[Karenca]

6. That's what you're supposed to do---

support your party.

Listen to how Lieberman is now putting down the party every chance he gets.

[booley]

7. If you are talkign about shock from Dems

It might be because there does seem to be a kind of protect the incumbant mentality in the Democratic leadership.

And if this race hadn't been so high profile and shown what a political cost there now is for ignoring the Dem base, they might have continued to support Lieberman.

In any case, it's nice that the Democratic leaders remembered that they are in the DEMOCRATIC party and followed the will of the people.

As for the corporate shills, they wanted Lieberman to win. They honestly can't underdstand why he didn't win, why the voters didn't just follow along with the corporate world view.

[gully]

10. Democrats have always and will continue to support our nominees.

I too am glad that "we the people" are speaking with our votes.

[LoZoccolo]

8. Because the corporatist DLC runs everything in the party blah blah... n/t

[Dr Fate]

15. Not anymore, not if we can help it. n/t

n/t

[calimary]

25. What Dr. Fate said.

NOT ANYMORE.

Ned Lamont is the embodiment of the new voter revolt.

[longship]

11. What should be a shock is Lieberman not abiding by the results

A legal election has been held. That should be the end of it. Period!

So where's the outrage? (Other than here at DU.)

I want to see somebody in office express the extent of their displeasure at the outrage of a losing candidate not abiding by an election's outcome. We're not in a Banana Republic here. The voters decide, not the candidate.

Lieberman is *not* the decider.

[quiet.american]

12. Maybe because Lamont is from the Dem wing of the Dem party

And some of us remember how much support Howard Dean got for taking that position.

[sandnsea]

27. Dean's a centrist

Somebody just told me that in a different thread, Dean was never a lefty like his opponents made him out to be.

[quiet.american]

36. :) In his own words, Dean described himself as being from --

--the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. Yes, I know all about the "Dean is a centrist" meme. :)

[unkachuck]

35. I betcha....

....what Ned wants from the Chairman, Ned will get....and rightfully so....

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. Their support is a charade

They are saying that they support Lamont. They may even cut the guy a check. But have any of them done anything to strip Lamont's opponent of his committee assignemtns in the Sentate?

[Kingofalldems]

17. The election was just yesterday

Is this your anti-Dem meme for the day?

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. Taking away Lamont's opponent's power is pro-Dem

[gully]

19. The election was just yesterday, that will come if he continues in the

direction he's going.

[Freddie Stubbs]

47. If they do it now perhaps they can nip this in the bud

[SaveElmer]

22. Always some litmus test...

And when they meet one up comes another.

What possible good would it do to strip Lieberman of his committee assignments for 3 months , other than to make people in Connecticut feel sorry for him. The only reason to do it is to make the left feel good.

Don't rock the boat, Lamont won, don't hand Lieberman a weapon to use in the general.

[Hawkowl]

41. Maybe

If he is stripped of his committe assignments by the Dems, maybe the rethugs will hand him a chairmanship of some subcommitte. He then will be labled as caucusing with rethugs and this would finish him. All pretense of "independence" would be laid to rest.

[SaveElmer]

45. As would any chance of him winning the general...

Lieberman is not stupid...he is a smart experienced politician. And though he made some very serious missteps during the primary, you can't count on him screwing up from here forward. I see no reason to just hand him a political weapon by taking away something that he is gonna lose in 3 months anyway!

[Freddie Stubbs]

51. I am far from convinced that Lieberman will lose in November without

If the Democrats in the Senate really want lamont to win, they are going to have to play rough.

[SaveElmer]

53. This gesture is not plaing rough...

It looks petty...and given that there are still a few Democrats in the Senate supporting Lieberman, it would just induce a Democratic fight...it really is not worth it

I am glad to see that you are saying Lieberman is not done...he is still dangerous, which is why I think this is a stupid maneuver

[Freddie Stubbs]

50. Bingo!

[Freddie Stubbs]

48. Take away his ability to be an effective Senator

That is one of his selling points, that he can deliver for CT.

[SaveElmer]

52. That is already gone....

He could now be considered a lame duck Senator in the monirity party (if that)...he has no power...

They may not be expressing it publically, but I have no doubt Joe Lieberman has burned every bridge with most of his fellow Democrats (except some like Salazar and Nelson who continue to support him)..

The paramount thing is now to beat him...and it is not worth a meaningless and potentially politicall harmful gesture to get him off his committees

[OzarkDem]

37. Senate is in recess for the month of August

They won't be back in session til after Labor Day.

[Freddie Stubbs]

49. They can announce his removal today

[IronLionZion]

55. Who are you punishing, Joe or the state of Connecticut?

The Dems in CT just gave him the boot. Why do you want to deprive them of the appropriations from having a Senator with that type of power? It will take Ned some time to get to that point and he doesn't appear to look like a long-term career politician (which adds to his appeal IMO).

[Tom Joad]

14. Like they all supported the Iraq war, too. It's how its done.

[gully]

18. Who, Republicans? Over 130 Democrats voted against the war

in Iraq.

[Dr Fate]

20. Yup. And ZERO green party members voted against it.

Because they dont worry about getting elected- just trashing Democrats who DID manage to bust tail & get elected..

[gully]

21. Yep indeed, and they accuse US of group think?

:eyes:

[Tom Joad]

28. kerry, Bayh, and H. Clinton voted for it.

[politicasista]

29. Instead of repeating RW spin

why don't you support those who are for withdrawal and blame the buffoon that caused all this mess.

[Tom Joad]

30. Cuz I would be lying to say the buffon didn't have help.

[blm]

33. The buffoon DID have help - the uninformed left who couldn't comprehend

the simple fact that the IWR did not take give Bush war authorization. The WH, their mediawhores and many on the left kept repeating that the IWR was a vote for war, so Bush received little scrutiny for violating the IWR while all the focus and blame centered on the Democrats.

And still does today, even though there is PROOF BushInc knew the IWR wasn't authorization for war because the signing statement they wrote at the time is now revealed, and a few weeks ago at a hearing, Al Gonzalez ADMITTED UNDER OATH that the IWR did NOT authorize war.

[Tom Joad]

34. Blaming this on the people who opposed war and sanctions?

Gotta be kidding.

So if the IWR did not authorize war (actually, it did not, what is required is a declaration of war), why wasn't Kerry, Clinton, Bayh, Lieberman protesting from day one? Why didn't they demand the immediate return of troops? Why don't they do that now?

Instead, they insist this crime be "managed" better.

And where are they now as US weapons pound Lebanon back to the stone age? Falling over each other to say they support Israel more than the other.

[blm]

43. Kerry said hundreds of times that Bush RUSHED to war while the guidelines

were proving force was not necessary.

AFTER the invasion, ANY presidential nominee had to deal with the fact that we were there, Saddam was gone, and Iraqis would be holding their first elections right before they took office in Jan 2005.

Even Kucinich would not have pulled out the troops immediately - it was always a matter of stabilizing the country to bring in UN and NATO troops to take the onus of "occupation" off the US.

You may not care for reality, but some people NEED to address it. Bush doesn't, and neither do those who think troops could have been pulled out immediately in 2004.

[tulip]

23. It's were they've been for the past 2 years

I don't have any anger towards a Dem who voted for the war......it's what they have done since then. Have they demanded Rumsfeld's resignation? Criticized Bush openly and loudly for his incompetancy? The only one who came late to the party was Clinton but now that she's here I welcome her and I don't even support her for 08.

[mitchtv]

16. No suprise here

I am anxiously awaiting Shumer's reaction

[Zodiak]

26. From what I understand, he supports Lamont

Sounds to me like Schumer's pre-primary comments were meant to intimidate Lamont supporters into not voting for him. Now that the primary is over in Schumer's neighboring state, he is seeing the writing on the wall.

Both Schumer and the DSCC are supporting Lamont, as well they should.

I am not surprised that the leading Democrats have chosen the right path and endorsed Lamont. I am somewhat relieved that none of them went the other way...too many betrayals as of late. Now the media and the Republicans are the only ones left promoting Leiberman, and it is obvious to anyone paying attention.

It isolates Leiberman, and isolates the Republicans and the media from the people and the leaders they would elect to save the country from Bush (Democrats). That is a good thing, and, for once, I am glad the elected Democrats are finally getting it.

With that attitude, we can take this country back THIS YEAR.

[Vidar]

24. Not at all shocked, but pleased.

[Politicub]

31. Uhm, it's the right thing to do

Change is in the air, and the democratic party is electrified more than I've seen during the entire reign of Bushco. The GOP is terrified - why else would they support Leiberman?

For a real hoot, someone should go to the fweep site and look at anti lieberman remarks from the 2000 presidential race. Contrast with what the GOP is saying about lieberman today. What a pack of spineless, intellectually dead morons.

[MODemocrat]

32. Yes, that's what true Democrats do is show party loyalty

The reason I no longer regard Joe Lieberman a true Democrat. If he were, he'd stand up and endorse the
winner, like all other candidates do. That's his problem now, he forgot how he got here in the first
place.:thumbsup: :hi: :hi: :dem: :thumbsup:

[gulfcoastliberal]

38. I'm shocked they ARE NOT CALLING FOR JOE TO DROP OUT!

They are having in both ways in case he still wins the general. And I think that's fucking ridiculous.

[election_2004]

39. Not at all surprised...

I imagine Schumer received an earful from prominent Dems, a couple months back - - when Schumer was publicly hinting about being open to support an "Indy" run by Joementum.

[kerrygoddess]

40. Kerry said weeks ago he would support the nominee

No so shocking. http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=3529

[sendero]

42. We're just grateful..

... .when our leaders do what they are supposed to do. So many times THEY DO NOT.

[Sparkly]

44. Not sure whether it's a shock on DU, but

I think the media is playing it that way -- acting like it's Big News that Democrats are endorsing the nominee and "abandoning" Lieberman!!

It's ridiculous.

[Impashund Ubique]

54. Exactly.

I think it is a given that national democrats are going to support the democratic nominee. No surprises here.

If they weren't supporting Lamont, that would be a shocker.

DC dems might be self-righteous, but they are not that stupid ;)