home

Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate

The New York Times reports that Joe Lieberman did not command the attention or respect of his audience at a fundraising event in Connecticut Thursday night.

Three times on Thursday night, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman asked the crowd of 1,700 for quiet during his remarks at the state Democrats' annual Jefferson Jackson Bailey fund-raising dinner. "Shhh," he told the guests. But rather than interrupting him with applause, many were ignoring him, having struck up conversations after finishing their chicken.

The inattentiveness -- as well as the scattered boos amid the supportive calls of "Joe" that welcomed Mr. Lieberman to the podium -- convinced some that the three-term senator, criticized for months because of his continued support for the war in Iraq, may be vulnerable in the primary challenge he faces.

Who came to his rescue? Sen. Barak Obama, with a ringing endorsement.

"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.

Nonetheless, Ned Lamont's people were very happy. Ned also was in attendance, sitting with Howard Dean's brother.

Tom Swan, Mr. Lamont's campaign manager, said he had been wary of attending the dinner, given his campaign's outsider status. "I thought I was going to feel like I was on a hunting trip with Dick Cheney, but when we went into that room it was anything but," he said. "There is no doubt in anybody's mind who follows politics in Connecticut that Ned Lamont can win the Democratic primary after last night."

Ned Lamont has a chance, help him out.

< Judges Testimony at Senate FISA Hearing: The Transcripts | 'Round the Bloggerhood, Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#1)
    by rigel on Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 12:30:01 AM EST
    does this mean we can call him the Dem McCain now?

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#2)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 12:50:23 AM EST
    We have a system in place now in which politicians have to start making radical compromises, sucking up, and raising money the second they even begin to think seriously about running for office. The best and brightest in this country dont gravitate to running for office and we need to put our childish fantasies about these glorified, charismatic, corporate spokespersons and evangelical gameshow hosts aside - on the deepest level, theyre all conservatives. Real creativity, vision and meaningful change is going to have to come from outside the system. All Obama and Lieberman are doing is playing classic you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-your-back.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#3)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 02:00:00 AM EST
    This swing back and forth between knuckle-dragging, greed-is-good Rethugs and the Slime and Newspeak of the Democratic Party is getting sickeningly old.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 02:00:00 AM EST
    way off-topic, jeralyn, but are you planning to come to yearlykos in vegas in june? i would seriously like to meet with you face-to-face to offer my thanks for all your support.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 05:01:58 AM EST
    criticized for months because of his continued support for the war in Iraq Gosh darnit, but this is an incredibly oversimplified reason why so many oppose Lieberman. Iraq is one reason we don't like him, but Clinton, Biden and other Senators are still behind Iraq and they don't get half the vitriol Lieberman does. The reason we don't like Lieberman is that he is a sop for an administration that is doing everything it can to destroy Democratic values in our country. Because Lieberman is a consistent voice of support for people who would stab us in the back. It's because he is disloyal, and provides cover for the administration that we want him gong. Iraq is an example, not a reason.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#6)
    by superskepticalman on Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 05:47:19 AM EST
    Seems like Barak is ultimately no different from Lieberman or Hillary. All are DLC. All are losers. All are bad for the Democratic Party and for the United States. Go Ned!

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 06:37:56 AM EST
    Barack Obama, right out of the gate, is showing himself to be a make no wave, uniter/not divider type Democrat. He spoke, as it was going on, against the filibuster attempt against Alito. He supported the establishment choice in the Duckworth race. He didn't want to give a statement on the censure resolution. And, probably something else I'm missing. A bit too early to be so safe. It turns me off.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 06:41:44 AM EST
    While it's more than a bit disappointing to hear Obama endorse the likes of Lieberman, to tar him as "a DLC loser, bad for the US" when the only viable alternative is the scum city review currently mismanaging the Country is a tad premature and more than a wee bit harsh.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#9)
    by Andreas on Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 07:19:50 AM EST
    Obama is a long-time proponent of US imperialism and militarism: Democratic keynote speaker Barack Obama calls for missile strikes on Iran By Tom Mackaman, 1 October 2004

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#10)
    by LizDexic on Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 09:21:19 AM EST
    First, Obama voted for the Republican sponsored bill that limits consumers' right to sue in a class action suit. (When I called his office to voice my disappointment, his aide said "Well, the expectations were SO high for Senator Obama it was inevitable that some people would be disappointed.") Then, after many emails and calls pleading with him to support Feingold's censure resolution, Obama wrote me to say that he felt that "censure was not appropriate at this time." I have given money to Ned Lamont. Obama's support of Lieberman is the third strike for me. I'll never vote for him again.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 09:40:26 AM EST
    I would love some diversity in the Oval Office. When I first saw Obama, I thought he was bright, articulate, and charismatic. Since then, I've become disabused of first impression. He is just another Vichy Democrat. He is part of the problem. It is hard for me to imagine he could ever be part of the solution.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 09:44:04 AM EST
    Not that I am up to snuff on Obama, although I have been paying attention and have been impressed with the guy, I do not see his remarks as anything like a "ringing endorsement " of Leiberman. This diarist from kos, who was at the event has a different take on the quote:
    Barak Obama gave a typically amazing speech, handicapped only by the obligatory pro-joe stuff. You could just feel the energy in the room decrease every time he had to praise Joe. He must have hated to do it. A great orator hates to ruin a good address. One of the best cheers for Barak came when he attacked the War and the lies that led to it - I just wish I had been close enough to see Joe's expression.
    emphasis mine pavlov dog's diary Besides the "Elephant in the room" line is a brilliant pun. On one hand is diffuses the tension caused by Lieberman's unpopularity while also calling Leiberman a Republician by invoking the Republican symbol. Perhaps I dislike Lieberman so much that I am seeing elephants where there are none, but it is a curious turn of phrase during a obviously loaded situation. My take on Obama is that he is a super talent and relatively a new unproven entity in the party. We need all the talent we can get, so my take it let's see how he develops. Until he proves himself unworthy of our support it is wise to cut him some slack.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 10:08:19 PM EST
    If the GOP not running anyone in this race doesn't tell the DNC that they need to run away from Lieberman, I do not know what will.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 10:48:58 PM EST
    To date I have seen absolutely nothing from Senator Obama that gives me any appreciation for him, other than as a fine speechifier. But speech is not action, and his actions to date, from lawsuit reform to lieberman, demonstrate a complete lack of sincerity. It's as if his speeches are just flowery words meant to drive the listener to some purchase, as opposed to indicating a course of action, a set of values, of the speaker. It's like listening to a Bush speech in English.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 06:45:44 AM EST
    Yes, that's right...eat our young. Oh no, Barack maybe personally likes Joe. Or, oh no, he's not as far to the left as the other side wants their guys to be far to the right. Nothing will ever get done in this country if people are only happy if the country is tacking hard to starboard or port

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 07:08:48 AM EST
    Posted by Duckman GR April 2, 2006 11:48 PM To date I have seen absolutely nothing from Senator Obama that gives me any appreciation for him, other than as a fine speechifier.
    It's as if his speeches are just flowery words meant to drive the listener to some purchase, as opposed to indicating a course of action, a set of values, of the speaker.
    As opposed to other modern politicians who follow speeches by going off and killing lions, tigers and bears with their bare hands. What would you suggest, that he pull a Bill Pullman and lead a squadron of fighters against the Martians like in Mars Attacks, or would a simple phony flight suit photo op on-board a strategically-placed Aircraft Carrier to capture the setting sun and a laughably-premature Mission Accomplished banner satisfy you? He's the Junior Senator from the State of Illinois. He's a politician. He's got to live and work in that world. He can't go around challenging everyone to a duel simply because they deserve it. Furthermore, he's a member of the opposition party. The job of the Opposition Party is to Oppose. It is not their Job to constantly come up with detailed programs on how to clean up the repos' mess. They don't have the votes to implement it anyhow. Why give the repos ideas to steal and call their own. Let them continue to show how intellectually bankrupt they are. The Dems can roll out something when the time comes.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#17)
    by soccerdad on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 07:53:56 AM EST
    When the Democratic party called Saturday asking for a donation, since I have given in the past, I told them I would gladly donate the day the Dem. Party returned to its core values and stopped being just like the Republicans, i.e. corporate whores. I don't expect to be giving money to them any time soon. One group are corporate whores the others are religous corporate whores, neither support the long term interests of the average person. One group is just better at getting the people to vote against their own self interest I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that the democratic party should be destroyed and then rebuilt. Things will have to get a lot worse for that to happen. So bend over and say thank you. BTW a request for money based on the premise we are not Republicans is as lame as you can get and carries no weight with me.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 08:27:55 AM EST
    Well, Soc, I don't like the repo-lite thing any better than you do but to pretend that there's no difference between the two parties like some Florida Nadar voter got us this putz in the first place. It's also total BS. Gore wouldn't have us in Iraq. Gore wouldn't have put these two nitwits on the SC. Lieberman, with his all his faults, wouldn't have had secret energy policy meetings or had enron write the damned policy. He wouldn't have declared total war on the environment or shot somebody in the face and tried to cover it up. He also wouldn't have totally neglected al qaeda or staffed FEMA with incompetent political hacks so enough with this silly-ass there's no difference between the two parties crap. That's why we're in this fix in the first place. The differences aren't always as great or as pronounced as I'd like them to be either, but there are differences. The Dems aren't gonna try to turn this Country into a God Damned, kukluxkristian theocracy like these nitwits are. They're also not gonna make it all but impossible for everybody but rich kids to go to College or totally destroy the social safety net and wipe out the legacy of the New Deal and the GI Bill that made most of our fathers and mothers or grandfathers and grandmothers and so by extension - us - middle class in the first place.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#19)
    by soccerdad on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 09:30:22 AM EST
    Charlie, There is no fundamental difference at the top. Support for the corporations, anti-labor, pro-war. The differences between the Repubs and the Dems who will be allowed by the DLC and corporate media to run for national office will be small. Why do you think Hillary is the front runner? To delude yourself by hanging on to the past and any little crumb they throw us is to delay any real improvement or change. We no longer have a government which represents the best interests of everyone not just the few. Electing Hillary ot Biden or that ilk will not change things. Obame, it appears, will be another Clinton someone who is slick enough to have us think we are getting a old time Dem but when the money is on the table will sell us out as fast as Clintion did. All potential national progressive choices within the Dem party will end up like Dean or Wellstone.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 09:42:37 AM EST
    Lieberman, with his all his faults, wouldn't have had secret energy policy meetings or had enron write the damned policy. He wouldn't have declared total war on the environment or shot somebody in the face and tried to cover it up.
    The only thing that Lieberman would not do is shoot someone in the face. That is a Cheney special, a man in a class by himself. The rest Lieberman is fully capable of, including turning America into a theocracy. Ned Lamont is a breath of fresh air and needs our support. I agree that for Obama to trash Lieberman would have accomplished nothing although his "elephant in the room" comment was great. As far as I know Obama has not endorsed anyone for the CT senate race. I think that the premise of this thread takes remarks out of context and turns them into a general endorsement that has never been made.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#21)
    by Peaches on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 10:02:18 AM EST
    Awww, Soc, Say it isn't so. Did the Election of Bush take that much out of you? I've always admired you and your opinions, but I got to side with Charlie on this one.
    To delude yourself by hanging on to the past and any little crumb they throw us is to delay any real improvement or change.
    Well, I also subscribe to the belief that things will get a whole lot worse before they get any better. I just like the gentle slope down versus what this administration is pushing us toward. I can't believe you really think there is no difference between Clinton and Bush or GOre and Bush for that matter. Or Kerry and Bush. Or Lieberman and Cheney. If we ever get to a point where we are deciding between McCain and Lieberman, then I can see your point, but these guys are in the White House proved how wrong and disastrous the Nadar argument truly was.
    All potential national progressive choices within the Dem party will end up like Dean or Wellstone.
    As far as progressive go, Dean was no Wellstone. Dean would have looked a lot like Clinton, but I would love to have seen him in the White House. I agree with you about Wellstone, though. The way I see it, someone with some really devious and sinister motives made the decison on that one. I can't hardly get my mind around it--I almost go crazy thinking about the notion as a battle raging in my mind between science fiction conspiracies and the pure political brilliance and brutality it took to pull it off. Perhaps the powers at the top of the Democratic party are capable of turning the other way, but I am much more prone to believe Cheney and company had a hand in this than anyone with democratic ties. Wellstone understood what was at stake in 2000, though. He didn't endorse Nadar, he endorsed Gore/Lieberman. Even though he knew and readily admitted Nadar had closer views and ideas to his than Gore/Lieberman. He wasn't going to just hand the power over to Bush and the Republicans by endorsing Nadar, because he knew how dangerous it would be for Bush?Cheney to gain control of the White House. No, Soc, I think the best thing to do is not to abandon the Democratic party if you want change. Maybe you can redirect your money to local issues instead of giving it to the National party, because the change has to start at the ground level. Educating people through word of mouth. Change also requires a little sabotage--this also has to be done locally. break free of the system and work to strengthen local communities. Secondary to that is supporting the Democrats in their position for national politics. You don't have to hang onto the hope that Democrats will inspire the change we all want, but they can hold things off from getting a hell of a lot worse. The change you want has to get done through work that is much harder than election politics. Each-one reach one. Each one-teach one.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#22)
    by soccerdad on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 10:51:17 AM EST
    Well gee I should support the Dems because although things will suck they will not suck as bad. Well that gets me all sort of excited, not! You are missing the fundamental point. The national Dem leadership is no different than what main stream repubs were in the 90's. They are not as extreme as Bush, but has our political discourse lowered itself to the point that "its not as bad as Bush?" is considered a real choice? This is fundamentally a defeatist way of looking at things [ from a self-interest viewpoint]. We will continue to elect national representatives who do not really represent us, continue to complain that our needs are not be met, etc but not really do anything about it. In fact, according to your way of thinking, i.e. Dems are not as bad as Bush Repubs, the corporate interests have won a stunning victory because we are settling for just a milder form of their lackeys, but their lackeys none the less. The longer it takes to go in the toilet, the more chance they will have to take our freedoms away, not that we have that many now. And by freedom I refer to it from an indiviual point of view where choice actually has an impact, not some slogan cooked up by the politicans to numb our brains where participation in what amounts to a rigged contest appears to be freedom. I guess the Dems smile when they f**k us.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 11:01:37 AM EST
    amazed that someone could support Lieberman, a mature statesman who actually cares about his country and doesn't think it evil like those on the far left? Barack must have more sense than most of the posters here to recognize another adult.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 11:10:16 AM EST
    Lieberman loves personal power and money at the expense of serving his constituents. He is no friend of America, wingnuts seem to love him though...Fred. On another note here is a bit from Obama's AP luncheon speech this afternoon:
    CHICAGO Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) will be chief speaker at the Associated Press luncheon at the Fairmont Hotel Monday afternoon following the AP annual meeting there. In his talk, according to a text obtained by AP today, he will accuse the Bush administration of a "stubborn refusal" to attack the causes of climate change, and say that tougher fuel standards, stricter curbs on oil imports and more investment in cleaner energy are essential to avert global catastrophe.


    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 11:11:24 AM EST
    oops...Here is the link: E & P

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#26)
    by glanton on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 11:19:11 AM EST
    but has our political discourse lowered itself to the point that "its not as bad as Bush?" is considered a real choice?
    Well said, soccerdad. Charlie and Peaches, with all due respect, the real elephant in the room is well represented by the above quoted passage. If you want to say yes, being not as bad as Bush is a viably attractive political quality in and of itself, then it seems to me that you're playing the same game we see the Rethugs playing when they say "at least we don't behead our prisoners" or "at least our women don't have to endure rape rooms." Small consolations, indeed. More forthcoming.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 11:20:40 AM EST
    perhaps Senator Obama, to be more authentically black to the far left, should punch a cop and then give a press conference, looking bug eyed and disheveled, and scream racism. again, there is no mature upcoming statesman on the left-you can't be one while appealing to the far lefters like those who post here. Obama is just finding a niche entirely vacant with the democrats today.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#28)
    by Peaches on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 11:21:00 AM EST
    Soc, I get your point. I just don't agree with it. I know it sucks, but that is the point we have reached on a national level. The Dems are not as bad as the Repugs. Sry, that is just reality. I admire your idealism, I even share some of it, but the fact is the corporations won the stunning victory a long time ago--and its not as if we were caught unaware (you only need to read Thorstein Veblen to realize that). You don't have the stomach for national politics. That's fine, neither do I. So, put your energies somewhere else. But don't take your rage out on the Dems. Their rightward shif is more evidence from the stunning corporate victory. You want to change that, you need to do better than the Nadar argument. You'll need more imagination than that. If you want to shift the political landscape the other way, you'll need to take on the corporations not the Dems. You have to put some faith in people--Americans. You'll have to educate them somehow, because the corporations-and our public schools-are not going to do it for you. Call me defeatest and you miss the fundamental point. I haven't given up, I am just rethinking strategy. The Nadar argument is the defeatest strategy. If you want the Democratic party to shift back to the left you have to shift America--and to do that you have aim lower than where the money is at. Once the Dems realize they have the people on their side and recognize that this gets more votes than the money, they will move back. People got to get smarter, and that takes education--not propogation of slogans.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#29)
    by soccerdad on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 11:43:23 AM EST
    Take on the corporations- oh really have fun. And we are going to have to get better educated - how given the corporate media? The people are ready - they see the economic situation as to how it affects them on a daily basis not just how it affects wall street, they see the ugly war and the lies that the Dems don't stand up to, they see the voter fraud that the Dems don't stand up to, they see stacking the supreme court with corporate supporters and the Dems not standing up to it, they see the torture that no one will do anything about, the point is that the polls show that the people already know. They dont need more education they need a means of exercising that knowledge. BTW the Dems don't stand up to it because fundamentally they agree they just wish Bush wasn't so out in the open and arrogant about it. And you are going off to take on the corps who own the politicians and news media and actually expect to get anywhere. Real change will only come about out of the ashes of a true national collapse much like in the 30's. But by then will we have any means of effecting that change? BTW I'm not advocating any particular action, the national collapse will take care of itself.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 12:21:54 PM EST
    More from Obama's speech:
    This is not a serious effort. Saying that America is addicted to oil without following a real plan for energy independence is like admitting alcoholism and then skipping out on the 12-step program. It's not enough to identify the challenge - we have to meet it. [emphasis mine]
    This is clearly a dig at Bush and his 'drinking problem/solution'. I am sure that the elephant in the room comment was a slam at Lieberman's republicrat nature. Think Progress has the whole speech.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#31)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 12:39:34 PM EST
    Soc, Yeah I've certainly had it. Bush has stolen two elections. Let the chips fall. The Dems are powerless by choice. There are criminals walking the halls of the WH and only one guy in the entire congress will use the powers that they have left to try to stop these people. And the war in Iraq continues.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#32)
    by Peaches on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 12:47:59 PM EST
    And we are going to have to get better educated - how given the corporate media?
    I am not thnking as large as you. First I am taking care of my family. Then I am thinking of my local community. And then I am waiting--with you--for the national collapse.
    The people are ready
    Well, they weren't in 2004 and I doubt they are yet.
    the point is that the polls show that the people already know. They dont need more education they need a means of exercising that knowledge.
    Maybe we are arguing over the word education. By education I certainly am not advocating more information. A means of exercising useful knowledge would also be an education.
    And you are going off to take on the corps who own the politicians and news media and actually expect to get anywhere
    Well, in my own small way I take em on everyday by participating as little as I can in the global economy run by the corporations. Whether I am getting anywhere is open to interpretation.
    But by then will we have any means of effecting that change?
    That is the question. I'd like to think the democratic party will provide the means for change when that time comes as FDR did in the thirties.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 01:04:43 PM EST
    deleted for name-calling and insults. Commenter warned.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#34)
    by Peaches on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 01:12:39 PM EST
    What ever you say Variable. You are one to offer up a reasonable opinion afterall.
    Clearly Obama gets it, clearly Lieberman gets it,
    Sure, Variable, You voted for the Gore/Lieberman ticket in 2000, and you were on Obama senatorial election committee in 2004. LMAO I'll gladly drink champaign with you as we make a toast to Obama/Lieberman or Lieberman/Obama for their victory on the democratic ticket in 2008.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 01:18:21 PM EST
    well, obama is at least able to project an appearance that he cares for this country and realizes the bad guys are just that-one can't say the same for harry reid or nancy pelosi or russ feingold. Lieberman is no conservative-he's just a liberal who doesn't hate his country. I guess that would make him the radical here.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 01:28:04 PM EST
    Fred-
    Lieberman is no conservative-he's just a liberal who doesn't hate his country.
    He is just as much a liberal as you are. The Koolaid is starting to flow. Drink up Fred.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 01:45:51 PM EST
    why worry about my politics-I don't claim to be a liberal. a Democratic party whose message seems to be hate the country and protect the terrorists won't win any elections no matter how unpopular Bush is. Obama is smart enough to figure that out-are you?

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 01:59:19 PM EST
    I am not worrying.... just pointing out that there is a troll on the thread.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 02:43:41 PM EST
    you might want to worry-what's the Daily Kos' "0 fer" up to now with his endorsements? there just isn't a market for the hate america and contempt for america left in the electorate. I don't want you folks to win elections-keep up the bad work.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 03:42:33 PM EST
    Socc, Glanton, I've been out all afternoon, so you'll forgive me for not getting back to you sooner. Look, Lieberman was a horrible choice for VP. His effort in the debate with Cheney was a disgrace and he did less than zero for the ticket. But that's all he would've been was VP. Where is it written that Gore would've used him the way shrub's used dr evil? You're forgetting one major difference. Gore knows what day it is. So there's no opportunity for Lieberman to do the theocracy, Iraq, the energy plan, the Supremes, the Appeals Courts, no Patriot Act, No Ashcroft, probably no 9/11, an effective effort in Afghanistan, no war on the environment and no staffing all public safety positions with incompetent political hacks. So don't tell me there's no difference between the parties. There's not enough to suit me, either, but votin' for Nader really showed 'em, didn't it? Yeah, that really fixed their asses. That had the repos flat on their backs - in 5-star hotels, on silk sheets, gettin' to know each other, livin' on room service, swillin' the best champagne, finest cigars and laughin' their butts off at the Country's expense while they dream up new and different ways to dismantle and destroy it. Yeah, that really showed 'em. Politics is the art of the possible, too. You let the perfect be the enemy of the good, next thing ya know, you've got 8 years of this shmendrick with a rubber stamp repo congress to boot.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#41)
    by glanton on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 04:02:19 PM EST
    for Nader really showed 'em, didn't it?
    Charlie, I must admit that every time you, Peaches, or anyone else points this out I wince from the truth it reflects. I wince even though in 2000 I did vote for Gore, and largely for the reasons you guys are outlining. But my thinking has changed a lot over the last six years. 1) It has changed because I cannot see any evidence whatever that the Democratic Party learned anything a'tall from what Nader did in 2000. If anything, they have on the whole gone out of their way to alienate the alienated even more. See Act, Patriot. See Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest Percentile. See War Resolution, Iraq. See the precious Hillary Clinton's current panderings with the flag-burning bill. Etc. Etc. Etc. For a long time all of this stuff really bothered me, I didn't quite understand why it was we were being asked to vote for all this, unless we wanted to vote Republican in the first place. 2)Gore is illustrative of much. Peachges and Charlie, if you will be as intellectually honest as I know you both can be, then you will admit with no qualifications that the Gore we are seeing now is a very differernt Gore than the one who ran for the Presidency. Why? The answer is obvious: he hasn't been running for anything so he hasn't "needed" to drape himself in the rhetoric of God, guns, and gays. Wonder what would happen if he runs again--think he'll change back? For a long time all of this stuff really bothered me, I didn't quite understand why it was we were being asked to vote for all this, unless we wanted to vote Republican in the first place. 3)The public itself. You know, Charlie, Peaches and I have been through this before, but so that you won't misunderestimate my position I will state again that I have recently come to the resigned conclusion that it may indeed be the case that the American public will not elect anyone unless they play these games that both parties play. And if this is the case, then it's not really worth fighting for in the first place, is it? Thus, this stuff doesn't really bother me any longer, for I now quite understand why it is we are being asked to vote for all this, and that if we vote at all, we might as well be voting Republican in the first place. 4)The absolute stranglehold corporate America has on both parties, on the media, on everything. The control is, as Lou Dobbs recently had the guts to point out, absolute. So, don't vote, it only encourages them. Stay alert, and stay with Fox.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#42)
    by glanton on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 04:15:11 PM EST
    All of which, BTW, reinforces why, despite its sad racist tincture, I find the current recapitulation of the timeless immigration "crisis" so refreshingly entertaining! Yayyyy! The corporate elite finally have something to be afraid of, and the knife at their throats is being weilded by the vbery people they have manipulated into joining a full-court press against real freedom in the United States. Yayyyy! The 'values-voters' will do lots of damage but ultimately don't have a chance in hell, they will suffer the "indignity" of not getting their racist way, because the corporate elite will find a way in the end, but only after going through lots of unfamiliar and painful hoops that I will immensely enjoy watching them undergo, to retain control. Stay alert, and stay with Fox.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 04:58:14 PM EST
    Look, Glanton, I'm not gonna tell ya I like it. I'm not gonna tell ya that it doesn't feel like being caught between the rock and the proverbial hard place much of the time, but these putzes are hell all of the time. I'm not gonna tell ya it's anything more than marginally better. But marginally better is still better. If you think these two clowns are on the Supreme Court with Gore in the White House, you're lyin' to both of us and you know it. And don't get me started on the Appeals Courts. The environment simply doesn't get trashed like this with a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic Congress. We're not in Iraq. Period. That's a huge difference. Hillary's not inevitable. She's ahead in the polls for the same reason shrub was ahead in the polls when he was first running at this time. Brand name recognition. So can this don't vote it only encourages them nonsense. The only thing it encourages them to do is have the christian taliban elect nitwits like this yutz 'cause those kukluxkristian zombies will go out and vote in a 40 below blizzard and they want everyone else to stay home. It's in their best interest. You've played right into pat robertson's hands. Not voting or putting your two cents into Democratic Politics only elects repos in a two party system. That's reality. Look around. Like what ya see? Oh, and spare me the fox crap. I ain't a boy named suo or pathetically pompous jim.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#44)
    by glanton on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 05:14:43 PM EST
    Charlie, the Fox sign off doesn't operate as a personal attack on you. Heck, it doesn't even serve that purpose when dealing with the boy named suo or jim the mythic blogger. It is simply my little hat tip to the cultural climate of the times. So saying in our time captures so much, in so little, as Shep Smith's smug little daily send-off. So please, don't take it personally. Further, when I go back over threads like this, I often notice that the interlocutors rarely address one another's points but instead throw distinct points past one another. We have been guilty of this here. For your part, you do not address my point, for example, that the Dems didn't learn anything from what Nader did, but instead, proceeded to further alienate the alienated. And it wasn't just Hillary, bub. It was the whole damned party, sans a striking dissenter here and there. I'd like you to address that. I'd like you to address the bed sharing with the corporate machine of which the Democratic Party is thoroughly guilty. I'd like you to address the "me-too" God stuff so popular with all Democrats, from Obama to Hillary to Leiberman to Salazar to good ole what's-his-name who just won that "big race in Virginia." These are serious issues, my friend. If this is the best we can get then I just don't have any interest in it. Now, I'll address a couple of your points. Yes, there's no Iraq fiasco with Gore, there are different Supreme Court justices, there is no Patriot Act, no tax cuts for the elite. I'd say all that is true. But Gore isn't there, and I used to think the reason he isn't there is because he played the Republican lite game. Now I think he's not there because of that plus the fact that far more Americans than you're willing to admit want these reactionary Taliban-lite policies implemented at all levels of government. Woulda, coulda, shoulda. So the only way a Dem wins is by lying through their teeth to everybody and with an ultimate reward of what? Did gay rights expand during Clinton's Admin? Did women's rights? Did we get anywhere at all on health care? The reason the answer to all this stuff is no is because the public is what it is, it won't tolerate decency, anything but decency is acceptable in this tabloid country. I will not vote unless someone gives me a reason to vote for them. I want promises to bust up the monopolies in this country, the strangeholds enjoyed by the likes of the Pharm corporations. I want promises that we will be kept just as safe from the religious nuts here as we are from those we're supposed to be fighting against abroad. I want someone, anyone, with some balls, to stand up and say something true, and then I'll think seriously about voting for them. And if that happens I'll hope my vote gets counted. Peace.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#45)
    by Andreas on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 05:39:09 PM EST
    @glanton: read the Statement of the Socialist Equality Party on the elections.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 05:56:18 PM EST
    As usual, I throw my lot in with Glanton and Soc...well said. I'm abstaining too...

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 06:13:17 PM EST
    Glanton, Like it or not, the business community is a reality in this Country and in this World. Now you can try to forge a reasonable working relationship with them where they make an ACCELERATED GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO CLEAN UP THEIR MESSES AND GET WITH THE PROGRAM. Any tax credits are targeted towards and conditional on environmental and worker safety performance in an effort to get into compliance with the NEW Govt Regs. People go to Church. We don't want to alienate them. We want to respect their right to do that. We just ask that, in turn, they respect the rights of others to worship, or not, as they see fit as well. However, there's no mixing of Church and State. As for Health Care, everything the repos warned against under so-called "Hillary-Care" has come true under them. Spiraling costs. Rationing. Wallet Biopsies. GM's about to go under because of health care costs. The US is losing plants to Canada because they have national health care. The French worker is actually more productive per hour worked than the US worker. Can I guarantee that things will get markedly better if the Democrats regain power? No. Not right away. I can, however, guarantee that they'll continue to go to hell in a hurry if the repos retain power. So, while I can't promise you that you'll live happily ever after, you can stop the bleeding and stabilize the breathing, heartbeat and pulse, or you can holdout for the brass ring, flat line, bleed out, hope someone ties ya to a stop sign and ya don't float away and pray that the rats and the gators don't get ya, cause Lord knows, this FEMA ain't comin'.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#48)
    by soccerdad on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 08:06:12 PM EST
    One only has to look in detail at the Clinton admin to see that his kind of "centerist" Dem albeit one is smooth talking, is fundamentally not different than the average Repub. Bush is an extremist. He has lowered the bar for political debate to the point where anyone but him looks like a plan. Clinton knew in 1998 that Saddam did not have WMDs. Iraq wanted sanctions lifted so that they could begin to redo the oil infrastructure, They already had contracts signed by Russia and China. The US corporate interests certainly didn't want that and the idea that Saddam who would not deal with the US would have a functioning oil industry was more than Clinton and the corporate powers could deal with. So Clinton launched a series of attacks against "radar installations" while they screamed that Saddam did have WMDs and Albright in what must be considered one of the great hypocritical moments said that the deaths of Iraqi children because of sanctions was a price the US was willing to pay. What price? So we let Iraqi children die because we didn't want Iraq selling oil and getting paid in Euros. Then Clinton sells out fundamental democratic principles in giving a blank check for free trade and the start of job loss. The agreements had no cover for American workers but were a blank check for corporate interests. The DLC, Biden, Hilary etc are in that mold. Dont be tricked into thinking that rearranging the deck chairs is going to acomplish anything. The US economy and way of life is headed for the ice berg. And there are just enough life boats for the rich and well connected. Maybe one day the South American revolt against corporations, the world bank, the IMF will spread up here. The American ideals that we were brain washed about in scholl are not reality. Corporate power is the reality. It has always been in the US except for the hiccup after the 29 crash.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#49)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 09:48:09 PM EST
    I still havnt heard a convincing explanation as to why Gore didnt go for Bush's jugular in thier debates ( and, he very easily could have), the way he went after Perot in thier confrontations. Why was Perot more of a seeming threat to everybody than even fundie ass clown Bush? Probobly because he was opposed to NAFTA. And this is as good an example as any of how the unwavering allegence of both mainstream parties to the status quo, and thier deep-seated, visceral class interests creates this banality-of-lack-of-difference that everybodys pissed about. The only thing that will ever change this is publicly financed elections.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#50)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 09:56:38 PM EST
    That being said, the Bush species is so dangerous and irrational I'd vote for Gore (at least the man reads) in a heartbeat if those were the only two choices.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 03, 2006 at 11:28:45 PM EST
    The DLC, Biden, Hilary etc are in that mold. Dont be tricked into thinking that rearranging the deck chairs is going to acomplish anything. The US economy and way of life is headed for the ice berg. And there are just enough life boats for the rich and well connected.
    Maybe one day the South American revolt against corporations, the world bank, the IMF will spread up here. The American ideals that we were brain washed about in scholl are not reality. Corporate power is the reality. It has always been in the US except for the hiccup after the 29 crash.
    So, to register their extreme disappointment with Clinton, they stayed home or voted for Nader - a defacto vote for shrub - throwing the election to the bush leaguers, thereby making a bad situation intollerable. I have no doubt there was Anti-Semitism in Germany before Hitler came to power in 1933, either. Ya gonna try and tell me there was no difference between the parties there, too, socc? Sometimes all ya get is the choice between bad and worse. Take 2004, for example.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#52)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 12:19:15 AM EST
    We also need the liberal ministers, rabbis, and theologians to summon some populist fire, grow some cojones and go to serious war with the religious right. Like it or not, the religious impulse is a very deep-seated aspect of the American folk imagination (or whatever that long German word is). Eugene"My socialism comes from the Sermon on the Mount" Debs knew this and King sure as hell knew this. Whats happening now is that church goers in the U.S are gravitating to the Evangelical gameshow hosts and clinic snipers because theyre the only ones that appear to take thier existential concerns seriously.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#53)
    by Peaches on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 08:38:05 AM EST
    that the Dems didn't learn anything from what Nader did, but instead, proceeded to further alienate the alienated.
    The political landscape shifted considerably in congress and the white house with the Bush victory. You know this Glanton. It made it that much harder for dems to pursue a progressive tract.
    I'd like you to address the bed sharing with the corporate machine of which the Democratic Party is thoroughly guilty
    Thats where the money is. Dems are chasing the money instead of the people. Right now, because money leads to more votes. THis is a problem with America not the Democrats. We have been hoodwinked by the corps through the propagand at fox, but also by what kids are taught, or more precisely, not taught, in our public schools. iow, the corporate agenda to dumb down the massess has been an unqualified success.
    I'd like you to address the "me-too" God stuff so popular with all Democrats, from Obama to Hillary to Leiberman to Salazar to good ole what's-his-name who just won that "big race in Virginia."
    Again, dumbing it down. But, listen Glanton, I say tis from a personal agnostic perspective. There is nothing wrong with being religious and speaking about it and being a politician. Jimmy Carter did it, the founding fathers used God as an authority to hold up the constituion and DOI, and Abraham Lincoln did it. That said, there is no place for it in crafting legislation or as a drumbeat for war.
    Corporate power is the reality. It has always been in the US except for the hiccup after the 29 crash.
    There was also a little hiccup during after WWII through the mid-1970's when corpations had such sayings as what is good for GM is good for America and the CEOs worked with the AAW giving high wages and good benefits believing that their workers would be good customers. Union memership reached a high in America. But, during the sixties we also had the war and a group of conservatives patiently working to undermine this alliance between workers and corporations in America. They slowly eroded this beginning with Reagan. Clinton got elected by appealing to some of propaganda the backroom conservatives had been preaching to the public for well over a decade (free trade, competition, fiscal responsibility), but he still had some liberal ideas that America wanted also (universal health care, gays in the military) that the conservatives wouldn't let him go anywhere with once he was elected. They (the backroom conservatives)hated Clinton with a passion for his popularity with voters. They got their revenge and achieved the culmination of their dreams when they recieved the gift of a Nadar Campaign in 2000. Thus we have Bush/Cheney for eight years and Dems have even less room to manuever.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#55)
    by glanton on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 09:31:23 AM EST
    Sorry about the block quote madness. Hopefully you guys can read that mess.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#56)
    by soccerdad on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 09:42:30 AM EST
    Sometimes all ya get is the choice between bad and worse. Take 2004, for example.
    And to continue to support such a system is defeating your own self-interests. They are different in the matters that are relatively unimportant. When it come to who profits in the US, who is able to have a reasonable job, who is going to left behind, who is a member of the favored class they are the same. This is the fundamental issue that dwarfs all others. Because letting the corporations dictate policy means that only those who run corporations and those whores who implement those policies will be in the ruling class. This will become even more of a class struggle than it already is. So Charley I think that deck chair is out of place please rearrange and here's a quarter for your trouble.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 10:00:58 AM EST
    Glanton, now who's willfully choosing to misrepresent whom? To imply that by refusing to condemn Obama for half-heartedly endorsing Lieberman is tantamount to me supporting Lieberman and the kukluxkristian taliban is ridiculous. Those people are total whack jobs. The sad reality is that a calculation has probably been made that a primary will probably just result in an even worse repo killing off a weakened Democrat. Yes, they do come worse than Lieberman. Pick an Oklahoma Senator. Any Oklahoma Senator. Ditto for Alabama. Again, you let the perfect be the enemy of the good, you're gonna get this swine as far as the eye can see. You're gonna have nothin' but scumlitos and clueless clarences on the court and they'll raise they're glasses to ya. Once.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#58)
    by glanton on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 10:12:16 AM EST
    Again, you let the perfect be the enemy of the good,
    No, I know as well as anyone that perfection is a myth. When I get the opportunity to vote for a good candidate I will cheerfully do so. What I won't do is vote for a bad one because his or her opponent is even worse. There's a difference. And for the record, I don't ask that Obama or you or anyone "condemn Lieberman." That's like attacking a symptom but ignoring the virus. What I do ask is that, if Obama's so good, that he prove it. That he speak out forcefully against corporate domination of this country. Perhaps bring a bill to the Senate floor clearing the way for Americans to get their prescription drugs from Canada. Maybe get on the floor of the Senate and in front of every camera possible and decry Hillary's flag-burning bill for the evil that it is. And in the same breath, somebody of consequence in the Democratic Party (maybe a "good" guy like Obama?) could speak to what has happened in South Dakota. I mean, you'd never know about the draconian abortion ban there if you weren't a news junkie. Why? I mean, at least speak out against it, give voters who care reason to believe that the game isn't over, that there's someone in power who values women's rights and will fight for it. How about somebody speaking in front of every possible camera to what jondee keeps suggesting: publicly financed elections? For God's sake, Democrats, give me a reason to actually vote for you! That's all I'm asking. Surely you can do better than we're not Republicans! Can't you?

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#59)
    by Peaches on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 10:23:57 AM EST
    After all, I live in Texas, where a Dem vote is the equivalent of urinating into a hurricane anyway.
    I don't believe that. I think there are as many progressive ideas coming out of Texas as Minnesota where I am from. One of the myths we have swallowed, The Dems included, is that the south is a wasteland for progressive ideas--that it will do zero good to campaign there. When a democratic candidate gets serious and reaches out to the people in the south we refer to as "rednecks" from rural areas, then they will get somewhere. That might mean that this Democrat has to speak from a perspective that includes God. Maybe Hilary understands that. She was tutored by her husband afterall-who if nothing else was understood the art of politics. I might be delusional, but I think people are more fed up in Texas than they are in Minnesota--and I wouldn't want to have to feel the wrath of Texas-once the people there get mobilized and organized. I think one of the biggest problems is that people used to say "organize" they were talking about more than an election. They were talking about Unions, civil rights, quality of life, etc. The politician they were supporting was secondary to the movement they were a part of. That has changed as politics has been increasingly dominated by big money interests and corporations. So, I understand the frustration SD and Glanton feel. I can even empathize with leaving the democratic party and returning to the people, to your community--becuase, that is where change has to take place and movements start which are worth organizing around. But, your rage is misplaced if you think the answer is to redirect your energy toward pointing out the similarities between the two parties and talking about Money. The way to change that is to leave it and get back to the people. Two classes in this country. One has lots of money--they are in power. The other one has lots of people--they don't realize the power they possess and the people with money will do everything in their power to keep it that way.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#60)
    by Peaches on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 10:33:22 AM EST
    and a corollary to the last statement is that when the cemocrats undestand that it will do them more good appeal to the people (once they realize their power and put it to use) rather than appeal to the money, then Democrats will take more chances and won't worry about losing their coffers from taking a controversial position--because they won't lose votes. Because they have earned the respect of the people, who are, afterall, where the power resides.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#61)
    by glanton on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 10:34:50 AM EST
    Maybe Hilary understands that.
    You do realize that you're continuing to uphold as an ideal a pure panderer don't you? Shall we let the flag-burning amendment go? The loud silence of South Dakota, let it go? Shall we let the voting record go, simply because she is a charming Democrat? Despite the many trolls who refer to Hillary Clinton as "left," really she hasn't established herself as much beyond a very privileged, charismatic woman who would smugly walk over corpses to get elected. I am willing to admire her in Nietzschean terms but only in those terms; terms which, by the way, make George W. Bush look pretty good as well. To uphold her as a model for instilling sanity into American discourse is insane.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#62)
    by Peaches on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 10:45:49 AM EST
    You do realize that you're continuing to uphold as an ideal a pure panderer don't you?
    Aw quit it Glanton. I do not hold her up as an ideal and you know it. You are a point-misser.
    I often notice that the interlocutors rarely address one another's points but instead throw distinct points past one another.
    No more clear example than your last post.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 10:59:47 AM EST
    Glanton, Socc. You want a right to choose? That's hangin' by a thread. That ship may have sailed when shrub got close enough to steal '04 and he got his chance to screw up the Courts. SD and their lunatic "sodomized virgin" exception goes away with one vote with sane Justices on the Court. Ya want sane Justices? You're gonna have to vote Democratic. Ya want corrupt lunatics like scalia? Stay home and hold out for a hero. Then ya can reminisce about the good old days.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#65)
    by glanton on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 11:11:47 AM EST
    And charlie, my friend, have you no slings in your potent quiver for the Democratic Party's resolute silence on the issue of women's rights? Have you nothing to say to their behavior re SD, acting like the cop in South Park: "nothing to see here, move along." You defend wommen's rights by ignoring the issue and hoping that it's "understood" you will protect them. You defend rights in general by speaking clearly and forcefully. When's the last time you heard a prominent Democrat speak forcefully and clearly about gay rights: when did you last hear one state in a matter-of-fact way, anti-gay sentiment is bigotry? Please. If our greatest hope for civil rights lies in the hands of people who won't put up even token resistance to oppression, then how in the world do you expect those rights to maintain? Indeed, by not voting at all, I'm only mirroring the silence the Dems emanate on the issues I care about. Let's just say my support for them is "understood" and be done with it.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#66)
    by glanton on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 11:12:47 AM EST
    Oops. The beginning of the second paragraph should read "You don't defend..."

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#54)
    by glanton on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 11:15:13 AM EST
    Peaches:
    It made it that much harder for dems to pursue a progressive tract.
    There is such a things as reluctance to "pursue a progressive tract." Then there is such a thing as utter and complete capitulation to regressive agendas. Guess which one best describes our favorite party?
    THis is a problem with America not the Democrats.
    I agree. So let's not pretend that the Democrats represent some sort of alternative to it, okay? At least Nader, for all that we have groused about him, had the cohones to stand up and spend his money and time speaking against this phenomenon, offering ideas for how to challenge it. At least he spoke true. You and charlie can say whatever you want about Nader and his voters, but they were by far the most honest component in the 2000 election. I say this despite the fact that Nader stretched the truth considerably when he said there was no difference whatever between Rethugs and Dem'gogues. But after all, even there the rhetorical point remains: they're not different enough. And again it doesn't console me that 'at least we don't saw off our prisoners' heads.' I want more difference, not less. Charlie writes:
    People go to Church. We don't want to alienate them. We want to respect their right to do that.
    And, hopefully not on purpose, misses my point entirely. There has never been any danger of alienating Christians in American government, okay buddy? What I detest is that it's getting harder and harder to tell the difference between a political speech and a sermon. Ole what's-his-name in Virginia set a new bar, there. Everybody here seems to love Salazar for having called Dobson the anti-Christ; but don't you see the only reason he did that is because Dobson challenged his own creds as a holy roller? I tire of the pandering. And I am disappointed that you either didn't see my point or willfully chose to misrepresent me on this, Charlie. I think very highly of your posts and the spirit in which you effect them, as you know. But in this conversation I think you've been as interested in scoring points off of me than in addressing my concerns. Maybe you think, like Peaches, that my concerns are irrelevent. If you do, then that means that like Peaches and the Democratic Party writ large, you didn't learn anything from the 2000 election either. The whole "Bush stole Florida" line corrupted many, but I hope you're not in that number. There were then, and are now, other, bigger, truer phenomena at play that the hanging chad and Diebold. Finally, for Peaches and Charlie and any other Dem believer, as you well know you have much bigger things to worry about than whether I vote. After all, I live in Texas, where a Dem vote is the equivalent of urinating into a hurricane anyway. But then, Tampa Student represents a different issue, no? Soccerdad, perhaps, as well? And here's a screamer. What's going to happen when Conneticut's biggest voting block are those most concerned with boys kissing and the right to establish a gun compound. This is the world you are inadvertently defending. Enjoy it.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#67)
    by Peaches on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 11:23:19 AM EST
    Slickness, political savvy, whatever you want to call it: how's about for purposes of substantive discourse we drop it as something to emulate altogether.
    Can't, my boy, because that's politics. Always has been-always will be. Either you have the stomach for it or you don't. The trick is to play the politician as much as they play the massess. Get them to understand what the masses really want and what it takes to endear them to the massess. Work on the massess. that's my message. Because, I forget who said it--but it most certainly is true-- only someone with a psychotic personality would ever want to be a politician in the first place. They are a specail breed. I would never want to be one nor have one as my personal friend - well, maybe Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson - no one in modern times. But, I do recognize the necessity of them in a democratic system. Play the politician by changing the massess.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 11:32:43 AM EST
    Glanton, my biggest fear with shrub and the reptiles getting in - especially for 2 terms - was their ability to screw up the Courts and the Criminal Justice System. That's why I'm so insistent on the fact that there is a difference between the two parties. Again, not as big a difference as I'd like, but a difference, nevertheless. As I said in my most recent post on the subject, Choice and Civil Rights is going to be resolved and settled in the Courts. How is any Democrat giving a fiery oration gonna amount to anything right now? They're out of power. They can't affect change. Not without a block of repos. They're not gonna get a block of repos in an election year. Rovesputin will cut off their life support systems. All of the Congressmen and some of the Senators are up for election. They're not gonna commit Political suicide. If you're not in office, you can't do anything. The job of the Opposition Party is to oppose. They put out detailed plans, the republicans either steal 'em and take credit for 'em or they trash 'em. Just like they did with homeland security. They're scum. It's who they are. It's what they do. When more bad things than good things can happen, you keep your mouth shut. That's why I'm not a politician.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#69)
    by glanton on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 11:32:47 AM EST
    Play the politician by changing the massess.
    And as soon as you sight a prominent Democratic politician actually in the business of doing that, striving to change public consciousness, please let me know. I'll be sure to send them a few dollars and campaign for them. Trying to impact the mass consciousness in a positive way is one thing. Trying to convince the masses that you are 'just like them,' not out of touch like the other guy, why that there's another thang. See the difference?

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#70)
    by Peaches on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 12:36:04 PM EST
    And as soon as you sight a prominent Democratic politician actually in the business of doing that, striving to change public consciousness, please let me know.
    The point Glanton, which you continuely miss is that you will never find a poklitician doingg that, because the politician, being of a socipath personality type, only cares about him or herself and will do whatever it takes to get elected.
    Trying to impact the mass consciousness in a positive way is one thing. Trying to convince the masses that you are 'just like them,' not out of touch like the other guy, why that there's another thang.
    THis is where you get yourself all tangled up, Glanton. You are giving way to much credit to the politician. I am not asking the politician to convince the masses. I am asking you to. See the difference.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#71)
    by soccerdad on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 01:42:13 PM EST
    Peaches and Charlie dance all around the BIG issue, i.e. corporate control of the parties and why all else is irrelevant in the long term. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by "going to the people". It won't happen. Why? from Peaches
    the politician, being of a socipath personality type, only cares about him or herself and will do whatever it takes to get elected.
    The corps now control, directly of indirectly, both parties, the media and the courts. Nothing will change this except a fundamental diaster of our way of life. Even then who knows what options will be left open. Look at the riots in France, the capitalist agenda, i.e. profits above people, is actually spreading. So your thinking that voting for Gore or Hillary or a Dem instead of the reptiles currently in office will substantively change the trajectory of the quality of life in this country you are naive delusional or both. What you will end up with in 2008 is someone like Hillary or Biden who have dedicated themselves to supporting the corporations. I'm sure they will trot out some semi0progressive like Edwards let him try and stir up the liberals take their money and then discharge him/her and let the "real" candidate go forward. A fundamental change of the proportions needed in this country will take a major diaster. Without it there will be no motivation for change. So I've given up shoveling crap against the tide. Didn't you learn anything when you read 1984. As things get worse for the average person, then change will be possible. Public financing of campaigns would be part of the answer. Not going to happen. All political discourse will be made moot by the upcoming never ending series of resource wars, disquised as what else more wars on terrorism, of which Iraq is but the first. And 90% of the country will be in the streets celebrating the death of every muslim, Arab, Venezulean, Canadian what ever as long as the oil keeps flowing. There won't be anyone that can't be demonized in order to save our way of life. And most people want to feel secure above all else, above ethics, above morals, above what happens to their neighbor, above anything. Another book you should try and read is Fromm's book "Escape from Freedom".

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#72)
    by Peaches on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 02:16:22 PM EST
    Well, SD, I don't know where I am dancing. I agree with almost everything you say except that there would is no difference btw the Dems and Repugs--especially since the year 2000 when this administration came in.
    As things get worse for the average person, then change will be possible. Public financing of campaigns would be part of the answer. Not going to happen.
    best to be ready when that time comes. If you want to hang your hat on Nadar or some other new political party to come along, then this is our point of departure--and perhaps where you see me as dancing. I am advocating that one of these sociopathic politicians will recognize an opportunity when he or she sees one. Because, I am just not religious enough to believe that someone with pure intentions is going to come along and lead the people to the promised land. I like to live in reality. No dancing. The Dems are not as bad as the Repugs. Simple as that.
    Didn't you learn anything when you read 1984.
    A lot, to be sure. I just happen to read it again four months ago. I am not sure where you are going here. Che Guevara says people need to reach the point of starvation before they will advocate revolution. I recognize exactly where we are at and the fundamental problems our corporate and capitalistic lifestyle has created for us. No easy way out. What are you preaching to me for? You mad at me because I would actually go out and vote for Hilary or even Lieberman, if the opportunity presented. That is just plain silly. I don't put that much emphasis on the act of voting. Democracy is a 365 day a year effort. I want better candidates, but there is no panacea anywhere on the near horizon. I have to live in this world. I make due with what I have and what the world presents to me. Ideals only get you so far. Eventualy you have to make a pragmatic decision.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#73)
    by Peaches on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 02:25:22 PM EST
    Another book you should try and read is Fromm's book "Escape from Freedom".
    Got it! Its on the reading pile. There's a whole lot ahead of it though. I'll keep your recommendation in mind and maybe move it up a couple of slots.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#74)
    by glanton on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 02:34:42 PM EST
    I don't put that much emphasis on the act of voting. Democracy is a 365 day a year effort. I want better candidates, but there is no panacea anywhere on the near horizon.
    That is well said, Peaches. And I will so my best to remember it and hang onto what little hope that I have. Similarly, I ask that you remember that like most all disaffected citizens, I do not at all ask for a perfect candidate. I do however ask for some demonstrable decency, some degree of commitment to progressive thought in the next candidate for whom I vote and/or campaign. In the meantime I will simply invoke the (paraphrased) Vonnegut principle: be kind whenever possible.

    Re: Obama Endorses Lieberman for Senate (none / 0) (#75)
    by Peaches on Tue Apr 04, 2006 at 02:51:35 PM EST
    Vonnegut principle: be kind whenever possible
    A good principle to live by. It'll take you far. I do my best, but sometimes it can be difficult.

    Site Violator! essiesavage (none / 0) (#77)
    by Zorba on Wed Mar 30, 2011 at 05:09:22 PM EST


    elng7 (none / 0) (#78)
    by dodofadel on Tue Jul 28, 2015 at 06:03:38 PM EST