I think this remark got tossed in response to overnight polls.

You know if the Dems strike now hard against Lieb, they will be able to sway all the voters who dont like Lieb but are voting for him for sentimental reasons or out of caution.

I can't see how Lieberman can survive that loss of legitimacy if Reid, Pelosi, Dodd and Ted Kennedy give strong statements against Lieberman saying that they supported before because he was a long term member and friend but his actions in recent months have surpassed any norms of party loyalty with his constant denigration of party members without saying a single bad word about the republicans.

That's why I dont buy the argument that most Dems are afraid of Lieberman. They just like the status quo. Schumer, sure as hell, wants to see Lieberman win. Hillary wouldn't mind. Reid put out a letter, but a little too late. He should give a statement on video or in person to make up for lost time. He should equivocally say Lieberman will lose seniority putting Lieberman on the spot whether he will caucus with the Dems. Lieberman will refuse to answer. Then the leadership will put out a statement that if Lieberman cannot commit, he is pretty much a republican at this point. THen, I want to see if the pragmatic portion of the 35% plus dems which is still supporting Lieb will continue to do so even at that point. Why don't the dems do their version of war games and see how things play out under each scenario like I just did? They got more resources to do more precise electorate research.

  Bush is such a goddamn ass.

 "Victory" in Iraq? What the hell does THAT mean?

 And why did the Republicans purge Alan Schlesinger? And that wasn't the voters who did that; that was the establishment. Anybody ask them that?

Once when I was a kid I saw a dog lying in the middle of a busy highway after it had been hit by a car. Its back was broken and it was only a matter of time before another car ran over it again and killed it outright. It laid there in the road and howled horribly. It awful.

It sounded just like Shrub here.

If we beat Joe no matter what else happens I will be an happy man.

How long are we going to let these assholes get the name of our party wrong?  It's not the "Democrat Party," it's the Democratic Party.

We should have a naming contest to come up with a fake name for the Republican Party, as they have for us.  The "Iraq Party"?  The "Foley Party"?  The "Abramoff Party"?

Heh. A ringing endorsement from the worst president ever. That'll really help.

I noticed that Bush got forgot the Republican stylebook for a second when he said, "There's only one position in the Democratic Party that everybody seems to agree on." Come on, George, don't you know that all good Republicans behave like kindergarteners in a sandbox fight and deliberately mispronounce their rivals' names? You said "Democratic Party" when you're supposed to say "Democrat Party". Don't you remember that Joe McCarthy popularized this distorted usage back in the 1950s? Don't you want to maintain this glorious name-calling tradition?

Especially when it's about all you have left.

Who are the Democrats in Connecticut who think that the guy Republicans want in the Senate is also the guy THEY want in the Senate? And have their houses been checked for lead paint?

 If Joe wins, all the other efforts and hopefully victories in the Senate races are not going to be enough, unless we sweep the board, EXCEPT for Connecticut.

 Joe IS NOT a Democratic Party representative no more.  He is like an independent, who will caucus with the party that pays him the most.  We are not talking money, but power; the quickest way to Holy Joe's heart.  

 And don't forget the Secretary of Defense job.  Jow would be replaced by a Repug, with Joe characterizing it as a chance at a greater good.  What the job will really be is the price for Joe's soul.

My husband once related to me that Al Gore was indecisive,  in 2000.  He was very similiar to Joe, when Joe is losing - aka "joementum".

I wonder if, really - the reason why Gore was intimidated into calling the election for Bush, despite him having had won it - had to do with his proximity to Joseph Lieberman.

After all, Joe Lieberman did something in 2000 that had an effect on us all: he took the Vice Presidency, and set it secondary to his own senate run. He actually stopped campaigning for Al Gore and went back to connecticut to get himself elected as senator, work on his campaign there, and in effect, state that he did not believe in Al Gore.

What a profoundly different Person Al Gore has become since.

My vote?

Al Gore for President in 2008
Howard Dean for Vice President.

If the politician Bush (whose approval only exceeds that of Mark Foley and Dick Cheney combined) wants to heap praise on Liebshen, I say let him.

I. Hate. It. When. People. Write. Like. This. For. Emph. A. Sis.

Lamont is an amateur ... so is 'Swannie' ... and we're left with that droopy whiner Joe.  I want my money back.  I hope Ned and his nice little family enjoyed their trip to Maine after the primary, while 'people talked to Joe about dropping out.' But of course, Joe's website sucks!  And Gerstein's an asshole!  And Ned gets big crowds (representing one thousandth of one pecent of the votership).  Pathetic.  Get used to six more years of this wretch.

Publican Party? That was the original riposte from Roosevelt or Truman or whomever it was.

I like Rethuglican Party. That's the name I started to use after the Brooks Brothers riot in 2000 (In fact, I think mine was the first online use of that term, which has caught on). Then there is Repiglican Party. Or just the Repukes.

What about calling them the Halliburton Party? Or the War Party? Or the Torture Party? Or the Dictatorship Party?

For an organization so vile, there are endless possibilities.