MyDD :: The Big Dog Comes Out for Lieberman

The Big Dog Comes Out for Lieberman

by Matt Stoller, Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 03:27:38 PM EST

Not that this should surprise anyone, but Bill Clinton is now on board with the Lieberman campaign.

"If we allow our differences over what to do now in Iraq to divide us instead of focusing on replacing Republicans in Congress; that's the nuttiest strategy I ever heard in my life," Clinton told the nonprofit cultural organization.

Audio of Clinton's comments was posted on the Minnesota Public Radio web site.

Clinton questioned efforts of some Democrats to impose a fixed timetable for removing U.S. troops from Iraq -- something Lieberman opposes.

"Why send a signal to the people that are trying to keep Iraq divided and tear it up when we're gonna go," he asked.

Clinton defended Lieberman's Democratic credentials, mentioning how the senator has been endorsed by labor unions, environmental organizations and gay groups.

"We've got a world of differences between ourselves and the Republicans," he said. "So I think the Democrats are making a mistake to go after each other ... for a situation none of them created."

It's fascinating how the lines are being drawn. Clinton is a loveable character in Democratic politics, like Barack Obama. He's perceived as a winner, as a good President, and as a strong Democrat who set a good tone for the party and the country. The Democratic party in DC largely grew around his personality and politics, and since no other leadership center has really arisen, Clintonian candidate-centric politics still looms large.

I'm not surprised or even disappointed that Bill Clinton is out for Lieberman. He was an exceptional politician, but he's also part of the past.

Tags: Bill Clinton, Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont (all tags)

Permalink :: 71 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: The Big Dog Comes Out for Lieberman (3.00 / 1)

It is hardly surprising that the Big Dog has exactly the same position as his wife on this, esp. given Clinton's history from the Balkans. Note, though, that Clinton's remarks come with a caveat: He is doing this "because Joe is my friend".

Note also, that he comes out for the Levin amendment, which Lieberman voted against and called "cut and run" on the Senate floor.

Anyway, it is more than likely that the Big Dog will share his wife's position on August 9th: They will both endorse the democratic nominee, whomever that is.

by PoliticGeek Pro on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 03:43:57 PM EST

Lieberman (none / 0)

What Clinton doesn't get is that we're tired of losing to the Republicans, and Lieberman is part of the reason we keep losing. Not only does Holy Joe give aid and comfort to our GOP enemy, he fails to inspire the Democratic base. Most voters have no clue what the Democratic Party stands for, and GOP-lite Senators like Lieberman are the reason.

by global yokel on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 03:47:18 PM EST

Re: Lieberman (3.00 / 0)

Clinton should be ashamed to call himself a man regardless of the number of interns he sleeps with. Stumping for Lieberman , the same guy who wanted Clinton indicted for a freaking blowjob? And it is not even politically that essential to do so considering Lieberman's declining stock. Gore is much more of a man than this guy. What I think happened is Clinton feels he owes Hillary a big thank you for not dumping him during the Monica days and he feels more indebted to her career than his status as ex President of the United States.

by Pravin on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 03:55:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman (3.00 / 2)

Hey, Bill Clinton was the original Republican-lite. This is the guy that signed the awful telecommunications bill that's giving us so much grief now and passed NAFTA without any adequate labor or environmental protections. His great economy was mostly dependent on the tech bubble. I just don't see him as a "good Dem."

Visit my blog Democracy for New Mexico

by barbwire on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 05:05:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman (3.00 / 1)

Yeah, or it's possible that someone disagrees with us for reasons that aren't entirely cynical. How is he helping Hillary by taking an opposing position on this issue? How could that possibly help her?

And again, I say this as a Lamont supporter.

by Ryan Anderson on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 05:05:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree, this isn't about Hillary (3.00 / 1)

But I frankly have NO idea what Bill Clinton gains by this. None. Zip.

He's propping up a phony Democrat who helped make his life miserable duuring his presidency. He owes Lieberman absolutely nothing.

Sad. Just sad.

by Master Jack on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 05:10:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree, this isn't about Hillary (none / 0)

" But I frankly have NO idea what Bill Clinton gains by this. None. Zip."

Me neither. That leads me to the rather shocking conclusion that he did it out of principle.

by Ryan Anderson on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 05:13:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

WHAT principle? (none / 0)

Exactly how are the principles of the Democratic Party advanced by the continuation of Joe Lieberman's tenure in the Senate, especially when there's a chance to replace him with a senator who actually WILL live up to Democratic values?

Clinton's been co-opted. It's very, very sadto see.

by Master Jack on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 05:16:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WHAT principle? (3.00 / 1)

One could believe, on principle, that it's better to devote all our resources towards challenging Republicans than to wage a costly primary fight against a Democratic incumbent. (And be wrong.)

by Adam B on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 05:22:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why have primaries, then? (3.00 / 1)

Seriously. Let's just abolish primaries where incumbents are involved.

And it's Lieberman who puts the "safe Dem" seat at risk by refusing to abide by the primary results. Quite unlike Ned Lamont.

by Master Jack on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 05:26:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't disagree. (3.00 / 1)

I just explained what I thought the principle was.

by Adam B on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 05:52:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WHAT principle? (3.00 / 2)

Not everyone has the same views of what it means to be a Democrat as you do, and not everyone who disagrees with you does so because of some nefarious motive or with the intention of selfish gain.

Clinton says here that he is concerned that this primary is representative of a larger campaign to purge the party of anyone who isn't idealogically pure (at least, that's what I read from it). And that does seem to be the intent of many in the netroots: take out Joementum as a show of strength, then move on to other targets in '08 and beyond. He doesn't think that's healthy for the party, which is a reasonable enough position in my book (though I disagree). I definately think that the Club for Growth primaries, for instance, or the agitation of splits between moderate GOPers and conservative GOPers in states like Kansas have done a whole lot of damage to the party. I don't think diversity of opinion makes our caucus weaker, and I think there's room in it for dissenting voices on issues like Iraq. But given the choice, I would prefer someone like Lamont to someone like Lieberman.

But it does irk me when people say that Liebermen's a pretend Democrat, or a DINo or whatever just because we agree with the other guy on issues A,B, or C. There's room in our caucus for dissent, and we should work to preserve that room. That seems to be Bill's concern and it's a reasonable one, IMO, though I think he's misreading the intents of those challenging Liebermen in this race (or, perhaps, he's reading them correctly. For some of us, at least.)

Again, you calim he's been co-opted but you can't even offer a rational as to how.

by Ryan Anderson on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 05:31:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WHAT principle? (3.00 / 1)

Sorry, I was distracted when I wrote that comment and it came out too long and way too messy. All I mean to say is: why can't Bill be doing this for the reasons he said he's doing it? Why do we have to look for some hidden reason -something more cynical and self-serving?

by Ryan Anderson on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 05:39:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WHAT principle? (3.00 / 1)

Clinton says here that he is concerned that this primary is representative of a larger campaign to purge the party of anyone who isn't idealogically pure (at least, that's what I read from it).

Then Bill Clinton doesn't get it. It's not about Lieberman supporting this war or his right-wing positions in general. It's about Lieberman slandering those Democrats who don't agree with HIM on the war (see: the infamous WSJ op-ed), Lieberman constantly undercutting those in his own party with public statements (as he did to John Kerry in the middle of the presidential campiagn), Lieberman giving "bipartisan" cover to the worst excesses of Bush extremism, and Lieberman "defending" other Democrats when they're called traitors on Sean Hannity's show with stinging retorts like "I'm not sure that's true."

Ben Nelson is also a supporter of this war. There's no coordinated campaign to get rid of HIM. There are many other conservative Democrats around, but they don't go around publicly talking about how awful the progressive wing of the party is and how they're a bunch of traitors bent on ruining America. THIS ISN'T ABOUT LIEBERMAN'S IDEOLOGY; THIS IS ABOUT HIS LOYALTY TO THE PARTY. Excising disloyal members of the party from the ranks is absolutely essential to the party's survival.

And that does seem to be the intent of many in the netroots: take out Joementum as a show of strength, then move on to other targets in '08 and beyond. He doesn't think that's healthy for the party, which is a reasonable enough position in my book (though I disagree).

Well, Joe Lieberman is unhealthy for the Democratic Party. Unless one can show that Democratic values have been advanced in America due directly to Joe's actions. The opposite is closer to the truth.

I definately think that the Club for Growth primaries, for instance, or the agitation of splits between moderate GOPers and conservative GOPers in states like Kansas have done a whole lot of damage to the party.

Well, if the GOP has been "damaged", they're sure hiding it well. They control just about everything. We'll see about Kansas; I remain skeptical of any sea changes there.

I don't think diversity of opinion makes our caucus weaker, and I think there's room in it for dissenting voices on issues like Iraq. But given the choice, I would prefer someone like Lamont to someone like Lieberman.

If Joe Lieberman could present a case for the Iraq war that was fact-based and not reliant on Bush talking points, and if he didn't try to crush dissent himself with statements like "we undermine Bush's credibility at our own peril", his non-mainstream opinions on Iraq wouldn't be generating the negative response from Dems they do now. It's his attitude, not his message or his ideology, that inflames temeprs. Ben Nelson doesn't seem to be having this problem.

But it does irk me when people say that Liebermen's a pretend Democrat, or a DINo or whatever just because we agree with the other guy on issues A,B, or C. There's room in our caucus for dissent, and we should work to preserve that room. That seems to be Bill's concern and it's a reasonable one, IMO, though I think he's misreading the intents of those challenging Liebermen in this race (or, perhaps, he's reading them correctly. For some of us, at least.)

There's room for dissent. But I have every bit as much respect for Lieberman's disagreements with me as he has for my disagreements with him. It's a two-way street. And it's not just the war; it's his disingenuousness. He claims he had problems with Alito, but did NOTHING to stop him. And believe me, a Lieberman-organized Alito filibuster would have sent a STRONG message, and might have even kept him off the bench. But Joe never uses his considerable power within the Senate to stop Republicans.

Again, you calim he's been co-opted but you can't even offer a rational as to how.

Bill Clinton would be a GREAT weapon against the extremism of BushCo, given that he's quite personally popular, and given that the Bush agenda is just as odious to moderates as it is to liberals. But he doesn't fire off as much as he could, and when he does, it's more to chide Democrats than to blast Republicans.

by Master Jack on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 05:55:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WHAT principle? (3.00 / 1)

Whether Clinton is wrong, or "doesn't get it" or whatever is completely irrelevant as to whether he really believes in what he says. I'm not taking Clinton's position, so arguing with me about whether it's accurate or not is a waste of time. You've already convinced me that he's wrong. You haven't convinced me that he's conniving, somehow plotting out his position just for political gain.

by Ryan Anderson on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 01:29:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WHAT principle? (none / 0)

What c;inton is afraid of is the anti war movement taking it to the next step and attacking candidates like Hillary who is in the next level. She has shown no regret whatsoever and says she will still vote again for the war if she had to redo things. Once Lieberman is out of the way, it's the Hillarys and Bidens who would be the next target. As long as Lieberman is there, Hillary doesn't become the #1 focus.

by Pravin on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 01:46:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How soon they forget (none / 0)

I am astonished anyone would assume Clinton supports Lieberman out of principle. Somebody has a case of amnesia here.

It's equally implausible that Clinton's doing it out of his great friendship with his buddy Joe, given how many Friends-Of-Bill wound up with a shiv in the back. Or had you forgotten that too?

Let us harken back to a pre-9/11 age when the world was younger. What was the one thing that would unfailingly make Clinton salivate like Pavlov's dog? Why, attack him politically; that's what. Clinton always tried to curry favor with the people who attacked him, which certainly includes Lieberman. The more viciously Clinton was attacked, the more he sought his enemies approval. And in the process he never missed an opportunity to walk over his real friends.

"Beloved." That's a hoot.

by bcapps on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 03:54:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Big Dog Comes Out for Lieberman (3.00 / 1)

Why doesn't Clinton chastise Lieberman if he is going to be evenhanded? Isnt what Lieberman splitting the party by running as an independent in case he loses? Why is it that these people put the burden of party unity only on one segment of the party? The left is blamed when they split the vote, and th4e left is blamed when a petulant conservative democrat is going to split the vote. Wasn't Clinton bothered by Lieberman's chastising fellow democrats on the war? Or is Clinton too busy living in shame for his inaction during the Rwanda genocide.

I wasn't a big Clinton fan, but I liked him overall when he was Prez. But he has gone overboard putting his wife's career above the country. THat is traitorous and such people deserve to be spat upon.

Clinton pissed away his second term because he couldn't stay disciplined enough to ward off the rabid dogs in the republican party with his trivial sex bullshit(*it didnt bother me personally, but he should have waited a freaking a few years before fucking around). And now this guy is talking about party discipline? His chumming with the BUsh family probably has as much to do with his wife's career than actually do something for those charities.

Even now Hillary is one of the few who has yet to take a strong position on the most pressing issue of the day. She tries to have it both ways. I cannot stand this family anymore. I am sick of two families possibly ruling this country for possibly 28 years.

by Pravin on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 03:50:19 PM EST

Re: The Big Dog Comes Out for Lieberman (3.00 / 1)

From the man who gave us NAFTA, welfare reform, don't ask/don't tell we get another Republican position in support of Lieberman. Clinton was better than..... But his time is over, the clintons and the DLC need to cut and run...

by oakland on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 04:29:50 PM EST

Re: The Big Dog Comes Out for Lieberman (3.00 / 1)

All of the candidates Bill has campaigned for since 2000 have lost. I expect him to once again find that not many people are influenced by his political recommendations these days. Maybe that's because despite his own two 3-way wins, the Democratic party has been driven into the ditch for more than a decade under his and the DLC's misguidance.

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

by Sitkah on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 04:33:12 PM EST

Re: The Big Dog Comes Out for Lieberman (3.00 / 2)

"All of the candidates Bill has campaigned for since 2000 have lost"

Off the top of my head: Tim Kaine.

by Ryan Anderson on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 05:07:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Big Dog Comes Out for Lieberman (3.00 / 2)

Again I think too many people here link the DLC to everything wrong with the party. There were many other reasons why the Democratic Party's electoral fortunes have waned in the last decade that extend beyond the DLC.

These involve the 1) final realingment of the South to the GOP and 2) the majority-minority redistricting schemes of the 1990s and early 2000s.

by jiacinto on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 05:30:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Big Dog Comes Out for Lieberman (2.50 / 4)

Bill Clinton is full of shit and always has been. He had an opportunity to do some significant good and absolutely squandered it--in large part because he thought he had a right to get it on with an intern in the Oval Office. What an undisciplined clown. But he also has bad politics. He's a DLC guy, for Chrissakes, and he acted like a Rockefeller Republican in his triangulating White House.

Clinton has few discernible core beliefs. He's a intelligent charmer and good speaker but so are typical sociopaths. We gave the guy enormous room because of what preceded him and still do because of what followed, but did so at a huge cost. He mainstreamed blaming the poor for most of their problems (welfare reform), did little to develop an awareness of ecological crisis, pushed NAFTA down our throats, etc. Nearly everything he does is designed to maximize his own gain, and an HRC presidincy is the current vehicle. OF COURSE everything he does now is guided by that goal. We should never take his comments seriously.

by Thaddeus on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 04:40:55 PM EST

Plenty of life in the old Big Dog left... (none / 0)

He was an exceptional politician, but he's also part of the past.

Of the past?

That's not how I read the infamous DCCC (now pulled) ad: we get a load of images of the regime and their snafus, are introduced to the Dem House leadership (average name recognition 30%? 20%?) before a still of Bill with a VO of him uttering his there's nothing that's wrong with America... quote.

By this ad, Bill is the Once and Future King - even if his future manifestation will nominally be as King Consort.

And FWIW I agree that I can't see Bill being anything other than straight down the line in the CT general: he'll support the winner of the primary. Hill '08 leaves him no choice.

by skeptic06 on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 04:42:40 PM EST

A SIMPLE QUESTION... (none / 0)

But, since everybody is FOR the Democratic party, the question remains: Will you____ (insert name here) accept the choice of the Democratic voters? Will you respect their verdict?

Apparantly, Sen. Lieberman doesn't.

An informed & engaged citizen is the lifeline of a healthy society. A liberal citizen is vital to our American democracy!

by Andros on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 05:06:14 PM EST

Sigh... (3.00 / 2)

When the Republicans decided to turn Bill Clinton's sex life into a national issue, Joe Lieberman went on the Senate floor and vociferously condemned the President.

When George W. Bush invaded Iraq under false pretenses, Joe Lieberman gave him a big smooch.

And now Bill Clinton comes out for Joe.

I don't know what's more offensive -- that Joe Lieberman would actually have the gall to ask for Bill Clinton's endorsement (maybe it came spontaneously from Bill, who knows), or that Bill Clinton would actually give it to him, despite their history.

They're all part of the same club.

It's become obvious, by the events of the past few years, that the Democratic Party exists only to create the illusion of competitive politics in America. As demonstrated by the smackdowns we get from the beltway insiders whenever we recommend that the Democrats start acting like an actual opposition party.

It's sad.

by Master Jack on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 05:06:36 PM EST

Re: The Big Dog is an Asshole (3.00 / 1)

yeah, that is what he is. The Greatest Republican President of our lifetime. Now he spends his twilight years hangin' wit Poppy Bush and saying stupid stuff like this.

Get thee behind me Satan!

by Pericles on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 05:12:11 PM EST

Re: The Big Dog is an Asshole (2.00 / 2)

Just because he wasn't a Michael Moore fringe leftist doesn't make him the "Greatest Republican President of our lifetime". Indeed, if he was "The Greatest Republican President of our lifetime", the Republicans wouldn't have tried to destroy him from Day 1. Your comment is so stupid.

by jiacinto on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 05:27:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Big Dog is an Asshole (none / 0)

Just because he wasn't a Michael Moore fringe leftist doesn't make him the "Greatest Republican President of our lifetime".

OK. Clinton was the Worst Democratic President of our lifetime.

Feel better now?

With Democrats Lieberman goes for the jugular. With Republicans he goes for the lips.

by Sitkah on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 08:26:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Big Dog is an Asshole (none / 0)

Thanks.

by Pericles on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 09:01:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Big Dog isn't an Asshole (3.00 / 1)

For some of us he's the only Democratic President in our lifetime. The word's Worst President need to be reserved for the likes of Reagan and Bush 43.

Joe Biden for President! Wes Clark for Secretary of Defense!

by Joshua Sperati on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 09:33:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Big Dog is an Asshole (none / 0)

Well, that's not saying much since we had only a couple of dem Presidents in our lifetime , maybe 3 if you are mid40s.

As much as I bashed Clinton in this blog entry, he was a decent President. Hsi second term was a blown opportunity. And the likes of Lieberman should have worked to focus the agenda on a more productive second term instead of distracting the country on such a trivial issue.

by Pravin on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 03:40:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Question for Bill Clinton (none / 0)

Should we have primaries at all?

Why or why not?

by Master Jack on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 05:13:47 PM EST

This is about 2008 (3.00 / 3)

Hillary Clinton is just like Joe Lieberman.

If Lieberman loses, then HRC is no longer the front runner. The last thing Clinton's 2008 team wants to see is the base of the Party rising up against the DLC.

by Bob Brigham on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 05:16:54 PM EST

Hillary's not Joe (none / 0)

I am NOT a Hillary supporter, but it's unfair to say she's Joe Lieberman. She doesn't go on Fox News weekly and condemn her own party.

by Master Jack on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 05:22:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary's not Joe (none / 0)

She stands up for the Party as she wants it to be and triangulates against our best demographic.

Hillary isn't Joe, but she started out at the same place as him, embraced the DLC like him, and is facing opposition for the same reasons as him.

The Big Dog is worried for a reason.

by Bob Brigham on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 05:38:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary Clinton is Just like John Kerry (none / 0)

Except Lieberman is actually a very moderate Democrat and his position on the war equates with where other almost-Republicans put themselves in places like the West and South.

But yes, the Connecticut Senate primary is beginning of '08 because of Lamont's willingness to attack an incumbent in the primary. Up to now, no one was directly challenging incumbents, choosing instead to have proxy-fights in open seats--(re: Tammy Duckworth).

And for that reason, the Clintons should be very worried.

In the 2002 vote, there were three stripes of Democrats. Those who refused to support the authorization of force because they didn't want to go to war. The Feingolds and Boxers if you will. At the other end were the hawkish Dems....the wannabe Scoop Jacksons and Max Clelands like Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, and Ken "purple mountains" Salazar. (Lieberman falls here.) And then there are people like Hillary Clinton who voted for the war because they wanted to look strong on defense: John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Chuck Schumer, Byron Dorgan. These Vichy Democrats are where the party is vulnerable. Democrats can likely win nationally with Blanche Lincoln or Russ Feingold's stance but Kerry's has already proven to be too improbable.

So Lamont's zeal is misguided I think in that Lieberman always has been a closet Republican...but not really a Vichy Democrat. Nevertheless I think primary battles are good for the grassroots....good for everyone except the insiders. And should Lamont lose, he shouldn't kick himself too hard...Joe didn't vote for the war before he voted against it.

by risenmessiah on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 06:37:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton is Just like John Kerry (none / 0)

I'm no great Hillary fan and think a Presidential run by her would be a train wreck, but she is far different from Lieberman. Firstly, she is much more liberal. Accroding to the National Journal, she is about the 20th most conservative Seanator, while Lieberman is the 37th. Furthermore, she at least refrains from attacking the Democratic party like Lieberman or it's members, like Obama.

She's a hated figure (generally unfairly) and a somewhat inept polititian, but she's not poison, like Joe.

by tigercourse on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 07:05:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton is Just like John Kerry (none / 0)

What bothers me about Hillary is not her "scorecard". What bothers me about her is her calculating stand on teh Iraq qwar for purely selfish reasons. She was afraid to jeopardize her presidential amibitions and allowed a war to take place. I have never seen a convincing speech from her regarding the war. I can forgive her if she was genuinely wrong on the war. But she does not conceded anything. She will whine about Bush's execution. I wasn't too fond of Edwards when he ran, but at least he has the decency to say he was wrong.

At SOME point, you gotta take a clear stand on suh an important issue. Even though Hillary hasn't bashed other democrats on the war issue, you gotta wonder if Bill is doing the dirty job for her. Seriously, do you think Bill will say all this stuff about whipping democrats without the both of them discussing this?

by Pravin on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 03:45:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton is Just like John Kerry (none / 0)

When Isay clear stand, I mean the reasons thaat go along with it too. To be honest, she has maintained a consistent stand overall, but her reasons seemed flimsy, more of a regurgitation of talking points the republicans use. I don't see any indepedent thought from her regarding Iran and Iraq.

by Pravin on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 03:47:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton is Just like John Kerry (none / 0)

If Hillary's stand on the war was completely motivated by selfishness and political gain, why wouldn't she have pulled a Kerry and reversed course when polls started showing the majority of Americans (and especially the majority of Democrats) turning against it? She could just say "I was misled, blah blah blah" and she'd be on the "right" side of a very important issue.

That she has not done this is terrific evidence for her character and the strength of her convictions. Again, people can be principled even when they disagree with you.

by Ryan Anderson on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 04:55:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton is Just like John Kerry (3.00 / 1)

She knows that she has her chips in with the tough on the middle east crowd. TO waffle, she is smart enough to know hat she will lose both sides. For such an important decision, she is yet to give a convincing argument why she is in support of such a war. There seems a lack of passion in trying mobilize other amercians in supporting the war. If you truly believe in the righteousness of this, you should be asking Americans to sacrifice or volunteer or do something.

When she talks , she seems like someone who is afraid to upset some of her powerful donors. She also seems resolute on not looking like she is weak on defense to the redstaters. I think she is overestimating the impact this has on the redstaters. THey still think she is a liberal nuisance.

by Pravin on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 05:53:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactamundo (none / 0)

Hillary's problem is that she keeps going back to Bill-bob's old theory of triangulation forgetting that the Republicans are far more unified now than when they controlled Congress in the 1990s.

She's the candidate who embodies the idea that the Democrats are the party "not for" anything and "for" nothing. If Hillary wins the nomination, the Democrats have little or no chance to win.

by risenmessiah on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 09:10:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton is Just like John Kerry (none / 0)

" For such an important decision, she is yet to give a convincing argument why she is in support of such a war"

Entirely subjective, and I -for one- completely disagree. She stressed in her speech before placing her vote that she viewed Saddam as a threat to his people and to that entire, volatile reason. That is a completely reasonable position, especially considering what we knew (or thought we knew) at the time. Now she says she believes that leaving pre-maturely will leave Iraq at the hands of violent terrorists who have no constructive agenda of their own. That's also an entirely reasonable position, IMHO.

" If you truly believe in the righteousness of this, you should be asking Americans to sacrifice or volunteer or do something."

What does she have to do in order to convince you that she's sincere? Push people into signing up? What if she just doesn't think that's the correct approach?

This is all just cynical speculation without any real substance or credibility. We praise Kerry and Edwards for reversing their positions on the war, a move which almost certaintly helped them in the primaries but which so many bloggers so readily assume to be based on principle (something which I am not doubting). But Hillary's remained consistent, even if it means paying a political penalty and creating a potential vulnerability for her run for the nomination, and because she disagrees with us we insist it must have some nefarious motive behind it.

by Ryan Anderson on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 11:25:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton is Just like John Kerry (none / 0)

Urgh, "volatile region", not reason.

by Ryan Anderson on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 11:26:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton is Just like John Kerry (none / 0)

OK if we assume she is sincere, then we have to also assume she is one dumb woman for not changing her opinion. Oh by the way, she was on Russert last year and maintained that she did not regret the vote for the war even after all that has happened.

And changing position is not necessarily a sign of political opportunism. Looking at a candidate's reasoning, it could mean that the candidate is an intelligent person reacting to the changing reality.

by Pravin on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 01:42:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton is Just like John Kerry (none / 0)

"And changing position is not necessarily a sign of political opportunism."

I agree, and I said as much. I just think it's hypocritical that we assume only those that agree with us are acting on principle.

"OK if we assume she is sincere, then we have to also assume she is one dumb woman for not changing her opinion. Oh by the way, she was on Russert last year and maintained that she did not regret the vote for the war even after all that has happened."

This is why the Republicans get so much headway by fighting against and deriding "elitists". Everyone that disagrees with you must be a cold, calculating oppurtunist or an idiot.

And the thing of it is, that I find that very personally offensive. Now, I don't agree with Hillary 100% on this issue. I was passionately against this war when it began and I continue to believe it was a mistake to go to war. But I can respect those that feel that someone like Saddam, a man whose thirst for power was more important to him than the lives of his own people or -indeed- anyone else's, should not have been allowed to remain the legislative and military dictator of a nation smack dab in the middle of one of the world's most politically unstable regions. I agree with that statement, I just didn't think it'd be worth the cost to remove him. Hillary thought it would be, and I can respect that.

Where I do agree with Hillary is that we should not be setting a time-table to withdraw our troops: this is our mess and it is our responsiblity to clean it up. I agree that our current conduct in the war is actually counter-productive, that it is generating more terrorists than it is destroying, but I agree with Hillary that the solution there is to overhaul our mission, to re-examine our priorities and start fighting the war in different ways and on different fronts (economic, political, etc. not just militarily). I don't think the answer is either to stay the course or to get the hell out.

I don't think the terrorists who are already bunkered down in Iraq will just pack up and leave if we do. I don't think they'll engage their community in any positive ways, because they have expressed no interest in governing nor have they advanced any agenda that offers any hope for their nation. If we leave, I believe they will turn their attentions on a fledgling Iraqi democracy and will likely overpower a massively unprepared security force. And then what? They'll lead Iraq into a future that is just as bloody, just as violent, just as nihilistic and solipsistic as it was in the worst days of Hussein's reign, but without the unity and the central control that Saddam was able to impose. Another Somalia, with warlords and terrorists fighting their wars in the streets that should be filled with people heading to work or school.

And that would be our responsibility. That would be our crisis. I can not imagine that my nation would turn over so many millions of people's lives to an enemy which has absolutely no vision for how to build a better future. This isn't like Vietnam. We're not fighting communists. We're fighting nihilists. If we pull out, Iraq will become an anarchy. I can't accept that possibility.

But I guess that I must just be "one dumb man", huh? Or maybe I'm triangulating in preperation for some run someday? Because it's not possible that I might have an opinion that differs from yours. At least, not one which deserves any respect.

by Ryan Anderson on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 02:17:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton is Just like John Kerry (none / 0)

Actually, if you look at my past diaries, you will find that I have issues to disagree with a lot of democrats including Lamont. I don't call them idiotic for every single issue I disagree with them on. But when it comes to something as important as this war which is a HUGE issue because of the enormous toll and costs, I will look at why someone disagrees with me and try to examine the reasons why they disagree with me. This war has had an effect on some many areas, it's not something to dismiss as just one issue we can agree to disagree on. This is not some Grenada war incursion or even the Somalia fiasco. Till this day, hillary has only given us bland talking points about the war. Nothing in her tone has really given me any indication that this is a really painful decision and why she took it. And the fact she doesnt even regret it shows that she is afraid to appear weak versus being correct. Let's face it. There are rights and wrongs with many issues. But if you still think there is room for disagreement that the war was the right thing, I can safely draw the line and say you are not fit to lead the country.

For someone who wants to run for President, I hold Hillary to a higher standard than your average senator. I wanted to see her give me a convincing reason why she voted for this war. She has even joined in the Iran war buildup with some reckless rhetoric. This shows me she does not learn from her mistakes if it means looking strong to redstaters.

by Pravin on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 10:20:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton is Just like John Kerry (none / 0)

This is all your opinion and speculation. I disagree with it fervently, but I guess there's no point in arguing around in circles about something which is essentially unproveable. So why don't we save ourselves some time and just agree to disagree? I'm sorry if I mischaracterized your argument, let's stop this before it really gets dirty ;)

by Ryan Anderson on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 01:50:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Big Dog Comes Out for Lieberman (none / 0)

I am having difficulties reaching this page from the front page. Each time I try to click it I end up watching some YouTube video. This is an ongoing problem I've had with this site.

by jiacinto on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 05:26:06 PM EST

Re: The Big Dog Comes Out for Lieberman (none / 0)

Try clearing your cache, YouTube has had some growing pains recently.

by Bob Brigham on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 05:38:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Big Dog Comes Out for Lieberman (none / 0)

How do I do that?

by jiacinto on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 05:43:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Big Dog Comes Out for Lieberman (none / 0)

Depending upon your browser, it should end up in an OPTIONS or PREFERENCES menu under TOOLS.

by Bob Brigham on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 06:27:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Big Dog Comes Out for Lieberman (3.00 / 1)

Why is this a surprise? Clinton was not going to endorse Ned Lamont. I think that a lot of you have unrealistic expectations that elected Democrats are going to turn against Lieberman to appease the fringe left of the party. Unless Lieberman molests children, kills people, or is involved in something extremely criminal beyond the decent of humankind, elected Democrats aren't going to support Ned Lamont. That's the reality.

I do agree, though, that Clinton is part of the past. That's why I am not inclined to support Hillary in 2008. The party does need to go beyond the Clintons.

by jiacinto on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 05:32:29 PM EST

Re: The Big Dog Comes Out for Lieberman (3.00 / 1)

Clinton could have just stayed out of it, as Al Gore did.

If Lamont's support is only coming from the "fringe left" of the party (whatever that means), then Lieberman has absolutely nothing to worry about in the primary, which makes his "insurance policy" all the more self-serving and inexplicable.

by Master Jack on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 06:00:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Big Dog Comes Out for Lieberman (none / 0)

I did not expect Bill to support Lamont. But the least he could have done was stay the hell out of this race. And the least he could have done was not bash democrats opposing Lieberman on the war. Party discipline is violated by the likes of Lieberman, not Lamont. So Clinton fails even the logic test. What he said was embarassing in all aspects. I cannot respect a foolish man.

by Pravin on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 03:49:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Big Dog Started The Iraq Fiasco (1.00 / 1)

Am I the only one who took alarmed note of the fact that "military spending" during Clinton's "Administration of Peace" was actually greater than what we had spent during the cold war era? Does it take a genius to figure out why that happened. The frickin Clintons set up the damn Iraq fiasco. They only need Bush Jr. to be the patsy!

by blues on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 06:31:36 PM EST

Re: The Big Dog Started The Iraq Fiasco (none / 0)

Are you sure about these numbers? Did you take into account inflation?

by Pravin on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 03:50:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Big Dog Started The Iraq Fiasco (none / 0)

I am 95% sure of the accuracy of the reports I read about the huge increase in defense spending during the Clinton administration. And they were reported to be so huge that they made any issues about inflation trivial. Those reports made me extremely uneasy. Then, when Bush Jr. was installed, I panicked.

by blues on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 10:57:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Big Dog Started The Iraq Fiasco (none / 0)

http://blogdayafternoon.com/images/stori es/0604/spend.gif

by Ryan Anderson on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 05:01:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Big Dog Started The Iraq Fiasco (none / 0)

Whoops, ignore that last post.

by Ryan Anderson on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 05:03:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton played you all (none / 0)

Nobody here is mentioning the obvious fact that Clinton is only implying that it's not a good idea to go after Lieberman. He also said Lieberman is a decent Democrat....which is defensible on votes (though not on the rest of his behavior and public statements).

And he played all of you. Did Bill Clinton say that he endorses Lieberman? Do you all think this was completely identical in effect to an actual endorsement? Did he say anything about Lamont?

Not much of a commitment. Slippery, yes, and smart, if conservative. He's not undercutting his wife, he's playing for the history books, and doesn't want to be on the losing side of this, whichever side that is.

by Andmoreagain on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 07:26:03 PM EST

Re: Clinton played you all (3.00 / 1)

clinton's slippery, unprincipled, disingenious political calculations is the reason why the public has lost trust with the party and the reason why it's had to work to regain it back. we need leaders people can believe in again. who can be depended upon for their honesty and integrity. that doesn't describe either clintons.

it isn't smart politics to "play" people. eventually, they catch on.

if clinton had any integrity at all, he'd come out against this war, and demand the end of occupation.

I really don't understand how that is an attack; lol. ~ by Jerome Armstrong

by jello on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 07:49:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Slap the truth out of Joe Lieberman flash game (none / 0)

Have you guys seen this game where you slap Joe Lieberman to get at the truth in Connecticut?
check it out and see if you can score over 300 at http://zenwire.com/flashmedia-slaplieber man.php

empty your mind and see through the illusion

by Zenseeker on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 07:56:55 PM EST

Re: The Big Dog Comes Out for Lieberman (none / 0)

Looks like Bill Clinton just bitch slapped all of you doesn't it. how does it feel?? Thank you Bill Clinton

by liebermanlives on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 10:02:14 PM EST

Then he's sure to lose (3.00 / 1)

I can't think of anyone Clinton has campaigned for who has won. Other than people with the last name "Clinton."

by wilder on Sat Jul 15, 2006 at 10:02:26 PM EST

Re: The Big Dog Comes Out for Lieberman (none / 0)

"If we allow our differences over what to do now in Iraq to divide us instead of focusing on replacing Republicans in Congress; that's the nuttiest strategy I ever heard in my life," Clinton told the nonprofit cultural organization.

Clinton misses the real point, which is what we do about the many national security challenges we will face in the future. These will demand leaders of greater wisdom and honesty than Joe Lieberman.

Clinton was a great man for his times, but that time is past.

by Bob H on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 07:48:53 AM EST

Re: The Big Dog Comes Out for Lieberman (3.00 / 1)

"If we allow our differences over what to do now in Iraq to divide us instead of focusing on replacing Republicans in Congress; that's the nuttiest strategy I ever heard in my life," Clinton told the nonprofit cultural organization.

Some Democrat, I forget his name, said:

The definition of insanity... is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Democrats like myself are saying that we need to send a different kind of Democrat to DC if we expect to be a majority party again. Different from Lieberman. And different from Clinton.

And I want to remind Bill Clinton of something he said during the 2004 primary season which was pointed at Dean supporters:

Fall in love... but then fall in line.

There was conjecture that if Dean lost the primary, he'd run as an independent... even though he always denied it.

Well, we did fall in line. Dean (and his supporters) gave our full support and energy to the Democrat who won the primaries.

Mr. Clinton, I expect you to do the same when Lamont defeats Joe Lieberman in August.

by Malacandra on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 10:10:25 AM EST

Re: The Big Dog Comes Out for Lieberman (none / 0)

Want to stop a bloviating repug in his tracks? Tell him/her you dislike Bill Clinton too (but not for the idiotic reasons Repugs hate him). Simply, Clinton implemented conservative policies and appointed conservatives in sensitive positions and did much to set back progressivism in the USA. Talking to real Americans across the nation, I always hear that they really hold a grudge against conservative Dems especially those who always side with Corporate America. Frequently I hear that Americans like electing conservative Repugs because they know what they are getting up front.
Oh, and as for Clinton giving his sage election advise to other Dems, it would be most helpful if Clinton could convince Ross Perot to run in all elections and do what he did for Clinton. All Perot's votes came from conservative voters who would have otherwise voted for the Repug candidate... twice. If Perot had not run in 1992, Bush Sr would have won and we would never again have heard from the DLC, and the progressive revolution that has been growing since 2004 would instead have started in 1992. BTW...Clinton got fewer votes in 1992 than Dukakis got in 1988, and he never got more than 49% of the electorate. Is it any wonder that Dems keep loosing elections and re-elections by following the advise of Bill Clinton?

by gcdem on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 06:21:59 PM EST

Re: The Big Dog Comes Out for Lieberman (none / 0)

No matter who you choose as president, you always choose somebody from the investor class. And he's gonna do decisions for his class against your working class.
The government, which is an instrument created by the rich to attain their wealth has two basic functions.
1. to protect the capitalist (owning, ruling, investor) class and to guard the system of funneling the wealth created by the working class to the capitalist
class
2. to guard the capitalist class against itself (from devouring itself)

The only real difference between the republicans and democrats is that the republicans dismiss function #2 and go straight where the money is, they try to tap into other investors money (enron, worldcom) whereas the democrats think function #2 is important,

Neither of course makes any decision to help 'the people' as helping the masses would be a loss to the capitalist class. More for you is less for them. And that's why you get minimum wage ;)

by 4thReich on Sun Jul 16, 2006 at 08:32:14 PM EST

Re: The Big Dog Comes Out for Lieberman (none / 0)

Want to stop a bloviating repug in his tracks? Tell him/her you dislike Bill Clinton too (but not for the idiotic reasons Repugs hate him). Simply, Clinton implemented conservative policies and appointed conservatives in sensitive positions and did much to set back progressivism in the USA. Talking to real Americans across the nation, I always hear that they really hold a grudge against conservative Dems especially those who always side with Corporate America. Frequently I hear that Americans like electing conservative Repugs because they know what they are getting up front.
Oh, and as for Clinton giving his sage election advise to other Dems, it would be most helpful if Clinton could convince Ross Perot to run in all elections and do what he did for Clinton. All Perot's votes came from conservative voters who would have otherwise voted for the Repug candidate... twice. If Perot had not run in 1992, Bush Sr would have won and we would never again have heard from the DLC, and the progressive revolution that has been growing since 2004 would instead have started in 1992. BTW...Clinton got fewer votes in 1992 than Dukakis got in 1988, and he never got more than 49% of the electorate. Is it any wonder that Dems keep loosing elections and re-elections by following the advise of Bill Clinton?

amateur
amateur2
anal
anime
asian
ass
babe
bbw
bang-gang
bdsm
beach
bisexual
bizarre
black
blonde
blowjob
bondage
booty
bukkake
cartoon
exotic
celebrite
clitoris
close-up
cock
couple
creampie
cumshot
deep-throat
dildo
double-penetration
drunk
ebony
ethnic
exotic
face
facial
fat
femdom
fetish
ffm
fingering
fist-time
fisting
flashing
footjob
fucking
gay
gay2
glory-hole
granny
hairy
handjob
hardcore
hentai
housewife
indian
interracial
japanese
latex
latina
lesbian
lingerie
maid
mardi-gras
masturbation
mature
midget
milf
mmf
model
nude
nudist
oral
orgy
outdoor
pantie
pissing
plumper
pornstar
pregnant
puffy
pussy
redhead
rimjob
schoolgirl
shaving
shemale
shower-bath
smoking
softcore
spanking
squirting
stories
strapon
swinger
teen
thong
threesome
tits
toes
toon
toy
tranny
ugly
virgin
voyeur
webcam
weird
wet-shirt