Lieberman: "Call Me a Democrat"

Joe Lieberman wants to be called Democrat again.

AP: WASHINGTON -- Sen. Joe Lieberman, who won re-election as an independent, has a message for his Senate colleagues in the next Congress: Call me a Democrat.

...In Tuesday's election, Lieberman won strong GOP support and given the closely divided Senate, Republicans are expected to court him....So will he count as a Democrat or an independent who caucuses with the majority Democrats? In an e-mail message late Thursday, Lieberman spokesman Dan Gerstein said the senator will begin his new term as a Democrat.
(hat tip My Left Nutmeg)

Note to Senate Democrats - NO. FUCKING. WAY.

Lieberman can ask to be called Mary Queen of Scots, it doesn't make it so.

Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary, carried only 33% of the CT Democratic vote, and is guaranteed to endorse John McCain in 2008. He will undermine the Democratic message at every turn. From withdrawing from Iraq in a timely manner to implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations (Homeland Security funding based on risk, not pork) to implementing healthcare for all Americans to ethics reform (got $387,000 in petty cash, Joe?) Joe Lieberman can do nothing but erode and cloud the Democratic message.

Here's what Democrat and hero Sen. Daniel Inouye had to say about Lieberman's party dance:

U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye has backed away from his support of Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman in his controversial run for re-election as an independent....

Inouye initially said that he'd support Lieberman as an independent because he was concerned about the single-issue focus on the war in Iraq that turned primary voters against Lieberman, who is strongly aligned with President Bush on the war.

But Hawaii's senior senator said he was disappointed when Lieberman made a speech "very critical of the Democratic Party."

"I told some of my friends after he gave his speech saying the party isn't the party he knew that he doesn't get my support," Inouye said in an interview.

Lieberman is going to call the Democratic party weak and wrong every time it suits his own interests. Belonging to a party doesn't just mean taking shelter under the big tent, it means helping to keep the big tent standing so all are welcome. Joe Lieberman did none of the work in building the party, cost Democrats a winnable seat with his turnout in Chris Shays district, and sounds like Dick Cheney a lot more frequently than he sounds like Dick Durbin. That we can do without. Here's more of good 'Democrat' Joe Lieberman:

"If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again."

That's Joe Lieberman saying the 18 Senate Democrats who vote for a timetable are more interested in the terrorists winning than defending America.

The man is no Democrat. He'll stab you in the back at the first opportunity. Consider this a public warning.

•  Open Lieberman MTP thread

  Here's how MTP promotes the McCain/Lieberman appearance:

  Two key leaders of the new, closely-divided Senate will join us in exclusive interviews: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) & Sen. Joe Lieberman (I/D-CT).  First, McCain will discuss the midterm election results, the future of U.S. troops in Iraq, and his own potential 2008 presidential candidacy.

  Then, former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman will discuss his roller-coaster campaign year ending with his independent re-election win, his views on the war in Iraq, and his pivotal new role as what this week's Economist magazine dubs "the most influential man in the Senate."

  Lieberman is one of 100 Senators, not the most powerful. If he dared flip to the GOP then Harry Reid could offer the world to any GOP Senator to flip to Independent in response. The '08 and '10 Senate classes lean HEAVILY Democratic. Let's stop the idea that Lieberman has some extra special power in the Senate. Lieberman got .5 percent of the vote more than George Felix Allen.

  (I/D-CT) is as real as unicorns. Unless you mean Inveterate/Dickhead, then it fits.

  by joejoejoe on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 05:21:21 AM PDT

  •  If Lieberman speaks no ill of democrats,

    then I am perfectly willing to have amnesia about how he got re-elected.

    If he sides with the republicans on the important issues (most especially Supreme Court appointments) and badmouths democrats, then he needs to be stripped of his seniority and committee assignments.

    by New Deal democrat on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 05:35:08 AM PDT

    •  If monkeys fly out of my butt...

      That's what they call a BIG IF. Lieberman can't help himself, it's his nature.

      by joejoejoe on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 05:36:59 AM PDT

    •  Joe has about the same credibility as a Democrat

      as Hastert has as a gay bashing evangelical.

      What I would like to see is the pressure on Joe coming from public media encouraged ostracism so that no matter what he says, nobody cares, and eventually his name fades into obscurity.

      If I lived in CT and he came into a restaurant where I was eating I would immediately get up and leave. If he came into a store where I worked I would not serve him. If he drove into a gas station where I pumped gas I'd have to shut the pumps down for maintenece.

      If I worked for a paper and someone called me to notify me that he had made an important speech, I would give top of the fold to whatever the local kindergarten class is up to, and find a spot for Joe somewhere in amongst the classifieds...maybe under the masochists seeking sadists to deliver the beating of a lifetime category.

      by rktect on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 05:55:48 AM PDT

      •  Sorry that should be Haggard

        by rktect on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:01:25 AM PDT

    •  You mean Joe "Zell" Lieberman

      If he is seriously going to caucus with the Democrats it is because he knows he can cause the Democratic Party more harm by calling himself a Democrat than he ever could by coming out as a Republican.

      The McCain endorsement is a great example, how meaningful would that be to the gullible public if Joe were just another traitorous Republican?

      by Thistime on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:06:27 AM PDT

      •  I adopt Wick's comment below in full

        Unless you can prove Wick wrong, deal with it!

        by New Deal democrat on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:27:59 AM PDT

        •  Both can be true.

          Joe is a snake who wishes to harm the party and we have to accept that to get the majority.

          by Thistime on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:01:15 AM PDT

          •  Fair enough. n/t

            by New Deal democrat on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:14:09 AM PDT

    •  I agree

      He worries me--he's like the spoiled kid you have to walk on cruched glass around because he can ruin it for the whole class if you aren't deferential.  That being said, so much is at stake with the Senate majority that being mildly deaf-dumb pragmatists is necessary.  What did Machiavelli say about keeping your enemies closer? His campaign shows he's a vicious snot when crossed.  I say, tolerate him for as long as possible.

      by MmeVoltaire on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:21:42 AM PDT

  •  Why didnt Russ get a real Democrat

    That is unfair.  Let us write to him.

    by timber on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 05:44:00 AM PDT

  •  Joe is all about Joe

    I still cannot get over his comment after the Primary--"I cannot let this election stand" [paraphrasing]
    Hello? The Dems voted for Lamont and you dissed them by stating that their vote does not count--
    Now you want to be a Dem again?

    by skywalker on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:38:43 AM PDT

•  The closest I will come to call him a Democrat

  is acknowledging he is a jackass/donkey.

  by RickBoston on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 05:31:17 AM PDT

  •  Shays/Lieberman Party of Low Information voters

    Lieberman did a great job campaigning for Democrat Diane Farrell against Republican Chris Shays. Oh that's right...I have that backwards. Lieberman said nothing when Chris Shays brought up Chappequidick. Bloggers = vituperative to Lieberman. Chris Shays, not so much.

    by joejoejoe on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 05:42:24 AM PDT

    •  Farrell was pro-Lieberman in the Dem primary

      but that did not exactly help her in the general election. I hope she does not run against Shays for the third time in 2008.

      by Condi Lice on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:02:43 AM PDT

      •  Faint hearts ne'er won . . .

        Farrell probably would have helped herself if she'd gone after both Shays and Lieberman on the war.

        by Lois on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:17:52 AM PDT

    •  Lots of lame Dems re Lamont/Lieberman $387K

      I got a whole bunch of troll ratings on the Russ Feingold thread because I posted my feelings about Feingold being silent on the $387,000 petty cash.  Lieberman's a national figure; its ludicrous for people here to believe that he didn't know about Lieberman taking a dump on his signature issue, campaign finance reform.  

      Its ludicrous to believe the whole Democratic establishment didn't know about it.  It was a rare silver bullet issue, a campaign filing legal documents that it had done something absolutely outrageous and 99% likely illegal.  

      by Lois on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:22:09 AM PDT

•  There are many things I can call Joe.

  A democrat is not first on the list.

  by slackjawedlackey on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 05:38:38 AM PDT

•  Keep your friends close,

  and your enemies closer.

  I don't think there is a damn thing we can do if Joe decides to flip his party affiliation back to the Democratic party.

  I say we welcome him in where we can keep a better rein on him.  Maybe let Levin know behind the scenes that if he keeps control of Joe on the Homeland Security Committee he will get that chairmanship in 2008.  Then, when/if we get enough extra seats in 2008 so that we no longer need him, we stab him in the back, just like he did to us.  Strip him of his committee chairs.  Stick him on the Rules or Small Business committees.

  Oh, and primary challenge him again in 2012.  The Republicans won't be there to bail him out then.

  by bluerevolt on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 05:40:23 AM PDT

  •  What control?

    There is no controlling Lieberman. I'm not saying kick him out of the caucus and historical precedent leans towards him keeping his committee seniority and ranking. But just as a matter of fact he did not run as a Democrat, the Democrat was Ned Lamont. You can't just put the entire race down the memory hole. It denies hundreds of thousands of CT Democrats their voice, and denies the reality that Lieberman won with Independent and GOP votes.

    by joejoejoe on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 05:44:53 AM PDT

    •  The Democrats can't control

      him. The Republicans want something for all that money. It is frustrating to wait to find out what that something is.

      by Thistime on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:11:05 AM PDT

      •  Exactly

        So kick him out of the fucking caucus and strip him of his seniority.  If he bolts, he takes the chance that the Repukes lose more seats (looks like a guarantee right now, btw) in 2008 and he ends up going from nothing to less than nothing.

        It's a risk, but so is everything worth doing.

        Oh, and that poll should have an option for "Republican."

        by asskicking annie on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:17:34 AM PDT

  •  No joe is no dem

    Let him remain an independent.  I dont want him speaking in behalf of the Dem Party.

    by timber on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 05:45:04 AM PDT

    •  You make a good point

      I was thinking of how to control him in Congress.  Perhaps you are right though, I don't want him showing up on FOX spouting Republican talking points with the graphic below him saying "Joe Lieberman (D)"

      Hmmmm... How to stop that?

      Damn, if the Governor of CT wasn't a Republican I'd advocate investigating Joe hard on that 400 grand he spent on "petty cash".  Maybe some laws broken there.  Or maybe use that as a threat to get him to shut the hell up on TV.  

      I'm as pissed as you all, I just don't know how he should be dealt with.

      by bluerevolt on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:00:58 AM PDT

      •  We should still investigate it.

        Shit, if it were Ted Kennedy who cheated like that I'd still advocate an investigation.

        It is long past the time where ignored laws should be tolerated with a wink and a nod from the authorities. We should remain as the anticorruption side, and that means policing our own regardless of the cost.

        Although this one is a no-brainer.

        by Thistime on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:15:37 AM PDT

        •  His campaign manager will take the fall

          If it came to criminal prosecution then Lieberman is safe. The campaing manager can take the blame for that unaccounted petty cash "walking money".

          by Condi Lice on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:05:43 AM PDT

          •  sadly true. nt

            by Thistime on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:16:42 AM PDT

      •  I think most people

        know why Lieberman has a (D) after his name.  I wouldn't worry about it fooling too many folks.

        by LithiumCola on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:19:58 AM PDT

        •  Perhaps they should issue a memo

          to every Democratic Senator, Representative, or pundit.  Tell them that if they are ever on a news show and the host mentions Leiberman's name when asking a question, the first words out of thier mouth should be "Well, as far as I know Joe Lieberman doesn't speak for the Democratic Party...", then they can answer the question.

          by bluerevolt on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:39:58 AM PDT

  •  Levin doesn't want HS committee

    He's Chair of Armed Services and #2 on intelligence.  Why would he want HS?  Levin will keep an eye on lieberman to the extent that he doesn't agree with him but I don't think you'll be able to make any deal with him like that.  Levin is going to be very powerful regardless of anything that lieberman does on HS.  As long as we're in Iraq and Afghanistan, he's more powerful than lieberman.

    by dougymi on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:41:40 AM PDT

•  As much as you may not like it . . .

  You need him.

  If he decides to organize with the Republicans, then they control the senate.

  The senate leadership needs to make nice to Lieberman, or they won't be the leadership.

  Kicking Lieberman out on the basis of ideological isn't worth losing control of the senate.

  End of Story.

  Wick

  by Wick on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 05:52:35 AM PDT

  •  Absolutely

    We need Joe, and so, "Welcome back, Joe"

    by centerdem on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 05:56:12 AM PDT

  •  No no no

    CT doesn't NEED him and didn't WANT him.

    DC Dems NEEDED HIM AND WANTED HIM.

    If Ned had been elected, there would have been no question as to his affiliation!!

    by mombadanes on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:02:42 AM PDT

    •  Edit above....CT DEMS don't NEED HIM

      and didn't WANT him.

      by mombadanes on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:08:22 AM PDT

  •  Why isn't that a two-way street?

    Why is there no talk of the GOP catering to New England Republicans to keep a majority? Lisa Murkowski in AK, Gordon Smith in OR?

    Give both sides of the story. The real story of Jeffords switch was how it was temporary in nature and how he effectively neutered himself politically when the Senate returned to GOP control in '02.

    Harry Reid could elevate Olympia Snowe to Senate Finance Committee as Republican and not even ask her to change parties, only to vote for Reid as majority leader.

    Lieberman has no cards to play but fear and media spin. If you soberly look at the political landscape he's got no long term leverage, only his friends in the press and friendships in the Senate. His positions have no constiuency among the people.

    by joejoejoe on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:08:09 AM PDT

  •  Thats over done

    He can't hold the Democrats hostage for 2 years.  What do you see him doing, threatening the Senate Democrats constantly because people on the internet are writing mean things about him?  

    by Lois on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:35:45 AM PDT

•  Did you catch the threat....

  "Lieberman spokesman Dan Gerstein said the senator will begin his new term as a Democrat."

  "If you don't give me everything I want, I'll end my term as a Repug!!!"  said Holy Joe Lieberman

  Oh wait...that's really how he's beginning his term!!!!

  by mombadanes on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 05:59:30 AM PDT

  •  Good catch

    I can't believe he'd really flip, because from where we sit now, it looks like Dems will have a tighter grip on the Senate in '09.  Not that he won't threaten....

    And yes, there is more to be gained at this point by giving him a chance to prove he's a Dem than assuming he'll hitch himself to the fading Bushco star.  That whole control of the Senate thing.  The last thing the Dem leadership needs at this point is hours lost in Lieberman damage control, not if it can be helped.

    A lot of people will be saying, "I told you so" when he starts his shenanigans, and I agree there's a high probability that will happen.  He's as unprincipled as Rove, and not as smart.  But there's nothing to be gained by pre-empting him.

    by hearthmoon on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:35:39 AM PDT

•  Your poll left off "REPUG-CT"

  by mombadanes on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:00:44 AM PDT

  •  Nice

    I did that to be nice. I felt bad for all my cursing and for being a vituperative blogger.

    by joejoejoe on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:09:14 AM PDT

    •  joejoejoe...gogogo for it!!!

      by mombadanes on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:18:08 AM PDT

•  Not yet

  by barnowl on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:11:48 AM PDT

•  I'm hoping to be able to say I was wrong

  about Lieberman.

  I was a very active opponent of Lieberman. I volunteered for Lamont and even withstood some pretty unseemly thuggery from Republicans in my town who went to vote for him on election day. Nevertheless, I am willing to give Lieberman a chance to keep his word when he says he wants to be a bridge between the parties and that "no one more than [himself] wants to see a safe return of the troops." If he shows me that he indeed will bring Republicans over to efforts to redeploy the troops and he uses his chairmanship of the Government Affairs Committee to investigate war profiteering and how this war has been botched, not only will I say I was wrong about Lieberman and his reputation for integrity, but I promise to also volunteer for his re-election in 2012. If not, you can be sure we will have an even stronger opponent for him in the primary that year.

  by John Campanelli on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:27:17 AM PDT

  •  He wasn't elected as a Democrat

    I hope he performs well on behalf of the state of Connecticut. As of now I'm not opposed to him keeping his seniority and his committee assignments.

    I just don't want him speaking for Democrats. Period.

    by joejoejoe on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:40:59 AM PDT

    •  I sympathize but....

      as long as his media contacts are there, lieberman will speak.  hannity will promote him, broder will lionize him, imus will worship him (a lot of imus' favorites lost this time around, so lieberman will be featured there even more).   It's a given that lieberman will resume his foxnews Democrat status.   The real question is; how can we marginalize him in that role?

      by dougymi on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:46:57 AM PDT

  •  I think you missed the part about Stay the Course

    Traitor Joe is 100% on board with Bush and Stay the Course. He said so two days after winning in CT as an Independent with 80% of the GOP vote. At least 75% of CT Dems rejected him as a traitor and as a pro-war Bush clone.

    by Condi Lice on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:12:34 AM PDT

  •  I promise only...

    ...to be there to work for his primary opponent in 2012.  I don't care what he does over the next six years -- he's rotting flesh to me.

    by asskicking annie on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:20:23 AM PDT

•  just say yes

  If Trent Lott decides to go with the flow and switch to the Democratic party, good for us.  All that's at stake is the size of the Democrtic majority for housekeeping purposes.

  by pkjnew on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:32:01 AM PDT

•  Don't be too harsh on Joe--

  without him, we don't have a majority

  by breezeview on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:34:20 AM PDT

  •  He can't hold them hostage

    I mean, really, what is he going to do, hold the Democrats hostage every week for the next 2 years, threatening to join the Republicans?  

    by Lois on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:33:46 AM PDT

    •  Joe is a liberal--

      Look at his voting record.

      His big sin is support for the Iraq war.  While we can all agree it isn't what we envisioned when seventy some odd percent of us supported it back in the day, Joe is demonstrating the courage of his convictions.  This is an admirable trait.

      Remember that Joe is Jewish.  Remember that Saddam was funding Hamas and paying the families of suicide bombers for their contributions to the cause.

      Remember that a majority of Dem's voted with Joe.

      by breezeview on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:58:24 AM PDT

      •  Jewish has something to do with it?

        I don't think its at all legitimate for a US Senator to vote his ethnic/religious affiliation.  

        by Lois on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:16:27 AM PDT

      •  Lieberman, Feingold, Boxer are all Jewish

        Jewish has nothing to do with it. Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer are Jewish and voted against the Iraq war. If you have something to say about Israeli politics use names of specific Israeli politicians and don't make vague or lazy charges. Playing the 'Jewish' card feeds into the bogus charges that all criticism of Lieberman is somehow anti-semetic and it hurts all legitimate criticism.

        I am a long-time critic of Joe Lieberman but I reject any talk of dual loyalties or criticism of his faith outright.

        by joejoejoe on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:23:57 AM PDT

        •  You're missing my point--

          What in Joe's senate voting record merits his keel-hauling.  His current support of the war can be attributed to his principle (not changing horses in mid stream)

          If you commence throwing overboard anyone who disagrees with you on any subject you can get by with a very small boat.

          I mentioned his relegion as matter of insight for his war support, it is but one factor.

          We could argue ad-infintum about the broader middle east situation but I think even the most anti-war among us can agree that we need to support Isreal.

          Again my question is what other than the war has he been wrong on?  Specifics please.

          by breezeview on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:51:47 AM PDT

          •  Overboard

            I'm not re-running the CT Senate election in this thread. To sum up...

            1. Lieberman ran under the Connecticut for Lieberman banner

            2. He lost the Democratic primary

            3. CT election law forbids third party candidates from using any form of Democrat or Republican in their title, the Senate should respect that law

            4. He can caucus with Democrats but should not speak for Democrats.

            On the issues Joe Lieberman opposes universal healthcare, he supports funding regime change in Iran, he opposes funding Homeland Security based on risk, and he did a horrible job of oversight in the creation of Homeland Security - witness the Federal response to Katrina.

            On Israel, you don't have to be Jewish to support a free and secure Israel. If you are Jewish, it doesn't mean the policy you support for Israel is the best policy.

            by joejoejoe on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 09:07:25 AM PDT

      •  Correction

        Remember that Saddam was funding Hamas and paying the families of suicide bombers for their contributions to the cause.

        Saddam was paying families whose houses have been razed by Israel troops.  You picked the begin and the end of the relevant facts but left out the middle.  The money was not enough to rebuild the houses, anyway, so mischaracterizing it as rewards for suicide bombings is rather bad.

        by CalvinV on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 09:09:17 AM PDT

        •  Correction2

          http://www.cbsnews.com/...

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

          http://www.taipeitimes.com/...

          by breezeview on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 01:35:59 PM PDT

  •  Which is why 2008 can't come soon enough

    Joe should go ahead and realign with his beloved Republicans.  I've had enough of his concern troll crap for years, now.  He can take his fake ass pious moral disappointment to the party that appreciates BS.

    Jesus christ, even VIRGINIA could elect a decent Democract this year, and Connecticut gives us Joe.  How screwed up is that?

    by Sui Juris on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:11:09 AM PDT

  •  Let's be a big tent

    Already last week Stphanie Miller was quipping about "We were joking, Joe--come on back now."  We can worry about purity when our Senate Majority is bigger than one.

    by daulton on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:17:58 AM PDT

•  Joe's paradigm of new-fangled bi-partisanship

  After six years of choosing between the choices offered by the administration: "fuck you" and "kiss my ass", Joe knows the drill. He will be a good role model for the President's new "initiative" to "cooperate". I am sure we will be hearing soon more of those sad, sorry sermonettes of his that are all about assuming the position and not about original thinking or thoughtful dissent. It is going to be a long, tortured road with Joe.
  One thing is for sure. If Joe gets involved in the "blame game" then things must be approaching slam dunk status. I anticipate he will be the "moderating" voice for avoiding any sort of hard looking at the past. Since so many have so much to hide, I anticipate a lot of noise but little retribution.
  It is going to be a VERY long road with Joe.

  by shermandem on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 06:53:59 AM PDT

•  Holy Joe is a neocon

   He appears on a neocon website as an honorary member -- along with well known necons.

   We should never forget that "kiss" from bush.

   Simply put he can not be trusted.

   The neocons aren't dead -- they still believe that their way is correct for America.

   

  by Carib and Ting on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:21:20 AM PDT

•  '[e-mail]' Protest MTP choices today

  Lieberman and McCain????   Come on.   Get in touch with the people instead of continuing to spin it Republican.

  I just sent an email telling MTP that I turned them off this morning.

  by Pink Lady on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:39:02 AM PDT

  •  Russert said he invited

    Pelosi and Reid but they declined

    by never forget 2000 on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:30:46 AM PDT

    •  ABC had Bidden and Levin...

      Lieberman is an Independent now, not a Dem....so seems strange to me that MTP selected him to represent Dems.

      by Pink Lady on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 11:51:36 AM PDT

•  Joe Lieberman was not elected as a Democrat;

  Therefore, he should not be counted as a Democrat.

  by LynneK on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 07:53:46 AM PDT

•  Joe Lieberman "Call me a Democrat"

  Joe Lieberman "Call me a Democrat."

  Okay:

  Mr. Lieberman, Harold Dean is on line 1 as per your request.

  by bluebrain on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:05:04 AM PDT

  •  Uh

    That should be Howard Dean.

    Too early.

    by bluebrain on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:09:53 AM PDT

•  Holy Joe on MTP

  Says he will be willing to cross party lines.

  I guess that means the Democrats may get his vote more often, now that his Republican patrons have been defeated.

  by oblomov on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:26:45 AM PDT

•  Joe is a very angry man

  He's pissed at the leadership, he's pissed with Democrats. He's pissed that he wasn't elected VP in 2000 (wonder why Joe?). He's pissed that Joementum didn't get him the nomination in 2004.(Remember he was the front runner in 2003!!!) He's pissed with CT Dems. In a way, I wish he had run as an independent republican so people would really know what they were voting for. He is going to be the biggest, sanctimonious thorn, just wait.

  by never forget 2000 on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:27:27 AM PDT