Skip to main content

View Diary: CT-Sen: Lieberman starts back at zero (402 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  nah (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    John Campanelli, Nellcote

    But an endorsement for Lamont would be great.

    •  He already refused to endorse Lieberman. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      betterdonkeys

      That's about all he can do.  

      •  I disagree because this involves a Senate seat. (0+ / 0-)

        Gore should do all he can to persuade Joe to drop his independent candidacy.  Gore should lead.

        •  well, he is focusing on global warming (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Scout Finch

          let's let him make his calls.

          The task of convincing Joe to drop the Indy bid is better served by Clinton since he went and campaigned for him before the primary. Gore refused to endorse Lieberman (and endorsed Howard Dean in 04) and so, I am not sure he wants to call him on this.

          From what I can tell form his actions, I don't think Lieberman is dropping his bid, no matter what.

          •  Nobody should get a pass on this one. (0+ / 0-)

            Gore should lead and issue a statement if he hasn't already.  True, Joe will make up his own mind.

            •  he was the (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MadEye

              first to refuse to endorse Lieberman. And Gore is a loyal Democrat, and by definition, he supports the Democratic nominee. Good enough.

              It appears your motive is to bitch about Gore for some sort of partisan gain.

            •  you don't sound different from (0+ / 0-)

              Naderists attacking, screaming and yelling all through the 2000 election about this bulshit thing that Gore should do, should have done, blah blah blah. What the likes of you do is shoot at your own feet, as well as others' such as mine, in the process.

              •  The only partisan gains would be Democratic... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                NeuvoLiberal

                Party gains.  I am not a Naderist.  I am a Democrat and a lifelong Democrat at that.  I've cast my share of votes for Dems, including votes for Clinton/Gore in the 90's and one for Gore in 2000.  Who is questioning Gore's loyalty?   It is a question of leadership.  I will use this fact as an indication of leadership should he choose to run in 2008.  I have not picked a candidate to support in 2008.

                •  then please give him (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Scout Finch, CAL11 voter

                  his leeway, given that he has already shown what he thinks of Lieberman (by opposing his nomination in 2004 and again in 2006). Let's just wait and see what he does or says.

                  It is also important to keep in mind that media and pundits may spin anything he does in this regard in wicked ways (we have seen that plenty in 1999 and 2000), and in fact, Gore doing anything further here may serve to help Lieberman by way of generating sympathy for him (which Lieberman was all too eager to milk in 2004, when Gore endorsed Dean), if the media doesn't cover this without bias. In 2004, the media rarely mentioned that the rationale given by Gore for his choice was his opposition to the war that Lieberman hawked. Please see this Michael Tomasky's 2003 Prospect article.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (125)
  • Community (58)
  • 2016 (50)
  • Environment (38)
  • Elections (36)
  • Media (34)
  • Republicans (32)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Law (29)
  • Jeb Bush (28)
  • Culture (27)
  • Barack Obama (26)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (25)
  • Iraq (25)
  • Civil Rights (24)
  • Climate Change (23)
  • Economy (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • LGBT (16)
  • Congress (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site