Joe Lieberman does not have to attend any political conventions though the Americans Elect would no doubt welcome him.

This bothers me though:

“Joe Lieberman is a victim of polarization. He’s another person cast aside by people who aren’t interested in centrist views,” said Professor Ross K. Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University, who has worked as a scholar in residence in the Senate.

Wait, what? Maybe people rejected Lieberman's views, as opposed to "centrist" views, whatever that means. Does that offend Professor Baker? Apparently so.

< Colorado’s Voting Haze: Options for Legalizing Marijuana in 2012 | Gov. Hickenlooper Announces Marital Separation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I think (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 02:53:03 PM EST
    the problem is what is "centrism" to one person is not "centrism" to another person. This guy purports what they beltway would define as "centrism".

    It's part of the "both sides" fetish (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by glanton on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 03:03:55 PM EST
    This romanticization of almighty Centrism.

    Agreed (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Slado on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 03:25:45 PM EST
    Centrist is a term one side uses to define someone on the other side that agrees with them key issues.

    It's a word that republicans use to describe Bill Clinton when they want to compare him to Obama and that Democrats used to use to describe John McCain when they agreed with them.

    Both sides like to make the straw man argument..."where have all the centrists gone?"


    I have (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 04:07:54 PM EST
    to tell you that I certainly get a laugh out of conservatives embracing Bill Clinton these days because about 15 years ago they would have sworn he was the anti-Christ. To me, it's just another example of how nutty the conservative movement has become.

    If the past Repeats Itself... (none / 0) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 05:16:10 PM EST
    ...there is a good possibility they might embrace Obama in 15 years.

    Would have? As opposed to "did"? (none / 0) (#31)
    by unitron on Wed Aug 01, 2012 at 01:22:16 AM EST
    "...because about 15 years ago they would have sworn he was the anti-Christ."

    Funny, I don't remember them being that cordial where he and Hillary were concerned.


    Centrism is a two way street (none / 0) (#39)
    by Slado on Wed Aug 01, 2012 at 12:48:11 PM EST
    McCain was much beloved by democrats when he'd go toe to toe with the Bush administration but once he ran for president he was a conservative crazy.

    There are so many examples they aren't worth mentioning.

    Centrism are put out there as "reasonable" by both sides because if you are more closely aligned with the "centrist" point of view (which is no view really) then you make your opponent look "out of the mainstream".

    In reality there are two points of view on most issues and a "centrist" is just another word for someone willing to piss off both sides through compromising.


    What are Liberman's views again (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 03:50:19 PM EST
    That align with Democratic platform.  I keep forgetting.

    "Centrism" seems to me to have become (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 03:38:04 PM EST
    little more than where people seek refuge because they don't want to be identified with either "liberalism" or "conservatism," terms of extreme that fairly glow with radioactivity.

    It's a moving target, and whatever it is or whatever it means today is not what it meant even 5 or 10 years ago.  The truth is that most people like to think of themselves as being people of reason who hold reasonable positions on the issues of the day - even if one person's reasonable is another person's batsh!t crazy.

    Anyway...Joe Lieberman.  I'm not sure Joe believes in anything but Joe, and where the nearest camera and microphone are; nothing conveyed his sense if entitlement more than calling his campaign "Connecticut for Lieberman," as if it was the duty of the good people of Connecticut to ensure Joe's continued presence in the Senate.  "Lieberman for Connecticut" might have conveyed a sense that he intended to be the employee, not the employer.

    I can't stand where he stands or what he stands for.  I shudder to think he might have succeeded Al Gore and be President Lieberman if not for the Supreme Court.

    People who reject Joe don't do it because he is "centrist," they reject him because he is wrong - very, very wrong - on a long list of issues.

    I (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by lentinel on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 05:42:32 PM EST
    will make an analogy based on something Malcolm X once said.

    During the struggle for civil rights in the 1950s and '60s, there was a faction of Southern democrats that stood in the way of any kind of legislation that would end segregation. They were called Dixiecrats. Malcolm correctly said that a "Dixiecrat" was nothing but a Democrat. He urged that people recognize the rot that existed in the party in which they were basing their hopes for justice.

    That's the way I feel about "Bluedog" Democrats. They are nothing but Democrats. The Democratic party can't do anything we would like to call progressive because it is dominated by conservatives who are in lock step with their counterparts in the republican party.

    And the way I feel about "centrists" is that they are nothing but conservatives. And the way I feel about conservatives is that they nothing but reactionaries.


    Money is "The Matrix" (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 06:07:40 PM EST
    that sucks most of them in. As one of the (liberal) lawyers said here once, "the money is always right"..

    Whether they were progressives or liberals starting out or not is now practically immaterial.

    The Matrix ain't computer technology, it's money: reproducing itself and walking around on two legs and staring out at us from behind blue eyes.


    Agreed. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 04:49:44 PM EST
    In my opinion, the false comfort offered by "centrism" has become the political philosophy of the weak-willed and shallow-minded.

    I believe that democracy ultimately ensures that people will get the type of government they truly deserve. And when the political motives of the voting majority are shortsighted and self-absorbed, it should not surprise anyone when government -- as a sentient reflection of our political being -- takes such motives to heart, and then acts accordingly.

    There are occasional watershed moments in history when we are confronted with a profoundly consequential choice about the course and direction of our country, and I believe that we are in one of those periods.

    And quite frankly, while I might eventually come to empathize with the inevitable (if self-inflicted) plight of the political drifter, I also find it difficult to muster much sympathy for people who would so foolishly place their own fates in the not-so-divine hands of political providence.



    Democracy. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by lentinel on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 09:02:17 PM EST
    I believe that democracy ultimately ensures that people will get the type of government they truly deserve.

    I sincerely believe that we deserve better than this.


    Well, you and I do. Maybe. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 10:16:18 PM EST
    But "we" -- as in Americans in the collective sense?

    Sorry, but no, we don't. We're getting exactly what we asked for. When you vote stupid -- or allow others to vote stupid in your stead, as happened in the 2010 congressional mid-terms -- you can expect stupid when it comes to governance.

    Now, perhaps we'll have learned our lesson so that next time, we'll be more fully cognizant of exactly what it is that we're asking for come Election Day.

    But honestly, probably not, because let's face it, there are a lot of people out there who simply don't want to hear what they don't want to hear, while others aren't going to miss Wheel of Fortune and American Idol for anything or anyone.



    Where (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 01, 2012 at 06:46:49 AM EST
    we disagree is that I do think the American people - in a collective sense - deserve better treatment than they're getting. Nobody asked for GW Bush. It was a coup. And look at his opposition - a nothing Gore and a repulsive Lieberman.
    And look at 2004 - Kerry and Edwards. There was a pair. Kerry couldn't even bring himself to forcefully confront the meanest, evilest, lyingest duo in American history.

    For awhile, I have felt that we have been presented with candidates who are unacceptable. In this upcoming election, we are going to be made to choose between a fellow who thinks its ok to kill American citizens (and their children should they be unlucky enough to be in the vicinity) without any formal charge or trial - and on the other hand a fellow who is openly encouraging Israel to launch a "preemptive strike" on Iran.

    Even if you think one is far worse than the other, the American people deserve much better than this choice. And the choice they and we are being given is decided by big money.

    To re-quote Anne from some weeks ago, we are given a choice between having no place to live or living in a car.

    To refer to what you wrote above, there is no choice but to vote stupid. The best you could say is that we have a choice to vote stupid or stupider.


    And I'll have to disagree with you. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 01, 2012 at 06:36:21 PM EST
    lentinel: "Nobody asked for GW Bush. It was a coup."

    On the contrary, a hair-shaving under half of the voters who cast ballots in the 2000 presidential election asked for George W. Bush. So don't say "nobody."

    Electoral fraud will never be successful when the contest is not in doubt. Fraud occurs not the casting of the ballots but rather, in the counting of votes by working in the margins. It can only succeed if the election is close enough to where a relative handful of votes in either direction can swing it.

    In my opinion, had Al Gore run even a halfway competent campaign and showed some cojones by calling out Dubya for what he really was, that election should otherwise have never been even remotely close enough for the Republicans to steal, in Florida or anywhere else in the country.

    But more to the point, what happened when the Supreme Court majority rendered its infamous 5-4 decision to hand the 2000 election to the GOP in the matter of Bush v. Gore? Did millions of outraged Americans pour into the streets, accusing the Republicans of committing fraud in Florida, and the justices of enabling fraud in Florida?

    No, we didn't do anything of the sort. Rather, having somehow convinced ourselves that the system worked when it clearly did not, we collectively shrugged our shoulders, opened up a bag of Tostitos and a jar of mild salsa, and sat down to watch Wheel of Fortune.

    So, I stand by what I said earlier. We got exactly what we asked for, and we deserved it. And further, we proceeded to double down on stupid in 2004, in the face of all evidence that Bush-Cheney was an ongoing political disaster, and thus got exactly what we deserved after that, too.



    Any way you slice it (none / 0) (#42)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 01, 2012 at 06:45:03 PM EST
    a country in which fifty million people can be convinced that GWB is presidential material is in deep trouble.

    Precisely. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 01, 2012 at 06:52:36 PM EST
    The question remains, what are we prepared to do about that?

    Dose the water supply (none / 0) (#45)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 01, 2012 at 07:36:53 PM EST
    with some state-of-the-art, designer hallucinogen?

    Kidding of course..(sort of)

    I think the main point of attack should be at the money equals speech, corporate personhood nexus (and thanks for nothin' on that score ACLU!) The near-complete sabotaging of fertile public discussion, and genuinely democratic checks and balances has it's genesis in this country in the simple, brute power of capital -- which we can't afford any longer to let have the last word on everything.    


    when offered of choice (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by sj on Wed Aug 01, 2012 at 08:19:04 AM EST
    of dumb and dumber, or corrupt or more corrupt it isn't totally the fault of the voters if they pick dumb or corrupt.  I haven't forgotten that there is a "price of admission" to run in a major race if the candidate wants party support.  And where do you think the average joe is going to come up with the million dollar campaign chest?

    It's nice to be able to absolve ourselves ... (2.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 01, 2012 at 06:51:50 PM EST
    ... of any responsibility in the casting of our ballots, isn't it?

    Democracy and politics are participatory sports. If you don't like what's going on, then you need to insert yourself into the game, yank the bat away from the guy who's hitting .093, step up to the plate and swing away.

    When you act like you're irrelevant to the proceedings, you're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Evil can triumph only when good people stand around, shrug their shoulders and falsely reassure one another that resistance is futile.

    "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world," said noted athropologist Margaret Mead. "Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

    So, think globally, and start acting locally.



    Who on Earth are you talking to here? (none / 0) (#46)
    by sj on Thu Aug 02, 2012 at 12:52:16 AM EST
    It's nice to be able to absolve ourselves ... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Aug 01, 2012 at 06:51:50 PM EST

    ... of any responsibility in the casting of our ballots, isn't it?

    Because it certainly can't be me, so you can take your sanctimonious sports metaphor somewhere else.

    Although I actually agree with you here

    ."Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world,"
    So tell me how that lines up with being among those many millions who will take the choice offered by the oligarchs between corrupt and authoritarian and more corrupt and more authoritarian?

    Maybe no one wants his whining sanctimony. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by scribe on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 06:46:19 PM EST
    Keeping that stench out of a convention is reason enough to not invite him.

    I detest Lieberman but I think I see the point (none / 0) (#1)
    by glanton on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 02:28:08 PM EST
    I mean, there are all sorts of people on both sides of the main divide, myself included, can think of several important issue with which their views align with Lieberman. But because he cribs from both sides he makes himself unacceptable to both.

    Isn't that sort of a version of "centrism"?

    Not in my view (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 02:46:13 PM EST
    Joe Lieberman's views on critical issues are views I strongly disagree with.

    He agrees with me on some things, or purports to,. Bit most of those are secondary to him.

    His "big" issues are the ones he is dead wrong about.

    His views on social issues are largely irrelevant. He votes for all SCOTUS nominees.

    In any event, Democrats in Connecticut rejected him because there was a better alternative.


    Better alternative (none / 0) (#6)
    by glanton on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 02:51:53 PM EST
    Hey, i agree wholeheartedly with you on that.  I was strongly pro-Lamont.  But then, I do not at all describe myself as a centrist either.

    And for the record, I am not saying I think Lieberman is "right down the middle centrist"--he strikes me as center right, a position by the way that seems to have shrunk to almost population zero at this point.

    But isn't saying he is dead wrong on the big issues (although I don't think his stance on social issue irrelevant, I understand your point there and sympathize with it), different than saying he's not a centrist?



    He is not a centrist (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 03:50:45 PM EST
    Because I am a centrist. He is far right to me, therefore not a centrist.

    I am being facetious of course.

    The word centrist is meaningless.


    In this New World (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 03:51:59 PM EST
    You are a flaming hot Liberal...on fire

    I have to go with BTD. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 03:48:55 PM EST
    Joe Lieberman is a walking exercise in political hubris and false equivalency.

    Far from being a (self-annointed) "expert" on matters of personal morality, foreign policy and national security, Lieberman's none-too-subtle penchant for self-promotion, prevarication and expediency propelled him into an appallingly shortsighted and unprincipled alliance with the Bush-Cheney administration. As my grandfather would've said, for such a smart guy, he sure was dumb.

    Good riddance to political rubbish, as far as I'm concerned.


    G-man! Where have you been? (none / 0) (#2)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 02:35:14 PM EST
    I've turned into a lurker, my friend (none / 0) (#3)
    by glanton on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 02:36:46 PM EST
    but trying to get back into the swing of it. I'd missed these boards tremendously.

    when I'm trying to avoid work...

    Consequence of deriding "Centrism" (none / 0) (#17)
    by glanton on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 05:16:04 PM EST
    as a term?  

    And I do it too.  The consequence we are left with, is it different than the extreme polarization that takes the beltway pundits to their fainting couches?  I ask in all seriousness.  Well, in 90% seriousness.  

    I continue to find Ron Paul fascinating.  He is certainly no "centrist" according to any sane definition of the term, but he has managed to both monumentally inspire and scare the hell out of me, on separate counts, throughout the last decade.  I have been in many discussions with people where I both shredded Paul and then paid homage to him.

    But anyway.  Is  there any positive alternative to full-on progressive on the one side, or full on GOP platform on the other?  Well, i guess there's the Democratic platform.  It is somewhere in between those two.  But I kid.  Sort of.

    One centrist to another. (none / 0) (#19)
    by lentinel on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 05:29:57 PM EST
    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...
    I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate."

    That was Barack Obama endorsing Lieberman against Lamont in the Connecticut Democratic primary of 2006.

    I think it is worth remembering because it was a harbinger of things to come from the apostle of hope and change.

    The " apostle of hope and change" (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Zorba on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 07:06:39 PM EST
    was never such to me.  But then, I'm from the Mid-West, Missouri and Illinois area, and am more than familiar with Chicago politics.  I was always leery of Obama when he first blasted into national politics.
    Lieberman is no "centrist," and neither is Obama.  The Democratic Party has shifted way, way to the center-right, and the Republican Party even farther to the far-right.
    I may be forced to vote for Obama in the General Election, given the alternative, but that does not mean that I will be happy about it.   :-(

    center-right right-right. (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by lentinel on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 08:22:30 PM EST
    I was always leery of Obama when he first blasted into national politics.

    I felt that he was blasted into national politics rather than blasting into it on his own.

    I first became aware of him because of the buildup he was being given as the anti-war guy new Senator. A rising star. We were to watch his speech at the convention with baited breath. And, from my point of view, he bombed. Pure "centrism". He waved the flag. And said a lot of self-serving hokum. It was called "electrifying".

    Later, when he was running for president, he gave a speech that I felt was quite ordinary but was being compared in the media to the Gettysburg address. People were swooning at the sight of him. He was on the cover of GQ. He was a "fox". A rock star".
    You know all that.

    I never believed the "hope and change" routine either.
    What does it mean to say that to hope is "audacious"? Hoping is fine, but it is passive. Ain't nothing audacious about it.
    And "change you can believe in" - as opposed to what? Change you can't believe in? And "yes we can" being chanted by true believers who didn't seem to need to know what it is that we can?

    Anyway, sorry for the digression - but, as you say, Obama is no centrist. How are we to consider someone a "centrist" who has taken it upon himself to kill Americans without charge or trial? Congress is finally getting around to inquiring about the legal basis for this.

    The Times has been pointing out how hard Obama and Romney are trying to differentiate themselves one from the other, but are having limited success.

    Obama is just lucky that Romney is, so far at least, being so incredibly stupid.


    Coming from the area, (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Zorba on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 08:41:05 PM EST
    I have been following his career since he was elected to the Illinois state senate.  He never had an impressive career there, and he has never impressed me since.
    On the other hand, it is hard to believe just how stupid Romney and his advisors have been.  I can sort of understand how Mitt could be so clueless, given the fact that he has been wealthy all his life, lived in privilege, and apparently nobody ever said "no" to him.  But he has apparently surrounded himself with people who are also arrogant, clueless, and cannot brook any disagreement.  Hard to believe that not one of them had any idea that there would be questions about and criticisms of a candidate who is running for President.  Guys, if you can't stand the heat, get the he!! out of the kitchen.  Jeez.

    i (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by lentinel on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 08:52:56 PM EST
    would like for the two of them to leave the kitchen.
    Leave it to someone who can cook.

    Well, that ain't gonna happen. (3.50 / 2) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 10:27:43 PM EST
    "None of the Above" isn't on the ballot, so there's no sense in whining about it. You can either get involved and try to make the best of it, or you can stand on the sidelines and pound sand.

    Whether you care to admit it publicly or not, there are very real and fundamental differences between the two major candidates and their respective philosophies of governance -- and speaking for myself only, I have no intention of seeing us endure "GOP 2001-09 Redux."


    Why (none / 0) (#34)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 01, 2012 at 08:06:00 AM EST
    in the world can't you have a discussion based on a difference of opinion without using insults?

    If I consider that there are not real and fundamental differences between these two politicians, and you do consider that there are real and fundamental differences, you would be more effective in listing these real and fundamental differences instead of referring to my opinion as "whining".

    Another difference we have is that you say that you have no intention of seeing us endure "GOP 2001-09 Redux."

    And I think we have already been enduring it for the last three + years. But that doesn't entitle me to characterize you as a naive fool does it?


    Here's my peeve (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 01, 2012 at 08:09:57 AM EST
    Hoe in gawds name is this post about Obama?

    The comments (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 01, 2012 at 08:37:43 AM EST
    drifted to Obama - at least in my case - because of his support of and identification with Lieberman during a period that was crucial. A time when the American people were desperately trying to elect a Congress that would end the debilitating war in Iraq.

    The other key word that set me off was "Centrist". This is a quality that to me is not measurably distinguishable (imo) from what you have called a "post-partisan unity schtick" - a trait you have applied to Obama.

    But, I do apologize if I have drifted from the subject you had intended to be discussed. Those words, "Lieberman", and "Centrist" did ignite thoughts in my mind that may be unrelated to the subject you presented.


    At this stage, doesn't anything political (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 01, 2012 at 08:49:49 AM EST
    end up being about Obama?  I mean, you could put up a post that had two words in it - Joe Lieberman - and it would end up being about Obama.  Why?  Because we all remember Obama's support for Lieberman over the candidate who won the Democratic primary in Connecticut - Ned Lamont.  

    And this ends up being about Obama because Obama and the DNC and the rest of the party poo-bahs have made over the Democratic Party more in the worldview of Joe Lieberman, rejecting any effort to build on its liberal, truly progressive roots.

    Joe Lieberman and, to a great extent, Barack Obama are the faces of what the Democratic Party has become; that's how this post became about Obama.

    All roads are going to lead there - it's what people want to talk about.  Hell, Jeralyn has deleted comments in her Aurora shooting and Zimmerman posts because they segued over to Obama/Romney.

    I don't know, at this point, what's left to say about Obama that hasn't already been said?  I am appalled multiple times a day at how excruciatingly bad a politician Mitt Romney is,  how completely wrong his positions are, how overall insane the Republicans are - but the real tragedy and frustration for me is that I can't say that Obama and the Democrats aren't just a lighter shade of awful, and I don't have any confidence that another Obama administration is going to be better on the economy, be true guardians of the social safety net, come to their senses on privacy rights, or keep us out of another war.  I'd like to be feeling that Dems are clearly better stewards of democracy, but what these Democrats have done over the last 4 years doesn't inspire that in me.

    This ends up being about Obama because "centrist" just reminds people of how much Obama has conceded to conservatism in his effort to be all things to all people instead of being a true advocate for the best policy and leading on that basis.  As much concession as there has been, what we really have come to believe is that this is who Obama really is - and it doesn't make us happy.


    In the summer of 2006 Obama did support (none / 0) (#47)
    by Farmboy on Thu Aug 02, 2012 at 08:17:25 AM EST
    Lieberman in the primary.
    Because we all remember Obama's support for Lieberman over the candidate who won the Democratic primary in Connecticut - Ned Lamont.

    However, after Lieberman lost the primary Obama gave his support, and his money, to the Democratic candidate Ned Lamont. After the fall election Lamont doesn't appear to have been too upset with Obama not supporting him in the primary. He became the Connecticut campaign co-chair for Barack Obama's presidential campaign and was elected as a Congressional district-level delegate from Connecticut to the 2008 Democratic National Convention pledged to Barack Obama.

    As for Lieberman, after the voters had spoken he chose to leave the Democratic party and become a party of one. That isn't being centrist or conservative in my opinion; that's Joe thinking he knows better than everyone else.


    I don't think of Lieberman as (none / 0) (#48)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 02, 2012 at 10:04:49 AM EST
    being centrist or conservative, I just think of him as being wrong.  And "ugh" is usually the first reaction I have to seeing or hearing his name.

    He missed his chance - thank God - to be VP with a shot at the WH, but I don't think he's given up hope of being tapped for a Cabinet post in a Republican administration.

    See how easily "ugh" comes to mind?


    the only big issue that lieberman (none / 0) (#30)
    by cpinva on Wed Aug 01, 2012 at 12:07:10 AM EST
    is at all concerned about, is joe lieberman. everything else is, at best, secondary. he is, as the saying goes, a legend in his own mind. what, of tangible value, has sen. lieberman accomplished in his time in the senate? um, not much, other than pimping how wonderful and smart he is. the people of MA have finally had enough of him and, should he choose to run again, will be trounced.

    in the meantime, he should be kept as far away as possible, so as not to tarnish anything.

    the people of MA have finally had enough of him (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by unitron on Wed Aug 01, 2012 at 01:29:35 AM EST
    What a shame they don't get to vote in CT.

    : - )


    Yeah, please! (none / 0) (#40)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Aug 01, 2012 at 04:30:03 PM EST
    The people of Massachusetts, of which I was once one, already have the burden of having once mistakenly elected the Mittster, which is bad enough, thank you very much.