Lieberman says he has higher loyalities and I'll bet he does!
He seems to have loyalties to many other things than to the people, the state of Conn. and his country.
Perhaps with Bush they listen to voices.  Higher voices.  The citizens voices don't count and probably are not counted to begin with.
When it votes Republican, praises Republicans--  just believe the facts, it's a Republican.

Instead of working to activate his base for the primary, lieberman dismisses it as unrepresentative of the Democrats of connecticut.  it is a very specious argument, and i am disappointed he was not asked to reconsider his thoughts.

     Somebody--probably not the Lamont campaign, but MoveOn or some independent group--needs to make an add of that "higher loyalties" line with the picture of the Bush kiss.

Sorry, cannot agree with you. Here is a man who had solid support from the citizens of his state and what does he do?

Throws it all away so he can French Kiss the acknowledged 'Worst President in American History'.

I say he is one stupid asshole. Much like the rest of the DSCC and we are gonna drive them all out of office. The times demand pricipled, intelligent leadership not this tired old fart who think Bush had the brains of a marmoset.

Joe 'richly' deserves what he's getting for doing the bidding of the super-wealthy.

My disgust with the media has grown so stong that I no longer watch any television news, but I think John King deserves high marks for his performance on this video. He asked tough question and did his best to try to get answers to them. I wish there were more reporters like him.

I know very little about the science of politics, but people here do, right?  What are the chances that Lieberman will formally announce that he's leaving the party two or three days before the primary, and then spin any result under 100% as a loss for Lamont?

Okay, kids, time for one of my roundly despised "thought experiments!" Here it is: Put yourself in the shoes of any party official, (of any party, any time, anywhere). Today, you, the party official, are asked to vote on a new party rule: Is it permissible for a candidate to say, in the run-up to a primary, that she or he will run for the party's nomination, but in the event she or he fails to win the nomination, she or he will just quit the party, and run as an independent?

Yea?

Nay?

Well why is there not such a rule? Answer: the only reason why such a rule could fail to exist is that party officials unconsciously accept that such a situation is too peculiar to arise.

Now were are we? Bottom line: Joe Lieberman just did a very peculiar thing.

Interpretation in terms of current history: Peculiar is bad. Bush does many, many, peculiar things that are very, very, bad for voters. Voters know it. Voters will not vote for people who do peculiar things, such as what Joe just did.

Conclusion: Joe Lieberman is screwed.

(Well, I have been (tentatively) wrong a few times.)

You do not need to watch the PuffBalls of CNN or any other Corporate Media.

FireDogLake is in CT and they are following 'Gurney Joe' around and posting tape after tape of his shiftless assholiness.

The Internet News Bureau is born!

and to think, if Gore had won, we'd be talking about this guy as the preumptive nominee of the Dem party in 2008....

Does anyone know anything about the Republican running for Senate in CT? Is he/she a factor?

thanks to lea-p commenting over at roger ailes (the good one), we've got the phone numbers of the dscc over at skippy.

call them and let them know we will not support someone who deserts the party, and, more to the point, we will definitely not stand for any other democrat that condones such a move, or refuses to support the democratic nominee in any senate race.

 1. If only Joe Lieberman had been so focused on a backup plan for getting elected in November of 2000. When the office at stake was the White House, Joe Lieberman waved the white flag high and wide like he was leading a merchant fleet into Blackbeard's hideaway. But now he's pulling out all the stops to save his own neocon butt for his personal Senate sinecure. If there had been ANY residual doubt about his ideological loyalties, they're scattered to the four winds now. This man is a Klingon.

 2. In every political race I've ever witnessed in my 42 years, at every level, I have NEVER seen a candidate publicly project anything but confidence that he or she will win. Michael Dukakis, George Bush Sr., Walter Mondale -- bad as the internal polls might have looked, they still did their best to display the bravest, most confident images they could. What Lieberman has done here is tell the nation that he has NO confidence in his own ability to win a primary, despite eighteen years of incumbency and across-the-board name recognition. It is the most spectacular intentional public display of weakness -- not to mention disloyalty -- I have ever seen a political candidate put forth.

 3. Joe has no one to blame for his predicament but Joe. If he'd been a loyal Democrat, if he'd shown real opposition to Bush, if he hadn't made a mini-career out of bashing other Democrats, if he'd stood up for Democratic values, if he'd eviscerated Bush for his Iraq lies as aggressively as he went after Clinton for his Monica escapades, he wouldn't be facing a primary challenge today. But he did all that, and arrogantly thought he could get away with it. In the pre-blog era, he could and did. Not anymore. Win or lose, the blogosphere has played a significant part in exposing a phony Democrat and driving him out of the party with his tail between his legs.  This is a critical first step in reclaiming FDR's party.

 

there's one moment early in the cnn interview that crystalizes everything for me: listen to the single word 'service' when holy joe is ready to compare his years of "se-e-e-r-r-v-vv-icce" with any of his critics. In that one word you can hear all the rage, indignation, pride, blindness, intolerance, confusion etc that makes him such an unworthy public servant. . .

and a loser

Matt,

I agree with Lieberman's assertion that he should be judged by his entire record -- Iraq included.  Voters are, of course, entitled to give greater weight to one portion of his record than another.  But, as with any politician, the entire record should be considered.

Having said that, the DSCC and the DNC exist to support our Democratic nominees.  Unless a nominee is clearly unqualified (an unlikely scenario in a fair and free election), the nominee should have their unequivocal support.

We don't know how this primary will turn out.  However it turns out, I hope the nominee will have the full support of the DSCC and the DNC.

Russ Feingold on Meet the Press says it all.  Let the Connecticut voters speak.

MR. RUSSERT: Your colleague Joe Lieberman in Connecticut in a tough primary battle. If Senator Lieberman asks you to come to Connecticut to campaign for him, will you?

SEN. FEINGOLD: I have a lot of admiration for Joe. He's a fine guy. He helped me a great deal in campaign finance reform. I think Ned Lamont's positions on the issues are much closer to mine on the critical issues. I think that this is going to be something decided by the people of Connecticut. I'm not going to go up there, but I'll tell you this, Tim. I will support the Democratic nominee, whoever that is.

MR. RUSSERT: So if Lamont beats Lieberman, you're for Lamont.

SEN. FEINGOLD: That's correct.

MR. RUSSERT: And you will not campaign for Lieberman if they ask you?

SEN. FEINGOLD: I'm not getting involved in the primary. If Joe Lieberman wins the primary, I campaign for him. If Ned Lamont wins the primary, I campaign for him. I'll be supporting the Democrat.

  If Joe Lieberman TRULY were the favorite in a three-way race, the Republicans would be falling all over themselves helping out Ned Lamont right now.

 They're not.

Glad that FDL is following joementum now.  They totally screwed up the fitzmas thing, though that one-trick pony (always wrong, but always more endless speculation and conjector).

I have to salute anyone that will help mobilize people against one of chimpy's most public supporters.  Just watching him kiss the "great decider" was enough to make me rethink my stand on gay-marriage.

It's an interesting move and one that Matt saw coming a long time before the rest of us. The speculation had got to the point where most people assumed he would stand as an independent if he lost the primary so he might as well get it announced officially and start getting the signatures he needs.

But as for being an "independent democrat" that's a very strange choice of name even if he could use it on the ballot paper, which he can't. Surely his real strength is with independents and moderate republicans? So why not be an "independent" candidate?

Ned must surely win the August primary now. Joe's campaign is so bad that it's almost in Katherine Harris territory.

Maybe Lieberman knows something about the vote-flipping software - does anyone have the details about the election procedures in CT?

It will be easier to steal that election by using the lie  that joementum has "energized" his independent "base."

Its a lie when the repugs claim it and it provides a distraction from the real issue -- the US needs open, free, and verifiable to be a democracy.  Course, don't expect the real issues to be discussed on any of the faux "advertise libearlly" circle of links.  

On the other hand, Joe now has go to all those Fourth of July picnic and parades around the state, where he probably is going to get booed. I would have waited until the Fifth.

Lieberman has been convinced that he is good democrat and that his support for some of the right wing issues is helpful to Democrats in some way.

Somehow since his repudiation of Bill Clinton, he has been stoked by the right into this persona that he truly believes is the direction the Democrats should be heading.

What so astounding is that he believes that even if Democrats repudiate at the polls in a primary that will be vindicated by "enough good democrats" in the general election. What a general election will only prove if he is running and wins is that he was put in office not by democrats but republicans.  It would only make sense that the Democrats repudiate a candidate that the republicans prefer.

And I would like to hear who Hannity and Malkin would support if Lieberman were in the general election? Would they support Lieberman or the republican?

I already know the answer.  So why do we allow the right to pick the Dems Canidates al the time.