http://publicbroadcasting.net/wnpr/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=945350§ionID=1 Bill Clinton stumping for Joe Lieberman. I thought Lieberman was on the outs with the Dems-- extremist that he is?
What is there to explain? I could care less who Clinton who stumps for. I have heard someone speculate that Clinton did that for Joe, as part of a deal in which Joe would support Hilary in a presidential run. I don't really know. It won't be the first time I've disagreed with Clinton, and I doubt it will be the last.
It's not like Clinton is some uber-liberal like most Republicans would think. Honestly, he's pretty middle of the road, IMO. He was unfairly villanized as a huge liberal that did nothing but have extra-marital affairs and abort babies by conservatives much like GWB is often unfairly attacked by libs. This isn't really suprising to me.
and rupert murdoch is holding multiple fund raisers for hillary clinton... and bush I calls bill clinton "son"...
Yeah, If you take away the silly temporary "AW" gun ban that even he hinted at regretting...He was more moderate in many instances. Both he and GWB have charisma...Something Gore lacked as bad as Kerry. Now Hillary is definitely the smartest on the left side so far, but doesn't have quite the charisma factor of her husband... I have backed Lieberman as evidenced in the past...The one thing that backed off my infuriation of how this guy is treated was pointed out astutely that he is elected to represent a statewide mindset, and not based on how he personally feels...But Put that aside for a sec., and think about how Lieberman comes across versus the cartoonish antics of a Dean, or Gore...On this alone...On this alone, I respect Lieberman greatly... BTW, what is up with the invitation debacle of Hillary and Dean?... If you Democrats want to defeat the darkside, and win... Hillary is your best bet IMO...I'm not saying it's gonna happen, but that would be the most challenging opponent...Not Gore, Edwards, Kerry, anyone else...However Hillary has her weaknesses...As I said before if you guys could resurrect an ole skoo Democrat that would be even better...I know what the "darkside" needs to do to win, but that is another story....
Have you heard Lieberman speak? My highschool science teacher is more entertaining than Lieberman. I found myself dozing off during his acceptance speech at the 2000 Dem. Convention. As far as cartoonish antics he did once sing on Letterman.
Who here has called him an extremist besides you, giddy? I think he is betraying his Democratic constituency. Those folks who elected him through the years, by nominating him to run on the Democratic ticket... you know, the same people that are members of the political party for which Lieberman ran as the Vice Presidential candidate all of 6 years ago. Yes, those people he's given a big **** you to, by saying he's collecting signatures for a petition to run as an independent, should those same people decide they've tired of Lieberman representing them in Washington. Let's see... betrayed his political party. Check. Betrayed his supporters, folks that got him where he is today, by nominating him to run in the Democratic Party. Check. Displayed amazing hypocrisy by not trusting those same people to nominate him again to run for the Senate, even though polls indicate that the race for the nomination is close. Check. So Joe Lieberman is a hypocrite, who's betrayed his constituency, and you wonder why some people might be a bit upset with him? I've said nothing about his open support of George W. Bush on more issues than I care to ponder, either, because it doesn't matter. The reasons I gave are more than enough. The man who claims to have the courage of his convictions, doesn't have the courage to put his faith in his own constituency. That's plenty reason enough for me to dislike the man. Keep D&D Civil.
What you are hitting on though is what is the role of representatives in a representative republic. Our system isn't a pure democracy and representatives aren't expected to be merely the voice of the majority of their constituents. While I disagree with Lieberman on his support for the war I don't think it is hypocritical or evil of him to take that stand and believe it is a conviction on his part. While parties play a big role in making people electible in the end it is the people and not the party who decide election. While he might not have faith in his party that doesn't mean he doesn't have faith in his constituents since he still has to stand for elections and if he runs as an independent means he has faith in Connecticut as a whole and not just the Democratic party. Anyway if he is betraying his constituents he's not the first since many politicians from LBJ on civil rights to Tom Daschle have taken stands unpopular with the majority of their constituents. One of Paul Wellstone's last votes was against going to Iraq even though at the time a majority of Minnesotans supported going to Iraq. Would you say that Tom Daschle or Paul Wellstone were hypocrites who had no faith in their Constituents since they took stands unpopular with a majority of them? Again I don't agree with Lieberman on his position but I find the Democratic backlash towards him somewhat hypocritical as many Democrats are more than happy to welcome Republicans or Red State Democrats who take stands unpopular with their constituents or in the case of Jim Jeffords embrace someone who truly could be considered a traitor to his party.
^ Its not hair splitting at all but trying to look at the situation objectivily. If Lieberman is hypocritical for taking a stand in opposition of his party then so is Lincoln Chafee. If Lieberman is hypocritical for taking a stand unpopular with most of his constituents then so was Tom Daschle.
See, giddy, the difference here is that most of us don't blindly support our party. There were plenty of issues on which I disagreed with Clinton's policies. It's dumb to wait and see what you're party's stance is, then just side with them. And that's exactly what those sheep that listen to Rush and Hannity do.
Sishir, it's not taking the stand, it's not voting for bills unpopular with his constituents, it's turning his back on the party and people who put him where he is today. It's not allowing them to pass judgement on the votes he's taken. He could fight for his convictions and let the voters who elected him decide if they still trust him to make decisions and take positions for them in the Senate. Lieberman has chosen not to do that. To me, that makes him worthy of all the criticism thrown at him. He doesn't have the courage of his convictions, because he is unwilling to pay the price for having those convictions, if a price must be paid. Do you get it now, Sishir? I don't care if you agree with me or not, but I would like you to understand why I feel the way I do. Keep D&D Civil.
Of course they do. He still has to stand for election. Just because he chosen to run as something other than a Democrat doesn't mean his Constituents don't have a say on his views and can still vote for or against him. Also what do you think of Jim Jeffords who was a lifelong Republican?
Sishir, are you suffering from dementia?? Not that there's anything wrong with that! http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=114861&page=3&pp=20 Keep D&D Civil.
Sorry forgot I asked you that question before. And yes I am suffering from dementia. Why else would I be posting at 1 Am instead of getting some sleep.
So was Clinton, after his '88 convention speech. Probably worth noting that Clinton signed welfare-reform and Defense of Marriage Act, so he's not allergic to conservative positions, especially if they're semi-popular. And I'm guessing a Senator with almost 20 years of seniority and favors to call in, who promises to still align with the Democratic Caucus, must have some sort of legislative value. Also, these DLC guys are probably more valuable in Olympic years than liberals think, or admit publicly. (Kind of like Black or female Republicans). Can't really recall any time in history when Democrats were able to win the White House without some Conservative element: even FDR and JFK needed the Solid South, and Carter was an evangelist. But as long as John McCain keeps guest-hosting SNL, appearing on the Daily Show, not answering any questions about abortion or Charles Keating, and being a veteran/torture-victim, the election's his to lose.
