Joe wil say or do anything to win the race. He has no principles and his positions are all about what will win the election. Then he'll get back to being an enabler for Bush & AIPAC.

Hopefully the voters in CT will see thru this BS and retire the old man.

joe and george... separated at birth.

this mind-boggling turnaround is the perfect twin of Bush's, "we've never been 'stay the course,' george!"

joe lieberman is a brazen hussy!!

This is why he's winning. It's shameless, but it's exactly what he needs to do. Even if he's completely disingenuous, he's still blunting Lamont's anti-war edge.

It's really amazing...a guy utterly reinvents himself a couple months before an election, and people are lapping it up. I guess because Good 'Ol Honest Truthful Experienced Holy Joe would never act in a politically craven manner. Goshdarnit, if he says he wants to withdraw troops, then he must've always wanted to withdraw troops!

Really, it's unbelievable. And it's unbelievable to think that we have to go through this shit because CT doesn't have a sore-loser law.

The key there is without compromising our security, so all he has to say is, "well it would compromise our security" to bring our troops home from Iraq.

Then again, that's assuming he's trying to leave himself a loophole and not out-and-out lying.

Matt:

I am so impressed with your c-span performance...I have never seen a D so effectively arguing the course...ever!

Cheers

Nobody believes Lieberman is antiwar.

What the public and press and Harold Ford and Ken Salazar and NARAL and so many others are swallowing is even more ludicrous.

"Those dirty, filthy swine are calling me names," says Joe Lieberman.

And so Holy Joe will be re-elected in order to bring civility and bipartisanship back into politics.

How nice.

The enemy is easy enough.  It's your friends you sometimes need to guard your back from.

Best,  Terry

Another way to look at this is that the pressure of being forced to defend his views and see how the public feels about this moves him to a more rational position.

It is an argument for running primaries against "safe," entrenched elected officials.  Even if you don't beat them, the scare makes them more responsive to the public and less insular to the Beltway Boobies.

I still have hope that Lamont will win, but even if he doesn't I think this was good for CT and good for America.

Bill Hillsman did a great toy ad for Ventura.  How about one featuring the "Lieberspeaker," the revolutionary new artificial intelligence toy that responds with exactly what you want to hear. Even if you heard something different last week. Or next week.

If Joe's reelected, will he actually have any pull in the Senate any more?  Sure, he'll have another 6 years, but his credibility has been destroyed and it's pretty clear that he doesn't have the overwhelming support of his state.  

So, will he still have the same "power" or will he be ostracized?

Even if Lamont doesn't win, the challenge has already been successful.  The whole point of primary challenges is to change the incumbent or, failing that, forcing the incumbent to change.

Even if this change for Lieberman is merely rhetorical, and his voting record remains pro-Bush on Iraq, his change in language still moves the national debate in the right direction.  And even if he changes his tune yet again after the election (assuming Lamont doesn't manage to pull it out), he's shown to be a wimpy flip-flopper who can't keep his story straight.  He also cannot be credibly held up as representative of Democrats at large - he's just some independent with principles that change depending on who he's trying to pander to this week.

It's time for us to start spinning the Connectcut race as a rebuke of George W. Bush and the GOP on Iraq.

We need to start saying, all over the place, that even Joe Lieberman now supports ending the war.

The reason for this is so that the GOP can't claim that Lieberman won by sticking to his principles on Iraq. He won because he, rhetorically at least, aped Ned Lamont and the anti-war faction.

Ned should press his advantage and call for Lieberman to come out more forceful to criticize Buhs and join with him and other Democrats in crafying a plan to get ouit opf Iraq.

Force Leiberman to back up his rhetoric, or fudge it.

That's the question Lamont should ask.  It's great for Joe to claim that he's "always worked across party lines to get results for people," but I think that opens Joe up to a devastating response.

Can you see this ad in response?

"Joe Lieberman says he's 'always worked across party lines to get results for people.'  The only question is, which people?"

Then follow up with a list of GOP bills Joe's supported, and who benefited.  For instance, the beneficiaries of Joe's participation in the Gang of 14 were the right-wing judges, and the fundies who supported them.

Matt... tell me people don't buy this crap. How is sending an 18-year veteran of the Senate suddenly going to "fix" D.C.? Am I the only one asking myself, "Hey, Joe, why didn't you do anything about that problem during your 18 year Senate tenure?"

Keep on fighting, Matt. Joe needs to go... and Ned Lamont would be a whole lot better than Joe.

Lieberman is confused on what Bipartisan is--He thinks it should be about rubberstamping what administration says--No Mr Lieberman that is called compromising what is right for America.

George Bush did this--win on rhetoric but doing the opposite.

I hope onnecticut should be wise to see the difference.

I hate to say it but Joe's recent adverts have been superb and I can see why he is so far ahead in the polls. He comes across as being reassuring and even caring (of course it's all nonsense but for low information voters it sure looks like a winning message)

Ask Joe what his plan is to bring the troops home.