Lieberman's treachery.
It's always worth bearing in mind the sheer scale of Lieberman's back stabbing as he now turns himself into Obama's leading attack dog.
His own campaign staff admit that he practically "begged" Obama to endorse him when he faced the challenge by Ned Lamont.
And now Lieberman has the gall to say this:The top Lieberman official, who was directly involved in securing Obama's help, tells me that the campaign was desperate for Obama to come to Connecticut in March of 2006, soon after Lamont entered the race.
"We needed him to strongly validate us as a candidate that liberal Democrats should not desert," the official tells me. "We went to the Obama operation with a very urgent plea for him to come out for us."
It's well known that Obama's 2006 endorsement was important. But it's not widely understood just how urgently the Lieberman people begged for Obama's help at a critical moment in Lieberman's career -- and in that light, just how much of a back-stabbing Lieberman's attacks on Obama now represent.
"It was a favor as huge as we could have gotten -- it was like a drowning man getting thrown a life preserver," the Lieberman official continued. "Just when Ned was trying to establish himself as a credible alternative on the war, Barack Obama came in and said, `Hey, I disagree with him on the war, but you should send him back to the Senate.'"
If we did what Sen. Obama wanted us to do last year, Al-Qaeda in Iran would be in control of Iraq today. The whole Middle East would be in turmoil and American security and credibility would be jeopardized.When one realises that Lieberman "begged" Obama to save his political career, it only makes the treachery that he is now engaging in all the more repulsive.
He would probably not have the platform that he is now using to attack Obama had Obama not come to his aid at the moment when he most needed it. As his own staff say, "It was like a drowning man getting thrown a life preserver". And now that same man is attempting to drown Obama.
Republicans always want elections to be about character rather than policies. Well, the character of the man slithering around reminding McCain of the difference between Shia, Sunni and al Qaeda is that of a snake.
Click title for full article.
Tags:
7 comments:
"al-Qaeda in Iran"?
Al-Qaeda is a Sunni group, and Iran is Shia. Lieberman knows better than this, so this is a sign that any pretence of reason has vanished from the Republican talking points. The name 'Al-Qaeda' has become nothing more than a generic bogeyman to be employed whenever fear needs to replace critical thinking in the public's mind.
Sadly, the Democrats still need Lieberman to maintain a majority in the Senate. Without him, Cheney breaks the tie. However, Lieberman's days are numbered. If even one Democrat is elected to the Senate in November, his usefulness is gone and he goes to the minority side, losing his committees. He will be forced to caucus with the Republicans, thus losing his ostensible "independent" status.
Additionally, Lieberman has a reputation of being an albatross around the neck of those he endorses, spawning the term "Joementum" for the negative momentum he creates in a campaign.
"al Qaeda in Iran." "He misspoke!" said Lieberman, just like Lieberman did right there.
You know, it is now clear that these are not mistakes. These guys know exactly what they are saying and they say this shit quite on purpose. The more they can spray "IRAN" into the narrative, the more it sinks in. It doesn't matter if it is true, it only matters that people here it, over and over and over again.
I suggest you visit shockfront and see what the Iranians are saying themselves.
But I have to disagree with Todd about the Democratic "majority." It is not "sad" that they would not have the majority because it is quite clear that having the majority has done nothing to change congressional disposition toward Bush. Hell, even the GOP couldn't pass the new FISA bill, but the Dems sure will. The Dems do not deserve the majority, they have failed the mandate given them by the election. Cast Lieberman to the GOP, where he belongs. They won't do that, of course, because having the majority is, to them, about having some ostensibly "power," even though they are useless and timid with its application.
Sadly, the Democrats still need Lieberman to maintain a majority in the Senate.
Hopefully, after the election, that will no longer be the case and Obama will have him ejected.
The Dems do not deserve the majority, they have failed the mandate given them by the election.
Om the subject of FISA they have, indeed, been worse than useless, they have been enablers. Which only makes me believe that Bush must have notified them about what he was up to. I seriously think they push immunity because they are, in some way, involved themselves.
I seriously think they push immunity because they are, in some way, involved themselves.
I agree completely on this. The Democrats have been complicit in the torture issue as well. Their weak defence is that they were following Bush's plans.
This is why I have previously made the distinction between the DLC and the Party itself. The DLC is essentially a kinder, gentler, more competent Bush Administration, which is why they have failed to stand up to Bush and take advantage of the current unpopularity of the GOP. They hold tremendous sway over the Party, and Hillary is one of their own.
With all due respect to thebhc, I think it is a mistake to view the Democrats as some kind of monolithic bloc. That description is very apt in the case of the GOP, which has put a great deal of effort into "purifying" itself and instilling internal uniformity. In the case of the Democrats, it is the DLC that has served as a marginal "enforcer" of purity, but that role is similar to herding cats in that Party.
I see little gain to be had in tossing Lieberman out of the Democratic caucus and ceding control of the Senate to the Republicans, regardless of how weak and complicit the DLC-dominated Democrats are. The solution is to marginalise the DLC, and Obama is the one to do that, though it will take the entirety of his term.
It took us eight years to construct this disaster, and it will not be un-done overnight. Obama is merely the fragile first step in restoring the Party and the Constitution.
I agree completely on this. The Democrats have been complicit in the torture issue as well. Their weak defence is that they were following Bush's plans.
Todd,
Glenn Greenwald has been doing some great stuff on this recently, talking about how the Democrats are at their best when they have the courage to stand up for their beliefs and oppose torture and illegal wiretapping. That is certainly the message that has come out of recent elections.
But the DLC appear to be cowed by the suggestion that they are weak on terrorism and back down at every opportunity. This not only looks weak, it is weak. In fact it's fucking spineless.
There appears to be some hateful notion that veering towards an extremist regime - which the current Republican administration are - is somehow moving towards "the middle ground".
I hope, like you do, that Obama is the beginning of the end of this mindset.
Jon Swift sent me this way! Geez! Lieberman is more conniving than I thought! You're right-he is a snake-he will beg for support from Obama, then outright lie to support McCain's positions. He never has been much of a Demo. This guy will do anything-it seems for votes, or to support a war based upon lies.
Oh he's a snake of the highest order. I'm just angry that the Democrats didn't kick him out of the caucus!
Post a Comment