Joe Doesn't Hate All Democrats... Just You

What do you want to do this weekend, Joe?  Same as we do every weekend, Pinky, smear Democrats.  What makes Lieberman so mad he's willing to stand by and whisper sweet nothings in McCain's ear?  He's mad because of how radicals have taken over his Democratic Party.

"Well, I say that the Democratic Party changed. The Democratic Party today was not the party it was in 2000," Lieberman said, his voice ragged and hoarse. "It's not the Bill Clinton-Al Gore party, which was strong internationalists, strong on defense, pro-trade, pro-reform in our domestic government.

"It's been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist and ... very, very hyper-partisan."

Does calling your (supposed) own party "hyper-partisan" and accepting John McCain's invitation to dance at the Republican prom mean that Joe is ready to admit his seething hatred for a party he kicks at every opportunity?  No, no.  When he says "taken over," he doesn't mean the people occupying positions in D.C., or the party chairs, or the consultants, or anyone actually in a position of power.  He means you.

Lieberman said his critique against the "small group on the left" was directed at the online advocacy group MoveOn.org and liberal bloggers like Daily Kos, not any colleagues.

Congratulations.  You -- without a vote in Congress, without a dime from K Street, without a no-bid contract or the cushion of a nice check from a "think tank" -- you are the people really in control of the party.  

Well, you are in the mind of Joe Lieberman.  And really, isn't that all that counts?

•  I can't believe this man was on a democratic

  presidential ticket 8 years ago.  He is an embarassment to himself.

  by smash artist on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:31:00 AM PDT

  •  He's an embarassment to the country

    by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:31:26 AM PDT

    •  sorry to but in, but I'd really like

      to see what people think about this.  I posted this as a comment in another diary and it was ignored (maybe rightfully):

      What's Joe's credibility with Jewish voters these days?  I used to think McCain had him hanging around to emphasize that McCain is Mr. Moderate.  But, duh, I've come to the conclusion that Joe's constant presence is a message to the Jewish population, maybe those who ride the fence on being fearful for Israel's future so they're a little hawkish on Middle East issues (and now to send a subliminal message on Wright).

      I know (or I guess I know) that Connecticut has buyer's remorse with Lieberman, but I wonder about his national place and message appeal to the Jewish population in general.

      I guess I should look at some voting demographics for the 2000 election.  Might help.

      any thoughts on whether my interpretation is right and how that might be balanced in the general election?  

      by ksh01 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:50:21 AM PDT

      •  He doesn't have any credibility left

        with this jewish voter.

        by smash artist on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:52:07 AM PDT

        •  Heh. I'm talking about normal jewish voters

          not the blog reading partisan (and obviously uber well-informed) jewish voter like you.  The regular joes/joans.

          Did I keep from getting in trouble?

          by ksh01 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:00:01 AM PDT

          •  Shouldn't we just ignore Joementum??

            My sense is that the DC beltway Dem establishment and most of the MSM (Fox excepted) now mostly ignore Joe; shouldn't we also?

            Joe follows McCain around with a bedpan like a nurse because poor Joe is being ignored and Joe hates that so Joe is trying to insert himself wherever he can, currently as the nurse cleaning up after McCain's droppings.

            Joe also realizes that after the 2008 elections, he will be garbage in the Dem party, so he is getting his last licks in.

            Why don't we just ignore him? he feeds off ALL attention, even from attention paid to him here.

            Let's take Joe off the front page here, for good. He is already dead meat politically, and he knows it.

            by BonzoDogBand on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:52:49 AM PDT

            •  I hate to bring up Hillary....

              no wait I don't hate to bring her up....

              Remember that she stumped for POS Joe Lieberman against our Progressive candidate Ned Lamont.

              Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton are just the types of Dems in name only Dems we could do without.

              by comeinpbrstreetgang on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:55:53 AM PDT

              •  Joementum, Bill, Hillary, Harold Ford, etc.

                They are all cut from the same moldy nineties repub-lite DLC cloth.

                It is that nineties repub-lite DLC cancer that we are trying to now excise out of our party when we oppose Billary.

                If Billary goes down, that will also be the end of the repub-lite DLC.

                by BonzoDogBand on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:45:32 AM PDT

            •  Oh, I don't know....

              ...  it's odd that I am kind of flattered...  Think about it...  with virtually no cash layout of our own (sorry Markos), we have, in Lieberman's eyes, completely changed the Democratic party.  Talk about power to the people!

              Personally, I think, if true, we have changed it for the better... that certainly must be true if Joe Lieberman dislikes it.

              by Jen K in FLA on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:56:03 AM PDT

              •  Jen, I think that it was originally right on

                for the progressive blogosphere to sink their claws into Joementum, and for doing that the progressive blogosphere made history.

                But now that Joe has been reduced to being McCain's bedpan nurse, why give Joe more power than he has by putting him on the Kos FP?

                We don't discuss defeated Repubs; why should we discuss Joementum?

                by BonzoDogBand on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:36:20 AM PDT

        •  Joe Continues to Build His Brand.

          So much so that he will never get another Democratic nomination or win hardly any Democratic votes.  Keep building that loser name brand, Joe!

          Joe Lieberman, a man without a party.
          Joe Lieberman, Democratic traitor.
          Joe Lieberman, political island.

          by jiminy on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:10:03 PM PDT

      •  the overall jewish population

        is far less hawkish than the hawks would have you believe.

        by decembersue on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:58:58 AM PDT

        •  thanks

          I think you're right.  I hope you know I don't think all or even most jewish voters are hawkish....but there is a subgroup of that voting population that is...or least I've observed that.

          by ksh01 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:02:49 AM PDT

          •  Wha-?

            There's a subgroup of every group that is republican warmongering idiots.  What's the point?  That Joe Lieberman is Jewish?  Who cares?

            I don't know why everyone always brings up Lieberman's Jewishness.  He's a raving nutjob warmonger, but his Jewishness has nothing to do with it.

            I'm Jewish, and like the 70%+ of my fellow American Jews, I will be voting for the democratic party in the Fall.

            And as a reminder, so will Jewish congressmen including Barney Frank, Henry Waxman, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Chuck Schumer, and future Senator Al Franken.  

            by WinSmith on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:44:26 AM PDT

            •  that was my point

              there is an assumption, continually made, that the jewish population is hawkish on middle eastern policies, and over and over again, it's proven to be false, in polls in particular, and yet it keeps coming up, and Lieberman is one of the people who brings it up, along with a whole host of fundy Christian politicians and their enablers.

              by decembersue on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:21:12 AM PDT

              •  yikes

                how many times do I have to say that a portion of the Jewish vote is hawkish on middle east/Israel issues?  

                I'm not saying all jewish people are, because that would be stupid.

                by ksh01 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:43:08 AM PDT

            •  It isn't Joe's Jewishness that is the problem.

              The problem is that Joe is an ultra-zionist fanatic whose life's mission is to have America spend endless blood & treasure to "stabilize" the ME for Israel.

              Some people want us to bleed in Iraq for 100 years for the benefit of Halliburton & Exxon/Mobil; Joe (and other ultra-zionists like Bill Kristol) want us to bleed in Iraq for 100 years for the benefit of Israel.

              Zionism is a political thing, while being Jewish is a cultural thing. The two are quite distinct, but get blurred too frequently.

              PS: I would also consider non-Jews such as McCain (and James Woolsey) to be ultra-zionist fanatics in the same mold as Joe.

              Being Jewish does NOT equate to being an ultra-zionist fanatic; nor does one need to be a Jew to be an ultra-zionist fanatic.

              Also, it does not help the situation when American Jewish publications declare that Joe Lieberman should be re-elected because he is "Israel's best friend."

              Why in the fuck should it matter if a US senator representing CT is "Israel's best friend" or not?

              Take that along with Joe's hawkishness re the ME, and the inescapable conclusion is that Joe's support for McCain's 100 years of US occupation in Iraq is an "Israel thing" (but is NOT a "Jewish thing".)

              You are well written to point out that many Jews are in the vanguard of being opposed to the Bush/McCain/Lieberman 100 years war in Iraq.

              by BonzoDogBand on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:26:53 AM PDT

              •  I'm not saying

                McCain's (or Lieberman's) neocon thing is a "jewish" thing....obviously it's not, since it was perpetuated on our populace by a wide mix of people....also, when you say

                Being Jewish does NOT equate to being an ultra-zionist fanatic;

                I abolutely agree with that, but I don't know that Lieberman is an ultra-zionist fanatic because I don't have enough information on that.  I think he's hawkish on Israel and ME issues and wonder if McCain is trying to capitalize on residual Rev. Wright anger or anxiety and grab votes from from a population that particularly sympathizes with Lieberman's hawkishness.  I guess I can expand that to jews and nonjews, but that would miss the point of the alleged anxiety caused in that population by the Wright controversy.

                But I apparently stepped in and don't think I'm articulate enough to come off as anything but a rube on the issue, so I'll stop.

                by ksh01 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:57:58 AM PDT

                •  You are innocent ksh.

                  I was not thinking of you when I posted.

                  As for Lieberman, his past nut case stunts like going to Jerusalem and declaring Jerusalem to be the new capital of Israel is for me a clear example of him being an ultra-zionist fanatic.

                  by BonzoDogBand on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:08:27 AM PDT

                  •  What's an "ultra Zionist fanatic"?

                    I'm a huge supporter of Israel and a lifelong democrat who thinks BushCo's invasion of Iraq was the greatest foreign policy blunder in American history.

                    I'm not sure what supporting Israel has to do with anything.

                    Holy Joe Liarman is a blight on our government, but it has nothing to do with his support for Israel.

                    He just uses Israel, as he does everything else, as a political tool for his own narcissism.

                    by WinSmith on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:37:25 AM PDT

                    •  I think that if one keeps propping

                      up the obscenity that is our involvement in Iraq because one thinks that such is good for Israel, then that to me is an ultra-zionist fanatic.

                      Now, neither you nor I can really know what is operating in Joe's warped mind, but for me, I have seen enough external evidence to believe that Joe wants us to bleed American blood in Iraq because he believes that our presence in Iraq is essential for Israel's survival.

                      I will just quote what American Jewish newspapers have said, that Joe Lieberman is "Israel's best friend".

                      They said that, not I.

                      Oh yeah, I distinguish between a person who is a supporter of Israel, and a person (like Kristol & Lieberman) who is gung-ho to expend huge amounts of American blood and treasure in Iraq because secretly in their minds they think that such is good for Israel's safety.

                      by BonzoDogBand on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:19:39 AM PDT

                  •  Thanks

                    Didn't know he did that....I don't get why Connecticut likes him at all, but he certainly fits in with McCain's eternal war construct.  

                    by ksh01 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:32:30 AM PDT

                    •  Living in CT, i can honestly say he is really

                      not liked by Democrats here. LIEberman lost the primary to Ned Lamont, and in the general election Joe-LIE was funded extensively by the conservative Repubs who didn't even give a dime to their own Repub candidate.  Dodd staunchly supported Lamont which made lieberman very upset. And if that same election was held tomorrow, he would not be Senator.  It's just that people like the Clintons and the old guard Dems supported him publicly, and many even anonymously.  Heck even Barack didn't openly support Ned Lamont; in fact, as i recall, Senator Obama was in MA just over the border and didn't drive thirty minutes to a rally in support of Lamont.  It took me some time to get over that, but i did.  And Bubba-Bill Clinton was featured on a t.v. advertisement saying, "I know Joe Lieberman, and Joe Lieberman is a good Democrat who deserves to be...."  It was nauseating to say the least.  So, getting back to why Ct people like him, I think that there are only a very few who do.  And his days are numbered.

                      by yowsta on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:35:25 PM PDT

            •  Well, the point (and the question ) is

              Is McCain trying to sway a perceived or real group with having Joe by his side everywhere he goes?

              There is a reason Joe is there and it's not only Joe's ego.  There's a reason for everything and I'm asking what people think it is.  Cuz if folks think Lieberman's hanging around McCain just for kicks, they'd be wrong.  He's sending a message.  To whom?

              It would help if you'd think of this outside of your perception that I'm calling all jews warmongers.  There are some more conservative and hawkish regarding Israeli issues.  Some not.  

              by ksh01 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:46:58 AM PDT

              •  McCain is trying to sway AIPAC....

                AIPAC and the LIKKUD party....

                this is why Joe was glued to McCain's ear in Israel and other place on that taxpayer funded CAMPAIGN trip they just took....

                That Joe will continue to suck on the McCain campaign teet may well be revenge but this could also be Joe's LAST CHANCE to even get near the oval office and if it takes being the whisperer in McCain's ear...  

                but what I would really like to know from Joe is this...  is this moveon/dailykos crowd a "SMALL  GROUP" ala the 'handful of dead-enders in Iraq" we are STILL fighting???  

                by KnotIookin on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:39:58 AM PDT

                •  I hope he's forced to retire soon

                  too bad there's no legal way for Connecticut to recall Joe.  Frankly, I think it helps Obama that this living symbol of the Iraq War is hangin' with the Straight Talk Express....

                  Oh, I should end the post with "my friend."  Doesn't that make your skin crawl every time McCain says it?

                  by ksh01 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:36:29 AM PDT

        •  The "overall Jewish" population?

          The "overall Jewish" population is as politically diverse as the "overall" black population, or the overall white, or hispanic, or asian, or gay, or male or female populations. If we have to separate people into political blocks, ethnicity/race is a really poor way to do it. There are certainly black neo-cons and Jewish neo-cons. Even black gay neo-cons...think Log Cabin Republicans. My ethnicity does not control the way I vote. It does not make me liberal or conservative. And I am beginning to resent the media constantly using ethnicity and race as a way to describe voting patterns. It only lumps people together to create divisions where they don't really exist.

          by cloudwatcher on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:31:11 AM PDT

          •  i agree with you but,

            when issues like israel come into play, our personal connection as jews may help define our political positions. lumping voters together does divide us in real ways, but that doesn't mean we should pretend that there are no trends within ethnic and religious groups.

            si se puede cambiar!

            by T B J on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:52:28 AM PDT

            •  thank you

              that's a point I was trying to use when I asked my question.  You said it much better than I did.

              by ksh01 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:01:18 AM PDT

            •  Are all Jews Zionists?

              Do all Jews believe that Israel has a "god-given" right to take lands away from people who were living there before Israel was declared a nation? And do all Jews believe that a "god" made them more important than there fellow human beings, deserving of a special place over others in the world? The religious right will only back Zionist goals until they can create "Armageddon."  Then they believe that all Jews must become Christians in order to live in what is now Israel. Politics combined with religious myths create a volatile fuel that results in hatred and wars. Take Iraq for example.

              by cloudwatcher on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:17:38 AM PDT

          •  Well said.

            Hillary really triggered all the current stereotypical lumping, first when she made one major pillar of her pres campaign her "vagina monologue" that her campaign should be a cause for all womenhood (ironically, most intelligent women, like Maureen Dowd, actually oppose Hillary.)

            Billary then kicked the stereotypical lumping into high gear by framing Obama as "the black candidate."

            The Billaries are really quite the scumbags.

            by BonzoDogBand on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:00:10 AM PDT

            •  Here! Here!

              I agree. The Clintons are using any divide and conquer tactics that they can find. Unfortunately there are many prejudices and ethnic issues out there just waiting for the Clintons to exploit them. What the Clintons have done (and this may be a blessing in disguise...way in the future) is to stir up all this shit and make us face it head on. Hopefully it may bring us to a higher level of consciousness and a better place politically as a nation, though I'm sure that is not the reason they are doing it.

              by cloudwatcher on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:46:54 AM PDT

      •  I hope he lost that

        when he supported "Bibi" Netanyahu and the Likud Party..

        I still can't believe that Gore's first decision was to put him on the ticket..

        by Blue Texas on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:37:09 AM PDT

      •  I'm Jewish.......

        I'm Jewish, from New haven,Connecticut and I think HoJo is a scumbag. O.K.

        by al23 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:58:54 AM PDT

    •  He hates this country...

      ...That is what he so admires about his "new friends" on the far right:  Their shared hatred for America gives them something to giggle about over cocktails.

      Anytime a read where some asshole  says something like...

      "It's been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist and ... very, very hyper-partisan."

      ...the translation is usually:  "My hatred for America has been effectively uncovered.  And now is when I stick out my lower lip & pout."

      by wyvern on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:55:45 AM PDT

      •  lmao.

        Why isn't anyone asking Joe about the issues...like the housing crisis.

        Oh wait  Joe doesn't think about how to help the American people, he only thinks about his hatred of Daily Kos

        by Shhs on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:28:30 AM PDT

        •  re: Imao..

          ..What the hell would Joe Lieberman know about the housing crisis?

          Joe Lieberman statement on the housing crisis:

          "The [housing crisis] has been effectively caused by a small group on the left that is protectionist, isolationist and ... very, very hyper-partisan.  Their protectionist, isolationist and hyper-partisanship has caused the housing crisis.

          "What's strange to me is that those that want to kill our enemies are experiencing no housing crisis.  Those that are in favor of the Bush tax cuts are experiencing no housing crisis.  Those that want to stay in Iraq until we win are experiencing no housing crisis.  It seems odd that only those that hate America and the president are experiencing a housing crisis."

          See, this shit writes itself.

          by wyvern on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:48:27 AM PDT

    •  Mmm, no. Pretty sure he hates all Democrats.

      Joe Lieberman is a slapdick.

      by LarsThorwald on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:05:23 AM PDT

      •  He will be McSame's running mate

        There is no doubt in my mind. He is actively campaigning for that job. Hope it happens, actually -- it will drive the wingnuts absolutely insane. (Or is that insaner?)

        by Montco PA Dem on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:26:51 AM PDT

      •  His fragile ego got bruised

        when the netroots helped Ned Lamont beat him in the CT primary. That is why he hates us and that is a good thing, as he is one self absorbed unscrupulous politician. Lieberman is the kind of politicians we want out of the party.

        by ZinZen on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:27:40 AM PDT

        •  But it's his nature.

          Don't forget history. Lieberman was put in the Senate by republicans in the first place. The right wingers HATED Sen. Lowell Weicker, who was a moderate republican. So they got themselves a conservative democrat to run against him. It wasn't democrats who elected Lieberman, it was republicans. Before he became Gov. and initiated the state income tax people loved Weicker.

          Lieberman has always been the republicans' creation.

          by homogenius on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:31:32 AM PDT

  •  and even to Gore.

    Who I suspect must be scratching his head about why he picked the Lieberman for VP.

    by Salo on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:31:54 AM PDT

    •  Liarman

      But I can believe he was the one to tell Gore to drop his fight for the recount.

      by InternetJunkie on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:33:33 AM PDT

      •  Looking at what he's said and done since then?

        Oh, yes. I can believe it. Whose payroll was he really on, eh?

        by PatsBard on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:46:18 AM PDT

        •  He's always played for the other team.

          Even when he was running for VP I didn't trust him, he's basically a republican that can't get into the party because he's not their kind, if you know what I mean. He's like the republicans toadie. Every time I think of LieBerman I think "double agent" how did this guy win re-election.

          by deluge99 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:58:57 AM PDT

      •  He publicly conceded the military ballots issue

        The decision to concede after the SCOTUS B v. G atrocity was Gore's. There were a few hundred absentee ballots cast by overseas military personnel in dispute.  The Gore campaign's position was that they should be counted if they were cast in violation of FL election law.

        While local Dems were fighting this issue in various counties here, JoeMentum (JM) went on one of the Sunday am gabfests and said that all of these ballots should count.  Regardless of whether the ballots were, for example, mailed the day after the election, count them anyhow.

        Had Gore chosen Bob Graham instead of JM, he'd be finishing his 2d term now, and 4000 Americans and God knows how many Iraqis would still be alive.

        by RFK Lives on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:48:01 AM PDT

        •  Why Al didn't pick Bob Graham I'll never know

          but fawk do a lot of destroyed Iraqi and American military families wish he had.

          by Timothy J on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:04:43 AM PDT

        •  asdf

          "Had Gore chosen Bob Graham instead of JM, he'd be finishing his 2d term now, and 4000 Americans and God knows how many Iraqis would still be alive."

          I would like to have seen Gore pick Graham (I admire Bob Graham. see here why), but again, you have no way of telling if Graham would've helped Gore overcome the 15% deficit Gore entered the convention with (thanks to Clinton scandals, media smears and the Nader factor. see here), or not.

          by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:41:52 AM PDT

        •  Yup, I saw at least 25 in Polk County.

          Joe is going to rot in hell.

          by UndercoverRxer on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:20:00 AM PDT

    •  why he picked the Lieberman for VP

      It seemed to be a really neat Idea at the time. But then Ollie North though selling Hi Tech Weapons to the Iranians to help fund the Contras was a "Really neat Idea".

      by JML9999 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:47:03 AM PDT

      •  Did Gore get pressured by hawk DCCC turncoats

        who recruited hawk Republicans/DINOs to run against dovish Democratic grassroots candidates in the 2004 primary => maintaining a majority of hawks in the Capitol to perpetuate their wars?  

        This is why we should contribute to individual candidates & not to the DCCC.

        by CIndyCasella on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:33:29 AM PDT

    •  I about hurled when I learned

      that Gore picked that fuck.

      I did hurl when I learned later that Gore picked LIEberman over this young upstart named John Edwards.

      This is easily the worst decision Al Gore ever made.  I thought LIEberman was gonna give Cheney a reach-around in their "debate."

      by jre2k8 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:03:45 AM PDT

      •  Actually I'm pretty sure Joementum did exactly

        that

        This is easily the worst decision Al Gore ever made.  I thought LIEberman was gonna give Cheney a reach-around in their "debate."

        Right about halfway through, IIRC.  Lieberman accomplished the previously unthinkable - making dick shooter cheney look human.

        by Timothy J on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:06:30 AM PDT

    •  Well..

      Gore's speech against the war, 9/23/2002

      Former Vice President Al Gore
      Iraq and the War on Terrorism

      September 23, 2002

      Prepared Remarks

      "If Saddam Hussein does not present an imminent threat, then is it justifiable for the Administration to be seeking by every means to precipitate a confrontation, to find a cause for war, and to attack?"
                     
      "I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and have thus far gotten away with it. "

      ~~

      Al Gore endorses Howard Dean
      

      Gore also praised Dean's opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The former vice president called the Iraq war a "catastrophic mistake" by the Bush administration, a move that leaves the United States less effective in the nation's battle against terrorism. He said the United States is now in a "quagmire" in Iraq.

      "He was the only major candidate who made the correct judgment about the Iraq war," Gore said. "And he had the insight and the courage to say and do the right thing. And that's important because those judgments -- that basic common sense -- is what you want in a president."

      "Whether it is inspiring enthusiasm at the grassroots, and promising to remake the Democratic Party as a force for justice and progress and good in America, whether it is a domestic agenda that gets our nation back on track, or whether it is protecting us against terrorists and strengthening our nation in the world, I have come to the conclusion that one candidate clearly now stands out," Gore said.

      ~~

      Gains made by Howard Dean upon Gore's endorsement:

      -- National, Newsweek national poll ("Dean got the big boost"), by kos, 12/13/03.
      -- National, Gore News Boosts Dean in Polls, Rasmussen, 12/11/03.
      -- Iowa, Latest SUSA Iowa poll, by kos, 12/12/03.
      -- Iowa  (pdf), DEAN BANDWAGON PICKS UP SPEED, SUSA, 12/11/03.

      by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:22:12 AM PDT

  •  He is why

    I could not bring myself to vote for Gore/Lieberman in 2000. And he wasn't NEARLY as bad then. His whole "we have to clean up Hollywood" shtick made me suspect he was not in touch with the people.

    Wow, was I right. But for the wrong reasons, if that makes any sense.

    by MaskedKat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:33:26 AM PDT

    •  The small elfen chipmunk cheek thing

      put me off on a subconsious level.

      You need a big man (if you are going to have a man)

      He always seemed Tiny and reminded me of Droopy.

      by Salo on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:36:28 AM PDT

      •  Droopy?

        I'm familiar with Dopey, but not Droopy.  If there were an eighth member of the dwarfs it would be Joe.  I suspect he would go by the Disney name Sleazy.

        by DrJohn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:57:14 AM PDT

        •  Droopy Dawg

          

          by MaskedKat on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:14:22 AM PDT

      •  Elmer Fudd

        Close your eyes when he speaks and you'd swear it's a Looney Tune.

        by martydd on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:26:38 AM PDT

    •  JM publicly distanced himself from Gore's

      acceptance speech while speaking to his buddies at the WSJ.  He was a Benedict Arnold from day 1.  Choosing JoeMentum was the biggest of many mistakes Gore made in that campaign.

      by RFK Lives on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:51:58 AM PDT

      •  Actually, you have no real way

        of telling whether Lieberman choice was electorally a net positive or not. That's because Gore trailed by 15% the day he picked Lieberman, but won the popular vote on election day, a net 16% gain for Gore over that course. Further, the initial reaction polls were strongly positive to the VP choice and the final exit polls show a slight net positive on the question about Lieberman.

        You may not like what Lieberman turned into; as someone that strongly opposes the war and opposed Lieberman's reelection in 2006 for that very reason I certainly don't, but:

        1. there is no evidence (that I know of) that Lieberman hurt Gore strategically

        2. Back in 2000, Lieberman was an acceptable moderate Democrat. Lieberman is solely accountable for what he turned into after 2000, not Gore.

        by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:31:22 AM PDT

  •  There was a good reason to have him on the ticket

    It would have got him out of the Senate and put him at the Naval Observatory where he couldn't do anything unless Gore allowed it.

    Most Vice Presidents spend their time going to funerals, unlike Cheney who has to tell Bush what to think.

    by Tomtech on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:36:32 AM PDT

    •  How long would Gore have lived

      with that rat waiting in the wings...Perish the thought.

      by Salo on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:39:25 AM PDT

      •  Another intelligent post here at Daily Kos.

        by Purple Hazer on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:15:49 AM PDT

        •  I wouldn't put it passed Lieberman

          really.

          by Salo on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:37:18 AM PDT

          •  A better question might be "How long do you

            think that Lieberman would have lived, being a heartbeat away from the presidency"?

            by Purple Hazer on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:48:21 PM PDT

      •  I share that Tin Foil hat feeling.

        I know it's tin foily, but I have always thought that.

        by Shhs on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:31:17 AM PDT

        •  For that same reason,

          I do not trust Hillary as Obama's VP; the Clintons are really sick dangerous fuckers.

          by BonzoDogBand on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:15:04 AM PDT

          •  Hark, the cry of the loon

            Oh please, "...sick dangerous fuckers..." - like Sopranos. You're saying Hillary the VP would put out a hit on Obama. You are insane.

            by DireLobo on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:46:08 PM PDT

    •  that wasn't the reason

      the DLC wanted a defense hawk and you know it.

      The same shit that makes him a sniveling failure now made him desirable then.  It just took 9/11 to bring that side of him out where everyone could see it.

      by VelvetElvis on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:40:11 AM PDT

      •  Gore was worried about the Monica taint

        JoeMentum (JM) was one of the first Senate Dems to publicly blast WJC about it.  No Monica=no JM on the ticket.

        by RFK Lives on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:49:54 AM PDT

        •  Although one thing in Al's defense - having seen

          up close how the Clintons really operate (I came into this really liking both Clintons, despite their flaws), I can kind of see how he wanted to distance himself.

          But still, Joe-effing-LIEberman?  Ugh.

          by Timothy J on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:09:16 AM PDT

        •  'Monica taint' was real

          see. But, the idea that Gore picked Joementum for that reason is very likely a talking-head-generated myth. That's because Lieberman voted against removing Clinton from office (on both impeachment charges) and he never attacked Clinton on Lewinsky on the campaign trail. Why do we perpertrate myths that we don't have evidence for is beyond me.

          Gore said that the main reason he Lieberman was because Lieberman was strong on the environment and global warming.

          by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:37:06 AM PDT

      •  Lieberman was a moderate Democrat in 2000

        by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:44:47 AM PDT

    •  what if 9/11 had happened with droopy around?

      we'd have skipped Iraq and gone right for Iran, most likely.

      by VelvetElvis on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:41:11 AM PDT

      •  and if Gore had said no

        to the demands he'd...well it doesn't bear thinking about really.

        by Salo on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:42:12 AM PDT

      •  If Gore had been president, I believe that the

        warnings prior to 9/11 would have been taken seriously and it might not have happened at all.

        by PatsBard on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:48:25 AM PDT

        •  a gore whitehouse would have been a DLC shop

          his cabinet would have been comprised of the people who put Lieberman on the ticket.

          Losing was the best thing that ever happened to gore.  It let him get rid of his DLC handlers and be himself again.

          by VelvetElvis on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:52:49 AM PDT

          •  Yeah, but..

            at least the Clinton Administration he was part of took terrorist threats seriously, and didn't turn their backs when people were screaming (metaphorically) "There's a really big attack coming!".

            Though there's a point to be argued that certain DLC members might also have had an interest in turning Gore's back for him.

            Ouch, did I just say that?

            by Pescadero Bill on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:00:05 AM PDT

          •  I'm quite conflicted about a Gore 2000 Presidency

            on the one hand we have all this blood on our hands, and we have a repulsively conservative court, a house of cards we call an economy, mounting debt, and on and on I could go.  It's been devastating.

            On the other hand, we actually have a progressive majority who votes.  We kicked the bums out of Congres in '06 and are gearing up for rock solid majorites this fall.  Howard frickin Dean is chair of the DNC,  Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House, Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, and the grassroots movement is stronger than I have ever seen it in my life.  I realize that some of this was the inevitable product of technology, but this turnaround of the Democratic Party has been incredible.  And unfortunately, we have GWB's coup to thank for it.  

            Al Gore's Presidency, with his DLC handlers sitting in nearly every cabinet position, would almost certainly have extended the Party's long and painful slide to the right, and the opportunities that are now in front of us would be years, possibly decades, off into the future.

            by Alfonso Nevarez on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:13:34 AM PDT

            •  that's how I look at it

              The right wing experiment had to be allowed to fail. It did and took down the right wing of the democratic party with it.

              by VelvetElvis on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:16:50 AM PDT

              •  I agree. This is why I would have found almost

                impossible to pull that lever for Hillary.  Happily, now I won't need to make that decision.

                by MsCasey on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:23:25 AM PDT

              •  It was still dumb of you to vote for Nader

                especially if you were in a close/swing state (say where single digits separated Gore and Bush) because you've helped set back progressive causes by 8 years (or more and maybe forever, if Dems don't win this year, God forbid).

                Do the math:

                Lieberman is still better than Cheney. Gore was way better than Bush. Gore + Liberman >> Bush + Cheney

                I know, I know. You need to find justifications for supporting Nader in 2000 against rational logic, but both logic and the evidence of what we have seen over the last proves that as a progressive, voting for Gore was the rational thing to do in 2000.

                by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:05:45 AM PDT

                •  i still think we're in a stronger position now

                  that the republican brand has been tarnished.

                  I finally got around to snagging a copy of Shock Doctrine and am in the middle.  These people would not have stopped trying until what happened happened.

                  by VelvetElvis on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:13:06 AM PDT

                  •  Good thing one of YOUR kids wasnt killed in Iraq.

                    Due to your Nader vote. The degree of narcissism of Nader and his voters is mind boggling.

                    by UndercoverRxer on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:23:19 AM PDT

                  •  Thanks to Gore's vision on the internet

                    that this resistance to the rightwing became possible.

                    First it was Dean's 2004 campaign and now Obama's 2008 campaign that have tapped into and benefited from the internet.

                    The netroots are able to help fight off the disinformation and lies of the RWNM (and the GOP-lite elephant sitting inside the Dem party. Or for that matter disinformation from the FAR FAR "left" of the political spectrum). All of that was made possible because the internet advanced to the point that it has due to Gore's vision from 3 decades ago and his efforts over 2 decades to help make things happen.

                    Have you thought about that?

                    Likewise, he's leading the push on global warming and once again under intense fire from the RWNM and the denialists. Again, Gore will be vindicated by the real truth a decade from now (hopefully, if the next admin doesn't mess things up). I honestly think you should learn to appreciate Gore.

                    by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:27:12 AM PDT

                •  I voted for Nader

                  in IL, and I voted for Rich Whitney over Rod Blagojevich, along with a full 10% of the state.

                  I voted for George Ryan over Glenn Poshard, too, because a pro-birth, anti-gay, pro-gun Democratic candidate decided to run to the right of the Republican in the race.

                  I will not vote for lame and stupid right-wing Democrats.  There's already a party for hawks, morons and fascists.

                  -7.75 -4.67

                  "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

                  by Odysseus on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:01:35 PM PDT

            •  An extremely painful, but probably necessary

              lesson.

              They're not kidding when they say people need to hit rock bottom before they can begin the healing process. And look at how many people still can't see that they have a "problem".

              by PatsBard on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:36:44 AM PDT

          •  Gore ran on a progressive and strongly

            environmental platform, I remind you. Lieberman pledged to abide by it, and Gore would've kicked Joementum's ass if the latter were to act up (as he did in endorsing Dean over him in 2003).

            by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:48:33 AM PDT

          •  An interesting thought!

            The defeat of Gore in 2000 was actually the beginning of the death of the entire Clinton/Lieberman/DLC movement.

            by BonzoDogBand on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:18:31 AM PDT

        •  Especially in light of the Mukasey revelation n/t

          by Alfonso Nevarez on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:57:31 AM PDT

          •  I still think he made that up

            to push FISA shit

            by VelvetElvis on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:08:17 AM PDT

            •  I refuse to give this administration

              the benefit of the doubt, and until he swears in front of Congress that he made that all up, I'm going to continue believing that they had an opportunity to prevent it and did nothing.

              by Alfonso Nevarez on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:16:01 AM PDT

              •  no argument from me on that

                by VelvetElvis on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:17:52 AM PDT

        •  It would've been the same as the Y2K

          terror threat... which was taken seriously by the Clinton-Gore administration and quietly handled.  No "terror alerts", no color-coded fearmongering, no chest-thumping "look how well we protected you!"  The government just did its job.  

          Now THAT'S the "pre-9/11 mindset" I wish we could get back to!

          by snazzzybird on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:57:37 AM PDT

          •  and more NAFTA

            more being china's trade bitch

            more telecom deregulation

            by VelvetElvis on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:10:54 AM PDT

            •  Gore was for fair trade and spelled

              out strong enforcement of labor/env protections for trade deals in his platform in 2000. Gore also critiqued China's bad trading practices and human rights abuses in 2000.

              Gore was actually against a GOP version of telecom deregulation. See here. It may have been Clinton's push in interests of getting reelected in 1996 that may have tilted the admin on this issue later on.

              by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:56:41 AM PDT

            •  Yes, you're probably right.

              In 2000 I voted for Gore as the lesser of two evils, after being a lifelong and heartfelt Dem -- largely because NAFTA had been such a slap in the face.  In fact, if the candidate had been anyone but Gore (whom I'd supported for president for many years) I might very well have voted for Nader.  NAFTA and trade were the strongest arguments supporting Nader's statement that there was no difference between the (R) and (D) presidential candidates.

              by snazzzybird on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:57:31 AM PDT

              •  Supporting Nader didn't come easy

                I had family members at Bill's inauguration as guests of Gore Sr.  I finaly broke down and decided that I wasn't voting for president, I was voting for an administration.  Being president is a team sport, and I hated Gore's coaching staff with a passion.

                by VelvetElvis on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:03:42 AM PDT

                •  Gore could've used your vote in TN

                  (as it seems you're from there. I guess I could've guessed it from your name handle).

                  You can't have have railed against and/or voted against Gore in TN on the one hand and then complain that Gore didn't win TN (as some Naderites including Nader are seen doing) on the other.

                  Likewise, you can't demand that Gore should have won easily (as Nader and some of his supporters say) when you actually voted against him. As it turns out, Gore was struggling to overcome the hole that was dug for him by Clinton's scandal/impeachment circus/fatigue and endless media smears, and Nader and his supporters threw him an anvil. Please see here.

                  by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:17:43 AM PDT

      •  Gore was the 1st major pol. to oppose Iraq war

        by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:45:50 AM PDT

  •  pandering to conservatives

    I never understood the selection of Lieberman as Gore's running mate.

    The only explanation I can think is it was pandering to conservatives. Look how well that turned out....

    So long, Joe!

    by cal in cali on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:37:44 AM PDT

    •  The whole dem party back then

      was pandering to conservatives as Lierman describes it.

      And look what a mess that got us into.

      Hey Joe, I'm thinking as I sit here trying to stretch my ever shrinking dollar, I hate you too, so f--k off.

      by Pescadero Bill on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:45:25 AM PDT

  •  and yet we Nader voters still get blamed for Bush

    and not that weak-assed ticket

    by VelvetElvis on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:38:48 AM PDT

    •  Gore is not a weak ass nomination

      He would have been a great president.

      by JrsyGrl on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:53:30 AM PDT</