Political Friends
Hillary Clinton, in a rather obvious gesture to the netroots, has prematurely declared where she stands regarding Joe Lieberman. If he doesn't win the primary, she won't be his friend anymore.
I've known Joe Lieberman for more than 30 years. I have been pleased to support him in his campaign for reelection, and hope that he is our party's nominee," the former first lady said in a statement issued by aides.
"But I want to be clear that I will support the nominee chosen by Connecticut Democrats in their primary," Clinton added. "I believe in the Democratic Party, and I believe we must honor the decisions made by Democratic primary voters."
Other party leaders are simply saying they back Lieberman in the primary and are staying silent about what they would do if Lieberman loses. Party politics makes for lousy friendships - these days especially.
By Black Jack, Wednesday, 5 July , 2006 @ 2:13 pm
Maybe Hillary would like Joe Lieberman better if he could manage to force himself on a few unwilling interns, go on TV and lie about it to the whole country, and then disgrace himself with lame excuses for months on end.
By FormerRighty, Wednesday, 5 July , 2006 @ 2:19 pm
Black Jack, I believe there was never any hint that Bill forced himself on Monica. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t a slimeball, just somewhat less of one as he’s made out to be.
As for the topic at hand, it’s odd that Joe Lieberman is discussing a possible independent run before the primary. It shows he truly is worried he might lose. It also shows that he’s not big on party loyalty.
By Gaius, Wednesday, 5 July , 2006 @ 2:32 pm
Does it show that or does it show he’s under attack by people primarily located out of his state and he’s trying to stand by his principles?
I suspect it’s more of that then trying to be disloyal.
By FormerRighty, Wednesday, 5 July , 2006 @ 2:44 pm
Gaius,
The primary will show how much support in state he still has.
I’ve noticed that people on both sides play the “most of the other side’s support comes form out of state” card. Do you think campaign contributions crossing state lines should be limited? I can see both value and danger in doing such a thing.
I didn’t say that he’s disloyal, I said that loyalty doesn’t seem to be important to him–it’s not the same thing. He hasn’t yet jumped the party ship, so he’s not yet been disloyal.
(I know you’ve come down on people for what you’ve termed “splitting hairs”. I’m not trying to split hairs, I’m just careful as to what I say. If I’d meant to say he was disloyal, I would have. I didn’t.)
He may also be bluffing.
By Gaius, Wednesday, 5 July , 2006 @ 3:06 pm
There’s nothing wrong with contributing to any candidate you want. This, to me, is a bad case of trying to take down a guy who has been a strong party supporter because of his stand on one issue.
His stance is little different than what John Kennedy stood for, by the way.
The further the Democrats get dragged to the left, the less electable they make themselves. For better or worse we have a two party system and we need two parties for it to work properly.
By FormerRighty, Wednesday, 5 July , 2006 @ 4:24 pm
Many people see the Ds as having moved to the right–witness the corporate-friendly administration of BC. In many ways, I think rank-and-file Democrats are far to the left of Democratic leaders. Democratic leaders have been quite timid in criticizing the war, but rank-and-file Democrats have opposed the war from before the start, and have been critical of how it’s been carried out.
By Black Jack, Wednesday, 5 July , 2006 @ 4:39 pm
FR, there were more than hints Hillary’s husband forced himself on many women. Juanita Broaderick for one and Paula Jones for another. That means he’s a slimeball, a much bigger one than phony “liberals” are willing to acknowledge. So-called feminists have a similar blind spot when it comes to the disgraced ex-perpetrator-in-chief.
Joe Liberman is looking into a possible run as an independent because the modern Democrat party can’t tolerate freedom of thought or diversity of opinion. It shows he’s truly worried that totalitarian dogmatists currently in positions of power in the same party which accepted him as a Vice Presidential candidate, are now reduced to kowtowing to the most extremist wing of an idiot and out-of-touch Leftist cabal. Drowning men, and failed political movements, are known to clutch at straws.
Joe Lieberman has been loyal to his party, it’s the extreme left wing of his party which is being openly disloyal to him. But then, disloyalty is nothing new or especially remarkable for today’s Democrat Party.
By Shawn, Wednesday, 5 July , 2006 @ 8:17 pm
I can’t believe I’m about to do this…I’ll defend the Mean Queen on this one. Well, partially defend. She should have kept her mouth shut and chose not to answer the question. However, I have to agree with her position. If she says Lieberman is better than Lamont and she’ll fight for Joe she is imposing her own will upon the Democrat voters. By saying she will support whoever the people choose via the primary she actually supports the democratic process.
Having said that I still find Hillary generally untenable.
By Gaius, Wednesday, 5 July , 2006 @ 8:29 pm
Good heavens, Shawn. Go take your temperature at once!
No, you’re right in one way, but her timing is what I’m calling her on here. There really isn’t a need to telegraph that unless Lamont wins except for political reasons. This is her play to the netroots.