Joe Lieberman for President in 2008?

What does a selfish former Democrat-turned-Independent Senator who has a bone to pick with his party do in the upcoming presidential election?  Run for president, of course, as an Independent candidate.

Joe Lieberman is the singule most dangerous Democrat in the country at this time.  In 2008 the vote will be close.  If Lieberman sees an opportunity to help his buddy John McCain, perhaps in return for a plum cabinet position to cap off his career, you can bet he'll jump at it.

Does anyone share my fear?

Tags: 2008 presidential, Lieberman, spoiler (all tags)



Re: Joe Lieberman for President in 2008?

No, I do not.  First of all the Lieberman phobia has gone a little too far here.  The election is over and Lieberman won by double digits can we get over this thing and find something else to worry about.  As for your fantasy run I doubt it will happen I do not think McCain will be the nominee and I do not think Lieberman will be inerested in a third party run.

by THE MODERATE 2006-11-27 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman for President in 2008?

I think the fact that he won by double digits and refused to take a call from Harry Reid after winning.  He hates his Dem colleagues and has presidential aspirations.  I think it's something to watch and consider.

by Vox Populi 2006-11-27 01:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman for President in 2008?

I meant to finish the first sentence with... "is reason enough to be 'afraid'."

by Vox Populi 2006-11-27 01:31PM | 0 recs
The only way I see Lieberman factoring into '08...

... is if McCain gets pushed out of the GOP primary early (of course, if Lieberman tests the Dem water's he'll find them frigid).  Then I think there is a possibility of a McCain/Lieberman independent/unity ticket.

The timing of this would be very tricky, though.  The groundwork would have to be laid early on.

by teknofyl 2006-11-27 11:20AM | 0 recs
see Lieberman factoring into '08...

1912 all over again...

by Vox Populi 2006-11-27 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman for President in 2008?

The Democratic Senate Caucus really dropped the ball by not finishing Lieberman off when they had the chance.

by Bob Brigham 2006-11-27 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman for President in 2008?

Let's hope we pick up a couple of seats in the Senate in 2008, at least enough so that the Democratic Party can collectively tell Joe Lieberman to go fuck himself and not lose the majority.

by TheUnknown285 2006-11-27 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman for President in 2008?

I think this is a slight, but real fear. but I'm not sure we can tell who it helps/hurts in the general election. A middle of the road candidate can suck votes from either side. Remember Ross Perot helped elect Bill Clinton, twice.

by jujube 2006-11-27 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman for President in 2008?

Precisely, but Perot was a middle-of-the-road conservative.  He took more votes from Bush and Dole than from Clinton.  Lieberman would likely take more from the Dem nominee than the Republican.

by Vox Populi 2006-11-27 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman for President in 2008?

Actually in 1992, according to some polling data I read, Perot cost Clinton a clear majority of the popular vote. The idea that he helped Clinton in 1992 was and is a right wing talking point to discredit his election.

by mrgavel 2006-11-27 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman for President in 2008?

He won with 42% of the popular vote.  Perhaps you could point me to this evidence that Perot voters prefered Clinton as their second choice, or would have voted at all.  I really would like to take a look at it.

by Vox Populi 2006-11-27 06:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman for President in 2008?
See my comment below regarding Perot.
It has been clearly noted for years that Perot took evenly from both sides.  The website I attached is just one source of proof.
by v2aggie2 2006-11-27 08:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman for President in 2008?

Perot took evenly both sides.
In 1992, this would mean a following popular vote without Perot of:

Clinton 53
Bush 47 htm

From the above website, the best case electoral performance for Bush without Perot was:

Clinton 281
Bush 257

And it probably would not have been this close.

by v2aggie2 2006-11-27 08:23PM | 0 recs
Here is where Perot Helped Clinton..

Perot helped with providing a tag team effect in marginalising Bush. Perot was seen as this independent maverick. So when he agreed with Clinton on something about Bush despite their different ideologies, the press couldn't do their usual focusing on the liberal candidate as out of touch in his attacks on Bush.

So even if one says Perot didn't take away more votes from either side, one can say Perot helped Clinton get more traction in attacking Bush. And Clinton had the personal charm to reach out to voters in the South. These two factors led him to win.

That's why I laugh when Carville is considered this great genius. He did do a good job, but he needed the Perot factor to help him out too.

by Pravin 2006-11-28 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Here is where Perot Helped Clinton..

Don't forget Clinton himself, however.
He is a master politician. And while I like Carville, Bill himself was probably his own best strategist.

I wouldn't say Perot wasn't a factor at all.
I just think, and the data supports this in my view, that Clinton would have won either way.  Bush wasn't a formidable candidate even as an incumbent, and he was fading fast -- really at his own hand in many ways.  A fading incumbent is doomed to lose, and Bush did.

by v2aggie2 2006-11-28 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman for President in 2008?

Well I guess I really screwed up this time.  Picking this stupid Lasthorseman of the Apocalypse thing.  Bible says there will be 2 witnesses who are supposed to be able to set people on fire.  Cool!  Argh, I'm stuck with this stupid horse, the witnesses get beheaded though, bummer.

by Lasthorseman 2006-11-27 03:48PM | 0 recs
by blues 2006-11-29 04:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman for President in 2008?

In a word -- no

by v2aggie2 2006-11-27 08:24PM | 0 recs
GIve me a moment
by Pravin 2006-11-28 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman for President in 2008?

I was very distressed that the relatively smart people in Connecticut, where I am from, cast so many votes for Lieberman. You know, it's sort of liberal, with a very libertarian slant. If Connecticut was any normal state where relatively average families had been touched by the blood from the Middle East, they would never go near him. Even the people in Connecticut are beginning to notice the pool of blood under the door. I would bet that any politician who has the slightest reputation as a proponent of our losing Middle East adventures has any future in office. Charley Manson would do better than Lieberman. McCain is fighting his last battle, too.

by blues 2006-11-28 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Joe Lieberman for President in 2008?

Joe Lieberman looks lame only because ideally he wanted to remove Saddam Hussein in Iraq.  He is now tied to the Bush policies, but who is to say Joe would have gone about it the way George Bush has?    Many times I have actually heard him say things that point to how much better he would handle things.  Joe has a great record, he is sincere and honest.  He is independent because he does not want to be robotic to please a certain party.  He has faith and will support Isreal.  John McCain is nothing to Joe Lieberman. I think Joe  will run, be the best qualified, and win in 08

by susanna 2007-06-01 08:22PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads