So, if Lieberman sucks now (we can almost all agree he does), did he always suck?

Why did Gore chose him as a runningmate?

At the time he was running with Gore he was well liked and many wished he had been at the top of the ticket. I didn't go that far but I liked what I saw. My admittedly poorly informed opinion is that he has always been a good centrist Democrat who is now perceived badly in an atmosphere where centrism is seen as betrayel. I think there's a reason why he has so much support from senior Dems. I also think he's between a rock and a hard place on issues that affect Israel as many do today.

Whether we agree or not, many do. It's also true that anti-war platforms almost never win elections.











Note: Sen. Joe Lieberman withdrew from the race Feb. 3, 2004.

May 27, 2003 -- NPR's Bob Edwards spoke with Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut as part of an ongoing Morning Edition series of interviews with each of the announced candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination. Below, NPR Political Editor Ken Rudin provides background on the Lieberman candidacy.


It was one of the most talked-about lines of the night. On Saturday, May 3, the nine Democrats seeking their party's presidential nomination were holding their first debate, at the University of South Carolina in Columbia. It was late in the event, the part in which candidates would directly address one another. In this instance, Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, a strong opponent of the war against Iraq, suggested to Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an equally strong proponent of the conflict, that Lieberman's position was wrong. How can Democrats win this election, Kucinich asked, "if we simply rubber-stamp this president's destabilizing foreign policy of preemption and nuclear first strike, without offering a serious alternative?"

There was no hesitation in Lieberman's response. "Dennis, I'd say, how can we win this election if we send a message of weakness on defense and security after September 11, 2001 to the American people? Protecting their security, giving them a sense of safety, making sure people in this country are not worried when their loved ones go out to the mall or take a train, go to a movie theater, that is the first goal of our government, and that means being strong on defense and homeland security."

In that little exchange, Joe Lieberman for all intents and purposes defined why he is running for president. The three-term senator and 2000 vice-presidential nominee has made it clear that issues such as homeland security and national defense are not the property of the Republican Party, and that you can be a Democrat and still campaign on them. Whether or not that is the correct path to the nomination is another thing entirely

(I expect a bashing over this...)

I do not think that our country in now some target for "terrorist". I think that whomever and however the incidents on Sept 11th happened was not the opening scene from the constant strikes against america movie. I find that most politicians are so pansy that they always opt for the "we'll never let that happen again" stance when I'm not so sure they didn't let it happen the first time. And last time I checked my world politics, I'm pretty sure we are about the only continent (north america) that doesn't endure an almost daily onslaught of "terrorist" attacks. So I really don't understand why people all of the sudden feel so afraid.

Arg, I don't know, I'll come back to this sooner, sorry, I have a headache and am in a super pissy mood. I'll come back and finish my thought later.

Thanks for responding though!

I agree with you so far Lefty, this is part of my point about Lieberman. When it comes to Iraq, Israel is the elephant in the room and Lieberman's opinions might always be biased towards what he sees as their best interest. Hope ya feel better.

Seems to me that Sooner has pretty much nailed the question.
In his home state, up untill very reciently, Leiberman was very popular.
And if the rest of the country likes him or not hardly matters. The people who elect him did.
The same can be said for many politicians on both sides of the isle.


I agree with sooners statement about anti-war candidates never winning.
Here's hoping, and it looks as though Bushco's lack of plans have been so disasterous that an anti-war candidate just might win. At least to me anyway, the Leiberman debate was mostly about the occupation, and Leiberman looked very weak! IMO anyway.

Ted Stevens of Alaska is another prime example. He fight hardest for commercial divelopment of Alaska, including oil, including ANWR. But the fact that he brings so much federal money into Alaska will almost guarantee his seat just as long as he is alive. He's not good for America, but Alaskan's love him!


I have made this point before, that this really is a democracy. And as such, majority rules. This means that no matter how informed we might be, or how certain of our correctness, if the majority does not agree, they will win, just as they should! Assuming the majority actually voted for Bush, TWICE, then the majority got exactly what the voted for! And I hope if burns in their gut like a bad spicy taco! Mostly, I hope that burn in their Gut will still be there come November 7th! A lot can happen in 17 weeks. Lets just hope the presidential teflon is starting to peal off.

I think Gore chose Lieberman as his running mate because Lieberman is Clinton's polar opposite.

Clinton: incredibly charismatic, brilliant public speaker, ladies man.
Lieberman: not.

I'd wager that Gore wished he'd chosen differently on more than one occasion.

What's interesting now is that Lieberman, who has always trumpeted what a good Democrat he is - is not listening to what the voters in his state are telling him. He's said that if he loses the primary, he'll run as an independent. That tells us that he doesn't intend to respect the wishes of the voters of his party in his state, and that he doesn't respect his party. It also tells us that he feels entitled to that senate seat. If he is elected as an independent, it will be thanks to GOP voters. Republicans don't vote for Democrats....

It's not just about the war. Lieberman has shown great willingness to work with Bush on privatizing Social Security, which is incredibly unpopular with everyone but right wingers. He takes a lot of $$ from Big Pharma - and CT voters think that $$ influences his votes on health care. In the coming years we'll see more right wing pandering Dems get Liebermanned, as indeed they should!

Well stated Maxanne.
Though I think Leiberman represented his people well, just as long as they wanted what HE wanted. But, and soon as they do not, then he'll try going his own direction. A plan that can only hurt the Democrats.
Leiberman is for Leiberman. I think this mindset for self preservation prevails over almost every politician sooner or later. They lose the idealism, and focus instead on being reelected!

Maybe it's time for congressional term limits?

In recent weeks, he has angered Democratic activists nationwide for expressing a
willingness to work with President Bush to change Social Security. Critics say that is just
his latest act of disloyalty to the party. He already had supported the war in Iraq and Mr. Bush's cabinet choices -
Their disappointment with Mr. Lieberman illustrates the difficulty of trying to be a centrist in an increasingly polarized political climate. Mr. Lieberman has gone from a possible Democratic heir apparent to a presidential primary footnote in 2004 to the conspicuous odd man out in his own Senate party caucus.
The senator, whose third term expires next year, laughs off talk of a challenge from the left. Polls show that more than two-thirds of Connecticut Democrats approve of his performance, and so do more than two-thirds of Connecticut Republicans. And Mr. Lieberman says he refuses to let partisanship interfere with solving real problems, including the solvency of Social Security
Mr. Lieberman said he agreed with Mr. Bush that solvency gets harder to attain each year. But as for the president's proposal to divert part of the payroll tax to private retirement accounts, Mr. Lieberman said he had already rejected that idea before the 2000 election
Mr. Lieberman this week clarified his position on Social Security, telling his hometown paper, The New Haven Register, that he was "totally unconvinced" by the idea of creating private accounts, calling it "a very risky thing to do."
And on Thursday, Mr. Lieberman put his name on a letter signed by 42 Democratic senators urging the president "to publicly and unambiguously announce that you reject privatized accounts funded with Social Security dollars." A spokesman said his previous sympathetic references to private accounts were intended to mean in addition to Social Security
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0307-01.htm

Lieberman DID NOTE VOTE against the Medicare Modernization Act, which has saddled us with Medicare Part D. Even my obnoxiously right wing Republican senators voteed against it - Lieberman just did not vote.
Apparently he didn't want to risk his campaign funds from Big Pharma.

Lieberman's a NeoCON .... 'nuff said.

Leiberman is no more relivant as a Democrat than Clinton is.

The DLC is a greater issue for Democrats than the Republicans are.




A Republican in Liberal territory = DLC Democrat.

Clinton may be Republican-lite, but Lieberman is far worse. He is a bona fide NeoCON & belongs to their front groups. I am also very curious if AIPAC is funding him, and if yes, how much?

I think that the good thing about the Lieberman/Lamont race is that we don't really lose either way. With lieberman we get "good enough" and with Lamont we will probably get "great". There is no way that the republicans are going to win this race, even if the dems are split. However, we do get to have this debate and we do get to warn these type of democrats that they need to watch out for the people who elected them.

I do not believe that Lieberman is a Neo-Con but the fact that he is jewish makes him feel like he has to look out for Isreal on international issues, which causes his support for the Iraq war.

Sorry to break it to you , Jack, Joe belonged to the NeoCON front group "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq" , affiliated with the PNAC stronghold. He was even an "Honorary Co -Chair" along with John McCain:

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1458

http://web.archive.org/web/20030213184925/...limembers.shtml

Also, Lieberman could easily be a spoiler as an Independant which will cause the Republican to win. Why would Joe work so hard to be a spoiler against the Democrat Party?

And it goes without saying that NeoCONism is a Likud Zionist movement that has merged with the Fascist "Military Industrial Complex" Bushies.

Latest Rasumessen poll

Joseph Lieberman (I) 44%
Ned Lamont (D) 29%
Alan Schlesinger ® 15%


I'm not too worried and since lieberman says that he would support a democratic majority, there really is no issue of the dems losing the majority because of this.

If Lieberman wins, the Democrats DO lose... Joe is a NeoCON