Lieberman's Triumph

"And there was no evidence in [Lamont's] campaign either that he had ever really thought, deep in his mind (which is a concession I am actually not equipped to make), about how to choose equality and flee greed, that is to choose equality and flee greed as a political norm and as a political strategy."

In other words, if I read you correctly, the "Big Tent" should be more than a means; it should be an end.

National security + economic security for increasingly vulnerable low- and moderate-income Americans. This is what Lieberman has always stood for,a and what a party serious about becoming the dominant, majority party would stand for.

I wonder what Ben Franklin would say about that, Teplukhin.

I have no f---ing idea.

to Joe Lieberman and all his supporters, including the Editor in Chief. In politics, winners are right and losers are pathetic.

On Joe, we were pathetic.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Me, I'll gladly give up some of the bogus libbetry of the sort that suggests I have free choice in selection of health care insurance providers. The balance has swung too far toward individual responsiblity for all that befalls him or her. Time for more attention to some basic security-- of access to affordable health insurance, of pensions, access to excellent public schools for the kids etc.

you, Mr Cookie. A gent, as usual

The fact that Lamont turned out to be a mediocre candidate in no way proves anything wonderful about Holy Joe. He was just perceived by the voters to be the lesser of two evils. That, and Lamont going on vacation after winning the primary.

So Lamont's "evil", eh? Wow. Talk about fickle.

???
"lesser of two evils" is a very common FIGURE OF SPEECH. I don't think Lieberman's evil, either, just an enabler of the bad behavior of Bush. I hope that somewhere in his heart he recognizes the kind of crap that made this campaign much more of a hassle for him than it needed to be.

I'm not against bipartisanship, which is what Lieberman talked about. I AM against gripping your ankles every time there's a republican in sight, which was Lieberman's modus operandi up until the end of the primary.

mice, please. Lieberman didn't and doesn't "enable" Bush, who doesn't even listen to his Republican father-- in fact, goes out of his way to thumb his nose at his father and his father's friends.

Lieberman could have very easily, at no cost and with huge electoral upside, agreed to do as his advisers urged during the campaign and turned away from his earlier positions on the war. This would have increased his margin significantly. Lieberman refused to take this easy and harmless step, on principle. I don't care what one thinks of the war -- I favored it but I agree it's been hopelessly botched -- there is no question that Lieberman deserves every American's respect.

fwiw, I've never been a big fan of his, don't care for his moralizing, his anti-Hollywood jazz etc. But I'm honest enough to admit that he's a man. As opposed to the pygmy and the howling chimps who opposed him for no better reason than their hatred of Bush.

I also dislike Lieberman and for many of the same reasons, in addition to his claim that criticising the president put the nation at peril.

I never claimed he wasn't a man. I don't need to dehumanize the people I disagree with about Lieberman. I think the above is reason enough for some people to vote against Lieberman, which half of the people in CT did.

Lieberman won and Lamont lost. I'm no particular fan of Lamont. But I reserve the right to dislike Lieberman, regardless of whether he wins elections, or how many people call me a chimp for it.

Here's a deal for you: I'll take back the chimp comment if you and your friends stop with this vile nonsense about Sen Lieberman "grabbing his ankles for Bush". He's an American. He's on our side. His view on the war is sensible and respectable and worthy of a hearing without your childish, moronic insults. Got it?

Like you, I can only speak for myself. I have no control over what whoever you think are my "friends" may saay. But I will say that I was over the top with the "gripping his ankles" comment. Your turn.

I actually don't hold his view of the war against him. It's not so different from that of Biden or Hillary.

The problem I have with him is this- he's been very willing to set rules for how other Democrats are allowed to criticise the president, to the point of intimating that criticisms of Bush "put the nation at peril." THAT'S pretty problematic, from my perspective. In short, HE's acted like people who disagree with HIM aren't worhty of a hearing.

I suspect that it's characterological and part of the aforementioned tendency to moralize that we agreed isn't a good thing. But it's pretty frigging annoying.

Fine, that was a stupid comment that deserves scorn.

But neither it nor your spleen merited the foolish and self-destructive stunt of putting up a clownish trustfunder to run against him.

All that was accomplished by that stunt was the souring of still more Americans on our party-- note, again, how the independents voted-- and the expulsion from the party's ranks of a man who's done more in his career to advance Democratic and liberal causes than all the little blogblatherers combined.

If you don't like his manners or arrogance, fine. I don't much care for them myself. But let's not turn this party over to foolish, spiteful, childish amateurs of the sort who alone were responsible for the pathetic Lamont candidacy.

Lamont got 40%, which is not completely pathetic. I agree he was a flawed candidate, and have never disputed it.
But if this is the kind of venom Lieberman supporters spout when he WINS, against other Dems, well, that's saying something.

I just read that Joe Lieberman announced that he is returning to the new Senate as a...Democrat.

The healing begins....

.. will accelerate when those who smeared this man with their chldish, disgraceful and obscene insults offer him an apology.

Don't hold your breath. Some may and others won't.

I don't want to start a fight with anyone and as much as the most jacked up KOS hoodlum, I wanted Lamont to beat Joe, but, in a gentle spirit of scarred political wisdom, 40%, despite arguments to the contrary, is pretty pathetic.

When we accept that as truth, then we can learn and move ahead.

Cookie, you're an honest man, and I too have no wish to get stuck on this-- especially as I was never a big fan of Lieberman, as I've made clear here. However, one thing especially made me look at Lieberman in a different light: the reports that contrary to his advisers Lieberman refused to pare back his pro-war stand.

That's integrity. Courage. Honesty. Call him sanctimonious, arrogant-- whatever. But he's a man who deserves our respect. And gratitude, because only this kind of integrity and refusal to pander can move us out of the mire we're in.

Hey, *I* apologized for my comments about Lieberman. The only one on this thread to not apologize for their impolitic comments is you. And I would certainly support the left wing of the Democrats apologizing to Lieberman. Just as I'd support him apologizing for his "nation's peril" comment.

I take the chimp comment. Even steven.

Thanks for that. I suspect we're not that far apart. I wasn't one of the big Lamont boosters. that one Lieberman comment really stuck in my craw.
I think if you look at what Lieberman had in common with a lot of the winning Dems (some of them frequently labeled "conservative) is a real support of organized (and by implication unorganized as well) labor. Labor, I think, is the real "base" that we need to be appealing to.