Matt-

I think you need to tone down your rhetoric in nearly all your posts. When you make such bombastic claims about every injustice in the political sphere, it dampens the effect you are seeking. This wasn't a threat, it was just a statement of dissatisfaction that his longtime political allies are supporting his opponent. You do not need to exaggerate the content of statements or actions taken by Lieberman or Emanuel or any other Democrat to make your point.

Matt -
I love you just the way you are. I love your words, how you turn them into swords or political sweet talk. You inspire me. Your generation inspires me. You've taken the 50's, 60's, and 70's much farther than we did. That's how it's supposed to work. A lot of us lefty oldies quit to have kids and now are back in for the finals and - gosh - are we ever thrilled to see you guys taking the torch straight through the Internet and beyond. Whew. I do my best to keep up. Don't change because you are in for a great ride!

"Lieberman is throwing the whole party under the bus.  It's time for 2008 candidates to step up."

I would not spend too mcuh time holding my breath.  You are more likley to find them in Virginia, Tennessee, Penn, Ohio, New Jersey, and Missouri, they are taking there cue from Bill Clinton the Democrats win either way, right or wrong this is where they are and where they will stay.

Is MyDD really censoring people who are critical now?

Matt, do you think Dodd will be insulted enough to actively campaign for Lamont?

Or will he do a Clinton and just be content with whatever comes out of the election? I am surprised that with the exception of people like Wes Clark , Kerry, and Dean, not many have expressed strong disapproval over Lieberman's stance and statements over the last few months marginalising the party.

You would think Lieberman is shooting himself in the foot with such tactless statements, but it doesn't seem to have inspired much passion in the democrats in rebutting these statements. Maybe, just maybe, he may have gone too far. I hope reporters keep pestering Dodd to comment on this so he won't forget either.

http://nedlamont.com/blog/375/al-gore-re fuses-to-endorse-lieberman

"Interviewed on Bloomberg TV, Al Gore refused to endorse his former vice presidential running mate, Sen. Joe Lieberman (C-CT), in his re-election race."

Does anyone have a hand site with all the racist and bigoted remarks by Pajamas Media? It would make for a handy press release to share with the media when Joe Lieberman's interview ultimately appears on Pajamas Media.

Lanny Davis wants to nutpick hidden comments from Daily Kos and publish them in the WSJ? I think turnabout is fair play - let Joe Liebmerman explain why he's appearing alongside the angry awful bloggers of Pajamas Media.

Lieberman goes against Clinton on stock options for executives

To demonstrate that he wasn't anti-business, Lieberman became a champion of stock options, a cause dear to many high-tech executives, and Lieberman liked and trusted most businessmen. In the mid-nineties, the Financial Accounting Standards Board announced that it was going to recommend that all companies report the costs of stock options as a business expense. Its argument was straightforward: stock options were an expense, which companies already reported for tax purposes, and omitting their cost from income statements deceived investors about companies' true financial condition. The corporate community rebelled, especially high-tech companies, which relied heavily on stock options to compensate their executives. Lieberman sided with them, while Arthur Levitt, Clinton's chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, backed the accounting board.

Joe joins with Republicans, attacks Bill Clinton

In his second term, he and William Bennett, the conservative former Secretary of Education, began a crusade against violence and vulgarity in the entertainment business. And then, on September 3, 1998, shortly before the release of the Starr report, Lieberman gave his famous speech on the Senate floor about President Clinton's behavior with Monica Lewinsky. Noting his "deep disappointment and personal anger," Lieberman said that Clinton's behavior was "not just inappropriate, it is immoral and it is harmful, for it sends a message of what is acceptable behavior to the larger American family, particularly to our children."

Make the pies higher! Lieberman campaigns against Gore.

His conservative approach on the economy has brought Lieberman into a testy, long-distance debate with Al Gore. During the 2000 campaign, Gore often invoked the phrase "the people, not the powerful." Lieberman told me, "I didn't like the phrase, and to the best of my knowledge I never used it in the campaign, because it didn't really reflect what Al's record was. It didn't reflect the Clinton-Gore years. Why didn't it? Because it suggested class conflict, and we were not about that. It's very much not the New Democratic message. We were about growing the economic pie."

Lieberman throws Cheney debate.

He did not assume the customary role of the Vice-Presidential nominee as hatchet man, which would have been out of character for him. At one key moment, in fact, Lieberman's gentlemanly bearing may have hurt Gore's chances. Lieberman's debate with Dick Cheney on October 5, 2000, in Danville, Kentucky, was a decorous standoff; the polite exchanges allowed Cheney to prove that he was not the right-wing ideologue that his voting record in Congress suggested he was. Lieberman remains defensive about his performance in the debate.

Lieberman sides with Republicans against Gore on Florida votes.

During the thirty-six-day post-election battle in Florida, Lieberman shied away from another fight. Sunday, November 19, 2000, nearly two weeks into the recount, when political momentum began to swing against Gore, Lieberman switched tacks. On that day, the Bush campaign began assailing the Democrats for trying to exclude the votes of military personnel who were stationed overseas if their ballots did not comply with Florida law. Norman Schwarzkopf, the retired general and Bush surrogate, declared, "It is a very sad day in our country when the men and women [who] are serving abroad and facing danger . . . are denied the right to vote [because] of some technicality out of their control." The next morning, Lieberman appeared on "Meet the Press" to answer the charge. Lieberman capitulated completely. Republicans around Florida cited Lieberman's statement to persuade local canvassing boards to allow hundreds of invalid ballots to be counted. (A later investigation by the Times found that six hundred and eighty illegal absentee ballots had been included in the final total in Florida.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content?02 1216fa_fact

How did Lieberman vote on the torture bill?

I'm sure thousands of Conn. voters know what the hell "Pajamas Media" is.  Matt, sometimes you epitomize someone who thinks the liberal blogosphere is the country at large.  As someone once said more or less, "Do not mistake the London coffeehouse [us] for the rest of the kingdom."  Unless Lamont gets off his ass and ties Joe to Iraq every damn day, he's done for.  Lieberman sickens me, but the spin on Lamont's status around blog world could cause a tornado.

Maybe there is more to the interview then I have seen.  The statement you shared, "I can forgive ... but I probably won't forget," hardly seems like throwing democrats under the bus.  Especially considering he was thrown under the bus by the Democratic Party.  

He disagrees on one issue and the once VP candidate isn't supported in the primaries by his own party.  I realize you guys all love the other billionaire Ned Lamont, but Lieberman has been a good Democrat.  

I admire his independent streak and I think America is screaming for it.  The more you vilify Lieberman the more of the public you push away from your ideas.   If a third party candidate where ever to win the Presidency again, I can see that candidate being Joe Lieberman.  He would take a good chunk of the Democratic Party voters with him too.  

In another recent interview he said something to the effect of "I am now free to say what I am thinking."  Sounds like the kind of politician I can stand behind.  

Please don't hate me; I just am not a Ned Lamont Fan.  You are so wrong about it not being a good move...it wasn't a move at all.  It is how any normal person would re-act to his friends and colleagues not supporting his campaign...Forgive, but not forget.

Point of information:  When you say "right wing billionaire backed blog outlet" to whom specifically do you refer?  I haven't heard anything along these lines.  I saw a moronic comment posting at:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archive s/individual/2005_11/007582.php

Could that be your "source" for this information?  From the outside, Pajamas Media looks like a "for profit" venture to me.  However, maybe you know something that I don't.  You are a big time inside dude.

By the way, please, please, please, please don't let it be "Scaife".  You've got that guy working too hard.

The funny thing is that Forbes just came out this week with the annual list.  Here's what it looks like in reality land:

One lonely Scaife - $ 1.2 B

Soros                - $ 8.5 B
Haim Saban           - $ 2.8 B
Peter Lewis          - $ 1.4 B
Marc Rich            - $ 1.5 B
Steven Spielberg     - $ 2.9 B
Jerry Perenchio      - $ 3.0 B
Pierre Omidyar       - $ 7.7 B
David Geffen         - $ 4.6 B

..and so on. Total: $32.4 B --> 27 times as much!

Oops, I forgot Ron Burkle  -  $2.5 B.

That makes $34.9 billion delicious demo dollars; and counting.  Scaife can't hold a candle to the big men of social justice and equality.

Why just to conclusions? We should wait to see what happens in the near future. This could be something very well thought of and we can fall into a trap. They say one thing at the television and in real life they do another thing. We should all be careful.

______
online stock trading