Skip to main content

This question still requires an answer:

Sharpton went on to criticize Obama on other issues, including his relationship with Sen. Joe Lieberman, who's controversial within the Democratic Party.

"Senator Obama and I agree that the war is wrong, but then I want to know why he went to Connecticut and helped Lieberman, the biggest supporter of the war," Sharpton told TV.

Obama talks a great "anti-Iraq War" game. But when he had a chance to help do something about it -- help get rid of its biggest cheerleader in the Senate, he decided to campaign for Lieberman instead.

Obama might wish we had poorer memories, but those of us actually trying to end the war can't forget.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:16 AM PDT.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

650 comments | Permalink

  •  Kos, can you give specific examples? (39+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia, gregabbott, DelRPCV, mndan, jethropalerobber, Yoshimi, OLinda, cookiesandmilk, GayHillbilly, bawbie, zenbowl, shpilk, 28th Democrat, SecondComing, MayaNoelle, IndyScott, mcfly, TheJohnny, ybruti, jj32, pat208, tmendoza, Sam I Am, givemhellHarryR, GTPinNJ, John DE, dannyinla, brownsox, BlueinColorado, Skeptical Spectacle, Downtowner, LV Pol Girl, Settembrini, kath25, idea list, Abby Kelleyite, dishrag, ReggieH, wscrews

    Obama, like many US Senators at the time, supported Lieberman before the primary. He supported Lamont after the primary and sent a $5000 check to the Lamont campaign.

    So what is the basis for your claim that Obama supported Lieberman?

    by jensi on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:18:57 AM PDT

    •  What is the basis? (8+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rebecca, hardleft, Jake Nelson, Xeno of Elia, stitifier, Blue South, TomP, Cat Servant

      It's in your question:

      "Obama . . . supported Lieberman before the primary."

      And, well, there you have it.

      JRE 2008
      "We should ask the American people to be patriotic about something other than war."
      -John Edwards

      by DrFrankLives on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:22:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. (18+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rebecca, Cowalker, mini mum, DelRPCV, hardleft, Jake Nelson, Xeno of Elia, Silverleaf, SecondComing, sukeyna, Aquarius40, danthrax, ybruti, ThunderHawk13, stitifier, Blue South, JerseyGirl226, TomP

        And Obama's only offered stealth support for Lamont after the primary.  Sure he gave money (something Lamont did not need) and never gave him visible, vocal support (which Lamont did need).

        Edwards was the only one to openly campaign for Lamont.

        Any party that would lie to start a war would also steal an election.

        by landrew on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:24:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Name any US Senators who actively supported Joe (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Leggy Starlitz, Nasara, Seeds, dannyinla, kath25

        at least pre-primary. This is just crazy the kind of purity we demand from candidates.

        Ok, then burn Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton at the stakes then to satisy your purity urges then.

        by jensi on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:29:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Chris Dodd... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Adam B, Xeno of Elia, ThunderHawk13

          campaigned for Lamont.

          As for the other corporatist enablers you list...

          get the pitchforks.

          Visit Hoot at the Dark

          by Night Owl on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:44:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          erhan04, malharden, idea list, wscrews

          Had Lamont won a Senate seat, and actually had to be political once in a while to be effective, DKOS would drop him like a bad memory. You watch, if Al Franken wins in 08, the same thing will happen to him.

          The Senate is a legislative body folks, and deal making, alliances of convenience, and hedging your bets are all part of a Senator's ability to be effective. Lieberman presents a problem with no easy solutions for Senate Democrats; his support in CT means that they need him more than he needs them. What exactly does everyone expect a Freshman Senator to do when faced with a politically dicey situation with no upside either way? He hedged his bets and lived to fight another day. The day that becomes 100% failure on a political litmus test is the day no democrat stands a chance against an organized and disciplined right wing.

          by Seeds on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:53:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No you're wrong (0+ / 0-)

            Dkos doesn't drop people for deal making or alliances or any of the necessities of legislative life.  What Dkos does do is hold them to our goal by the best means possible, that is criticism.  No politician should be denied the most valuable gift we the people can give them.  Criticism.  When they are left on their own without our feedback they end up straying from their own values and ours.

            The environment up on the hill is toxic to our democracy.  We need to make sure our politicians don't get poisoned by it.  Leiberman has been fully infected.  So we need to excise him from our party.  Others not so much.  But there is no living there without being influenced by the toxic environment there.  Only the strong can survive.  So when we criticise our own we are just doing our duty as a citizen.  

            BTW, what would he have lost by supporting Ned Lamont?  He was in absolutely no danger politically for supporting him fully and enthusiastically as he did other Democratic candidates.  He wouldn't have lost his seat.  He would have greatly raised his position with the netroots.  If questioned by his collegues all he had to say was that Ned was the official Democratic candidate and as a good Democrat he was supporting him.  He could have stood up for our right as Democrats to choose our own candidates for office without it being derailed by a politician that wouldn't accept that he lost his own parties support.  He gave the barest minimum of support he could for the position that Lamont was the candidate.  He could have done alot more with no down side to him and a huge up side for himself.  

            ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

            by Rebecca on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:18:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No downside to supporting Lamont? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wscrews

              Breaking with an incumbant in his own party by backing a likely loser regardless of how far behind that candidate is in the general election? doing so as a Freshman Senator over the objections of the party leadership has no downside consequences for his relationships within his own party?

              Understand, I recognize the blame for putting his fellow democrats in this position falls on Lieberman. But making support of Lamont a litmust test for all democratic candidates in 2008 is a needless distraction from the goal of unifying behind a solid candidate who can win the White House back from the GOP.

              I would have supported Lamont if I was a CT resident but he lost by 10 points. Lamont had to get further on his own in order to attract the level of support you assume he was entitled to. Given how far he was behind, Obama's support would not have changed the outcome, but it would have burned too many bridges to be worth the cost to him IMHO.

              by Seeds on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 01:21:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Short term benefits vs Long term benefits (0+ / 0-)

                For the party there is a short term downside to supporting Lamont in that Leiberman is still a senator and is hurting our efforts in the senate.

                But in the long term we have done a great deal.  Before the primary Leiberman was generally accepted as a loyal Democrat with the party.  The primary has changed that perspective totally.  Few within the party consider him a valuable part of the party.  I don't think even the politicians that consider him a friend do so without concerns about his behavior anymore.  

                The primary gave a huge scare to the Democratic politicians that believe they have a right to their seat even when they don't serve democratic issues.  Don't think that Ellen Tauscher isn't looking over her shoulder with dread every day.  It is never a

                needless distraction from the goal of unifying behind a solid candidate who can win the White House back from the GOP.

                to keep our politicians aware of the fact that they govern only with our consent.  

                Part of the problem we are dealing with here is the feeling of entitlement encumbants have.  We need to shake them loose of that feeling.  By forcing Democratic politicians to at least say they support the Democratic candidate for office we are making them realize they are not there just for their own benefit or for the benefit of their friends.  They are there to push forward the priniciples of the Democratic party.  

                A litmus test that you support the candidate your party puts up is the very basis of support for your party.  If you don't respect your own base to that little extent then you don't respect them at all and that is the crux of the matter here.  Our politicians don't respect the democratic base at all.  They use us to get elected but they want to distance themselves from such a radical, extreme group of people.  They have drunk the right wing koolaid to the extent that they don't think their own base is respectable.  We need to change that.

                While any of the Democratic candidates will be able to govern extremely better then any of the Republican one, we need more than that.  The Clinton years showed that we can have the Presidency and lose our majority.  We lost because of strategies that lowered the Democratic parties reputation in the nation.  We are working for a long term goal here.  Don't think that getting a Democrat elected to the presidency is the goal, it's not.  Changing the course of the country back is going to take long and hard work.  Hopefully, more encumbants will have to go through primaries it will either make them stronger democrats or they will be replaced by one.  

                ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

                by Rebecca on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 02:30:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Hillary doesn't have too many fans around here (0+ / 0-)

          and none of the others are running for President.

          DLC=RNC-30years

          by hardleft on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:10:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  He sent him money (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aexia, dannyinla, kath25, idea list

        In February and March 2005, well before there was any thought of a primary, and as part of a group of checks sent to other incumbents on the same dates.

        this is my blog. Warning: 99% apolitical.

        by Adam B on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:37:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  true (8+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rebecca, dajafi, DelRPCV, jethropalerobber, Bearpaw, kath25, malharden, Wiki Wiki

      IMHO, Obama could and should have done more for Lamont, but he did issue a press release and write a check after the primary.
      Hard to imagine the Obama's support carried more weight than Bill Clinton's, which was truly outrageous.

      Sharpton also ought to remind people at every opportunity of Lieberman's race-baiting about Sharpton, Jackson and Waters' support of Lamont after Lieberman had come crawling to Sharpton for an endorsement and didn't get it.

      by BlueinColorado on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:23:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bingo (28+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aexia, Adam B, jethropalerobber, cookiesandmilk, bawbie, nightsweat, erhan04, Bearpaw, MayaNoelle, mcfly, Leggy Starlitz, pat208, tmendoza, Sam I Am, John DE, Phil S 33, Geekesque, Nasara, dannyinla, LV Pol Girl, Settembrini, kath25, malharden, davewill, idea list, Abby Kelleyite, ReggieH, Wiki Wiki

      Let's put this whole "Barack Obama reelected Joe Lieberman" saw to bed. Obama supported Lamont after the primary, and he travelled around the country raising support and visibility for many of the candidates who helped us take back the House and Senate.

      Did it help him raise his own profile? Sure. But it also helped us take back the Congress. You can hardly blame someone for being sought after by Democrats across the country.

      Blaming Obama for Lieberman is ridiculous.

      Zenbowl, the blog, is your one-stop source for all things progressive, buddhist and basketball.

      by zenbowl on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:23:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, the blame should be widely shared (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rebecca, DelRPCV, majcmb1, malharden, JerseyGirl226
        But it should be apportioned. It was essential to elect Ned Lamont, especially after it became apparent that Lieberman's entire campaign was financed and run by the GOP and that he was adopting a thumb-the-nose attitude toward voters. The Democratic power structure tacitly supported Joe's reelection when in fact, every Dem who was not otherwise should have seen the significance of electing someone firmly on our side and not this sabotaging turncoat to whose lips George Bush's saliva still clung.

        A new beginning for Ohio: The adults have taken over!

        by anastasia p on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:26:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, it wasn't essential to elect Lamont (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Aexia

          It was essential to get control of the chamber (so that now when Bush screws up, we can investigate a la the US Attorneys scandal).  The essential elections were MT and VA which gave us control.  People would do well to not exaggerate the importance of CT in comparison to the other HUGE wins made by our party.  Nobody in their right mind would trade Jim Webb's win (which gave us the chamber) for Ned Lamont's.

          Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

          by tmendoza on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:17:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There was absolutely no chance (0+ / 0-)

            of the Republican taking CT.  This was an election between the Democratic candidate and the CT for Leiberman candidate.  So how was it a problem for our Democratic elected officials to show their support for the Democratic candidate for office in CT?

            It wouldn't have hurt the efforts in VA or MT for them to throw their support to the Democratic candidate of CT.  Instead they gave the barest minimum of support they could to the Democratic candidate in CT while allowing their current collegue to be elected without any deterrant.  So now we have a Senate with a Senator we can not trust.  

            If our elected officials had just done their job we would have had Ned Lamont or do you really think the state of CT would have elected a Senator even his own fellows turned against?  Obama is one of the many who basically made Joe the Senator from CT by not lifting one finger to stop it.  He doesn't deserve worse criticism than anyone else but I do reserve the right to say it shows extremely bad judgement in someone who is putting himself forward for the important position of President of the United States.  In this I also include Clinton as she made the same political decision that Obama made. This is one issue that was important to the netroots.  It is telling which side politicians chose when they were forced to make a decision.  

            ...that cannot be a wise contrivance which in its operation may commit the government of a nation to the wisdom of an idiot. Thomas Paine Rights of Man

            by Rebecca on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:33:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not sure anyone says 'Obama reelected (8+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mini mum, DelRPCV, hardleft, Jake Nelson, OLinda, Aquarius40, Blue South, Vic Arpeggio

        Lieberman.'

        What people do say is:

        Obama chose Lieberman over Lamont in the primary.

        Why?

        Obama's halfhearted support for Lamont in the general was felt, by some Lamont staffers, to be one of the biggest disappointments of that campaign.

        Why?

        Let there be sharks - TracieLynn

        by GussieFN on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:27:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's not blaming him (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rebecca

        it IS questioning how serious he is about ending the war when he actively supported the pro-war candidate in a primary that was mostly about the war.

        He didn't have any actual impact on the results of either election and nobody is saying that he did.

        Nice attempt at framing it tho....

        DLC=RNC-30years

        by hardleft on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:29:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Great Point (16+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aexia, dajafi, Adam B, mndan, Silverleaf, Bearpaw, tmendoza, Sam I Am, John DE, Nasara, LV Pol Girl, Settembrini, davewill, Abby Kelleyite, ReggieH, Wiki Wiki

      Sure Obama supported Lieberman in the primary - like many other Dems, they supported their colleauge.  But once Lieberman ditched the party Obama did the right thing and supported Lamont.  I don't think this shows a lack of commitment in his opposition to the war.  Is their any one else in the top bracket of the race who has been completely 100% (outside of Kucinich) against the war?  HRC and Edwards both voted for it - yes Edwards has since apologized, but too late for any action.  I'm starting to believe that this really is sour grapes from Sharpton.  

      In the end picking on Obama's initial support for Lieberman as a means to say that he's not fully commited to opposing the war is cherry picking .

      by erhan04 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:24:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the Sharpton vineyard (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aexia, itsbenj, Sam I Am, Settembrini, ReggieH, Wiki Wiki

        Sharpton is a lying, hypocritical egomaniac whose real grievance against Obama is that Obama offers something more than grievance.

        Rev. Al has made his whole career by starting and then exploiting fights within the progressive coalition. In New York, in election after election, he'd pop up to blast the Democratic candidate; the result was a lot more D'Amato and Giuliani than we really needed. His 2004 Democratic presidential campaign--funded mostly by Republican operatives--was designed to do the same thing. To the credit of both Democratic primary voters and the other campaigns, it didn't happen.

        Sharpton is sometimes on the right side of issues. But he's ultimately deserving of nothing but scorn and dismissal. That he's criticizing Obama makes me even more convinced that Obama is the most attractive Dem candidate now in the race.

        Ambition, Impatience and Sloth: Politics, culture and more

        by dajafi on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:33:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Obama is running as someone (0+ / 0-)

        who has "always opposed the war"

        Now, when hundreds of thousands were already dead from the mistake he always opposed, how could he have actively campaigned for the biggest supporter of continuing that mistake.  

        Absent an adequate explanation, I have to conclude that it was political calculation and a callous disregard for human life.

        DLC=RNC-30years

        by hardleft on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:36:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Lieberman is hardly it's biggest supporter (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Aexia, itsbenj, dannyinla, ReggieH, Wiki Wiki

          And Obama helped out Lamont once he won the primary.  Again I think this is nitpicky suff that has time and again drawn us to pick poor nominees. If this is your "reason" for not supporting Obama its over nitpicky stuff given his early vocal oppositon to the war and his legislative work both to bring the troops home and to help wounded soldiers.

          by erhan04 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:44:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  True (0+ / 0-)

            The idea that the CT Senator is the biggest supporter is unequivocally false.  Hard to see how Dick Cheney is not the biggest supporter, followed by nearly every Republican elected official, and then Lieberman, followed by the few sane Republicans.

            Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

            by tmendoza on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:23:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  That little speech (8+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rebecca, reef the dog, Aquarius40, fugue, jen, Blue South, TomP, inevitibility

      Obama gave at the JJB dinner last March in Connecticut:

         "I know that some in the party have differences with Joe," Senator Obama said, all but silencing the crowd. "I'm going to go ahead and say it. It's the elephant in the room. And Joe and I don't agree on everything. But what I know is, Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, with a keen intellect, who cares about the working families of America."

         Then, with applause beginning to build, he finished the thought: "I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate." That time, people cheered loudly.

      Sounds like he supported Lieberman to me.

      Liberal: "I still think it's a respectable word. Its root is "liber," the Latin word for "free," and isn't that what we are all about?"--Mary McGrory

      by mini mum on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:30:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  here's some examples (0+ / 0-)

      of Obama supporting Lieberman

      in 2005...

      http://query.nictusa.com/...
      From Obama's HopeFund

      Friends of Joe Lieberman
      PO Box 4322
      Hamden, Connecticut 06514
      02/28/2005
      Contribution 2100.00

      Friends of Joe Lieberman
      PO Box 4322
      Hamden, Connecticut 06514
      03/29/2005
      Contribution 2100.00

      there's also this campaign event in CT

      http://www.mydd.com/...

      Why do Murdoch and David Brooks like Hillary?

      by inevitibility on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:34:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That was in 2005 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Settembrini

        Because Barack Obama gave Lieberman some money in 2005 you are going to hold that against him?

        Well, you might as well hate Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Chris Dodd, Hiilary Clinton, and many other senators because they gave money to Lieberman at one point. Senattors routinely give out money from their PACs to their colleagues - Its part of the camaraderie and support structure of being in the US Senate.

        Obama campaigned so hard for many Democratic candidates in 2006. To hold a donation against him that he like many others gave Lieberman at one point is just crazy. Really, we can do better than these kind of purity tests.  

        Bill Clinton campaigned for Lieberman at one point. By your logic, he deserves our permanent scorn.

        The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of crisis, remain neutral.

        by ten10 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:55:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Check the records, in 2005 (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aexia, itsbenj, 28th Democrat, Wiki Wiki

        one contriobutor to Joe Lieberman was none other than Ned Lamont.

        (-2.75,-4.77) I prefer POTUS Candidates who opposed the Iraq war in 2002

        by Sam I Am on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:40:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Another litmus test (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tmendoza, Nasara, Settembrini

      in a seemingly endless series of litmus tests that have been set up not just for Obama, but for all the candidates.

      You can hear the chorus loud and clear: Obama was for Lieberman... I can never vote for him. yadda yadda yadda

      by dannyinla on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:44:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        smartguy11, dannyinla, Krush, ReggieH, Wiki Wiki

        When will Kos and others get it through their heads that there are no perfect politicians, none!

        RFK supported the Vietnam War at one time; Carter and Clinton weren't left-wing idealogues; Paul Wellstone voted for DOMA and didn't lift a finger to protest against ratifying the 2000 vote. I can go on all day.

        We have to take what we get. Is Clark perfect? Hell no! We all know Hillary, Edwards, Obama, and, yes, Gore, aren't perfect. We can't have it all when it comes to American politicians. We just can't! Deal with it!

        by Nedsdag on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:11:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I see your point (0+ / 0-)

          But we need politicians that are a little more than 'not perfect'. The bar needs to be raised.

          Especially this election. Everything Bushco did has to be undone. It is going to take more than your average Ken doll to put the country back on track.

          "I'm a feisty, happy warrior," -Joe Lieberman NYTIMES 2/6/07

          by Krush on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:23:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And did RFK ever apologize? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          itsbenj, ReggieH

          This is the problem with the fanatical insistence on litmus tests that we are seeing here lately.

          In a note to LBJ on June 11 [1964], Robert Kennedy expressed his full support, saying that Vietnam "is obviously the most important problem facing the United States and if you felt I could help I am at your service." As a token of his support, he expressed his willingness to replace Lodge as Ambassador to Saigon. In May 1965, three months after the bombing of South Vietnam had been vastly intensified along with the first regular bombing of the North and after US combat forces had landed, RFK condemned withdrawal as "a repudiation of commitments undertaken and confirmed by three administrations" which would "gravely -- perhaps irreparably -- weaken the democratic position in Asia."

          from Rethinking Camelot

          Most people here would agree that RFK was one of the shining lights of the 1960s left. But if DailyKos was around in 1967 when RFK finally broke with LBJ on the war, you could imagine the chorus of complainers here. It wouldn't matter what else RFK was fighting for... he supported the Vietnam war and so, fuck him, he'll never get my vote.

          You're right, there is no perfect candidate. Just candidates that are more perfect than the rest.

          by dannyinla on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:25:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's not just politicians, btw (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ReggieH

          It's not like politicians are some vile sub-species.  All people are not perfect.

          Inhofe is a wacko with a 46% approval rating: He's vulnerable.

          by tmendoza on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:26:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  that's funny, I only ever see (0+ / 0-)

        them applied to Obama and Clinton.  wonder why that is?

        ...i felt my pants' warmth as my legs became string and my arteries burst into song...

        by itsbenj on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 02:35:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It was a question of personal loyalty (12+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rebecca, Yoshimi, cookiesandmilk, shpilk, SecondComing, Aquarius40, jj32, adigal, majcmb1, Nespolo, JerseyGirl226, TomP

    to a friend, over principle. We've seen that before, too many times.

    Equal parts Unbossed and Inconvenient News

    by smintheus on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:19:04 AM PDT

  •  Obama's support for Lieberman was troubling, (8+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jethropalerobber, cookiesandmilk, mcfly, jj32, Geekesque, malharden, IrishCatholicDemocrat, ReggieH

    but Obama has introduced legislation calling for the redeployment of troops out of Iraq.  So it's a misrepresentation to claim that he has not acted when he had the chance.

    "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." -- Thomas Jefferson [-4.25, -5.33]

    by GTPinNJ on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:19:04 AM PDT

  •  I had forgotten this (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DCDemocrat, Silverleaf, adigal, TomP, inevitibility
    and it represents a major sticking point for me too. I still email them back about this demanding a belated apology every time the DSCC emails me asking for a donation. Can Obama honestly say the Senate Democrats are better off now than they would be with Lamont in the Senate and firmly on thier side? Joe has turned out to be worse than we warned.

    A new beginning for Ohio: The adults have taken over!

    by anastasia p on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:19:27 AM PDT

    •  like Obama is responsible for his election (8+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dajafi, TheJohnny, Sam I Am, citizenx, John DE, Geekesque, Nasara, davewill

      Obama didn't campaign for Lieberman AFTER he lost the nomination.  When Lamont won the nomination, Obama campaigned FOR him.

      You can't have it both ways.

      Ann Coulter: Nazi fetish porn star, or just looks like one?

      by Leggy Starlitz on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:26:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama's support for Lamont was tepid at best n/t (0+ / 0-)

        Republicans: Proudly placing yellow smiley-face stickers on the face of doom since 1969 -8.88 -5.08

        by SecondComing on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:36:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So what? The planet does not revolve around (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          itsbenj

          Connecticut.

          by Geekesque on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:37:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Our stupid President's stupid war (0+ / 0-)

            has some Connecticut roots though.

            I'm entitled to my opinion, and I simply can't get behind Obama as I was for Howard Dean for instance.

            There's something contrived, and rehearsed in Obama that just sticks in my craw. Sure, it's politics, but I trust my gut. Our country is swirling around the bottom of the bowl thanks to Bush/CheneyCo, and politics as usual just doesn't cut it any more.

            Lieberman is not a "Democrat" in my book. Anyone that supported that miserable waste of space and oxygen will not get my unitigated support. I may hold my nose and vote for him or her - but I don't have to like it.

            I'm a purity troll. So sue me.

            Republicans: Proudly placing yellow smiley-face stickers on the face of doom since 1969 -8.88 -5.08

            by SecondComing on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:55:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well, what's the alternative--someone (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Wiki Wiki

              who actually co-sponsored the war or voted for it?

              by Geekesque on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:59:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ralph Nader? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Geekesque

                If the answers were easy, it wouldn't be a "test."

                I'm liking Edwards this week - If for nothing else - his stance on health care. After New York and DC I am able to forgive his rush to judgement authorizing Bush to retaliate.

                Who could have known that they'd bomb the wrong country?

                In a perfect world, Sean Penn would be running. We've hired "actors" as President.

                Hell, at least he isn't a sitting or "ex" Senator.

                Gotta go. My father is perhaps dying in a Catholic hospital founded by the "Sisters of Mercy" and probably would enjoy a visit.

                Reality dictates, but politics is still entertaining.

                Republicans: Proudly placing yellow smiley-face stickers on the face of doom since 1969 -8.88 -5.08

                by SecondComing on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:19:10 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  so if Al Sharpton (0+ / 0-)

              cared so much about Iraq, why didn't he get behind the only significant anti-war candidate in '04, Howard Dean?  Why?  He was too busy accepting Republican $$ to smear him, that's why.  Sharpton can be taken about as seriously as a rodeo clown.

              ...i felt my pants' warmth as my legs became string and my arteries burst into song...

              by itsbenj on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 02:44:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  No... (0+ / 0-)

        Obama is not singlehandedly responsible for Lamont's loss.  Are you trying to say if Obama had supported Lamont in the primary...or more forcefully in the General (which is a fair point) that Lamont would have won?

        That's silly.  There are way more factors in Lamont's loss than Obama.

        by rashomon on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:52:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you read almost every response in this diary.. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ReggieH, Wiki Wiki

          Obama's "magic touch" was to miraculously lift Lamont up and over the top in the November election. Give me a break! It takes more than a couple of speeches and a commercial to help a candidate.

          If that was the case we would be saying Sen. Jim Peterson (D-AZ) and Sen. Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN) since Obama went down south and out west to campaign for them.

          by Nedsdag on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:14:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  that makes no sense (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yoshimi, 28th Democrat, pat208, Nasara, ReggieH, Wiki Wiki

      How can you blame Obama for the result when he was on the side of losing primary candidate (Lieberman) and the losing general candidate (Lamont).  

      Blue Jersey: New Jersey Progressive Politics

      by John DE on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:33:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  re (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    adigal, majcmb1, Geekesque

    Yes we can and should add this to his "list" of things he should not have done.

    It's still among the shortest "list" among the nominees so far.

    "Steve Holt was going to boycott the Democratic Debate on Fox." - Steve Holt

    by cookiesandmilk on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:19:53 AM PDT

  •  It wasn't just Barack (23+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Carl Nyberg, Yoshimi, cookiesandmilk, bawbie, Newsie8200, 28th Democrat, erhan04, SecondComing, Bearpaw, mcfly, TheJohnny, Leggy Starlitz, pat208, jrooth, Sam I Am, Phil S 33, brownsox, Downtowner, LV Pol Girl, malharden, JerseyGirl226, Abby Kelleyite, Wiki Wiki

    that helped Joltin' Joe. There was a whole of train of people in the primaries that supported him. I don't remember seeing any support for Lieberman after the primaries. Didn't Obama send money to Lamont?

    Why is Sharpton picking out Obama for this questioning? What of the others?

    by shpilk on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:20:33 AM PDT

  •  VP door open (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davewill

    Obama was doing it because Bill Clinton did it, and he is positioning himself to be the VP for Hillary if she wins the nom.  It's his fallback position.  Laugh if you must but that is what he IS doing and has been for awhile.

    "Conservatism makes no poetry, breathes no prayer, has no invention; it is all memory." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    by reef the dog on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:21:25 AM PDT

    •  Don't see it (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mcfly, Pandoras Box

      there seems to be some growing personal friction between them. I have a hard time seeing Obama taking the Veep slot.

      Of course, eight years of Veep is a better launching point for 2016 than eight years of Senate votes that can be distorted. Maybe you're right....

      (stream of consciousness post)

      by BlueinColorado on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:25:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  not gonna happen (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mcfly

      Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation will pick a "conservative" white southern Democrat to run with her. She'll do this because Penn, Carville, Begala and the rest of the DC Dem Dimwits will show her extensive polling to indicate that voters want a sense of the familiar to balance the novelty of the First Woman Nominee.

      That said, this might not be as bad as it sounds; she could pick Clark (which is why I put "conservative" in quotes)... in which case I'd probably even vote for her.

      Ambition, Impatience and Sloth: Politics, culture and more

      by dajafi on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:39:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama will not be a VP candidate (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sam I Am, Wiki Wiki

        because he would overshadow whomever is at the top of the ticket.  I think Obama is well aware of this which is why he might as well go for the top spot right now.

        You are also correct that Clinton would almost certainly pick a moderate white guy to "balance out" the ticket if she won the nomination.  It is hard to imagine her taking that much of a political risk in the selection.  I also think Clark would be a great VP choice for any of the candidates.

        by mcfly on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:49:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Gore wouldn't worry about being overshadowed (0+ / 0-)

          At least, I don't think so.

          Obama really needs to get away from the people he's taking advice from right now ([cough] Rahm Emanuel [cough]). Serving as Gore's VP for 8 years would be a good thing for him, after which he really would be ready to serve as President.

          "This party's strength does not come from the consultants down, it comes from the grassroots up." --Howard Dean

          by Jim in Chicago on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:06:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  what advice is he taking from Emmanuel? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Yoshimi, Wiki Wiki

            not aware of any.  Emmanuel supports Clinton anyways, I think.  Obama might make a good pick for Gore, if Gore runs.  However, I think the experience thing is overrated.  Cheney had more experience than anyone, and look how that turned out.  

            by mcfly on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:32:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I thought Rahm (0+ / 0-)

              was still hiding under his desk!  Interesting.

              by LSophia on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:51:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  He might not be talking to Rahm as much now but (0+ / 0-)

              he told a Chicago reporter in 2005 that he pretty much does whatever Rahm tells him.

              Barack is a VERY ambitious man, and he saw working with the head of the DCCC (who represents Rostenkowski's old district) as a way to move up fast.

              "This party's strength does not come from the consultants down, it comes from the grassroots up." --Howard Dean

              by Jim in Chicago on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:27:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Edwards (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mcfly

          overshadowed Kerry.  Kerry's best moment was that pick BTW.

          But I concede your point.  Clark would be more obvious for Hillary.

          "Conservatism makes no poetry, breathes no prayer, has no invention; it is all memory." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

          by reef the dog on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:21:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  except... (0+ / 0-)

          He would overshadow anyone but John Edwards.  It's a charisma game - he'd be strongly popular, so it'd be the charisma game, and JRE has just as much of it, if not more.

          They say that liberals have run out of new ideas - it's like saying that Christians have run out of new ideas.

          by MBell0 on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 07:43:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Damn Obama (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi

    Not following the Democrats lead... then again Ned Lamont did loose, which means the voters did seem to support Lieberman.

    Lieberman is to the Democrats what John McCain is to the GOP.

    Love to hate them.

    by PureCynic on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:21:31 AM PDT

  •  Tort Deform too (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    citizen53, philgoblue, MontanaMaven, Aquarius40, malharden

    Sharpton is exactly right to wonder how Obama would have fought the civil rights movement if he had to do it under the eviscerated version of plaintiff's rights Obama supports.

    JRE 2008
    "We should ask the American people to be patriotic about something other than war."
    -John Edwards

    by DrFrankLives on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:21:37 AM PDT

  •  I think Obama's heart is in the (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    citizen53, philgoblue, MeanBoneII, desmoinesdem, brownsox, IrishCatholicDemocrat

    right place, and he was right in 2002, but he just has not fought very hard to end the war.  It disapoints me.  

    The Lieberman thing is one example.

    In 2004, he was soft in opposition:

    By David Mendell and Jeff Zeleny
    Tribune staff reporters
    Published July 27, 2004

    Obama, a state senator from Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, opposed the Iraq invasion before the war. But he now believes U.S. forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation--a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.

    He voted against Kerry/Feingold/Boxer in 2006.

    His theme of "responsible" withdrawal, which is consistent since the invasion as far as I can tell, is not enough for me.

    "We don't need to redefine the Democratic Party; we need to reclaim the Democratic Party." John Edwards 2/22/07

    by TomP on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:21:51 AM PDT

    •  It's perfectly fair... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      faithfull, Sam I Am

      to say that Obama's "responsible" withdrawal plan is not enough...but I'm curious which candidate (other than Kucinich) would meet that criteria.  Edwards has his 40,000 out now plan, but he's pretty vague on the rest...12-18 months, last I saw, which is similar to Obama.

      by rashomon on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:56:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sharpton IS right. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cowalker, SecondComing, TomP

    Lieberman is the lynchpin in the Senate keeping this atrocious war going.  If Lamont had won, things would be going much smoother.

    Time's fun when you're having flies. - Kermit the Frog

    by Five of Diamonds on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:22:21 AM PDT

  •  Eh... (8+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    itsbenj, Yoshimi, cookiesandmilk, zenbowl, clammyc, Prison4Bushco, Geekesque, JerseyGirl226

    ...y'know what?  Sharpton ought to keep his mouth shut about who people campaigned for before someone brings up his amazingly racist attacks on Cory Booker in support of the reelection of multiple felon Sharpe James.

    If Rev. Al had a whit of integrity about who gets his electoral support, I might give a damn.  As it is, all this means is that, yes, Sen. Obama isn't a god.

    The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

    by Jay Elias on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:22:24 AM PDT

  •  Obama sucks up to Jewish voters (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    optimusprime
    Hidden by:
    shpilk

    It's politics.

    If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

    by Carl Nyberg on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:22:54 AM PDT

    •  Nail on head. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aquarius40, optimusprime

      Obama does not want to offend AIPAC.  You know, the group who applauded Cheney's statement yesterday that the Democrats are emboldening Al Qaeda.

      "Conservatism makes no poetry, breathes no prayer, has no invention; it is all memory." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

      by reef the dog on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:24:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So the "some of my best freinds are Jews" line? (0+ / 0-)

        The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love, instead, see all of us as one. -Bill Hicks

        by waitingforvizzini on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:26:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  forget Israel for this (0+ / 0-)

        Lieberman is seen as the most prominent Jewish politician in the country.

        Obama making nice to Lieberman is no different than Dems sucking up to Jesse Jackson in the day.

        Or Bush visiting the Pope.

        It's merely a politician embracing someone who is a leader and a symbol for an ethnic group. A politician who wants to court the ethnic group in question.

        If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

        by Carl Nyberg on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:31:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah... (2+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          Radiowalla, shpilk
          Hidden by:
          Politburo

          ...he's a real "Jewish leader".  American Jews just love that guy.

          Shut the fuck up before you make yourself into more of a fool than you are already appearing.

          The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

          by Jay Elias on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:33:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  How did Lieberman do among Jewish voters in CT? (0+ / 0-)

            To what extent Lieberman is a Jewish leader can be debated.

            But does it help or hurt Bush with Catholic voters to appear with the Pope?

            In the 90s did it help or hurt Clinton with Blacks to appear with Jesse Jackson?

            If Obama believed it could help with Jewish voters to support Lieberman, it's merely a political calculation on Obama's part.

            If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

            by Carl Nyberg on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:43:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  How did he do? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Radiowalla, Geekesque

              Well, he got his lowest showing ever among Jewish voters, and that he only got an increase within the polling margin of error among Jews from the primary, where the erosion of Jewish support was seen by many to be the main reason why he lost to Lamont in the first place.

              It isn't at all subtle what you are attempting to do here.  You want to tie American Jews to Lieberman.  But I'll happily take the troll-rating I got to get to call you on it.

              The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

              by Jay Elias on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:10:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  You're always such a fucking charmer... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Radiowalla, Adam B, shpilk

      ...I can't imagine what wouldn't be improved by your absence, sometimes.  Fucking hell....

      The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

      by Jay Elias on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:32:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is a fair comment to ponder and for Hillary (0+ / 0-)

      Lieberman is a huge supporter and friend of AIPAC.

      Obama speaks at AIPAC:

      http://blogs.suntimes.com/...

      Obama and Hillary Courts AIPAC:

      http://dc.indymedia.org/...

      http://rochesterturning.com/

      by optimusprime on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:47:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He sucks up to anything that will help him... (0+ / 0-)

      that's why his solutions are anything but!  Just smoke and mirrors and pretty speeches that are, in essence, empty.  Taking a "hard" stand when it might cost him, well, I never saw that from Barrack.  By the time Obama takes a stand, it is safe to do so;  the stand of the moment.  Sure, it may be more "liberal", but I often see it as just what the opinion polls are saying, and all that means in this country, even though so many confused people call themselves "conservative", when it comes to the issues, most people are "liberal".

      That's what Obama is playing... the confusion of the masses and his non-specific solutions; if he even deigns to discuss the problem.

      Obama has a lot of sucky votes, and you can see a big list here.

      The meek shall inherit the earth.... six feet under!! Liberals and progressives, stop being meek!

      by FightTheFuture on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 04:59:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How could a 'Centrist' like kos embrace Sharpton (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, danthrax, BlueinColorado, malharden, TomP, davewill

    Why he's sounding like he's left of MSOC!

    All in good snark  

    'What's a neocon?' George W. Bush, August 2004

    by deepsouthdoug on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:22:56 AM PDT

  •  Well here's one word for it (7+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thirdparty, mickey, jen, faithfull, LSophia, jfenway, JerseyGirl226

    Mistake

    Someone once asked me if I had learned anything from going to war so many times. My reply: Yes, I learned how to cry.
    Joe Galloway

    by BOHICA on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:22:56 AM PDT

  •  Seems to me every major Democrat (21+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, cookiesandmilk, zenbowl, 28th Democrat, SecondComing, Bearpaw, mcfly, TheJohnny, pat208, faithfull, Sam I Am, citizenx, John DE, Phil S 33, mozlover, Geekesque, LV Pol Girl, malharden, davewill, cumberland sibyl, Cat Servant

    made a mistake involving Joe Lieberman. Obama, and the Clintons endorsed him in the primary. John Edwards co-sponsored the Iraq war resolution with him. And Al Gore, well, you know.  

    Barack Obama 08
    It's says a lot about conservatism when they have to add "compassionate" to it

    by jj32 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:23:02 AM PDT

    •  No, what did Al Gore do? I don't know. (0+ / 0-)

      It seems as though he, and Wesley Clark, are the only ones whose hands are clean of the bloody mess that is Iraq. Obama enabled Lieberman, who wants war, war and more war.

      My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

      by adigal on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:27:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Al Gore? (9+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bearpaw, danthrax, mcfly, faithfull, Sam I Am, citizenx, John DE, mozlover, Wiki Wiki

        Ever hear of Joe Lieberman the VP candidate?  

        by Yoshimi on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:29:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Made him his running mate (11+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yoshimi, Bearpaw, mcfly, Leggy Starlitz, faithfull, Sam I Am, citizenx, mozlover, pat of butter in a sea of grits, malharden, dishrag

        that more then anything has helped make him a bigger pain in the ass.

        Would he have run in 04 without that feather in his cap?

        by bam bam on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:29:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  He gave Lieberman a platform (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yoshimi, mcfly, Leggy Starlitz, citizenx, mozlover

        by picking him as his Vice Presidential nominee.

        Barack Obama 08
        It's says a lot about conservatism when they have to add "compassionate" to it

        by jj32 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:29:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ever hear of DJK (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yoshimi, poetas

        Ever hear of Dennis Kucinich, the anti-war candidate?

        The turtle was tight in its shell for a long time. But at last its legs waved in the air, reaching for something to pull it over. -Steinbeck (Grapes of Wrath)

        by Ma Joad on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:30:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Al Gore made Lieberman a national figure. (8+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yoshimi, 28th Democrat, mcfly, faithfull, Sam I Am, citizenx, mozlover, pat of butter in a sea of grits

        Just sayin'.

        Joe Lieberman likes to be called an "Independent Democrat". I like being called a "sexual dynamo".

        by Arjun Jaikumar on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:30:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Usig that same logic (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yoshimi, jj32, Wiki Wiki

        what did Gore do to help Lamont?, or any other democratic candidate? Gore politics to pursue other interests it's time to bring in some fresh thinkers and make some real changes.

        Remember, all odors are particulate in nature.

        by ckerst on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:31:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Al Gore chose Joementum as a running mate. eom (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yoshimi, mcfly, faithfull, citizenx

        by Geekesque on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:31:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Al Gore mistakes (1+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        faithfull
        Hidden by:
        FightTheFuture

        Am I the only one who remembers the 1980s?  
        (Al Gore campaigned as the right-winger in the 1988 primary, bragging that he was the only one who had supported the contra terrorits in Nicaragua.)

        Or the 1990s?

        (Al Gore, after writing a great book on the environment, was #2 in the first administration since the 1950s which allowed mileage to shrink and stonewalled on Kyoto.  Oh, and don't get me started on NAFTA or the impoverishment of Russia.)

        Or the 2000s?

        (Al Gore, after winning the election, listened to idiots who considered a full recount in Florida "too extreme" and instead cherry picked a few (wrong!) counties.  And he declined Jesse Jackson's offer to get people in the streets while the Republican paid mobs were running AMOK.)

        If Al Gore did somehow become president and do a good job it would be one hell of a tale of redemption.

        Flame away.

        Get a Vegetarian Starter Kit and a Dem. Party Mastercard

        by Cat Servant on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:54:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You need to provide some links to your lies. (0+ / 0-)

          First off:

          (Al Gore campaigned as the right-winger in the 1988 primary, bragging that he was the only one who had supported the contra terrorits in Nicaragua.)

          Ummm..... is this what you are talking about?

          Bradley, Gore split in some key Senate votes

          MILITARY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS:
          Provide $90 million in aid to Contra guerilla forces in Nicaragua (1986) Gore:  No

          Next...

          (Al Gore, after writing a great book on the environment, was #2 in the first administration since the 1950s which allowed mileage to shrink and stonewalled on Kyoto.  Oh, and don't get me started on NAFTA or the impoverishment of Russia.)

          1950's?  Uhhh.... CAFE standards did not even come into law until 1975, idiot.  BTW, the decline in MPG was from the rise of the SUV's in the 90's.  Now Clinton may not have addressed it, but from this article, it looks like Gore was trying to do something, as much as he could being the VP who follows the President's agenda:

          The Clinton administration has not been a leader in fighting for fuel-efficiency standards. Environmentalists urged President Clinton to veto the rider-bearing transportation bill, but he chose not to do so, despite alleged behind-the-scenes lobbying by Vice President Al Gore.

          NAFTA-- you mean Mr. Rahm Emmanual's pet project.  Gore was a champion on Kyoto, the stonewalling came from the Senate on ratification, goof.  BTW, Gore was VP, not President--I know today that seems irrelevant, but usually, that means a big deal.  Unlike Cheney and the Chimp, Clinton was in charge of the policies that came out of his administration, not Gore.   Russia?  What will you pull in next to blame Gore with--Pluto being downgraded from Planet status?!  Cripes.

          Finally...

          (Al Gore, after winning the election, listened to idiots who considered a full recount in Florida "too extreme" and instead cherry picked a few (wrong!) counties.  And he declined Jesse Jackson's offer to get people in the streets while the Republican paid mobs were running AMOK.)

          Yet, when the extent of the problems became apparent, he went on to request a full statewide recount.  Did Gore have bad advice?  Sure, it happens to everyone, except you, I guess.

          The reality is the last 6 years of National elections have been stolen in various ways; even before with Chuck Hagel's Nebraska's weirdness.  I can't fault Gore for thinking we still had a functioning Democracy and legal system at work while conspirators were launching their coup.  

          Anything of more substance to whine about?

          Oh, yeah, it's a shame Gore did not call for riots and bloodshed in the streets.  Just think how much further we would be along with the Rethuglican Fascist Militarization of our society if he did!!  That Gore, always trying to support rule of law rather than rule of mob.  Guess Gore won't be getting the Rethuglican vote!  



          You are an ass, and I will provide a donut for stupidity and outright lies.  If you can support you assertions better, I will remove it.

          The meek shall inherit the earth.... six feet under!! Liberals and progressives, stop being meek!

          by FightTheFuture on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 06:13:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No shit. (0+ / 0-)

            "But on major defense issues Gore was solidly in the Democratic mainstream. He had supported the nuclear freeze and sharp limits on Star Wars spending, opposed funds for two new aircraft carriers and, until the campaign, most aid to the Nicaraguan contras. "

            OK my bad.  Apparently Gore opposed helping the contras until campaign season, at which point he supported them.  Given him trumpeting his support in 1988, I naturally assumed he'd been supporting them all along.

            I know when CAFE standards started.  Sorry I wasn't more specific, but I cited the 50s as average fuel economy was probably improving during the 1960s with the increasing popularity of small foreign cars.  Contrast this with the 1990s, when aveage fuel economy fell because the Clinton/Gore administration did nothing to raise standards (which had gone up under Ford, Carter, and Reagan.  Reagan for chrissakes).  But they also did nothing to close the SUV loophole, which made "light trucks" go from a small fraction of cars sold (under 1/4) in 1992 to over half of vehicles sold by the end of the presidency.

            And I feel comforted knowing that you can excuse giving away an election so easily.

            P.S.  Go f*** yourself.  That's so you can feel self-righteous about keeping the zero.  Since I obviously thew some mud on your hero worship.

            Get a Vegetarian Starter Kit and a Dem. Party Mastercard

            by Cat Servant on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 08:04:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  As I recall, the aid he supported was (0+ / 0-)

              humanitarian, not military.  Nevertheless, the best link I can find from then was he voted against military aid to Nicaragua.  I ask again, do you know how to insert links into your messages?

              Here's a problem: first "was probably improving", well, that's what is known as asshattery, as you simply do not know.  I could also say with the rise of V8's and muscle cars in the 60's, any fuel savings from smaller foreign imports were overwhelmed; but who really knows?  It's an ass-u-me statement, as best.

              You are also implying linkages where none exist.  The reason fuel economy went up under Reagan was not because of him.  It was because of CAFE standards enacted in '75 and they had so far to go.  It was easy gains with the use of catalytic converters which removed the need for much power robbing devices on the engine to meet clean air and MPG standards to be achieved.  It peaked in 1987 then declined then went back up slightly under Clinton, as Fig 2 here shows.    

              The truck loophole, there from the beginning, did not become a real problem until the unforeseen 9in 1975)late 90's with the rise of the SUVs.  I don't see Clinton really being able to do much about that at that time.  He had other things going on, or did you forget two government shutdowns over Newt Gingrich's tax-less-spend-more Republicans budget add ons and, well, the witch hunt over that most horrible of crimes, a blow job!

              If you want to learn more about the intricacies of CAFE standards, then go educate yourself here and here.  MPG is not the only measure, BTW.  Emissions is also a part of it.  Also, oddly, as MPG increased, people drove more miles and suburban sprawl increased, burning more oil, in net.  Obviously more is needed with these initiatives (which are good), like public transportation infrastructures, and such.  It's not just MPG.

              Now, I am not excusing anything about the elections.  They were stolen, it was wrong, and short of armed civil war, I am not sure how it really could have been resolved.  Gore bowed to the Supine Court for the well being of the country, not his vanity.  He then had his "walkabout" afterward and became a much better man for it and used his new found convictions to push forward his agenda of Global Climate Change, and a number of other issues and speeches.  Speeches such as the War in Iraq and Terrorism in 2002; Dangers to our Democracy and Media; Danger to our Constitution,; Katrina and Global Warming; etc, etc.

              You threw mud, yes, which I easily washed off.  The problem is you, your asshattery, your spreading factoids that are not true or way out of context; like a good little Repuglican would do (are you?).  That's why you have the 0, and still have it as you have no linkage support for that first statement regarding the Contras.  

              Gore was more conservative in the 80's and 90's; he was a DLC Democrat.  Yet, yet even then it was obvious the man had the best interests of this country at heart.  He had the concept of public service in mind.  I guess the fact we have the Internet we have today because of Al Goreis lost on you.

              Now, go get fucked if that's what it takes, but stop being an ass.  I defend Al Gore not out of Hero worship, but because he is the best ting the Democratic Party, and this country has going right now; any other candidate pales in comparison, even Edwards, whom I gladly support over the more conservative Obama and Hillary.  Also, because it's the right thing to do in the face of such stupidity and bullshit!

              The meek shall inherit the earth.... six feet under!! Liberals and progressives, stop being meek!

              by FightTheFuture on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 06:51:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Kerry and Clark (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Feanor, danthrax, jj32, jfenway, TomP, IrishCatholicDemocrat

      were apparently 'rock stars' for Lamont. So on that measure, at least, there are a few major Democrats who did better than good.

      Let there be sharks - TracieLynn

      by GussieFN on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:29:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The concept of TIME is lost on you, isn't it?! (0+ / 0-)

      That's the only way your asshat works; which it doesn't since we live in a cause and effect based world where time moves forward; dipshit.

      Gore did not support LIEberman in 2004; he supported Dean.  Gore was agaisnt this war, forecfully before it ever started.  LIEberman was busy on his kness fluffing Bush and Cheney; just like he did in the VP debates.  

      'nuff said.

      The meek shall inherit the earth.... six feet under!! Liberals and progressives, stop being meek!

      by FightTheFuture on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 05:04:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yeah, litmus test Dems (11+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, 28th Democrat, erhan04, snout, TheJohnny, pat208, faithfull, mozlover, LV Pol Girl, Edgar08, Wiki Wiki

    Exactly what we need.

    We might as well cross out Chris Dodd because hey, he activley supported Joe Lieberman before the Democratic primary.

    Katherine Harris. "That gal knows how to shake a possum," the auctioneer drawled.

    by blueday on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:23:15 AM PDT

    •  I know! These litmus test pro-choicers! (0+ / 0-)

      Or anti-war types!

      Or gay-rights people!

      Or universal health-insurance supporters!

      I hate litmus tests. We should have some kind of, hm, unity ticket in 2008. No litmus tests!

      Let there be sharks - TracieLynn

      by GussieFN on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:31:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  or, to address what is actually being discussed (0+ / 0-)

        here - Or anti-people who didn't campaign quite enough for the guy I wanted to win even though he did support him types!

        ...i felt my pants' warmth as my legs became string and my arteries burst into song...

        by itsbenj on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 03:44:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Sometimes action speak loder than words (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    philgoblue, optimusprime, TomP

    by Lawdog on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:23:24 AM PDT

  •  Decisions (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ThunderHawk13, TomP

    At first was enthusiastic supporter of Obama, now starting to have doubts. Trying to decide between Obama and Edwards.  At least we have a year to decide.

    Go Gators

    by wapitig8r on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:23:57 AM PDT

  •  I absolutely agree that Obama should NOT (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    optimusprime, TomP

    have campaigned for Lieberman; as to whether he is truly anti-war, I am withholding judgment.

    My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

    by adigal on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:24:09 AM PDT

  •  Lamont purity. (13+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia, Yoshimi, snout, TheJohnny, jj32, faithfull, Sam I Am, John DE, Geekesque, brownsox, malharden, davewill, Edgar08

    The most annoying purity of all.

    Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes. Go do some politics. - Barack Obama

    by 28th Democrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:24:54 AM PDT

  •  honestly, it don't matter that much (11+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia, Yoshimi, jj32, faithfull, Sam I Am, Phil S 33, Geekesque, pat of butter in a sea of grits, malharden, davewill, Wiki Wiki

    I enjoy hating Lieberman as much as the next Kossack, but this is a third-order issue when it comes to voters.  Are you going to go campaign for Hillary Clinton over this? (and what does Al Sharpton have to say about that - isn't he in her camp right now?)  Edwards might be able to benefit, but I don't see any other good alternatives if someone is so singleminded in Lieberman-hate that they can't let this one go.

    And speaking of honestly... quite frankly, Al Sharpton is getting generation-gapped on racial politics, and it's galling him.  He doesn't get to be the token black candidate this election (with due respect to Carol Mausley-Braun) because Democrats have transcended the need for token black candidates, and Obama is the proof of that.  He didn't need to march with MLK or work the Rainbow Coalition, and really, he's too young for that stuff.  

    Obama represents a new, more inclusive, and far more positive racial politics than the old 1960s urban civil rights world of Al Sharpton. And that's a hard pill for Sharpton to swallow.  Like Yassar Arafat, he's become a victim of the very success of his politics, an anachronism in the world he dreamed of seeing.

    Ann Coulter: Nazi fetish porn star, or just looks like one?

    by Leggy Starlitz on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:24:55 AM PDT

    •  may be a non-issue with voters (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      but it does raise questions for me. Obama campaigned in Iowa last weekend on his tough anti-war record. I applaud him for speaking out against the war in 2002. But when he was a high-profile senator in a position to do something, he chose to campaign for the biggest Democratic cheerleader for the war.

      Sends the message that for Obama, collegiality is more important than electing senators who will end the war.

      Reject the McCain doctrine

      by desmoinesdem on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:28:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Leggy Starlitz, Phil S 33, davewill

        I didn't realize one's support for Lamont translated into support or opposition to the war.  Obama may have campaigned for Lieberman during the primary, but he also campaigned for a half dozen other anti-war dems: McCaskill, Webb...need I go on and list the House candidates he supported.  Should I also forget the fact that as a Senator he has consistently spoken out against the war, authoring legislation to bring the troops home.

        I think Sharpton is hoping that we only look narrowly at the issue and force the candidates to check off boxes in our own personal purity tests.

        by erhan04 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:35:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Also took him 11 months after his election... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ThunderHawk13, TomP, AJ WI

        to make a peep on the subject, on 11-22-05.

        Edwards's op-ed was on 11-10-05 and Murtha's change was on 11-17-05.  Then, five days later, Obama finally used his office to speak to the issue.

        by citizen53 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:36:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  So true, because blacks have absolute equality (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dwhite10701, sukeyna

      now in America, so we no longer need blacks to fight vigorously for their rights any more.

      (I hope I don't need the snark label, but I will use it just in case.)

      My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

      by adigal on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:29:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah, yeah (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yoshimi, malharden

        It's all or nothing.  Progress is only black and white, not shades of grey.  Things are no better today than they were when I was a kid in the early 1970s, because they aren't PERFECT yet.

        Want your straw man back now?

        Ann Coulter: Nazi fetish porn star, or just looks like one?

        by Leggy Starlitz on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:31:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, I was responding to the claim that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sukeyna

          there is a new day for minorities in this country, where the air is fresh and clean and white children and black children live and study together. I was responding that there is still much to be done, in contrast to the claims I responded to.

          My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

          by adigal on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:49:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  then I'll stick to my claim (0+ / 0-)

            It IS a new era for racial politics in this country.  Al Sharpton represents the past, the identity politics of the 1980s (even more so than the civil rights politics of the 1960s).  It is no longer inconceivable that a black man could be elected president... I think if Obama wins the nomination, he'll win the presidency handily.  Racism won't play negatively in the vote at all, because the only people who left who get along with their inner bigot are true-blue Republicans now.

            And as I said, Obama represents a far more inclusive view of race than the old identity politics urbanism of Sharpton.  He's black, yes (for purposes of your average racist, at least).  He's also immigrant, and non-European immigrant at that. His ethnic nature speaks more to the modern American melting pot than leftovers from the 19th century.  It's a positive image, not a negative one.

            Yes, there's still progress to be made on racial issues.  But people like Al Sharpton aren't making progress anymore.  We need new leaders, because the country has changed.  It's not to say what they did wasn't valuable, or successful... rather, it's that we need to address the present.

            Ann Coulter: Nazi fetish porn star, or just looks like one?

            by Leggy Starlitz on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:21:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Let me see if I understand you (0+ / 0-)

              You are saying that Sharpton, (who I have never trusted, btw, since Tawana Brawley, so he is not the issue for me,) and other non-immigrant blacks are "leftovers from the 19th century"? Sharpton's type of black is negative, as opposed to Obama's positive "immigrant, and non-European immigrant" background.

              Are you really saying that? You seem to feel those who won civil rights should go back to the back of the bus again to make way for the immigrant, non-European blacks that Obama represents, and I must say, I find that ironic in a terrible sort of way.

              My file on RedState.org: Adigal: Another one of them left wing girls way too smart for our own good. Her phones need to be monitored.

              by adigal on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:02:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  not at all (0+ / 0-)

                I am saying that Sharpton's politics are ultimately about the legacy of slavery - that's the 19th century part.  Really, though, it's from the 1980s, when identity politics dominated the Democratic Party, leading to the "special interests" attack... Democrats were expected to identify with being black/woman/gay/union/etc, SOME sort of oppressed group, and those who didn't have an identity like that were suspect.  It did wonders for driving blue-collar white males out of the party.

                A couple of things here.  First, identity politics was a total failure.  It promoted disunity and lip service, rather than any sense that we're in it together.  It made divide and conquer easy for our enemies.  Second, the environment of racial politics is different now than it was then.  I, a child of the 1970s, grew up in a much less bigoted world than my parents.  My children are growing up in a less bigoted world than me.  They're 21st century kids.  Al Sharpton's "back of the bus" politics would make little sense to them.

                Saying I'm calling for civil rights leaders to go to the back of the bus is just insulting - either really dumb or willfully ignoring my point. The point is, Al Sharpton doesn't represent anyone BUT a fairly narrow urban African-American culture.  He doesn't represent brown-skinned immigrants.  He doesn't represent people with hard-to-pronounce names.  He doesn't represent anyone white.  Obama's racial/cultural image is different... he can be seen as representative for EVERYONE who isn't a straight-up descendant of white Europeans, and even to WASPs he doesn't look terribly different culturally.

                Yes, Sharpton's racial politics are negative.  They're about oppression and victimization, which implies oppressors as well as victims.  Obama's racial politics are far more unifying.

                Ann Coulter: Nazi fetish porn star, or just looks like one?

                by Leggy Starlitz on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:28:56 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  The point is valid. (0+ / 0-)

        ...about Sharpton being generation gapped.

        I know some young minority voters, and they have no trouble with the notion that a white candidate might fight for their rights as vigorously as a minority candidate.

        I think that remains to be seen, but it's their opinion. Obviously I have not done a scientific study using a large sample...

        John McCain is a MINO: Maverick In Name Only

        by malharden on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:54:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Blacks Have Voted For Whites For Generations. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sukeyna, TomP

          Nothing new in the "generation gap" except style as far as I can tell.  Issues are the same as always.

          I think Sharpton's (and others') critique is a follow up to the article about Sen. Obama disinviting his very well-respected (among blacks) minister from an event to avoid political criticisms from people who'd never vote for him anyway.
          http://www.nytimes.com/...

          In recent weeks, word of Mr. Obama’s treatment of Mr. Wright has reached black leaders like the Rev. Al Sharpton and given them pause.

          "I have not discussed this with Senator Obama in detail, but I can see why callers of mine and other clergymen would be concerned, because the issue is standing by your own pastor," Mr. Sharpton said.

          -8.38, -5.54

          by majcmb1 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:24:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hmmm. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TomP

            Good call on the article about his pastor. I hadn't seen that article.

            And I think the gender gap reference is not to imply that blacks haven't traditionally voted for whites.

            It's just that when my dad voted for Jimmy Carter, he had no expectation that Jimmy was going to work hard for civil rights. He might have hoped it, but not expected it.

            When my niece votes for whoever in 2008 (her first election), she's going to believe that her candidate is grounded in racial equality regardless of how true that statement might (not) be. I don't think she is alone in that. I think it is true of her generation.

            John McCain is a MINO: Maverick In Name Only

            by malharden on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:30:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Certainly is true for women voters (0+ / 0-)

          I always thought, growing up, that if a woman ever ran for president, I would support her - of course!  Even if a Republican woman had run, I would have considered crossing the aisle.

          Now - for Hillary? No dice, no way.  I will not support her in the primary, I will not work for her in any way, and I will not give money to EMILY's list until after the next election.

          If Hillary wins the nomination, I'll probably vote for her.  But that's it.

          by LSophia on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:28:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I think it raises WAR issues. (0+ / 0-)

      I agree that the Lamont purity is silly.  BUT, the anti-war purity seems to be all the rage amongst Obama supporters, who say they will never support Edwards because of it.

      So, what do they say about the lack of purity supporting Lieberman suggests.  Or, this...

      Obama, a state senator from Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, opposed the Iraq invasion before the war. But he now believes U.S. forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation--a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.

      The problem, Obama said, is the low regard for Bush in the international community.

      One man with courage makes a majority
      - Andrew Jackson

      by chuckles1 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:42:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well at the time they probably did need to stay. (0+ / 0-)

        But we also needed a plan to stabilize Iraq and for eventual withdrawl, which did not exist. Bush's trashing of our image internationally was and is still a big thorn in our side in regard to stabilizing Iraq. Most of the crystalization of withdrawl sentiment comes from the fact that Bush has been so inept that we know we can only make things worse.

        If you want to bash him for a realistic observation, go ahead.

        Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.

        by davewill on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:59:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thats before... (0+ / 0-)

        ...Obama introduced legislation to get us out by 3-31-08.

        "If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." Abe Lincoln

        by faithfull on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:16:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Would be good if Obama (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reef the dog, SecondComing, Aquarius40, chuckles1, TomP, Cat Servant

    actually stated he supported Webb's bill to foreclose funding any attacks on Iran without prior congressional approval, you know... like the Constitution says, yet Obama won't say he supports Webb's bill.

    I want to believe Obama. I want to support him, yet he gives boot licking speeches to AIPAC, doesn't support the Webb bill.. it gives me pause.

    cheers,

    Mitch Gore

    Wanna win in '08...?

    Put your money where your mouth is.

    by Lestatdelc on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:25:01 AM PDT

  •  the article oversimplifies (0+ / 0-)

    and cries sour grapes but I'm inclined to agree with it. I've neve liked sharpton but he does have a point.

    The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love, instead, see all of us as one. -Bill Hicks

    by waitingforvizzini on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:25:11 AM PDT

  •  I had read (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, Bearpaw, faithfull, Geekesque

    a similar discussion on Mydd where they had pointed out that Obama spoke up at a conference or dinner of some kind in support of Lieberman in March 2006.  After Ned Lamont won the Dem. primary, Obama submitted a mass email/letter in support of Lamont.  

    He did subsequently support Lamont, it was just tepid.  The Chicago Sun-Times would have put out a more complete article if they mentioned these tidbits.  

    I don't like it myself, and it is a display of returning Lieberman's favor of supporting Obama in '04.  Sounds like a pretty uneven exchange, here, as Obama was an apparent shoe-in.  

    Nevertheless, this isn't a deal-breaker for me with Obama.  I'm still looking at him, Gore, Clark (if they enter), Edwards, and Richardson.  

    Coimhead fearg fhear na foighde.

    by IrishCatholicDemocrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:25:27 AM PDT

  •  Kos has posted (9+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia, Yoshimi, cookiesandmilk, jj32, faithfull, Sam I Am, Nasara, Settembrini, ReggieH

    a few anti Obama pieces. What is your problem with Obama? It sounds like you've already picked a horse in this race and are trying to shoot down other candidates. As someone else pointed out after the primary Obama stuck with the party and Lamont, I think you owe Obama an apology.

    Remember, all odors are particulate in nature.

    by ckerst on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:26:02 AM PDT

  •  primary, maybe (9+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reef the dog, Aexia, itsbenj, Eric J in MN, jj32, faithfull, Sam I Am, citizenx, Geekesque

    HARTFORD, Conn. --Ned Lamont got a boost Thursday from one of the Democratic party's brightest rising stars, Sen. Barack Obama.

    The Illinois senator and potential 2008 presidential candidate sent an e-mail message to his Connecticut supporters urging them to rally behind Lamont's challenge to three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman.

    "Ned Lamont has waged an impressive grass roots campaign to give the people of Connecticut a choice in the November Senate election," Obama wrote. "Please join me in supporting Ned Lamont with your hard work on-the-ground in these closing weeks of the campaign."

    are there any democratic senators that endorsed lamont in the primary?

    obama, unlike lieberman and some other dem senators, accepted the will of ct's dem voters; shouldn't that be what matters here?

    but mustn't forget that obama is held to impossible standards...

    by tomjones on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:26:31 AM PDT

  •  Lieberman was endorsed by the state (10+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, Bearpaw, Leggy Starlitz, jj32, faithfull, Sam I Am, Phil S 33, brownsox, CAL11 voter, ReggieH

    Democratic convention, so I don't see how Obama and Boxer supporting Lieberman before the primary is some kind of disloyal act.

    by Geekesque on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:26:49 AM PDT

  •  scorecard on Lamont (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi

    Did s/he support Lieberman in the primary? Lamont? Or stay neutral?

    What about the general election?

    • Joe Biden
    • Wes Clark
    • Hillary Rodham Clinton
    • Chris Dodd
    • John Edwards
    • Al Gore
    • Mike Gravel
    • Dennis Kucinich
    • Barack Obama
    • Bill Richardson
    • Al Sharpton

    If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

    by Carl Nyberg on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:26:55 AM PDT

  •  WEAK (19+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia, Yoshimi, cookiesandmilk, rebop, Bearpaw, MayaNoelle, Leggy Starlitz, jj32, faithfull, Phil S 33, mozlover, Geekesque, frenchman, LV Pol Girl, Settembrini, PharLap, Abby Kelleyite, IrishCatholicDemocrat, Wiki Wiki

    Obama supported Lieberman before the primary, not after. He supported Lamont after, though not as fiercely as the Lamont'ys wanted.

    Meanwhile he's got one of the most progressive voting records in the Senate and in his career in Illinois.

    This pretty much says it all (from the article linked)

    "It's driving Al crazy that Obama is as impressive and popular as he is, and he's not happy about it," a black Democratic activist was quoted as saying.

    Sharpton and I agree on many issues, but I can't take him seriously because of Tawana Brawley and his shameful actions that summer.

    A fanatic is a man who does what he thinks the Lord would do if He knew the facts of the case.

    by nightsweat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:27:06 AM PDT

  •  Not endorsing the Blogger favortite (13+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia, cookiesandmilk, nightsweat, mcfly, jj32, faithfull, Sam I Am, Geekesque, CAL11 voter, pat of butter in a sea of grits, frenchman, Edgar08, Wiki Wiki

    Ned Lamont and those unpaid parking tickets do is the litmus test for me.

    I'm not voting for Obama.  Even if he is the clear nominee. Where is Nader, I'm going third party. ;)

    by Yoshimi on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:27:18 AM PDT

  •  Ah... were it so simple (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, faithfull

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:27:30 AM PDT

  •  So hold on (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    frenchman

    with the exception of Chuck Todd, possibly Edwards, do any of the other SERIOUS candidates have the higher ground on this issue?

    I mean Biden, Clinton and even Kucinich?

    And was this during the primary or after?

    by bam bam on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:27:50 AM PDT

  •  Obama campaigned FOR Lamont (12+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia, Yoshimi, cookiesandmilk, Bearpaw, jj32, faithfull, Sam I Am, mozlover, CAL11 voter, frenchman, ezdidit, malharden

    Here's a random google hit...

    HARTFORD, Conn. --Ned Lamont got a boost Thursday from one of the Democratic party's brightest rising stars, Sen. Barack Obama.

    The Illinois senator and potential 2008 presidential candidate sent an e-mail message to his Connecticut supporters urging them to rally behind Lamont's challenge to three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman.

    "Ned Lamont has waged an impressive grass roots campaign to give the people of Connecticut a choice in the November Senate election," Obama wrote. "Please join me in supporting Ned Lamont with your hard work on-the-ground in these closing weeks of the campaign."

    The Lamont camp said Obama's e-mail went to about 5,000 Connecticut residents.

    Ann Coulter: Nazi fetish porn star, or just looks like one?

    by Leggy Starlitz on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:28:28 AM PDT

    •  That's an endorsement email. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      thirdparty, danthrax, inevitibility

      Not campaigning.  

      "Conservatism makes no poetry, breathes no prayer, has no invention; it is all memory." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

      by reef the dog on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:34:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  WTF??!? (10+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aexia, itsbenj, Yoshimi, snout, Leggy Starlitz, faithfull, mozlover, Nasara, frenchman, Settembrini

      Why is this story up? It's wrong. Obama campaigned for LAMONT, as Leggy Starlitz points out. This diary is hurting our party, promoting lies, and I can't believe this story is even up. Disappointing.

      Obama '08!

      by Misty Fowler on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:34:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The full story (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      philgoblue, moira977, ThunderHawk13, inevitibility

      about that email:

      Eventually, we asked Senator Obama to send out an email for the campaign to his Connecticut list.  We created a culture in which emails became news (much like we did with the blogs in the primary).  They made it entirely clear that he would basically not even mention Joe Lieberman's name in the email, let alone take him to task for his unfortunate position on the war in Iraq.  This was disappointing, but I wasn't going to be spiteful.  They sent the email, and as I hoped, the press came calling.  Our Press Secretary, Eddie Vale, was asked how many people the email went to.  He looked on the back-end of the website and saw the number of click-throughs to the landing page I created.  He answered "about 5,000."  Within minutes of the Associated Press piece going on the wire, I received several phone calls from Obama staff.  They were none to pleased about the 5,000 number.  Essentially, Obama could be seen as helping, but not helping THAT much.  His staff apparently made it clear that the email only went out to 225 people in Connecticut.  That's it.  The next day we were subject to a correction in the papers and ridicule from Lieberman's campaign and corners of the right-wing blogosphere.

      by thirdparty on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:37:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  thanks (0+ / 0-)

        Now, that's useful information. That's the ONLY good critique of it I've seen in dozens of comments.

        But I think my point still stands.  You can't blame Lieberman's election on Obama's support in the primaries, when Obama supported Lamont, no matter how halfheartedly, in the general.  

        Ann Coulter: Nazi fetish porn star, or just looks like one?

        by Leggy Starlitz on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:40:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  it's a valid critique (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dumbya, jj32, faithfull

    but none of our candidates are "perfect" on the Iraq war, Obama is the most "right" on the issue having opposed the invasion from the outset, perhaps he felp loyalty to a sitting senator, i know Edwards supporters will blast me but co-sponsering the Iraq war resolution and then turning sharply anti-war in 2006 when searching for a rationale for a candidacy is not apealing to me at all, and as for Hillary we don't even want to there.

    this is your mission: TERMINATE the Bush presidency

    by nevadadem on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:29:35 AM PDT

  •  Perhaps Obama... (0+ / 0-)

    was positioning himself more for support from AIPAC, which in this day and age, is a prerequisite to a run for the presidency.

    by sammy1 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:30:02 AM PDT

  •  Right on Markos! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    optimusprime, TomP

    Hypocrisy and pandering are not cool!

    Change is inevitable, embrace it.

    by The House on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:30:16 AM PDT

  •  Dear Al, Black is Beautiful...Green not so much (0+ / 0-)

    And I'm not talking about third party politics.

    Whitehouse For Senate

    by rebop on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:31:09 AM PDT

  •  Sharpton has it bassackwards. (9+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    itsbenj, Yoshimi, cookiesandmilk, nightsweat, jj32, faithfull, mozlover, Geekesque, IrishCatholicDemocrat

    Sharpton has it completely backwards.

    "Obama talks a great "anti-Iraq War" game."

    No...Obama "walks" a great anti-Iraq war game. Remember he's the guy who came out against the war when the other candidates (Clark, Clinton, Edwards) were still afraid to speak or act against.

    Obama opposed the Iraq war when opposition could do some good and stop it...not years after it went South and everyone was jumping on the anti-Iraq bandwagon.

    Obama's the guy who put his election on the line and opposed the Iraq and won two elections...again when it was not popular to do so.

    So Obama has the credentials on Iraq to make choices that are not based on covering up the mistake of supporting the war.

    by PharLap on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:31:16 AM PDT

  •  Troll tagging diaries is the hot new thing. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    danthrax, faithfull

    I wonder what Kos would do if I changed his tags to "hit diary"?

    That was just a joke.  I think no one should mess with people's tags.

    by Yoshimi on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:32:29 AM PDT

  •  What is wrong with supporting (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia, Yoshimi, faithfull, Geekesque, Settembrini

    an incumbent three-term senator who is a personal friend and a former vice-presidential candidate, just like every other single elected official in the Democratic party did, before the primary? This is a litmus test push-poll question that's way out of control.

    Nevermind the fact that Obama turned around and supported the nominee afterwards. And oh, he didn't go and campaign personally, just endorsed and gave money? God forbid he have different priorities from the Great Kos, in an election in which Obama single-handedly aided in the election of dozens of Democratic seats. Perhaps he understood, as most of us on this site were too blind to see, that Lieberman was not vulnerable in the primary.

    Frankly, I thinka first-page post by kos on this issue a year and a half after the event is utterly distasteful. It's not as though there's a new development that warrants this.

    by Gimmeliberty on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:32:37 AM PDT

  •  Obama supported Lamont in the general... (9+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia, Yoshimi, cookiesandmilk, Eric J in MN, Feanor, faithfull, frenchman, IrishCatholicDemocrat, Wiki Wiki

    election, didn't he?  That's good enough for me.

    by CAL11 voter on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:33:11 AM PDT

    •  Lamont was the antiwar candidate in primary! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CAL11 voter

      Pretty simple.

      The turtle was tight in its shell for a long time. But at last its legs waved in the air, reaching for something to pull it over. -Steinbeck (Grapes of Wrath)

      by Ma Joad on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:36:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And he supported Bernie Sanders, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      faithfull

      the Northeastern independent that doesn't suck.  

      I'm not happy about Obama's early support for Lieberman at all--it was in exchange for support that Obama didn't need in 2004.  And I'm sure that slimy creep Lieberman knew calling in a favor from Obama would be money in the bank.

      Obama still supported Lamont, and other Dems.  He could've done better, but Sharpton should've been clearer on his story.  This is total b.s.

      Coimhead fearg fhear na foighde.

      by IrishCatholicDemocrat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:37:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  oh yes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV

    I think it was his lack of campaigning for Lamont that really put up people's hackles (long list of Dems who didn't campaign for Lamont, actually).

    Well, let's see, Obama must have been at least considering a presidential run (if not in 08, later, maybe), so he was being calculating, perhaps.

    But my impression, not just of Obama, but a number of Dems during that time was that they were embarrassed. They were embarrassed (and a bit threatened) that an incumbent senator could be knocked off by a political novice--then they were embarassed that Lieberman wouldn't concede. There was a lot of "maybe if we just ignore it, this whole mess will go away" going on.

    I am currently a "passive" Obama supporter, I guess, so take that as you will, but from what I've seen of him, he's not the one to go all bombastic out there leading charges. That doesn't seem to be his way personally or politically. If that's what you are looking for, you're not going to find it. And if that's not what he is, I don't know that his trying to change would really help. But at the same time, maybe we don't really need one person to be all things to all people. Can't someone else on our side provide the bombast and let Obama do what he does excel at? That's not to say that being bombastic is a necessary quality for a "leader." You can get good results in other ways.

    I'm starting to view the war as a byproduct of an American version of a "bad time" in history. For other countries, this might involve a military coup, genocide, wars of conquest, dictatorship, economic collapse, famine etc (and for those who want to suggest that we already have those things,  no we don't. If we did, you wouldn't not be at a computer, you'd be out doing forced labor somewhere or displaced or something like that--things may seem bad, but the botttom is very very far yet): well, we've certainly seen versions of it elsewhere. And yet, it's such an American way to have a "bad time". Kind of tame, by comparison and relatively easy to dig oneself out of. So rather than sitting around pointing fingers, let's figure out what is possible in terms of getting out and let's get there as soon as possible.

    We won--get out of the way

    by JMS on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:33:32 AM PDT

  •  Kos is full of it (14+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia, itsbenj, Yoshimi, nightsweat, TheJohnny, jj32, faithfull, Sam I Am, John DE, mozlover, LV Pol Girl, Settembrini, Gimmeliberty, Wiki Wiki

    Channeling Sharpton to grind your axe that the 2006 Democratic primary race was the crucible for the war is ridiculous.  This is George Bush's war, not Lieberman's war.  And Lieberman, as the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2000, had and has a lot of support in the Democratic Party.  All these politicians are humans - they represent a host of interests and they bring strenghths and weaknesses to the offices they hold.

    Obama is not a saint, but neither is Lamont.  And no matter who would have been elected in 2006 as Senator the war would still be grinding forward and the Executive would still be running it.

    The real question for everyone is what did you do in 2000 to try to get Gore and Lieberman elected.

    Al Sharpton is a joke and a publicity hound who has never been elected to office by nobody.  Knowing that Kos, why are you supporting demagogues and not democrats.  

    by ProduceMan on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:33:40 AM PDT

    •  The question is not a joke (0+ / 0-)

      Lieberman WAS the main war candidate. The entire point of trying to remove lieberman was because a) he was a republican hack b) he is the biggest war candidate.

      And sure enough, he is now the leader of "surge" pack, and FU democrat.

      And Obama plays role in Lieberman campaign while knowing the context from stopping the war point of view.

      So the question for Obama now:
      -Did he say anything agianst Lieberman's surge campaign?

      • Did he do anything "concrete" not just grandstanding and bill that nobody cares. (where is the anti war leadership?)

      make no mistake, in the contest of "lesser evil" Obama still several steps ahead of pure war cheerleader candidate, Hillary Clinton.

      by fugue on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:04:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Can't wait for the debates.. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reef the dog, MeanBoneII, ThunderHawk13

    John Edwards just might take the poseurs out behind the woodshed for a good spanking.

    "Hope?"

    I'd prefer a good ass-kicking and someone getting to work cleaning up this Republican mess.

    Republicans: Proudly placing yellow smiley-face stickers on the face of doom since 1969 -8.88 -5.08

    by SecondComing on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:34:18 AM PDT

    •  we'll see (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Settembrini

      Or maybe he will just sit there and smile while Hillary says she never met him.  He did not do anywhere near as well in the Cheney debate as I expected.

      Blue Jersey: New Jersey Progressive Politics

      by John DE on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:37:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Funny (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aexia, Sam I Am, Settembrini

      I think you could make an argument that Edwards, who co-sponsored the Iraq war resolution, and then changed his mind three years later when the country was turning agaisnt the war is one of the posers.

      Barack Obama 08
      It's says a lot about conservatism when they have to add "compassionate" to it

      by jj32 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:41:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ThunderHawk13

        but BEFORE Obama ever spoke on the subject as a Senator.

        Obama's first words regarding Iraq AFTER becoming Senator followed Edwards by 12 days.

        by citizen53 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:47:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Intriguing (0+ / 0-)

        The whole concept that a politician's views need to be set in stone. Or be beyond reproach like some kind of perfect "Jesus-thing."

        Edwards is human and stuck with all of the foibles and misshapen crap that the rest of us have.

        Who knew that Bush would embroil us in a war in the wrong country and banrupt the nation if he was given the authority due to some testosterone challenged small peeni better than daddy psychological nightmare?

        I did, but then again, then Senator Edwards apparently didn't. Doesn't mean that he isn't one of the best people available to do triage for this country though.

        Gore really should toss his hat in the ring. I think that he'd be a shoe-in.

        Republicans: Proudly placing yellow smiley-face stickers on the face of doom since 1969 -8.88 -5.08

        by SecondComing on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:51:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Obama will crush them all if issue is Iraq. (0+ / 0-)

      Obama on Iraq just crushes them all...and the Lieberman/Lamont thing is all about Iraq.

      "John Edwards just might take the poseurs out behind the woodshed for a good spanking."

      "I voted for it before it become unpopular and now I'm against it" Edwards.  Edwards reversals on so many issues (Iraq, universal health care, environment) are probably why he keeps drifting lower in the polls.

      The "new" Edwards article in Post was interesting and probably laid out Edwards problem of a conservative Senator record (75% per ADA vs. 95% plus for Clinton, Obama) and "new and improved" stance of his current campaign.

      Post's idea is that Edwards chose the more radical than his record positions because he needed an angle for his campaign because on the record, Clinton and Obama are much more liberal and progressive than Edwards.

      by PharLap on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:47:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Please banish Bill Clinton from the Dem Party (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    faithfull, malharden

    Bill Clinton campaigned for Lieberman and cut TV commericials for him. It's time to excommunicate Bill Clinton because he campaigned for a colleague.

    /snark.

    The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of crisis, remain neutral.

    by ten10 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:34:52 AM PDT

  •  Wow you have just pissed Obama supporters (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dwhite10701, Hannibal

    Kos has pissed Clark, Kucinich, Hillary supporters --now Obama --what next?

    by timber on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:35:24 AM PDT

    •  kos had a point each time (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hannibal

      Although I thought "ugh" was over the top for Kucinich, especially since DJK is biggest anti-war candidate and war is biggest issue.

      The turtle was tight in its shell for a long time. But at last its legs waved in the air, reaching for something to pull it over. -Steinbeck (Grapes of Wrath)

      by Ma Joad on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:42:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Lieberman was hardly the "biggest cheerleader" (0+ / 0-)

    in the Senate. I have big problems with Lieberman to Kos, but we don't need to exagerate his issues.

    by tigercourse on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:36:21 AM PDT

  •  I think all this nonsense helps (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    adigal, John DE

    Hillary who will be a disaster to the netroots an d the Dem party in general. If we want to stop her we
    have to untie behing a candidate to do so, I think Obama's the only one who can but understand Edwards arguements. All our guys have flaws but Hillary needs to be stopped for so many reasons.

    this is your mission: TERMINATE the Bush presidency

    by nevadadem on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:36:56 AM PDT

    •  No need to rush into anything (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sukeyna

      There's still a year to decide things. I see no reason to rush into getting behind anybody, and quite frankly, if Obama and his supporters can't take a little heat like this, then they're in the wrong game.

      "War is the ultimate reality-based horror show." - Colonel David Hackworth

      by Hannibal on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:20:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  oh please (0+ / 0-)

    kos, just because you favor obama doesn't mean you have to try to be "fair and balanced" by occasionally posting negative but non-substantive stuff on him.

    which dem senators abandoned lieberman before the primary anyway? any of them running for the big chair?

    AP: John McCain Defends Bush's Iraq Strategy

    by jethropalerobber on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:36:58 AM PDT

  •  Apparently Hillary isn't the only calculating one (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SecondComing, Edgar08

    on the Dem side.This is why it's hard for ex senators to get elected President. Too many pictures with the enemy, too many compromise votes, etc. Obama realizes this and that's why he's going for it now. May the best candidate win.

    by TripleJ on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:38:07 AM PDT

  •  Good for Sharpton!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ThunderHawk13

    I am tired of Obama's "rock star status" when he hardly deserves it! He oftentimes panders to red state morals by insulting ours. He is one of those disingenuous make decisions based on polls politicians who really have no moral compass to emulate at ALL.

    "There are probably four or five venereal diseases that are more popular right now than Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush!" Paul Begala

    by ejbr on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:38:19 AM PDT

  •  Totally agree and I hammered his office on this. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SarahLee, Yoshimi, optimusprime

    But that being said, has Al Sharpton ever done anything that didn't have its motivations in him being on someone's payroll, surreptitiously?

    I pounded Obama for not going to campaign with Lamont.

    Never received even so much as a form letter in response from the Senator's office.

    Tag your Hillary diary with the appropriate Hillary Diary Archetype Number

    by Bob Johnson on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:38:28 AM PDT

  •  Meh. I still like Obama best so far. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    itsbenj, Yoshimi, faithfull, frenchman, Wiki Wiki

    Name a body part and a planet, and I've taken a bullet in it, on it. Relentless!

    by ablington on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:38:36 AM PDT

  •  You're right. And what's with his Iraq exit plan? (0+ / 0-)

    Obama may be relatively strong out of the current crop, but he's rather quiet on the civil rights of detainees, or gay families and their children, or citizens who once expected their 4th Amendment rights to be upheld.

    And he has a very reasonable sounding Iraq exit plan, but I've never heard it debated by anyone - not even Obama - and since I've also read he says it's unlikely to pass, it smacks of pre-election posturing.

    Why doesn't Obama support civil rights champions Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee or John Conyers when they unite on issues like Iraq?

    Unless Harry Reid has forbidden Obama to speak on Iraq, why doesn't the most charismatic and "articulate" spokesman in the Senate even try to pass his own bill?

    Levity in Action

    by Levity on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:39:10 AM PDT

  •  Lieberman was Obama's mentor people. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    itsbenj, Yoshimi, kath25

    Lieberman became Obama's mentor when Obama was sworn into the Senate in 2005. They stayed close at Thursday night's event, too, entering the room together and working the crowd in tandem.

    Despite the camaraderie between the two, the crowd was clearly more receptive to Obama's remarks than Lieberman's speech about party unity and the potential for Democratic victories at the ballot box this fall.

    In fact, scattered boos greeted Lieberman when he took the podium, and he had to stop three times during his remarks to shush the crowd so he could deliver key points.(AP)

    "Conservatism makes no poetry, breathes no prayer, has no invention; it is all memory." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    by reef the dog on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:39:43 AM PDT

  •  How dare Sharpton not support the only (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dwhite10701

    African-American candidate. For shame.

    /snark

    I never said half the things I said. - Yogi Berra

    by HairyTrueMan on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:41:05 AM PDT

  •  This is nonsense and you know it (8+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia, itsbenj, Yoshimi, faithfull, Sam I Am, mozlover, LV Pol Girl, Wiki Wiki

    unfortunately the story about Obama's support of Lieberman in the last election continues to make the rounds as if this is a fatal flaw that can never be remedied. That's water under the bridge and to bring it up again and again at this stage does not serve any useful purpose. Yes, Obama did not aggressively support Lamont, which was unfortunate I'll agree.

    But that was a conundrum that was faced by many other Democratic politicians, who could not figure out the best way to treat Lieberman in the last election. As a matter of fact, many Democratic leaders did not want to alienate Lieberman, which could result of his joining the Republican caucus after the election (most pre-election polls showed him leading Lamont quite comfortably).

    Moreover, Al Sharpton is supporting Clinton at the moment, so what he says about Obama should be taken with a large pinch of salt...  

    The answer to your question: drop it!

    by mobiusein on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:42:07 AM PDT

  •  Edwards went to bat for Lamont in the Primary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    philgoblue

    Kos comments speaks volumes about Obama.  Lets not forget Hillary, Biden, and all Democrats who trumped Liebermann during the Democratic Primary.

    http://rochesterturning.com/

    by optimusprime on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:43:47 AM PDT

    •  Obama supported Lamont in the general (0+ / 0-)

      ...and gave him money

      http://nedlamont.com/...

      "If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." Abe Lincoln

      by faithfull on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:00:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Of course he did... (0+ / 0-)

      Edwards didn't hold an elected office, for god's sake - he had nothing to lose.  You can count on one hand the Democrat electeds that endorsed Lamont in the primary.  Why?  Because we had a real chance to win the House and the Senate, and Lamont had not proven his capability to win and was challenging a sitting (and very safe) Democrat.  Everyone endorsed Joe in the primary, but like the commenter below points out, everyone endorsed Lamont when the voters chose him to serve, and Obama even raised money for the guy.

      They say that liberals have run out of new ideas - it's like saying that Christians have run out of new ideas.

      by MBell0 on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 07:34:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The 800 Pound Gorilla in the room (7+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia, itsbenj, Hesiod, faithfull, Phil S 33, frenchman, Wiki Wiki

    Hillary Clinton sure has a lot of hit men (concern trolls) going after Obama.

    I think it says something that she is running against Obama, not the other way around.  :)    

    by Yoshimi on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:44:01 AM PDT

    •  I don't think (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      frenchman, Wiki Wiki

      You can attribute Sharpton's comments to Clinton any more than you can attribute Geffen's comments to Obama.

      As far as I know, he's not on payroll, yet. LOL.

      But anyway.  I rec'd your comments above cause this is one of the sillier litmus tests I've seen, and I'm sure it's a sour grapes thing, at any rate.

      Suffice to say, if the Clinton camp thought they could make any headway on this front (Obama didn't support Lamont enough), it's stupid, cause Clinton did pretty much the same thing Obama did to support Lamont.  Issued the press release, moved on.  You're on your own, Lamont.

      More time is being spent trying to create agreement in the Dem Party than is being spent trying to exploit disagreement in the Republican Party.

      by Edgar08 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:50:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Very glad to see this discussion here. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dwhite10701
    There has to be frank discussion of what all of the candidates are willing to do to stop the war.

    The corporate press (here the New York Post and the Chicago Sun-Times), as usual, trivializes the campaigns of black candidates and the politics of the African American community generally. Here they do it by portraying Sharpton's question as the result of some sort of catfight.

    by chesapeake on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:44:56 AM PDT

  •  when did Sharpton endorse Lamont? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    faithfull, kath25

    I'm trying to figure it out, and it seems like it was in August a few weeks before the primary.  Does anyone know?  Meanwhile Obama is being blamed for something in MARCH, when the polls said Lamont was a fringe candidate.

    I'm not at all impressed with this.

    Blue Jersey: New Jersey Progressive Politics

    by John DE on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:46:13 AM PDT

  •  I honestly did not know that Obama campaigned for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hannibal

    Droopy Dog. Thanks for the info. Now I can make a more informed decision. uhm

    I like Edwards' fox ban, but I think he should have stood his ground during the presidential elections.

    The pool of candidates needs to be larger. That is my decision.

    "I'm a feisty, happy warrior," -Joe Lieberman NYTIMES 2/6/07

    by Krush on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:47:23 AM PDT

    •  Im going to dial 911 for Nader (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yoshimi

      "I'm a feisty, happy warrior," -Joe Lieberman NYTIMES 2/6/07

      by Krush on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:58:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Read it all, get the context (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      John DE, frenchman

      Make sure you understand what Obama (and all the candidates) did and did not do before you decide.  There are a lot of people jumping off half-informed here.

      A fanatic is a man who does what he thinks the Lord would do if He knew the facts of the case.

      by nightsweat on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:58:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama endorsed Lamont (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aexia, Yoshimi, SemDem

      ...and gave him money

      http://nedlamont.com/...

      "If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." Abe Lincoln

      by faithfull on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:59:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Keep in mind... (0+ / 0-)

      that Obama banned fox first, but we don't talk about good things that non-Edwards candidates do around here.  I like that JRE did it after the Madrassah story - real integrity, backing up another candidate like that.  After Richardson's little tyrade the other day, it seems like Obama and HRC are the only ones not bashing other candidates.

      Looks like a good running-mate pair-up to me...

      They say that liberals have run out of new ideas - it's like saying that Christians have run out of new ideas.

      by MBell0 on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 07:30:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama talks a big game (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sukeyna, Blue South, Edgar08

    about supporting working class Americans, and then he goes and votes for tort "reform."

    http://www.moveleft.com/...

    Bararck Obama's Yes Vote

    Barack Obama (D-Illinois), a new US Senator, was interviewed by phone on "The Al Franken Show" radio broadcast today.

    Radio co-host Katherine Lanpher asked Obama about his vote in favor of this bill.

    Obama replied that he supported it because he doesn't want plaintiffs going to whatever state has the most sympathetic state judges.

    (My response: Instead, injured people are now likely to face unsympathetic Bush-appointed federal judges.)
    ...

    I don't want Barack Obama to be the Democratic Party's presidential nominee.

    A person's position on "tort reform" says a lot about whether he's on the side of corporations or the people.

    For 2008, I'd prefer John Edwards, who is on the side of the people.

    Very disappointing, Barack.

    (From the prior link)

    This is who supports Bush's "tort reform" (YEAs ---72)

    Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Bingaman (D-NM) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Burr (R-NC) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Frist (R-TN) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Jeffords (I-VT) Johnson (D-SD) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-NE) Obama (D-IL) Reed (D-RI) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Talent (R-MO) Thomas (R-WY) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

    This is who supports civil justice (NAYs ---26)

    Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Biden (D-DE) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Clinton (D-NY) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Pryor (D-AR) Reid (D-NV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wyden (D-OR)

    Go ahead. Make my day. Iowa Underground

    by ThunderHawk13 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:47:46 AM PDT

  •  This is bullshit! 229 comments in ten minutes. (8+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia, nightsweat, faithfull, Geekesque, frenchman, LV Pol Girl, kath25, Wiki Wiki

    We have more important things to deal with rather than piss on Obama right now.
    Let's focus on Gonzales, Walter Reed, DoD sending injured back into combat, etc., etc.

    Spring starts @ 8:o5pm April 1st--in St. Louis

    by Phil S 33 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:51:25 AM PDT

  •  Yes, even Obama is out of touch with reality. (0+ / 0-)

    Unfortunately, these men & women, our elected representatives, have more in common with each other than with their constituents back home.

    I would expect Obama to be reaching out to Murdoch for his fair share of $$$money$$$, too, right behind HRC, and, if he can get it, then that will be just a few bucks HRC won't get.

    Maybe he's just styling for the Veep job if someone else announces.  Who knows?  

    I don't really think this criticism is productive campaigning, right now.  We want someone to lead us out of the swamp of hypocritical laws that do the exact opposite of their names.

    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -E.Burke Women, Get It Now: HPV Test

    by ezdidit on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:52:08 AM PDT

  •  Obama needs to apologize, right? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    philgoblue, Edgar08

    Obama talks a great "anti-Iraq War" game. But when he had a chance to help do something about it -- help get rid of its biggest cheerleader in the Senate, he decided to campaign for Lieberman instead.

    this is exactly the point I've repeatedly made to the Hillary bashers who also adore Obama.  His pre-war oppostion was easy.  Being in the Senate and having to cast actual votes and take actual positions that people are watching, is hard.

    When is Obama going to APOLOGIZE for campaigning for Lieberman????

    by pitbullEmily on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:53:06 AM PDT

  •  Goddamnit (10+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reef the dog, Aexia, Yoshimi, shpilk, Geekesque, frenchman, LV Pol Girl, kath25, malharden, Wiki Wiki

    We've been through this quite a few times.

    Obama endorsed Lamont and sent out an email to his CT supporters, and gave money ($5,000) to Ned Lamont after the primary.

    Harping on Obama  - who is working to stop the war from inside the Senate - for not supporting Lamont "enough" is fucking bullshit.

    Obama is still the only major candidate who has been right on the war since day 1, and supporting one of his colleagues in a primary (as colleagues "tend" to do) is a complete non-issue.

    "If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." Abe Lincoln

    by faithfull on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:58:47 AM PDT

  •  On a Scale of One to Ten (8+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia, orchid314, mets2005, Sam I Am, Geekesque, frenchman, kath25, Wiki Wiki

    This issue is a two.  Right above the "Parking Ticket Scandal".  Look, at this point I am an Edwards supporter (still hoping that Gore jumps in).  But this is really a non-issue in my view.  Let's face some basic facts; Lamont got out manuvered following the primary.  I doubt very much that Obama showing up and campaigning for Lamont would have made up a 12 point deficit.

    by feebog on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 09:58:49 AM PDT

  •  If Kos wants to hit Obama (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ThunderHawk13, Hannibal

    he could front page

    Obama = AIPAC = Iran War.

    Obama courted AIPAC.  He told them all options were on the table.  Yesterday Cheney said the Dems are emboldening Al Qaeda and they burst into rousing spontaneous applause.

    Obama plays a good game
    but ultimately
    more of the same.

    "Conservatism makes no poetry, breathes no prayer, has no invention; it is all memory." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    by reef the dog on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:01:09 AM PDT

  •  So when wil Kos (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geekesque

    openly endorse Edwards?

    "There's no way I'm going to put myself through Sandhurst and then sit on my arse back home while my boys are out fighting for their country." Prince Harry

    by SpiderStumbled22 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:02:30 AM PDT

  •  I heard the speeches live in Boston 2004 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sukeyna, Hannibal, Blue South

    I was a delegate and instead of going on cruises around the harbor as "Oil and Gas Salute Max", I heard all the speeches.  By far the best speech of the week was Al Sharpton's speech.  He had the balls to go off script and passionately plead his case. "We never got our 40 acres and We didn't get the mule. So we decided to ride this donkey as far as it would take us."  I was there.  Sharpton's speech was the most passionate and the most real.  Obama's was thoughtful and well crafted.  I  screamed for Al and I cheered for Barak.  We need more screaming.

    "Whatever is calculated to advance the condition of the honest, struggling laboring man, I am for that thing." Abraham Lincoln

    by MontanaMaven on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:07:03 AM PDT

    •  Link to Sharpton's speech (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sukeyna, Hannibal, Blue South

      Here's the transript.  I was crying, laughing and screaming.  It felt so good to hear truth in that stupid week of fancy parties and militaristic rhetoric from the Kerry crowd.  Peace scarves were taken away from peace activist delegates.  Shameful.  But Al was great.
      http://www.cnn.com/...

      "Whatever is calculated to advance the condition of the honest, struggling laboring man, I am for that thing." Abraham Lincoln

      by MontanaMaven on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:15:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Probably too late to make this point (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, Sam I Am, Geekesque, malharden, Wiki Wiki

    But the point is that Sharpton, HRC supporter, is using a distorted notion of Obama's support for Lieberman to bash Obama when HRC had the exact same position post-primary and if anything was more prominent in her support for Lieberman pre-primary. And you can't honestly pretend that Bill Clinton's life-saver for Lieberman was not done with HRC's campaign in mind.
    And Rahm Emmanuel, the Clintons' cat's-paw, took exact the same position as Bill post-primary: They're both Democrats so it doesn't matter who wins.

    by BlueinColorado on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:07:38 AM PDT

  •  First the Stardust... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geekesque

    ...now DailyKos.

    "Conservatism makes no poetry, breathes no prayer, has no invention; it is all memory." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    by reef the dog on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:07:53 AM PDT

  •  No, Sharpton is wrong. (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia, orchid314, Yoshimi, shpilk, Sam I Am, BlueinColorado

    http://nedlamont.com/...

    Why the fuck are you giving Sharpton's Hillary/Bill sponsored hit on Obama publicity?

    by Hesiod on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:09:43 AM PDT

  •  Obama campaigning for Lieberman is enough... (0+ / 0-)

    ...by itself to throw him out, as far as I'm concerned.  

    Bush doesn't listen to anyone but the competing voices in his head. The winner he calls "God" and runs with it.

    by dov12348 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:09:47 AM PDT

  •  Sharpton is right (7+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    itsbenj, Yoshimi, Hesiod, shpilk, erhan04, Geekesque, ReggieH

    near the top of my list of people to never ever listen to.

    "There's no way I'm going to put myself through Sandhurst and then sit on my arse back home while my boys are out fighting for their country." Prince Harry

    by SpiderStumbled22 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:13:44 AM PDT

  •  Obama is Smart (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Settembrini

    Perhaps, Barack saw the handwriting on the wall and realized that Lieberman was going to win (which he  did decisively over Lamont).  Consequently, Barack and the other Dem pols who offered support did not antagonize Lieberman to the point that he left the party. The Dems now control the Senate with a one vote margin (Lieberman's vote).  The significance of controlling the Senate today is far greater than risking Lieberman's defection.  Let's be smart, people! (That's what I love about dkos.)

    by caroman on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:19:30 AM PDT

    •  How about a man who is smart and has integrity (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sukeyna, TomP

      How about walking and chewing gum at the same time.  
      The times call for a statesman not just a "smart" politician.  The times call for a person of conviction.
      The times call out for the truth and not gamesmanship.  The times call for passion more than hope.  
      The times call for action.

      "Whatever is calculated to advance the condition of the honest, struggling laboring man, I am for that thing." Abraham Lincoln

      by MontanaMaven on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:45:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah, but... (0+ / 0-)

        you know, those were a lot of pretty words, but what the guy above you was saying was that Obama and the rest chose not to antagonize Lieberman and risk the REPUBICANS CONTINUING TO CONTROL THE SENATE.  That's the point - not that he made a political decision, but that he made a decision that helped the Democrats gain control of the Senate, rather than allow the rubber stamps to continue to control BOTH houses.

        I think that's conviction, truth, passion, action.  So talk pretty all you want - Lieberman could just easilly be doing what he's doing, but caucus with the Republicans and give Mitch McConnell control of the Senate.

        They say that liberals have run out of new ideas - it's like saying that Christians have run out of new ideas.

        by MBell0 on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 07:22:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Dear 'tagarist,' look for your email, please. (0+ / 0-)

    I read your last piece about the Lamont campaign with regret, trying to figure out what the hell happened,
    (following up on the Obama diary by kos today).  

    I was so disappointed.  Where was the outrage?  Where was the 'yeearrgh' scream of protest against the outright disenfranchisement of the Democratic Primary voters?!   Where on sweet earth were the lawyers?

    Why, oh why, did Ned not decry his outright abandonment by the state party?

    Here's the thing: Lieberman is now a DINO.
    He's not vulnerable until '12, of course, when he will probably retire to Israel.  But there is an election in '10 that may provide an opportunity  
    for a real, veto-proof majority in the Senate.

    In the meantime, we have an agenda-setting majority in the House, and nothing, nada, zilch, in the Senate, but even MediaMatters spreads the meme that
    '...Democrats took control of Congress...'
    ('If It's Sunday, It's Still Conservative', today).

    So Dems just appear weak and ineffectual in their 'majority' control of Congress!!!  
    How do we, as Progressives, anti-DLC-ers proceed??

    Sincerely,
    ezdidit

    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -E.Burke Women, Get It Now: HPV Test

    by ezdidit on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:23:55 AM PDT

  •  Worse Than Just Liebeman (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DrWolfy

    Obama's decision to duck making an appearance in CT during the 2008 general election hurt more than just Lamont.  It also enabled Chris Shays' return to the House.  The Obama supporters can whine all they want that this isn't true, but it is.

    Lamont was blasted by Lieberman with tons of scurrilous ads about Lamont's supposed racism.  Lamont's need to answer those ads cost him time, money and momentum.  Lieberman's team was also running a voter suppression effort at the same time amongst the CT minority voter population by trying to make Lamont look non-progressive - rich, white guy, etc.  Obama's active support in the state would have defused those claims immediately and would have enabled the CT party to energize the dampened minority vote in the southwest part of the state.  The Bridgeport turnout was very depressed and it seems to have factored in Shays' win.  

    Thanks, Barack, for not taking on your Senate mentor and war enthusiast, Holy Joe!

    "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

    by PrahaPartizan on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:27:27 AM PDT

    •  If you are going to blame Obama (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aexia, itsbenj, Yoshimi, frenchman, ReggieH, Wiki Wiki

      for Lieberman and Shays then it is only fair that you credit Obmaa with the election of Webb, McCaskill, Murphy, Testor .....

      (-2.75,-4.77) I prefer POTUS Candidates who opposed the Iraq war in 2002

      by Sam I Am on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:08:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Avoids the Primary Issue (0+ / 0-)

        What makes you think I'm not appreciative for what he did for those candidates?  I am, but your plaint avoids the issue that Lieberman is a major problem seriously weakening the Democratic Party's efforts to push its agenda in the Senate.  Worse, Lieberman shows up regularly on Fox Noise, claiming to be a Democrat, which enables  Fox Noise to smear and slander good Democrats.  Obama refused to help cut this cancer out of the party and out of American politics.  He could have made a difference and chose deliberately to walk away.  Why should I trust him if he were to be elected to fight for my issues?

        "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

        by PrahaPartizan on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 06:39:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  wow (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      frenchman, ReggieH

      Barack Obama must be a magician.
      Only Barack could have made the difference.

      The fact that Bill Clinton, Barbara Boxer showed up and campaigned with Lieberman against Lamont in the primary, that meant nothing, right?  

      But Barack Obama, well.

      He doesn't need to be President, because he has magic powers.

      Barack waves his hand and it's Instant SenatorTM !

      Puh-leeeeze

      by shpilk on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 03:56:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The point is... (0+ / 0-)

        That along with those folks, Obama just winked and went along with it.

        -6.5, -7.59. All good that a person does to another returns three fold in this life; harm is also returned three fold.

        by DrWolfy on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 06:19:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Only Honesty (0+ / 0-)

        Nope, I was only asking that Obama make the effort.  He couldn't stir himself to do it.  He left the party in a much weakened position in the Senate as a result.  Why should I or anybody trust Obama with his blather about bipartisan efforts when he couldn't be bothered to try to eliminate the one Senator who has made a career of talking about bipartisanship when practicing everything but.  

        "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

        by PrahaPartizan on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 06:34:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Ah, the smell of napalm in the morning... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MontanaMaven, MeanBoneII, moira977

    Rudy Giuliani (R) 43% - 44% Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)
    Rudy Giuliani (R) 44% - 40% Barack Obama (D)
    Rudy Giuliani (R) 42% - 45% John Edwards (D)

    John McCain (R) 42% - 45% Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)
    John McCain (R) 39% - 42% Barack Obama (D)
    John McCain (R) 38% - 45% John Edwards (D)

    Mitt Romney (R) 31% - 51% Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)
    Mitt Romney (R) 26% - 47% Barack Obama (D)
    Mitt Romney (R) 26% - 52% John Edwards (D)

    Source: Quinnipiac University Polling Institute
    Methodology: Telephone interviews to 1,281 registered Ohio voters, conducted from Feb. 25 to Mar. 4, 2007. Margin of error is 2.7 per cent.

    http://www.angus-reid.com/... m/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/15021

    Go ahead. Make my day. Iowa Underground

    by ThunderHawk13 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:27:45 AM PDT

    •  Wow (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yoshimi, ReggieH

      So Obama, having been in the Senate for a mere 2 years, is already within 5 points of Edwards in the general, even though Edwards has already run for president and vice-president.  Pretty weak showing for Edwards given his built-in name-recognition.   Considering Obama leads by far in the polls asking "Which candidate do you most want to know more about?", Edwards in in trouble.  (Of course, we know this because Barack is already doubling him up in polls confined to Democrats --i.e., those who have already got to know both of them.)

      by Settembrini on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:35:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Edwards is cracking through a little, eh? (0+ / 0-)

      The stealth candidate that could, perhaps.

      It's still awfully early.

      by shpilk on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 03:51:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gonzales Press Conference in 20 minutes. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP

    I'm gonna put M&M's in mine.

    "Conservatism makes no poetry, breathes no prayer, has no invention; it is all memory." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    by reef the dog on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:38:45 AM PDT

  •  It was stupid when David Sirota... (9+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia, Yoshimi, shpilk, nightsweat, megaplayboy, Sagittarius, nadeane, ReggieH, Wiki Wiki

    did it and it's stupid when Markos did it.  Blaming Barack Obama for Ned Lamont's loss is asinine.  He's been blamed for it more on this site than Ned Lamont himself or the 1 out of 4 democrats in Connecticut that voted for LIEberman.  People are even blaming him for Chris Shays winning?  This is starting to get fucking ridiculous.

    Al Sharpton can be an extremely self-serving individual and I think his major problem with Obama boils down to jealousy.  As an African-American, it annoys me to no end when people say Sharpton speaks for the black community.  NO, HE DOESN'T.  He gets more media coverage than anyone in the black community.

    by NYClib on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:40:57 AM PDT

    •  No one person speaks for the black community. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      moira977, sukeyna, Wiki Wiki

      No one person speaks for "women".
      What I'm looking for is someone who speaks for working men and women who are most of us.  And someone who will stand up for the voiceless i.e. the poor who are cleaning our bedpans and waging our wars.  
      All voices are welcome.  This post is not about Lamont.
      It's about the war.  It's about the war being wrong, not just incompetently waged.
      Don't be annoyed at Al Sharpton for somebody else saying that he speaks for the black community.  Al doesn't say he speaks for the black community.  Al isn't perfect and he's not going to be President.  But he should be listened to.  My favorite Al Sharpton line was about gay folks.  He said, "What difference does it make who you go to bed with at night when you don't have a job to wake up to in the morning?"  We must keep our eyes on the prize.  Economic justice and basic human rights still need champions.  The promises of American are still broken for some Americans.

      "Whatever is calculated to advance the condition of the honest, struggling laboring man, I am for that thing." Abraham Lincoln

      by MontanaMaven on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:02:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I correct myself. I heard Al say "The Black (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BigBite

        community" but it was in reference to not wanting to be pushed around by either Clinton or Obama.  The point still is "who will stand for working men and women?"  Sharpton was very clear that he was distressed about Obama's "Tort Reform" vote that would hurt the black community as it will everybody who are less powerful like the little old ladies whose savings accounts were being pillaged.  

        "Whatever is calculated to advance the condition of the honest, struggling laboring man, I am for that thing." Abraham Lincoln

        by MontanaMaven on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 02:18:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry You're Bummed (0+ / 0-)

      Look, I'm sorry that you're finding out that Obama's not the saint some people might be trying to make him out to be.  He's got problems and one of them is a weakness in the loyalty department to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.  Don't think that Hillary's getting any love in my department either.  She's as guilty as Obama is in my view.  I'm tired of politicians who are too clever by half.

      "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

      by PrahaPartizan on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 06:49:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  JRE not always so loyal... (0+ / 0-)

        Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
        Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
        Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
        Capital punishment needed-some crimes deserve ultimate. (Feb 2004)
        Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
        Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
        Rated 37% by the LCV, indicating a mixed record on environment. (Dec 2003)
        Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)
        Voted NO on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels. (May 1999)
        Voted YES on deploying National Missile Defense ASAP. (Mar 1999)
        Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
        Member of Democratic Leadership Council. (Nov 2000)
        Member of the Senate New Democrat Coalition. (Jan 2001)         ontheissues.org

        JRE's record - lookes like he's had some "weakness in the loyalty department to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party."

        Edwards is great - I'm telling you that I believe that - but everyone's talking out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to his progressivism.  The guy has practically changed his entire political philosophy since his days in the Senate.  He realized after his first campaign that he needs to appeal to the base to win the primary, and that's what he's doing.  He'll center it up and triangulate in the General - they all do.  Hell, Kerry's a liberal's liberal, and he centered up for the general.

        So let's not think that just because Kos obviously endorses Edwards, he's the only actual liberal.  He wasn't until he started running for '08.

        They say that liberals have run out of new ideas - it's like saying that Christians have run out of new ideas.

        by MBell0 on Mon Mar 19, 2007 at 08:34:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Something that's concerned me (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Politburo

    Not just about Obama, but all of the candidates, and Congress as well. There seems to be this desire to look like they're ending the war, but don't really want to end it yet. It's obvious that Iraq is going to be the GOP's nail in the coffin in the Presidential elections, but if we're out before November 2008, then maybe there's a stronger chance of a Republican win. So maybe, they're just stalling, wanting to cash in as best they can.

    It's not something I like to think about, but while their talk is saying one thing, their actions are saying something else entirely. Playing politics with the lives of our service members is flat out fucked. Again, this doesn't apply only to Obama, but all of them.

    "War is the ultimate reality-based horror show." - Colonel David Hackworth

    by Hannibal on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:52:26 AM PDT

  •  SHARPTON IS RIGHT ABOUT OBAMA (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DrWolfy

    I live in Connecticut and everybody who was supporting Lamont was stunned that Obama wouldn't personally campaign for him in Connecticut.

    For many Connecticut folk like myself believe Obama struck out bigtime by not giving support to one of the biggest sole vocies against the war among democratic candidates.

    Obama right now is a seriously waffling in a time when strong ledership is necessary and much needed.

    by Djneedle83 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:29:00 AM PDT

  •  OBAMA'S WUSSY ENDORSEMENT (0+ / 0-)

    Obama sent a letter to the Lamont camp right beore the election saying he praised Ned.

    He did not once show vocal support of Lamont or public criticism of Joe Lieberman on the war. He was just going by the political protocol of endorsing the party's nominated candidate.

    by Djneedle83 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:34:47 AM PDT

  •  OBAMA'S WUSSY EMAIL (0+ / 0-)

    The news reported his email went out to 5,000 reporters when in reality it went to as many as about 300 supporters. The traditional media covered the race so poorly in Connecticut except for Shelly Smith of Fox News 61 in Hartford.

    Go figure the Fox Affliatle in Connecticut had by far the best coverage of the race.

    by Djneedle83 on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:44:12 AM PDT

  •  How come no one ever mentions... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia, smartguy11, frenchman, DrWolfy, ReggieH

    how much Obama campaigned for Jim Webb?  Is Jim Webb a supporter of the war?  I hate that the Ned Lamont race overshadows everything else, regardless of my hatred for LIEberman.

    This website is really falling into a pattern of eating our young.

    by NYClib on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 12:14:34 PM PDT

  •  OBAMA DID NOT CAMPAIGN FOR LIEBERMAN!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DemDog, ReggieH

    He attended a Demcratic fundraiser with Lieberman.  Dammit Kos, I know you are bitter about Lamont, but friggin get over it!!!!

    The Seminole Democrat
    A blue voice calling from the deep red

    by SemDem on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 03:00:22 PM PDT

  •  Quit Whining (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ReggieH

    Does anyone disagree that, however obnoxious the SOB, there is some good in keeping Lieberman on the Blue side of the ledger?  

    Don't we need someone in the Oval Office that, say, can work with the broadedest number of people in Congress?

    by Lochbihler on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 03:29:46 PM PDT

  •  KOS, youre buying Sharptons juice. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DemDog, ReggieH

    Anybody who actually listens to ANYTHING Al Sharpton has to say is sick in the head.

    He does NOT represent the "black community", but only the media and the white people who THINK he represents us.

    Sharpton is a criminal and a pimp. He is lowlife scum, and hes just jealous because Obama is a decent, well educated man who is overshadowing him.

    I hate it so much that you white people buy his bullshit.

    by brooklynbadboy on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 04:31:07 PM PDT

  •  Sharpton is a liar. (2+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    frenchman, ReggieH
    Hidden by:
    DrWolfy

    Even IF Obama did "campaign for lieberman", which was one democratic party event..yeah and?

    Joe Lieberman has been a supporter of democratic party causes, especially unions, his entire life. By every measure, including ADA, Joe Lieberman has been a good democrat. We may disagree on the war, but is this how democrats treat those who are friends who disagree? Run a rich elitist WASP with  who has never done ANYTHING for democrats other than employ the elite among their number?

    Besides, Lieberman won. So who was the smart guy here? The guys who stabbed Lieberman in the back now owe their chairmanships to him. He could easily switch and fuck them up. Im sure his grimey friends are now kissing his ass.

    All except Obama, who AGAIN, made the right call.

    by brooklynbadboy on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 04:38:54 PM PDT

  •  Unions (0+ / 0-)

    Supported Lamont.

    The truth about McCain.

    by HarveyMilk on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 05:27:45 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for not slinging arrows (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    philgoblue

    Sharpton's comments are NOT in a vacuum.

    Sharpton's comments come on a piggyback of a story about Obama's disrespecting of Dr. Wright, his pastor. And, how Obama's disrespecting of him has set tongues a-waggin' in the Black Blogosphere.

    The majority of the posters at MyDD and at DailyKos (which branded the original post about the Wright issue a 'troll one'), don't understand why this is a not-so-small issue for the Black Blogosphere, and why it may undercut Obama with the Black community.

    In case you want reference points, here's the NYTimes Article:

    Disinvitation By Obama Is Criticized
    By JODI KANTOR; PATRICK HEALY CONTRIBUTED REPORTING FROM WASHINGTON.

    Published: March 6, 2007

    The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., senior pastor of the popular Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago and spiritual mentor to Senator Barack Obama, thought he knew what he would be doing on Feb. 10, the day of Senator Obama's presidential announcement.

    After all, back in January, Mr. Obama had asked Mr. Wright if he would begin the event by delivering a public invocation.

    But Mr. Wright said Mr. Obama called him the night before the Feb. 10 announcement and rescinded the invitation to give the invocation.

    ''Fifteen minutes before Shabbos I get a call from Barack,'' Mr. Wright said in an interview on Monday, recalling that he was at an interfaith conference at the time. ''One of his members had talked him into uninviting me,'' Mr. Wright said, referring to Mr. Obama's campaign advisers.

    Some black leaders are questioning Mr. Obama's decision to distance his campaign from Mr. Wright because of the campaign's apparent fear of criticism over Mr. Wright's teachings, which some say are overly Afrocentric to the point of excluding whites.

    Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, said the campaign disinvited Mr. Wright because it did not want the church to face negative attention. Mr. Wright did however, attend the announcement and prayed with Mr. Obama beforehand.

    ''Senator Obama is proud of his pastor and his church, but because of the type of attention it was receiving on blogs and conservative talk shows, he decided to avoid having statements and beliefs being used out of context and forcing the entire church to defend itself,'' Mr. Burton said.

    Instead, Mr. Obama asked Mr. Wright's successor as pastor at Trinity, the Rev. Otis Moss III, to speak. Mr. Moss declined.

    In recent weeks, word of Mr. Obama's treatment of Mr. Wright has reached black leaders like the Rev. Al Sharpton and given them pause.

    ''I have not discussed this with Senator Obama in detail, but I can see why callers of mine and other clergymen would be concerned, because the issue is standing by your own pastor,'' Mr. Sharpton said.

    Mr. Wright's church, the 8,000-member Trinity United Church of Christ, is considered mainstream -- Oprah Winfrey has attended services, and many members are prominent black professionals. But the church is also more Afrocentric and politically active than standard black congregations.

    Mr. Wright helped organize the 1995 Million Man March on Washington and along with other United Church of Christ ministers was one of the first black religious leaders to protest apartheid and welcome gay and lesbian worshippers.

    Since Mr. Obama made his presidential ambitions clear, conservatives have drawn attention to his close relationship to Mr. Wright and to the church's emphasis on black empowerment. Tucker Carlson of MSNBC called the precepts ''racially exclusive'' and ''wrong.'' Last week, on the Fox News program ''Hannity & Colmes,'' Erik Rush, a conservative columnist, called the church ''quite cultish, quite separatist.''

    In Monday's interview, Mr. Wright expressed disappointment but no surprise that Mr. Obama might try to play down their connection.

    ''When his enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli'' to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Mr. Wright recalled, ''with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.'' Mr. Wright added that his trip implied no endorsement of either Louis Farrakhan's views or Qaddafi's.

    Mr. Wright said that in the phone conversation in which Mr. Obama disinvited him from a role in the announcement, Mr. Obama cited an article in Rolling Stone, ''The Radical Roots of Barack Obama.''

    According to the pastor, Mr. Obama then told him, ''You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we've decided is that it's best for you not to be out there in public.''

    And, here are two articles, one from the Chicago Tribune and the other from the Chicago Sun-Times, sounding a warning shot to the Obama campaign.

    Obama slights his own pastor- another error in wooing Blacks

    http://www.suntimes.com/...

    Is Obama Black Enough?

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

    As someone who has been defending Senator Obama in the Black Blogosphere, his treatment of Dr. Wright left me with no defense of him. I thought, with the Selma speech, that he was finally putting behind him, the suspicions of more than a few in the Black Blogosphere, and then that's when the Dr. Wright story hit.

    Don't try to minimize him, and definitely don't think, for one minute, think that his comments and his questions aren't getting traction. To do so would be foolhearty.

    I'm not a Sharpton fan, but to dismiss him and the swirl of suspicions is wrong. Why don't you check out the Black Blogosphere to see whether or not Sharpton's questions has sympathizers.

    by rikyrah on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 05:33:07 PM PDT

  •  Careful KOS.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    frenchman

    If you suggest that OBAMA do something productive, you will be vilified.

    -6.5, -7.59. All good that a person does to another returns three fold in this life; harm is also returned three fold.

    by DrWolfy on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 06:13:26 PM PDT

  •  I am amazed I just sat and read (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ReggieH

    500+ posts about this.  Wow.  This really is a non issue, we have to focus on what is going on right now.  Let's have some great debates on the candidate's, but let's have some damned substance to them.  

    by Wiki Wiki on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 06:44:06 PM PDT

  •  God bless you Kos! (0+ / 0-)

    /happy dance

    Be Decent to Each Other

    by The Officious Intermeddler on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 08:41:24 PM PDT

  •  Kos is right. (0+ / 0-)

    I've decided to vote for one of the Dems with a chance in hell of winning who voted AGAINST giving Bush the authority to invade Iraq instead...

    Maybe Hillary or Edwards.

    This website is living up to Conservatives' stereotypes about it.  

    by Coss on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:01:37 PM PDT

  •  Kos claims to be a "Partisan Democrat". (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ReggieH

    Is that why he always supports the candidate least likely to be elected?

    by Coss on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:12:04 PM PDT

  •  Why Kos is an idiotic right wing shill: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ReggieH

    of course I'll get banned for this....

    From Barack Obama:

    "Ned Lamont has waged an impressive grassroots campaign to give the people of Connecticut a choice in the November Senate election. He has a vision for his state and country, and his campaign has been about presenting that vision to Connecticut voters.

    Ned Lamont and I share a commitment to bringing our troops home safely from Iraq, to achieving energy independence, to helping all our citizens realize the American dream, and to empowering the American people to reclaim their government. Ned Lamont’s campaign is about delivering on these goals in Washington.

    The November 7th election is right around the corner. Please join me in supporting Ned Lamont with your hard work on-the-ground in these closing weeks of the campaign."

    http://nedlamont.com/...

    by Coss on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 10:24:42 PM PDT

  •  kos, you just got played... (0+ / 0-)

    by the one person who has the MOST to lose by an obama candidacy.

    sharpton is a joke of a blowhard, who has just been marginalized by a candidate like obama.  he'll say ANYTHING to tear him down.

    and, on top of it, i can guarentee you sharpton endorses hillary...

    by DemDog on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 05:01:22 AM PDT

  •  Bill Clinton attended a rally for Lieberman (0+ / 0-)

    Lieberman poisons everything he encounters.  But the fact that Sharpton was somewhat 'instrumental' in helping Bill get his office in Harlem may account for his forthcoming loyalty to Hillary.  Sharpton just ate one of his young!

    by frilly doily on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 05:35:06 AM PDT

  •  Obama and antiwar credentials (0+ / 0-)

    This is bizarre. We finally get a candidate who blasted the idea of this war before it started and before it was "safe" to do it, and because he did not support the Lamont candidacy [which went nowhere] he is not pure enough for you? This is exactly how we eat our own children and leave the field to the neocons. Get real. And of course Sharpton, of Tawana Brawley fame, is our role model??

    by rneisuler on Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 06:58:46 AM PDT

Permalink

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site