Did Obama Cheer For Lieberman?

POLITICS AS USUAL

In light of Joe Lieberman's recent turn from Super Duper Warmonger to Extra Size Super Duper Warmonger Extraordinaire there is a question that the Obama campaign needs to answer.

Was Senator Obama one of the Senators that gave Senator Lieberman a rousing standing ovation when he returned to the Senate after being re-elected?  This is also a question that Senator Clinton needs to answer. I called Senator Obama's office yesterday and asked them this question.  Even after telling them why I think answering the question would benefit the campaign (if he didn't cheer for Lieberman he should just say so and end of story) times I still did not receive a straight answer.

Why is this so important?  I'll tell you after the jump.

http://teamedwards08.blogspot.com/

The Lieberman issue is important because it is an indicator of where the presidential candidates' allegiances truly lie.

Whose side are they on?

The DC incumbent protection society or the grassroots activists who work hard to elect Democrats that represent their values?  

Not only did Joe Lieberman give President Bush the illusion of bipartisan acclaim for the war in Iraq he also made our party seem more split on Iraq than it really was.  

KINGDOME COME

Lieberman has been a consistent advocate for a war that goes against everything that our country should stand for.  I don't see major differences, policy wise, between Lieberman and neocons obsessed with apocalyptic visions.  He has crossed the line.  He is no longer just delusional, now he is just plain scary. Even as it has become and more evident the this war is a disaster of epic proportions Lieberman has not only held fast in his beliefs he has decided to turn the warmongering up on the amp that goes to 11 (quick Spinal Tap reference).  Lieberman then had the audacity to claim that he was carrying on in the tradition of FDR, JFK, and RFK.

CAN'T KNOCK THE HUSTLE

Speaking of audacity, the way that Obama handled the Lieberman situation was one of the first indications that our party was not witnessing "the audacity of hope" but the audacity of Barack Obama.  

When Obama was first elected to the Senate he was given a "mentor".  That "mentor" was Joe Lieberman.  It should be noted; in the interest of fairness Obama did not have any say in who was assigned to be his "mentor".  If anyone is Obama's true "mentor" it is Senator Dick Durbin.  I like Senator Durbin a lot.  He once gave a great speech about Paul Wellstone and what Wellstone said after he voted against going to war in Iraq.  It was one of the most inspiring things I had ever heard.  However I think that when Durbin encouraged Obama to run for president he did not have an accurate gauge on how Obama was handling the pressures and influences surrounding him.

This was first apparent when Obama made a very Lieberman like vote on tort reform.  It seemed as if Obama had already fallen into the trap of being so scared of being branded a "liberal" that he allowed the fear of that label to control his decisions and how he presented himself.  His tort reform vote was hyped as the moment that Obama said to the DC media elite that he was not beholden to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.  What about being beholden to the American people?

Though Obama had the moral authority to challenge the war from being right from the start he decided to play it safe and vote against the Feingold - Kerry amendment.  Senator Clinton did the same.  It's also important to note that when President Bush announced his plans to escalate the war both John Edwards and Chris Dodd made it clear that funds for the surge should be cut off.  Obama and Clinton opposed the surge but stopped short of calling for funds to be cut off.  This was a sign of things to come.  Obama and Clinton both play it safe.  Both of them failing to show even a shred of leadership when it comes to the most important issue facing our country today.

In between the Feingold - Kerry vote and the half-measures to stop the escalation was the famous Lamont vs. Lieberman showdown.  Soon after Lamont began attracting attention Senator Obama spoke to the Connecticut Democratic Party.  While he did point out his differences with Senator Lieberman he told the Connecticut Democrats that he hoped they would have the "good sense" to re-elect Joe Lieberman.  The "good sense". Is it just me or does that sound like the typical, "Come on now...don't be a liberal...the war isn't THAT big of a deal...it's not the only issue" head trip?  

I hope our party has the "good sense" not to nominate someone who has no backbone and can't take a position on anything without saying "on the other hand" and least 5 times.

It really comes down to this.  Anyone who doesn't display leadership on ending the war has no business being our nominee.  You want to know why?  Because as popular as ending the war may be in early 2009 there are still going to be those who are going to want to do the "safe" thing instead of the right thing.  And especially since coming to the Senate Obama has always done the "safe" thing regarding the war. It seems as if he sees this issue as something he can use to show how "moderate" he is.  Why else would he always go half-ass on ending this war?

THE TAKEOVER

Even with the endorsements of Senator Obama and Senator Clinton Joe Lieberman still lost the primary.  After Lieberman lost the primary Obama endorsed Lamont. Obama supporters are quick to point out that Obama sent out a fundraising e-mail for Lamont.  Wow, a fundraising e-mail that one of his staffers wrote...how nice of Senator Obama.  I'm sorry but this is a typical example of a politician playing CYA.

I have arguments from some that Obama had extra time when in Massachusetts campaigning for his good friend (and current Governor) Deval Patrick and he should have used that time to campaign for Lamont in neighboring Connecticut.  Normally I would disagree with arguments like these because none of us know how busy a certain public figure is.  However I think that the general thrust of their argument is right.  Obama campaigned for a lot of Democrats in 2006.  Whether the Democratic elite in DC realized it or not defeating Lieberman was very important.  It would have sent a very important signal to elected Democrats across the country.  Sooner or later the progressive movement is going to need to start challenging half ass Democrats in primaries.  Though a message was still sent through Lamont's primary victory it would have had a lot more impact if Lamont would be in the Senate to remind them of what can happen if they don't represent the values of the people who work hard to elect them.  Because the issue of the war is so important and because a Lamont victory would have been a very important symbol I think that Obama does deserve a lot of criticism for not campaigning with Lamont.

Seeing Obama with Lamont would have said to Democrats and Independents that Lamont, not Lieberman was the real Democrat in the race.  Sure, Lieberman would have still had the Republicans and some Independents but I believe that Lamont would have had a much better chance peeling off the Democrats and a decent chunk of Independents who voted for Lieberman.

What makes Obama's lack of effort all the more troublesome is the fact that he knew Lieberman and knew where he stood on foreign policy.  At this point in 2006 Obama had to be thinking about running for president.  And he had to know that ending the war would be THE issue in the campaign.  Yet it seemed that he really didn't have a problem with Lieberman returning to the Senate.  If his office won't say that he wasn't standing and cheering then doesn't that tell us that he likely was giving Lieberman a standing ovation?  And if he was glad to see a vocal supporter of the war in the Senate instead of a vocal opponent then how can we trust him on Iraq and foreign policy in general?

Obama recently made a push for GOP Senators to join Democrats in creating a veto-proof majority that would vote to end the war.  Obama's campaign spotlighted the effort numerous times.  If Obama has been truly interested in creating a veto proof majority to end the war then why didn't he do something to elect Lamont?  Do you really think that Obama didn't know in 2006 that there would soon be important votes regarding the war?  DO you think that he was somehow unaware that Lieberman would be a leading supporter of the war while Lamont would be a leading opponent of the war?

It may seem as if I am going easy on Senator Clinton but that is not the intention.  It's just that, coming from her, what do you expect? I believe that Senator Clinton is at least partly responsible for Joe Lieberman being in the Senate today.  If her husband had not shown up to campaign for Lieberman shortly before the primary (a move that psychiatrists everywhere had a field day with) it is likely that Lamont would have won the primary by a margin large enough to force Lieberman to drop out of the race.  I believe that Lieberman was able to win the general election because of Republicans came out for him in droves and there was confusion among some Connecticut voters who usually vote for Democrats about who the real "Democrat" in the race was.  

After all, Lieberman had been Gore's Vice Presidential nominee just 6 years earlier and, at least for a while, considered one of the "front runners" for the party's Presidential nomination 3 years earlier.  This is part of the reason why it is amazing that Ned Lamont ever got as far as he got in the first place.  But if Senator Clinton had ever wanted Lieberman gone from the Senate in the first place she would have convinced her husband not to campaign for Lieberman.  When President Clinton showed up and campaigned for Lieberman he was sending the signal to everyone to Connecticut that Lieberman was the real Democrat in the race.  If Senator Clinton would have stopped President Clinton from sending that signal things would have turned out differently for Lieberman.  Sure, the DLC would have had a fit.  But it would have been the right thing to do for the progressive movement and the Democratic Party.

THIS CITY IS MINE

Wait a second...what I talking about?  Hillary Clinton caring about the progressive movement or the future of the Democratic Party?  What three dimensional "here" world did I think I was in?  Sorry about that temporary lapse of judgment.  Of course Senator Clinton does not care about the future of the progressive movement or the party.  

If she did she would give our party's down ticket candidates in 2008 the gift that would keep on giving. She would take a huge weight off of their shoulders by letting them know that they won't have to worry about running as "Hillary Democrats".  No matter who they publicly "support" we all know that deep inside everyone at the DSCC, the DCCC, and the DGA would breathe a huge sigh of relief if Senator Clinton dropped out. But of course she isn't going to do that because even though she seems poised to lose if nominated she feels that this nomination is owed to her.  Who cares if she is going to squander the best chance for complete Democratic control in over a decade?  We're going to make history!  I'll save the "master of the obvious - Hillary can't win" routine for another time.  My point is that Hillary Clinton standing up and cheering for Joe Lieberman is not a shocker.  Its reason 18,291 why our party shouldn't nominate her but it's to be expected.

Some Clintonistas are going to point that Senator Clinton met with Ned Lamont and even loaned him Howard "Hungry Like the.." Wolfson as an advisor.  

Wow...Howard Wolfson...Great.  

Isn't that the equivalent of sending a presidential campaign Bob Shrum?  

STREETS IS WATCHING

Some of you might say, "Well John Edwards wasn't in the Senate when Lieberman returned so how do we know that he wouldn't have been standing and cheering as well if he where there?" It is a fair question but one there is an easy answer to.  

John Edwards has been very clear on how he feels about Joe Lieberman.  Out of "the big 3" he was the only one who did not endorse Lieberman at any stage in the campaign.  As soon as Ned Lamont won the Democratic primary the first major Democrat who offered to campaign for him was John Edwards.  Though it is debatable who said this first (some say Edwards and others say Bill Richardson) the day that Edwards campaigned for Lamont both John and Elizabeth Edwards made it very clear that they believed that Lieberman should immediately drop out of the race.  Both made the point that Lieberman had competed for the Democratic nomination so he should honor the wishes of Democratic voters.

It's also worth pointing out that Edwards is the only major Democratic candidate who has been willing to call out Lieberman for his views on foreign policy.  More importantly Edwards did not need to be prodded by Lieberman's recent saber rattling at Iran to do so.  

During the MoveOn.org Virtual Town Hall on Iraq Edwards made this very poignant statement...

"But this is not the time for political calculation; this is the time for political courage. This is not a game of Chicken. This is not about making friends or keeping Joe Lieberman happy. This is about life and death. This is about war."

Two recent events have made the questions surrounding the standing ovation more important, as if the issue of ending the war isn't important enough.  The recent Senate vote has raised serious questions about Senator Obama's Lieberman/Rove like trend of playing politics with something and then blaming someone else for doing exactly what you are doing.

The recent debate on CNN was a good example.  After it was pointed out by John Edwards that Obama and Clinton were silent in the lead-up to the vote and among the last to vote Obama told Edwards that it is important that people not "play politics" with the issue of funding the war.  If you watch the clip and listen to Obama's voice it becomes clear that he's trying to diffuse the issue by claiming that any discussion of the vote is "playing politics".  So Obama plays politics with his vote and then accuses Edwards of playing politics by bringing up the vote.  Who does that remind me of?

The second recent event that has made this all the more important is, of course, Lieberman's saber rattling against Iran.  Anyone who ever asked "Why is it so important to beat Lieberman?" should watch the clip of Lieberman talking about Iran.  Joe Lieberman is a neocon disguised as an "Independent-Democrat".  I don't care what Lieberman calls himself but I do care that people in our party knew where he stood on foreign policy but sat on their ass while he got re-elected anyway.  

This is about the very core of what our party stands.  How can we even consider nominating someone who gave cover to someone who was a sure thing to promote this war?  How can we even consider nominating someone who values insider DC culture more than they value the very core beliefs of the Democratic Party?

07' Bonnie and Clyde

Look at the events in chronological order and see if Osama's and Clinton's actions regarding Lieberman and the war both before and after the ovation give you any indication of whether or not Obama and Clinton were among those cheering for Lieberman.

- Obama is elected to the Senate.

- Lieberman is named as Obama's "mentor".

- Obama votes against the Kerry - Feingold amendment. So does Clinton.

- Obama endorses Lieberman for the CT Senate primary.  So does Clinton.

- After Lamont wins the primary Senator Obama endorses him for the general election. So does Clinton.

- Though he campaigns for Democrats across the country Obama does not campaign for Lamont / against Lieberman.  Neither does Clinton.

- When Lieberman is re-elected he returns to the Senate and is given a long and vigorous standing ovation.  Senator Obama's office will not deny that he was among those standing and cheering.

- When the President begins to escalate the war in Iraq Senator Obama opposes the escalation but stops short of calling for funds for the "surge" to be cut of.  So does Senator Clinton.

- When a vote for funding the war comes up in the Senate presidential candidates like John Edwards and Chris Dodd make it clear that they oppose anything that does include a timetable for withdrawal.  Senator Obama remains quiet about how he will vote.  So does Senator Clinton.  Senators Obama and Clinton are among the last to vote.  First Obama and then Clinton.  They both vote the right way but fail to show even an ounce of political courage.

Maybe Senator Clinton can get a pantsuit that matches Senator Obama and they can walk around like little "twinsies".

When you look at the events before and after the standing ovation it is hard not to draw the conclusion that Obama and Clinton were among the Senators standing, clapping, and cheering for Senator Lieberman's re-election.

Both Senators Obama and Clinton were familiar enough with Lieberman's foreign policy to know exactly how he would vote with respect to the war in the future. Both Senators endorsed Lieberman for re-election and only endorsed his opponent when they had to out of a political necessity.  Is it really that shocking that they would cheer wildly when he returned to their ranks?

99 PROBLEMS

When I first heard that Joe Lieberman had received a standing ovation when he returned to the Senate I was saddened, then I became angry.  

Who would cheer for someone who has given cover to a war that has cost so many people so much?  

Then I became curious.  

100 Senators. - 1 (Lieberman).

Of the 99 who gave him a standing ovation?

"It had to be mostly Republicans", I told myself, but there were conflicting reports concerning wether or the ovation was given by the Senate or the Democratic caucus.

Either way, which Democrats gave Lieberman the ovation?  

The first to come to mind were the usual suspects. Salazar, Ben Nelson, Landrieu, Pryor, Carper and the rest of the DLC hacks.

I can just see Salazar now in his cowboy hat...

Give me a W...give me an A...give me an R...give me an M-O-N-G-E-R...What's the spell?  JOE LIEBERMAN!!!

The questions about who else was cheering for Obama remained in the back of my mind until a few days ago when I was reminded of the standing ovation.  I started to think about the symbolism of 2 of the "big 3" Democratic nominees cheering for the re-election of someone who the people who give their time, energy, and money to the party worked so hard to defeat.

This is about more than Lieberman.  This cuts to the very core of Obama's candidacy.  Isn't his major selling point that he was right about the war from the start?  He deserves a lot of credit for being right at the start.  But where did his courage go after that? We need someone who will lead our party and our country in the future, not someone who will play it safe every time while they point back to a speech that they gave 5 years ago as proof that they stand of something.  

And how can Obama represent a "new kind of politics" when he is more willing to stand up and cheer for a returning colleague than he is willing to stand up for the convictions of those whose votes he is asking for.  

Isn't he taking part in the very kind of" small politics" that he rails against?

Barack Obama is selling himself as "hope" and a "new kind of politics".  But what is so new about incumbents only caring about getting the other members of their "boys club" re-elected?

If Barack Obama wants our votes then he owes us a straight answer on this.  

No spin.

No "non-denial denial".

No parsing words.

No "It depends on what you consider a standing ovation."

We deserve a "yes" or a "no".

I repeatedly asked his office if there was a way I could get an answer and I never received one.

How can we nominate someone who is cheering for Joe Lieberman's re-election one second and telling us that they will represent our deepest beliefs the next?

Changing the atmosphere in Washington DC is one thing, although this is further proof that the atmosphere in Washington DC has changed Barack Obama more than the other way around, but does Senator Obama think that if he gets elected we're all going to sit around and marvel at his personality (his campaign manager did say he was going to run a largely "personality based' campaign) and that will keep us from getting furious at the right?  It's not going to happen.  It seems as if Obama's talk about taking the focus off of "ideology" is a way to clear the path for his attempt to be everything to everyone.

I think that every Democratic Senator should tell us whether they cheered when Joe Lieberman returned.  And I'm sorry but if they claim that they were "cheering for a friend" they are full of it.  They are well aware that if Lieberman would have lost it would have forced them to realize that they do not own the Senate seat they occupy.  They saw Lieberman's win as an establishment victory over the grassroots.  They thought that this would discourage primary challenges and keep them cozy in their seats.  

Because Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are running four our party's nomination we especially need an answer them.  They have been behaving in a very similar manner regarding the war, especially since 2005.  Chances are that both of them stood and cheered for Joe Lieberman.  It would make sense considering their previous lack of action to defeat Lieberman.

I hope I am wrong.  I hope that only a few Democrats stood.  But if one of them gave Joe Lieberman a standing ovation and you support that candidate you might want to ask yourself if you are supporting a candidate who represents your convictions.

THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS

Of course there is also the issue of whether or not Obama or Clinton can win. While each of them have on occasion out performed the other Democrats the totality of 2008 general election polling, including the polling done by Rasmussen, brings up serious questions about whether they can win.  This is especially true of Senator Clinton.  And when you look at the totality of 2008 general election polling a clear pattern emerge.  That pattern shows that John Edwards is clearly the most electable Democrat.  He also best represents our values and has led on important issue after issue after issue.

Silly me. I think "He stands up for what I believe in more than the others do and he has a far better chance of winning. Game. Set. Match." But then again, that's just me.

I'll save the electability issue for another day.  But I do find it amusing that Clinton and Obama play it "safe" yet they are consistently out performed by Edwards the bold progressive leader.  

MONEY AINT A THANG

To me the whole Lieberman fiasco, even without an answer about the standing ovation, is the nail in the coffin for Obama and Clinton.  Coupled with...

- The K Street obsession with Clinton.

- The Wall Street obsession with Obama.

- Obama's pledge to take no money from lobbyists despite the fact that his finance team hits up the lobbyists spouses so the same favors are done for the same money,

- Their lack of leadership on issue after issue.  Compare their health care plans and energy plans to Edwards' and you will see what I am talking about.

- The fact that poll after poll after poll shows that they will both have problems keeping WI and MN blue.  The GOP VP is likely to be Pawlenty, Huckabee, or Barbour.  If It's Pawlenty it's going hurt us in the northern Midwest and if it' Huckabee it's going to hurt us in IA and MO, two of our pick up possibilities.  Edwards even leads Giuliani by an impressive amount in all of these states.  And he has a much better chance of flipping OH or FL.  He's the only one who can flip VA and WV and he's stronger in NM, NV, and CO.  Not to mention the fact that he even plays in KY.  What I'm trying to say is that Obama and Clinton have not been very impressive in General Election polling and there are numerous indicators that Edwards is far more electable that either Clinton or Obama.  

MOMENT OF CLARITY

When things like this happen it just brings home the point that when you have a candidate who does the right thing, stands up for what you believe in, and has a much better chance of winning you nominate him.

Why even put up with Obama not answering this question?  If he hasn't blown it already with you isn't this Lieberman episode a clear sign?

Why settle for someone who does things like this when you don't have to?
When you really think about the symbolism of how each candidate handled the entire Lieberman vs. Lamont episode, wouldn't Obama and Clinton's standing ovation for Lieberman be a deal breaker?

Is that a dramatic way to look at all of this? Yes.  But these are dramatic times that call for bold leadership.

CHANGE THE GAME

If Senator Obama or Senator Clinton gave Joe Lieberman a standing ovation then how can we trust them to stand up for what we believe in? Even if they didn't want to cheer for Lieberman, which in both cases is doubtful, if they bowed to pressure and joined the ovation how can we trust them to withstand the pressure that will come from all sides if they are the Democratic nominee?

One thing is clear. We need to know whether or not Senator Clinton and Senator Obama gave Joe Lieberman a standing ovation.

I'm not expecting anything but spin from Senator Clinton.

But for Senator Obama this is a question that he desperately needs to answer.

http://teamedwards08.blogspot.com/

*Special thanks to Jay-Z whose song titles I used liberally

Tags: Barack Obama (all tags)

Comments

125 Comments

Re: Did Obama Cheer For Lieberman?

Alot of this is old news.  Can we move on?

by noquacks 2007-06-16 05:59PM | 0 recs
Since the diary is here,
I recommend this other diary for a good rundown on everything that happened, in the words of Tim Tagaris, instead of one-sided accounts:

CT-Sen: So You Wanna Know What Really Happened?
by ttagaris
Tue Nov 14, 2006
by NuevoLiberal 2007-06-16 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Since the diary is here,

I remember that diary. It wasn't too flattering for any of the candidates.

by adamterando 2007-06-16 06:37PM | 0 recs
Yup

except for Clark and Kerry, neither of whom is in the current field of candidates.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-06-16 06:39PM | 0 recs
Kennedy and Dodd

the old man came to CT, IIRC, to campaign for Lamont. And Dodd cut a commercial.

by BlueinColorado 2007-06-17 07:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Since the diary is here,
Here's what Tim said about Edwards:
He was in town, he did say Joe shouldn't run, and he did have a $250 a person fundraiser for Ned. All that is terrific, and was much appreciated. But here's the deal from my perspective as the online guy w/ Ned's campaign -- take it for what it's worth: in the days following the primary '08ers (and a few others) couldn't get their press releases/$5,000 checks out the door quick enough. Call me a cynic, but most of it had to do with the amount of online support we had received and their reaching out to you through Ned. It just is what it is. When the spotlight wore with time and more races claimed a share of the attention, there were a few people who stuck around and actually held Joe's feet to the fire on Iraq and other issues ... Senator Edwards just wasn't one of them. I'm sorry. I wish he was, but he wasn't.
by Adam B 2007-06-16 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Since the diary is here,

But he also said this

Tim - tell me where I'm wrong...

about Edwards - I'm a little confused as he was the first person to call and congratulate Ned..

It's clear the only 2 dems on the list who could have helped were.

  1.  Bill Clinton  (would have helped a lot more than any other single candidate)

and

  2.  Obama - the rock star status and moderate would have helped.

it's not clear to me that edwards coming a second time would have helped Ned anywhere near as much as Clinton or Obama .  Edwards is not seen as a moderate like Obama and Bill are and after the primary would have been of miminal help IMHO...

by EdwardsRaysOfSunshine on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 10:38:28 AM PDT

[ Parent ]

   *
       probably right ... add gov. warner n/t (2+ / 0-)

     by ttagaris on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 10:40:09 AM PDT

by adamterando 2007-06-16 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Since the diary is here,

And what I believe, and I understand why Tim can't accept this, is that the general election was over once Lieberman decided to remain in it.  The votes just weren't there for Lamont.

by Adam B 2007-06-16 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Since the diary is here,

If Obama is so good with independents and GOPers, he would have helped. If nothing else he could have inspired more college kids to get involved with the campaign.

by adamterando 2007-06-16 07:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Since the diary is here,

I think you're doing some unfair extrapolating here -- Obama, before last year's book tour, was not thought of the same way he was post-tour, post-Oprah, etc.

by Adam B 2007-06-16 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Since the diary is here,

He was sure on his way to being a "big deal".  The media thought they had found the "non-candidate" who they could swoon over during the 2008 election (ala Mario Cuomo in 88').  Obama would have helped Lamont. I'm not saying it would have changed the outcome but it would have helped.

How much is beside the point?

The question is - Why is Obama such a fan of Lieberman.

And if you think that getting Lieberman replaced with someone with the views of Lamont was not a cause worth fighting for then may I recommend to you a candidate who you might like even more than Obama?

His name is...

Duncan Hunter!!!!!!!

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Since the diary is here,

You haven't proven the "such a fan" thing at all.  

And if Edwards believed "getting Lieberman replaced with someone with the views of Lamont was a cause worth fighting for," why was he barely there?  The bigger a deal you make of this, the more Edwards' effort seems token, not substantive.

by Adam B 2007-06-16 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Since the diary is here,

Edwards was there.  He was also a lot of other places.  I'm not saying that any needed to spend every day with Lamont.  And Edwards, regardless of how Lamont's manager feels did hold give Lieberman hell over Iraq.  

It's also worth pointing out that Edwards never backed Lieberman in the first place.

He is miles ahead of Obama or Clinton on this.

And you're "token, not substantive" thing is actually appropriate because it describles the entire Obama campaign.

Especially the "not substantive" part.

"Hey guys I'll have a health care plan sometime when you all tell me just what exactly is popular enough to put in it, now please don't call me a liberal and remember to "Hope Hope Hopity Hope"

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 08:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Since the diary is here,
Obama supporters remind me of Fox News - twisting and spinning info - to cast Obama favorably!
Edwards campaigned WITH Lamont!!  So did Dodd and Kerry.
Obama was repeatedly asked to provide support, but DID NOT - until about a week before the election, when he sent out an email to a small list of recipients.
It's uncertain that a former senator from NC and former VP candidiate could have had a different effect on a Connecticut election if he had campaigned more with Lamont. But we know for sure that Obama and Hillary could have made a difference. And Durbin, and Boxer, and Feingold, and Schumer and...
But once again - AIPAC ruled!
by annefrank 2007-06-16 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Since the diary is here,

Edwards campaigned WITH Lamont!!

Edwards went to CT to bask in the glory of Lamont's victory, and to curry favor with the netroots. When the polls turned south for Lamont, he refused to return.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-06-16 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Since the diary is here,

Edwards was all over the place in 06' and he was heavily involved in minimum wage initiatives that others ignored. If he would have been a fair weather friend he wouldn't have refused to back Lieberman in the first place.

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 08:23PM | 0 recs
Lamont unseated a 3 time entrenched incumbent

in the primary. Had he played his cards right (and not taken bad advice), he would won the general election also.

Edwards showed up bask in the glory of Lamont's victory, and abandonded him when fortunes turned sharply against Lamont.

minimum wage initiatives

70-80 of the general voters supported them by mid-late 2006. They would have passed without Edwards' help. Again, Edwards was helping himself more than anyone else even on these.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-06-16 08:32PM | 0 recs
'70-80%'

by NuevoLiberal 2007-06-16 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Lamont unseated a 3 time entrenched incumbent

And Obama cheered Lieberman from the sidelines.

by pioneer111 2007-06-17 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Lamont unseated a 3 time entrenched incumbent

You have no evidence of this.

by Adam B 2007-06-17 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Lamont unseated a 3 time entrenched incumbent
Interesting that you're doing the Fox News twist and expending much energy bashing the only electable Progressive candidate -- while supporting a
non-candidate who's repeatedly stated he's NOT running for prez.
Corporate media and their corporate sponsors send their gratitude and thanks.
by annefrank 2007-06-17 08:11AM | 0 recs
i.e. Edwards was a fair weather friend of Lamont

by NuevoLiberal 2007-06-16 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: i.e. Edwards was a fair weather friend of Lamo

And Obama was a constant friend of Lieberman whether he was a Democratic nominee or not.

by pioneer111 2007-06-17 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Cheer For Lieberman?

The story about the ovation is older.

Obama's campaign not denying that he was part of it is brand spanking new.

And "noquacks" might I recommend that you check out the movie The Mighty Ducks.  There's a chant that the crowd does that I think you'll just love.

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 07:21PM | 0 recs
Please post a link to Tagaris' diary

in the top portion of your diary, as I have requested you twice below

by NuevoLiberal 2007-06-16 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Please post a link to Tagaris' diary

Because this diary is largely about the standing ovation (please read the title) I added some background on the Lamont campaign for context.

The things I stated about the campaign were true.

And finally, I don't answer to you.

The Lieberman / Lamont thing is what makes me suspect that Obama was cheering.

If the Obama campaign would answer the question this would all be irrelevant.  

If you have a problem call the Obama campaign

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 08:28PM | 0 recs
A response to this hit piece on Obama

posted:


Edwards was a fair weather 'friend' of Lamont

by NuevoLiberal, Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 12:39:19 AM EST

by NuevoLiberal 2007-06-16 08:42PM | 0 recs
Many words, little wisdom.

Obama's vote on the tort reform bill was the right one; its coupon settlement provisions helped victims and only hurt plaintiffs' lawyers.  If you can't debate the bill on the merits, drop the topic.

Also, Lamont lost by 10 points.  You have to cross off a lot of names on your blame list before you'll get to Obama's.

Moreover, the "Wall Street" thing?  Which candidate actually worked there last year?

by Adam B 2007-06-16 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Many words, little wisdom.

If Obama is going to be so great for bringing over independents and even GOPers in the general election, then wouldn't him campaigning for Lamont have helped to bring over some of those voters to him?

by adamterando 2007-06-16 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Many words, little wisdom.

The man lost by 114,000 votes.  This was not an outcome-determinative decision; Schumer and Dodd's failure to persuade Lieberman to quit after the primary was.

by Adam B 2007-06-16 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Many words, little wisdom.

He still would have helped. He campaigned like hell for other democrats across the country. Why not for a Democrat that would be a strong anti-war vote in the senate if he cares about ending the war so much?

If Obama would have been no help to the campaign, then fine, it doesn't matter. But Obama people are talking about his broad appeal all the time. His ability to get people engaged. And now you're saying he would have had no effect at all on this race?

by adamterando 2007-06-16 07:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Many words, little wisdom.

Obama focused his time on the races where he could have an impact.  A single visit would not have changed someone else's race, but months of his campaigning for himself will have a major effect.

by Adam B 2007-06-16 07:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Many words, little wisdom.

So all those other races where he made a single visit helped but this was the one race, a very important race, for the party, for progressives, and for ending the war, where he couldn't have helped at all?

by adamterando 2007-06-16 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Many words, little wisdom.

The other single-visit trips focused on fundraising.  That wasn't an issue here -- Lamont had the funds he needed.  

by Adam B 2007-06-16 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Many words, little wisdom.
There you go again - spinning like Fox!
Lamont had the funds he needed?  ha!
Hey - there are pics of Lamont and Edwards - zilch for Obama.
by annefrank 2007-06-16 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Many words, little wisdom.

Both Lieberman and Lamont spent almost exactly $20M on the race.

by Adam B 2007-06-16 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Many words, little wisdom.

You are right.  Obama focused on where he could get funding in the future.  Why waste his time with Lamont?  he would want funding from some of Lieberman's friends.

by pioneer111 2007-06-17 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Many words, little wisdom.

Once again you are ignoring how this race was different.  Obama was on his way to media darling at the time. Combined with other things this would have helped Lamont.

But that isn't the real point here.

The point is...

Why won't Obama answer the question?

and

Are you alright with supporting a candidate who gave Lieberman a standing ovation?

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Many words, little wisdom.

THe reason why Lieberman was encouraged to fight it out for the General Election was the narrow loss in the primary and the continued respect he was getting from the Democrats despite his bashing of Dems after his primary loss. Obama and the Clintons did not give a shit about the race. Both did barely enough to come across as endorsing the DEm candidate after the primary.

If Obama really thought Iraq war was such a blunder, no way he endorses a guy regardless of tenure when Lieberman was the chief cheerleader of one of the dumbest decisions in recent American History.

by Pravin 2007-06-16 08:16PM | 0 recs
Jim Webb.

Where's the praise for Obama campaigning for Jim Webb and getting him elected? Hmmm?

Anyway, this post is a joke. A TON of, what's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah "high falutin garbage" with no substance. Edwards and his "Brotherhood" does not want to get too close to talking about Joe Lieberman seeing that John Edwards Co-Sponsored Lieberman's premature DEATH SENTENCE on our troops. He really doesn't want to talk about that N.I.E. Report. Seriously.

by ObamaEdwards2008 2007-06-17 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Jim Webb.

And why did Obama keep funding that war.  To keep in good with Lieberman and his views?  What suddenly made Obama think this was a "smart war" to support?

Your Hyperbole about Edwards reasons make you look foolish.  Edwards in no way wanted a war.  He wanted Bush to negotiate and get an international coalition.  

by pioneer111 2007-06-17 08:18AM | 0 recs
Lieberman escaped because of wrong

implementation of election law/rules in by CT SOS: The primary was moved up for 2006, but the deadline for filing petitioning candidacies was not (for some unknown reason), leaving Lieberman exactly one day after the primary to file a sore loser bid.

That, to me, is the number one reason why Lieberman returned to the US Senate.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-06-16 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman escaped because of wrong

I think that there are many reasons why Lamont didn't win.

He should not have listened to the idiots who told him to give Lieberman time to concede.

I think that if Lamont would have (Oh my god I'm about to quote Giuliani) "stayed on offense' (now I feel dirty) he would have had a much better chance.

I'm not saying that Obama or Clinton caused Lamont to lose. I'm saying that it looks like they backed Lieberman the whole time, knowing full well his views on foreign policy, and then they played cheerleader when he returned.

That brings into question where their allegiance lies

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 06:42PM | 0 recs
Please a post link to Tagaris' diary

Could you please a post link to Tagaris' diary in the top portion of your diary (as well as in the entry at you blog)?

That would be more honest reportage of the matter.

Thanks in advance.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-06-16 07:00PM | 0 recs
Hello, I am waiting for your response

to my suggestion above, TE.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-06-16 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Hello, I am waiting for your response

thanks for letting me know that 'reportage" is a word.

didn't know that.

I'm sorry but this is not about who a campaign manager wants to be angry at.

I think that Lamont was a better candidate than he was given credit for.  He came across as a sincere, authentic guy who was not looking for fame or recognition. I think it is great that he tried to get others to run against Lieberman first.

The Clinton visist really hurt Lamont.
The decision to give Lieberman time to get up hurt as well, IMHO

and the 'let's go to Hillary and get Howard Wolfson to help" decision was not smart either

Obama would have helped a lot with the "who is the real Democrat" issue.

Lieberman had really toned down his pro-war rhetoric so there needed to be someone who would get a lot of attention for calling Lieberman out

Obama could have filled that void but he backed Lieberman from the get go.

Nothing I said about the Lamont race is false.  A lot of it is opinion but so are the campaign managers thoughts.

Another reason I don't want to do this is because this was not meant to rehash Lamont vs. Lieberman.

It is meant to ask a question about Obama and Clinton cheering for Lieberman and if Democrats should be alright with that

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Many words, little wisdom.

You missed the point.  The point was that Obama could have done a lot to get things going Lamont's way.  His visit would have helped with the "who is the real Democrat problem".  If you pull this "we're all to blame, so none of us are to blame" crap then no one ever will ever be responisble for anything.

Get over your "crush on Obama" and face reality

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Many words, little wisdom.

Lamont lost by 114,000 votes.  If having the party's former Vice Presidential nominee come to town to promote the "who's the real Democrat" thing didn't close that gap, a freshman Senator (before his book was published) wasn't going to help either.

Once Lieberman weathered the first two weeks post-primary, while Lamont was on vacation, Lieberman was going to win the general.

by Adam B 2007-06-16 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Many words, little wisdom.

If having the party's former Vice Presidential nominee come to town to promote the "who's the real Democrat" thing didn't close that gap, a freshman Senator (before his book was published) wasn't going to help either.

Especially after the party's former president had come to bail the miserable SOB out two days before the primary, and went on TV after to say that both front-runners were good Democrats (a stance eagerly repeated by the Clintons' catspaw Rahm Emmanuel and implicitly endorsed by Harry Reid's silence).

Edwards is my first choice, and Obama my second (in a Gore-less primary) but I don't know why you Obama and Edwards people are blaming each other for Lieberman when the campaign that did the most to save the ass of His HolyJoeness is the Clintons'.

by BlueinColorado 2007-06-17 07:20AM | 0 recs
Typical fantasy land rejection of reality

First off, I'm talking about how the vote was spun by Obama's team not whether the vote was the right vote or not.

It was the first act in a pattern that shows that Obama is scared shitless of being called a "liberal".

And regarding Wall street.  They LOVE Obama.  They HATE Edwards. That tells you a lot. We all know why Edwards worked with Fortress.  He did it because he knew he was going to run a very bold progressive-populist campaign (which he has) and he wanted to pre-empt the "anti-business" bullshit just like he has pre-empted the "protectionist" BS.  He got Fortress to make a lot of changes and he was not paid a lot by them at all.

In fact Chuck Todd and others have marveled at how little he was paid. Kind of like how I marvel at how spinelss Obama has been lately.

They pointed out that he couldn't work with them for free because people would think that he was recieving some other kind of assistance from them so instead he just took the lowest amount possible that would shut up the talk of future favors.

All the things that Fortress did that were criticized were done by individual members.

It actually makes sense why Edwards would want to deal with the anti-business label.

Then there is Obama who, instead of confronting a label, tries to be everything to everyone and run a "personality" bases campaign so he doesn't have to talk about specifics.

Hence the health care plan that took forever to come out with and is not even a "universal" plan.

If you are okay with Obama cheerleading for Lieberman then you have allowed your crush on Obama to cloud your judgment.

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 06:52PM | 0 recs
Wow.

1.  Edwards was paid $479,512 by Fortress for part-time work.  If that's not "paid a lot by them at all," well, you and I live in different income brackets.  That Chuck Todd quote is one I've never seen; link?

2.  Edwards was loved by Wall Street as much as he is nationwide; he raised half what Obama did on Wall Street, and half in the rest of the country as well.  Raised plenty from UBS and Deutsche Bank as well as Fortress.

3.  Your argument, in fact, makes no sense -- if working at Fortress was supposed to neutralize feelings that Edwards was anti-business, why would Wall Street hate him?

4.  I'm glad you've conceded you have no idea what CAFA was about.  

by Adam B 2007-06-16 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow.

I didn't concede anything. Stop trying to muddy the waters.

I am talking about right now not 2004.

If you won't admit that...

Wallstreet
K Street
And the Democratic elite who are loved by these people

hate Edwards then you are disconnected from reality. If you want a quote about the Dem elite hating Edwards a Chuck Todd (yes, him again) quote was in breaking blue

Google "Barack Obama Wall Street" or something like it and you will find stories about Wall street's love for Obama and how Edwards has no support from either K street or wall street.

They even mention that his only link to DC insiders is David Bonior, who is his campaign manager that doesn't even recieve a salary he belives in the campaign so much.  And Bonior is as much of an economic populist as it gets.

And Edwards was paid little compared to what he could have asked for. This is another BS smear just like the "paid for a speech on poverty" smear. I already explained to you exactly why he was paid the amount he was.  If you want the chuck todd quote I'm not going to go find it for your dumb ass but go to the race rankings (the white house ones...I know that you are a little slow) and read what he has to say about Edwards and the money.

You still won't talk about Obama and Lieberman. That is what this is all about. You can try to argue the other points all you want (I like how you focused in on tort reform which, if you re-read my article I focused on the presentaition of, not the vote itself) but that's the elephant in the room you don't want to talk about.

All of the spin points in the world won't change the fact that you back a gutless wonder who has a crush on Lieberman worse than the one you have on him

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 07:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow.

No, I expect you to find the quotes upon which you claim to rely.   I'm tired of your name calling and evasions.

by Adam B 2007-06-16 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow.

My evasions?

Hello pot, meet kettle.

Get off of it. You are just too scared to answer the Lieberman question. I'm tired of you throwing up obstacles and endlessly trying to muddy the waters.

For the millionth time...

Why won't the Obama campaign answer this question?

Is it alright for him to cheer for Lieberman?

I already dealt with your BS. Now show a little spine and answer the question

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow.

When did you call the campaign?  With whom did you speak?  How did you identify yourself?

by Adam B 2007-06-17 04:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow.

Regarding point 3

I said that Edwards TRIED to neutralize the anti-business label because of the progressive agenda he was about to unveil and his strong support for unions.

Obviously it didn't work.  Google "Obama" and "Wall Street" or "K street" and you will see what I am talking about.

Edwards tried to stop the label from spreading but obviously it's not his top priority.

He isn't like Obama who is completely controlled by fear that he might get called a liberal.

Nice to see that Obama went from 59 favorable and 33 unfavorable to 50 favorable and 44 unfavorable.

It's not like that is a HUGE movement in the wrong direction or anything. Wait a second...it is.

It's nice to see that he loses to Giuliani by only 12%.  It's not like Edwards beats him by 4% or anything. It's okay, it's only a 16% point difference.  

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 07:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow.

You're not serving Mr. Edwards well.  You're making nonsensical attacks, failing to back them up, and then changing the subject.

Start with the basics: Edwards raised half on Wall Street what Obama did, just like he did nationally.  At some firms, like Deutsche Bank, he raised more.  

by Adam B 2007-06-16 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow.

The "not serving Edwards well" concern troll shit is ridiculous.  I have already dealt with all of this! Why don't you answer the question?

How is being afraid to answer a question serving Obama well?

I do not serve John Edwards.

I support him because he represents my values better than any other candidate.

It also helps that he can actually, you know, win the election.

Maybe you don't get that part.  When you support someone you don't "serve" them.  Clearly you think being part of HOPE INC means that you're job is to muddy the waters and keep Obama from facing hard questions.

You still won't answer the question.

Why won't they answer me or the 3 other people who called?

Are you alright with Obama cheerleading for Lieberman?

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 08:44PM | 0 recs
by Adam B 2007-06-16 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical fantasy land rejection of reality

Apples and oranges jackass.  The point is that Edwards did not work with wall street to make money.  I already explained the amount and why he took that much. Stop going over the same shit.

Now I have dealt with your spin and questions deal with mine.

Why won't Obama's campaign give me an answer?

Is it fine with you that Obama was cheering Lieberman if he was?

Stop changing the subject. Oh wait, you want to be just like Obama so you must be spineless like him to.

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical fantasy land rejection of reality

Your entire diary is based on a premise that you're not sure exists, and on quotes which don't exist either.  

So, tell us why Edwards did work on Wall Street.

by Adam B 2007-06-16 07:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical fantasy land rejection of reality

I have answered this five times.  Go up the thread and I explain exactly why he advised Fortress.  Once again, you muddy the waters and will not answer anything regardin Lieberman and Obama. You are worse than georgep and robliberal, and they are about as dilusional as it gets.

Ask questions. Fine. But when I answer them read my damn answer and don't ask the same question again.

And for once, answer my question.

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical fantasy land rejection of reality

Your explanation is that it was just a cynical effort to make him look pro-business even though he allegedly hates big business?  That doesn't reflect well on him.

by Adam B 2007-06-16 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical fantasy land rejection of reality

Thanks concern troll. That is not what i said. Once again you try to confuse everything to stop from answering questions.

I said that BECAUSE HE WAS GOING TO (and has) RUN A VERY BOLD PROGRESSIVE CAMPAIGN HE WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT A POPULIST DOES NOT "HATE" BUSINESS.

He got Fortress to make some good changes.

He also talked with them about micro financing, which I think shows a lot of promise.

I never said that Edwards wanted to look "pro-buisness"

I said that he was addressing a GOP over exaggeration that he knew would come his way.

He wanted the business community to be more involved in things like dealing with international HIV/AIDs and addressing poverty,

His work with Fortress was an olive branch, not a capitulation.

I will be amazed if you ever stop re-hashing the same shit and answer the question.

I have witnessed a new level of pathetic tonight and his name is Adam B.

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Typical fantasy land rejection of reality

No one has ever claimed before that he talked to Fortress about microfinancing.

by Adam B 2007-06-17 04:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Cheer For Lieberman?

this is very inspiring. now i guess i am to assume that edwards is way too principled and consistently progressive to engage in anything like you allege that obama has done. my personal experience campaigning for howard dean in iowa in 2004 contradicts this assumption. that was 3 years ago when john was still mistaken about the war in iraq and hadn't rebooted his position yet. but the curious thing he did was to team up to with the kucinich people (as he is now, dennis was against the war then) to deny dean support in the iowa caucuses. they made a deal (caucus by caucus) to combine their support against dean to supress his iowa support and derail his campaign. the deal: whoever had the most votes in a particular caucus would get the support of the other candidate on the second ballot. it worked.

by howieinseattle 2007-06-16 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Cheer For Lieberman?

And?

by adamterando 2007-06-16 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Cheer For Lieberman?

And your point is?

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Cheer For Lieberman?

Edwards is capable of acting like a political opportunist.

by howieinseattle 2007-06-16 06:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Cheer For Lieberman?

You mean that he did something that YOU thought made him a political opportunist. I'm not saying that John Edwards is perfect.  He has made that very clear.  But he learned a lot from O4'.  Read an article that Ezra Klein wrote for the American Prospect.  It's called "Raising the Bar". It might change your mind about Edwards then vs. Edwards now.

Even Dean, who I supported in 04'(my story is on the Deaniacs for Edwards blog) and got me interested in politics in the first place took opportunities when they presented themselves.  It's part of what a campaign does.  

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Cheer For Lieberman?

I don't think there's anything wrong with taking hold of political opportunities. I do think there's something wrong with claiming to lead on an issue and then doing very little to actually lead on that issue. Or to set up some farce of a grassroots project that the politician damn well knows has no chance of working. And said politician does not actually care to see work since when they had the opportunity just months earlier to get another anti-war vote elected to the senate, chose instead to stay chummy with their mentor.

Perhaps Obama thought he could change Joe's mind on the war. If he did, then hopefully it shows the limits of his new kind of politics of persuasion and will show him that perhaps there is a place for ideology and partisanship after all.

by adamterando 2007-06-16 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Cheer For Lieberman?

"Obama recently made a push for GOP Senators to join Democrats in creating a veto-proof majority that would vote to end the war.  Obama's campaign spotlighted the effort numerous times.  If Obama has been truly interested in creating a veto proof majority to end the war then why didn't he do something to elect Lamont?"

This is the most damning statement I think and one I had not thought of before. I think it shows that his veto-proof campaign was known to be a complete farce all along to make people feel like Obama was trying to do something.

by adamterando 2007-06-16 06:33PM | 0 recs
excellent diary

so much so for our movement Obama.

by lambiel 2007-06-16 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re: excellent diary

thank you very much

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: excellent diary

I really didn't know Obama's connection with Lieberman until reading your diary.

Thanks again for your investigation.

by lambiel 2007-06-16 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: excellent diary

any time

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 07:41PM | 0 recs
Adam B

Here's a present for my new best buddy

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/040 7/3550.html

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Adam B

I don't know what you think that proves.  It has nothing to do with this diary.

by Adam B 2007-06-16 07:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Adam B

"To adhere to that, Obama announced the no-federal-lobbyist-money rule. But it seems his fundraisers, under pressure to keep pace with the Clinton camp, have decided to follow the letter of that rule rather than embrace its full spirit. Thus, a current lobbyist can't give, but a former lobbyist -- even a recent one -- can. Of course, there is the spouse exemption, even if the money comes from a joint account."

Yeah, you're right, it's not like we were just arguing about how Obama takes money from lobbyists and Wall Street and K street and all of that...Oh wait, we were. It proves that you muddy the waters with old facts or you act like I said something that I never said (tort reform) but you still won't talk about...

- Obama's love from lobbyists

or

- Obama's love for Lieberman

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 07:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Adam B

You have no evidence on the latter or the former -- he hasn't raised money from lobbyists.  And there's no central database of who lobbyists are married to, for pete's sake.

by Adam B 2007-06-16 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Adam B

Google "Obama" and "Wallstreet'

Numerous reporters have talked to spouses of lobbyists who were talked to by the campaign.

The Obama campaign itself even said that the no lobbyist pledge was "symbolic".

There is no database of lobbyists wives, you are right, which is exactly why Obama contacts them.

Stop arguing againt points I have already addressed.  Go click on that link again. It talks about Obama following the letter of his pledge but not the spirit of it.

If Gilbert Godfrey was here (I think that is his name) he would say...

Denial is not a river in egypt. It is what Adam B is in when it comes to Barack Obama and lobbyists.

Still no answer.  How predictable.

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 08:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Adam B

If he didn't like Lieberman why the "good sense" remark.  Why didn't he show up and put his arm around Lamont?  And why won't his campaign answer a simple question?

It sure looks like Obama likes Lieberman.

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 08:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Adam B

I "hope" that you get a chance to use this link and I "hope" that the "small politics" that have developed between us will become a "new kind of politics" thanks to...uh..."hope".  On the other hand there are some times when I like to take big fat checks from the wives of lobbyists so I can claim that no "registered" lobbyist has given to my campaign. On the other hand, I "hope" that no one finds that out otherwise this "new kind of politics" that I talk about will be revealed to be a fraud.  On the other hand there might be just maybe a little uh connection uh between me and Tom Dashcle who is the poster boy for the "small politics" that I "hope" my message of "hope" will get rid of...Have you see my new T-Shirts? They say "GOT HOPE?" and the O is made of my fancy logo that I had designed with money that was given to me by the wife of a lobbyist.
I "hope" you all vote for me.  On the other hand..."

- Me channeling Barack Obama to my new best buddy "Adam B"

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Adam B

We live in Two Americas, friend.  In mine, people back up their claims with evidence.  In yours, people just say what they feel like and hope that it's true.

by Adam B 2007-06-16 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Adam B

"hope it's true"

GOOD BOY! You used the word "Hope"

Those Obama classes are paying off!

I'm sorry but you walked right into that one.

Still no answer about Lieberman?

How typical.  Scared of questions, especially the hard ones.

Just like Obama, who at the last minute canceled an appearance on Meet the Press' Meet the Candidate series because it was too risky. A few weeks later he gave a "no holds barred" (they obivously called it that to deflect criticism from Obama ducking the Russert interview) interview with Stephanopolous

Wow, saying "hope" and ducking hard questions

Does the B in Adam B stand for "Adam Barack"?

Oh my god i'm arguing with Senator Obama!!!!

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Adam B

Senator, I have a million questions for you.

Did you cheer for Lieberman

and

Why did you challenge Bobby Rush?

and

How did it feel when Bobby Rush handed you your ass?

and

Why do you claim that you were "Drafted" into every race you have ever ran in until this one?

and

Is "drafted" code for "my ego told me to do it"?

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 08:06PM | 0 recs
The Banality of Hope.

Or the Audacity of Banality.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE 2007-06-16 09:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Cheer For Lieberman?

Seriously Senator Obama/Adam B whoever you are.

You have dodged it long enough.

Why won't Obama's campaign answer me about the standing ovation?

Are you alright with Obama cheering with Lieberman?

I'll drop the shit. I'm asking you seriously.

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Cheer For Lieberman?

They're probably not answering you because you're an asshole.

by Adam B 2007-06-16 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Cheer For Lieberman?

"They're"?

Huh, do you have a frog in your pocket?

Lol

Seriously, me being an asshole is besides the point and you can't act like you weren't quite the rectum yourself.

Instead of muddying the waters or saying

"You mean. Me no answer"

Make up for your candidates lack of spine and answer.

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 08:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Cheer For Lieberman?

I am so fucking tired of people smearing John Edwards.

Yes, I was an asshole to you but you were not interested in communicating with me.  You were interested in bringing up a thousand points that had nothing or little to do with the main point of my diary and therefore muddying the waters.

All I ever asked for was an answer.

Is it in line with the values I am proud of to call you names? Definitely not.

But at some point you can't blame somebody for feeling like the claws need to come out.

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 08:14PM | 0 recs
Team Edwards

Thanks God, we have pushed this article onto rec. list. All those things are the first time i've heard of since I stopped paying attention to politics for a while. Everybody needs to read this diary.

BTW, Team Edwards, thanks for your lead, I just did a new diary on Movement Obama's money gimmicks, please recommend it as well.

by lambiel 2007-06-16 08:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Team Edwards

Will do

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Cheer For Lieberman?

How pathetic are Edwards supporters?  John Edwards voted for the first Bush budget and John Edwards voted for the Iraq war.  Yet because he had Ned Lamont on his speed dial and got through to Ned's cell phone before other Democrats did, all is forgiven?  Does it matter that John Edwards selfishly walked away from his Senate seat and allowed a right-wing neanderthal to take his vote on the Senate?  Of course not.  Because he showed "leadership" on the war from his mansion in North Carolina.  Do Edwards supporters care about substance at all?  Or are meaningless symbols the only things that give them comfort?

by jsb39 2007-06-16 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Cheer For Lieberman?

Substance? Even right wing hack pundits like Mike Allen will admit that Edwards' campaign has been the most substantive policy wise of either campaign.

He was the first to release...

- a truly universal health care plan
- a...hold on, you asked for it.

The "John Edwards First and Often Only List

1st candidate to respond to DFA (Democracy For America) with a clear position / plan for ending the war in Iraq.

Note: Recently DFA asked the presidential candidates to respond with a clear, detailed plan for environmental action (on issues like energy independence and global warming) and once again John Edwards was the first candidate to respond.
_
1st and only of the "big 3" candidates to publicly support the 2006 Kerry - Feingold amendment to set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq (both Obama and Clinton voted against it).

1st and only of the "big 3 candidates" to support cutting off funding for the escalation of the war in Iraq (both Obama and Clinton stopped short).

1st major candidate to support Jim Webb's Iran legislation.

1st major candidate to endorse and campaign for Ned Lamont against Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Senate race. Edwards was neutral during the primary, unlike Obama and Clinton who supported Lieberman.

1st and only major candidate to spend no money on polling in the first quarter of 2007.

1st candidate to release a substantive Universal Health Care plan.

1st candidate to release a comprehensive plan for Energy Independence / to combat Global Warming.

1st candidate to say no to debating on / legitimizing FOX News. Not once but twice. Both times FOX news was scheduled to host a Democratic debate John Edwards was the first candidate to say no, and the only one to make it clear that he did so because FOX News is bias and he did not want to legitimize a Republican spin machine.

1st candidate to call for the resignation of Alberto Gonzales.

1st candidate to call for the resignation of Paul Wolfowitz .

1st candidate to accept the G8 challenge

1st candidate to call the "war on terror" what it is, a political frame. During the first debate Edwards was the only major candidate who did not raise his hand when asked if there was a "war on terror". He did not stop there. He gave a speech outlining his national security doctrine - Smart Power, and also laid out his plan specificaly to fight terrorism

1st candidate to accept the offer from the SEIU to work a union job for a day.

1st and only candidate to mention the passing of the late great Molly Ivins during his speech to the DNC's Winter Meeting. You cannot really knock the other candidates for not mentioning her, because they stick so closely to their prepared remarks and just because they didn't mention her doesn't mean that they didn't respect her. But in doing this Edwards displayed an important respect for powerful and meaningful progressive voices.

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 09:02PM | 0 recs
wow

Adam B is usually a level-headed person, it takes quite a lot of trollish idiocy to piss him off.

Good job "Team Edwards," mission accomplished!

This diary is very possibly the worst hit-piece that I have ever seen on the recommended list in two and half years of reading MyDD. Watching "Team Edwards" desperately grasp the thinnest of straws in service of his hyper-partisan agenda is truly a sight to behold.

Here are some choice quotes from this guy, just from this one diary and comments:

"Senator Obama's Lieberman/Rove like trend of playing politics with something and then blaming someone else for doing exactly what you are doing."

"Maybe Senator Clinton can get a pantsuit that matches Senator Obama and they can walk around like little "twinsies""

"The Wall Street obsession with Obama.
- Obama's pledge to take no money from lobbyists despite the fact that his finance team hits up the lobbyists spouses so the same favors are done for the same money"

"If Senator Obama or Senator Clinton gave Joe Lieberman a standing ovation then how can we trust them to stand up for what we believe in?"

"And if you think that getting Lieberman replaced with someone with the views of Lamont was not a cause worth fighting for then may I recommend to you a candidate who you might like even more than Obama?/His name is.../Duncan Hunter!!!!!!!"

"Hey guys I'll have a health care plan sometime when you all tell me just what exactly is popular enough to put in it, now please don't call me a liberal and remember to "Hope Hope Hopity Hope""

"And regarding Wall street.  They LOVE Obama.  They HATE Edwards. That tells you a lot. We all know why Edwards worked with Fortress.  He did it because he knew he was going to run a very bold progressive-populist campaign (which he has) and he wanted to pre-empt the "anti-business" bullshit just like he has pre-empted the "protectionist" BS. He got Fortress to make a lot of changes and he was not paid a lot by them at all."

"All of the spin points in the world won't change the fact that you back a gutless wonder who has a crush on Lieberman worse than the one you have on him"

"Wow, saying "hope" and ducking hard questions/Does the B in Adam B stand for "Adam Barack"? Oh my god i'm arguing with Senator Obama!!!! Did you cheer for Lieberman/and/Why did you challenge Bobby Rush?/and/How did it feel when Bobby Rush handed you your ass?"

"Is it in line with the values I am proud of to call you names? Definitely not.

But at some point you can't blame somebody for feeling like the claws need to come out."

LOL! (bolded parts are mine)

And of course I can't pass up these delightful comments from "lambiel":

"Excellent diary.

I really didn't know Obama's connection with Lieberman until reading your diary.

Thanks again for your investigation."

"Thanks God, we have pushed this article onto rec. list. All those things are the first time i've heard of since I stopped paying attention to politics for a while. Everybody needs to read this diary.

BTW, Team Edwards, thanks for your lead, I just did a new diary on Movement Obama's money gimmicks, please recommend it as well."

Shame on everyone who recommended this diary, especially you David Mizner. The actual question that Team Edwards brings up is not unlegitimate... but the way he went about presenting it absolutely is.

I suppose I ought to briefly address the substance of the diary. I don't know if Obama did or did not stand and clap for Lieberman, and it might be something interesting to know. But I couldn't care less either way. Really, could anything be more shallow and vindicative? We're adults deciding who the next most powerful person in the world should be, we're not gossiping schoolchidren running around trying to find out which cool kid spit or did not spit on which other cool kid.

by Korha 2007-06-16 10:03PM | 0 recs
Re: wow

So my punishment for being honest and raising a legitimate question is the rage of "Kohra".

I love how you take little bits and pieces of what I wrote and put them together.

But you're pathetic attempt to muddy the waters (after all I am not the issue here)

Your righteous indignation is such a joke.  You throw an absolute fit over two people arguin on a blog...

"This diary is very possibly the worst hit-piece that I have ever seen on the recommended list in two and half years of reading MyDD."

and

"Shame on everyone who recommended this diary, especially you David Mizner."

Yet you have completely forgotten what all of this is about?

We are talking about the most important issue facing our country and how each of our partys top candidates handle this issue. Of course people are going to get intense over it.  Stop the whining. You actually remind me of Lieberman with you comments about something being "hyper partisan" and how you try to "shame" everyone out of disagreement with you.  Seriously, it's just like Lieberman and his whole "The President is the president whether we like it or not" shit.

And it's funny that you come to the aide of someone who time and time again tried to muddy the waters, act like I didn't answer his question when I did on numerous occasions, and then fail to answer the questions that this diary raises.

So first the righteous indignation, the the very mature "LOL", followed by more "Shame on yous" and then a pathetic attempt to dismiss this all as child like rumors.

I'm sorry but this is a simple case of someone not knowing what the fuck they are talking about.

Do you even know why Joe Lieberman is?

I hate the way that the right guilt trips people when they do a fucked up verison of what I am about to so I am going to try to be careful with how I say this...

I don't know how you can reduce this to the level of a child like rumor.  If it would have been not that big of a deal then you're friend would have answered me.

And as far as the "grasping at straws" thing goes.  If you have a problem with the question I asked tell the Obama campaign to answer the question. I am not the one who refused to answer it.  I raised what you even admitted was a legitimate question. The problem is that you cannot see the bigger picture.

This is about a fucking war.  I do not understand how you can laugh off my question about wether or not someone who is glad to see Joe Lieberman back in the Senate can be trusted to represent our values.  I think that is more than a fair question. I also don't think it's funny that I was willing to admit that of course I don't like getting this heated with someone. but at the same time when someone repeatedly tries to dismiss an imporant question and then throws up a smokescreen it's pretty hard to keep from giving them a piece of your mind.

I think it's ridiculous that you made me the topic of the buld of your comment and then you try to dismiss the whole issue.

The thinks that Joe Lieberman has said and done since returning to the Senate are no fucking joke.

I can't believe that a person with half of a brain and limited knowledge of recent events would say this...

"it might be something interesting to know. But I couldn't care less either way. Really, could anything be more shallow and vindicative? We're adults deciding who the next most powerful person in the world should be, we're not gossiping schoolchidren running around trying to find out which cool kid spit or did not spit on which other cool kid."

- It might be intersting to know.  What a pathetic attempt to dismiss an issue at the crux of  Obama's candidacy.  Isn't his candidacy about his early opposition to the war?  Isn't it about "rising above politics".  If it is then how can you dismiss his standing, cheering, and clapping for the re-election of someone who has nearly ruined our party's credibility on the war and given repeated cover to the president?  And why did Obama do this?  Because it was the "cool" thing to do?  

Most people who are going to vote in their primary or show up an caucus are going to be very much opposed to Joe Liebernan and everything he stands for.  I bet that if you were to ask them to have some kind of vote on which one they want in the Senate now, Lamont or Lieberman, more than 90% would vote for Lamont and most of them would have a very passionate response towards Lieberman.

Barack Obama is asking for our votes.  He is promoting himself as the one that we can trust on the war, as the one who is untouched by DC politics as usual.  If he cheered for Lieberman, especially since he knows exactly where Lieberman stands on the war, then all of that is bullshit. In fact, if he did take part in this he cannot be trusted on the war and he has been completely changed by DC.

Bring up Edwards' vote for the war. That was in 2002. What I'm talking about happened in 2007.  Showing leadership (and yes, that is important, especially since we are going to nominate someone who, if they win, will be the most visible Democrat for at least 4 years) is great in 2002 when the war is popular.  But why has Obama lost his nerve as the war had become more unpopular.

Look at what has happened from 2005 on.  There has been instance after instance after instance where Edwards has been bold, Obama has played it safe, and Hillary has followed.

And then there is this...

We're adults deciding who the next most powerful person in the world should be, we're not gossiping schoolchidren running around trying to find out which cool kid spit or did not spit on which other cool kid."

First off, to address your calling  me "vindictive".  I asked a question, an important one at that. They did not answer. Just because I am a vocal Edwards supporter does not disqualify me from being right about this.  

Okay, since all of this is a joke to you I thought we should play a game, let's call it...

THANK YOU FOR MAKING MY POINT FOR ME!

You are right, we are adults deciding who the most powerful person in the world should be.

We are deciding who we feel is best for the progressive movement, for the Democratic Party, and by extension the American people and the rest of the world.

Where they truly stand on Iraq/Iran and foreign policy in general, and what they are willing to actually do about it is as important as it gets.

The only thing child like here is your and Adam B's attatchment to Barack Obama.

Adam B talked earlier about "serving" a candidate and I pointed out that we are not supposed to "serve" our candidates. I know what he was getting at, and he didn't really mean "serve" but we still need to remember that this nomination is up to us.  We can, and should, demand certain things from the candidates.

If Barack Obama was glad to see Senator Lieberman back in the Senate then he has a terrible case of "insideritis" and he has no business being our nominee.  This pattern of doing what is safe and following the DC CW is starting to become a real problem, especially since he drapes himself in the banner of a "new kind of politics".

We need a nominee who will confront the Joe Liebermans in our party and the other party, not someone who thinks that anyone who stands up for what they believe in should be dismissd as "partisan".  Partisan can be a good thing, especially when it comes to this war.  We need Democrats to be more committed to ending this war and far too often DLC Democrats like Lieberman dismiss committment as "partisanship".

Barack Obama sat on his ass while news cameras followed his every move and at any second would have been glad to take his statement about his vote.  He could have made a clear statement that would have affected the opinions of a lot of people. But he remained silent.  That was the act of a self-obsessed typical politician.  

This Lieberman issue bring up more questions about Obama.  Is he the Barack Obama who gave the speech opposing the war in Iraq?  Is he truly a messanger of hope who is willing to back it up with action?  Or is he just another hyper-ambitious politician who claims to have been "drafted" into every campaign he's ever ran in.  Is he the guy who challenged Bobby Rush and lost for no apparent legitimate reason?  Is he the Barack Obama that came to the Senate with all the moral authority to lead on the war in the world, but has taken the safe route on all 3 of the biggest Iraq related issues since he joines the Senate (Feingold-Kerry, cutting off funds for the surge, the recent Senate vote)?

He has a history of making excuses for Lieberm and trying to shame people into voting for him with his "good sense" comment.  I guess attempting to shame people into capitulating is a favorite tactic of people like you.  

If you don't care whether or not he cheered for Lieberman then alrigh...see no Obama mistakes, hear no Obama mistakes, speak no Obama mistakes...very typical.

But even if you don't care that he cheered (which is a huge stretch to believe) doesn't it bother you that he ever endorsed Lamont in the first place.  If cheering for Neocons is fine in your book then what about being blatantly duplicitous?
If you're from the "Iraq/potential war with Iran is not THAT big of a deal" wing of the party (there are probably 3 or 4 of you and they are all Obama supporters in denial) then are you fine with Obama being so quick to change his tune?

Talk about a flip flop.

I hope you have the good sense to re-elect Joe Lieberman!

to

I am endorsing Ned Lamont

to

Yippie Skippie Joementum is back, I sure missed my "mentor"!

Face it. Your guy got caught on this one.  And for all of you who are saying that Edwards didn't do enough for Lamont. compare what he did to what Obama did.

Edwards never endorsed Lieberman.
Obama did, and he campaigned for him at the CT Democratic Convention.

Edwards showed up and campaigned for Lamont and was among the first to do so.
Obama was close but refused to campaign against Lieberman.

Edwards has recently confronted Lieberman's vies on the war.
Obama hasn't.

So if Edwards has a bad record on the Lamont issue then Obama's is reason enough for him to drop out

You might want to actually read what Joe Lieberman has said about Iraq and Iran recently before blowing this off.  Obama knew exactly where Lieberman stood, he knew what direction the debate over the war was headed in, and he backed up Lieberman anyway. That is damning enough.

If Obama sent out an e-mail for Lamont and then did a triple back handspring with a moonsault off the top rope when Lieberman was re-elected then he is duplicitous, manipulating, and not the right person to lead our party.  Now If the Lieberman for Connecticut or whatever it's called...if the Holy Joe party wants to nominate someone for President then Barack Obama sounds like a good choice.  

I wonder if there are any pictures of Obama kissing Lieberman ala Bush?  Hmmmmm

I can just imagine Obama talking to Lieberman as he returns to the Senate...

"Yeah! Lie-ber-man! Lie-ber-man! Woooow! Good job Jomentum!  I'ts good to see my favority little warmonger back in the Senate, where he belongs.  Jomentum in the house."

Honestly, all I want is a straight answer from the Obama campaign.  And the Clinton campaign for that matter.

Conviction does matter. So does substance. And so does leadership.  Right now Obama and Clinton are failing on all three counts.  

You can't cheer the return of a warmonger while you fight to end a war.

If you want political calculation, vote for Clinton.

If you want political catch phrases in the place of substance and leadership, if you want a "personality based campaign" then vote for Obama.

If you want political courage, bold progressive leadership and the ability to you know, actually win, then vote for Edwards.

Throw all the fits you want to.  Their lack of an answer gives the likely answer away.  The damage has been done.

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 11:41PM | 0 recs
Re: wow

So if Edwards has a bad record on the Lamont issue then Obama's is reason enough for him to drop out

What I am saying is that you need to keep some perspective.

Most people, even in the netroots, do not care about rehashing Lamont vs. Lieberman. They are old, tired issues. Yes, I think it is a bad thing Obama endorsed Lieberman in the primary, but I also know there are multiple good reasons why he would do so. Yes, I think it is a bad thing Obama declined to actively campaign for Lamont in the general, but I also know there are multiple good reasons why he would so decline. Yes, I think it would be a bad thing if Obama cheered for Lieberman's return to the Senate, but I also know there are multiple good reasons why he would so cheer.

Above all I know that none of these things matter in any important way. They're symbolic issues, not substantive ones. They're old and tired and dragging them up now is pretty much equivalent to kids going around trying to find out the latest, "OMG he did that???" gossip. As I said before, we are trying to decide who is going to be the better president. If endorsing Lieberman in the primary is a disqualifier for president in your mind, then I really don't know what to say. That's a total loss of perspective. What about the Iraq War? Isn't that more important to you? You seem to think that Joe Lieberman is the same thing as the War in Iraq, when in fact that's not remotely the case. What about health care, or energy, or the environment, or those other issues and policies? What about the candidate's legislative and executive records, their resumes, their intelligence or judgement or any of those other things that are critical to a successful presidency?

But no, to you, none of that matters, because somebody supported Lieberman in the primary and then may or may not have clapped for him when he went back to the Senate. Even John Edwards, according to you, would not have your support if he endorsed Lieberman in the primary. His support would somehow erase the rest of his entire life? Backing Lieberman in the primary means... what, exactly? It doesn't mean much of anything, and your confused attempts to equate that with supporting the War in Iraq are transparently ridiculous.

Keep some perspective.

by Korha 2007-06-17 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: wow

P.S.

We all know why Edwards worked with Fortress.  He did it because he knew he was going to run a very bold progressive-populist campaign (which he has) and he wanted to pre-empt the "anti-business" bullshit just like he has pre-empted the "protectionist" BS."

Anyone who can say this with a straight face is a hyper Edwards partisan. Sorry.

by Korha 2007-06-17 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: wow

There is nothing wrong with Fortress.  It is a legitimate company that has done nothing illegal.  Obama takes lots of money from hedge fund employees.  

And obviously Team Edwards is an Edwards partisan.  he is making no apologies.  Are you not a "hyper partisan of Obama"?  Sure looks like it to me.  If not let us know your criticisms of Obama.  

by pioneer111 2007-06-17 08:30AM | 0 recs
So what if he did..

I'm a Hillary supporter and I am fine with Obama doing that and I would never hold it against him.  I don't think anyone could envision that Lieberman would go as far as he has in the things he has done of late.  I certainly don't think it's fair to blame Obama for anything that Lieberman has done.  I'm sure he is just as horrified as the rest of us.

by reasonwarrior 2007-06-16 10:44PM | 0 recs
Re: So what if he did..

That is a ridiculous thing to believe.  Obama and Clinton both knew full well were Lieberman stood on Iraq and foreing policy in general. It wasn't difficult to guess that if anyone started to push for war with Iran it would be Lieberman.

You call yourself "reasonwarrior" and you support Hillary Clinton?

That makes the name hard to understand.

Are you at war with reaason?

Okay "reasonwarrior" I have a serious question for you.

Which states is Hillary Clinton going to win that John Kerry did not?

And how does she keep states like Wisconsin from turning red?

by Team Edwards 2007-06-16 11:50PM | 0 recs
Re: So what if he did..

I don't think anyone could envision that Lieberman would go as far as he has in the things he has done of late.

Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Nobody had heard of Ned Lamont when JoMo was publishing WSJ editorials calling on Democrats to shut up and salute our Commander-in-Chief. His entire '04 primary campaign was about being a pro-war ("seroius about national security" in Beltway parlance) Democrat; he endorsed Bush over Kerry in an October, 04 speech to a Jewish senior citizens group in Palm Beach county (of all places).

Lieberman was a known quantity when Bill Clinton went to New Haven to save JoMo's ass, and when Cllnton went on Larry King in August to say that it didn't matter who won in CT, because Lamont and Lieberman were both Democrats.

by BlueinColorado 2007-06-17 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: So what if he did..

Obama has yet to be critical of anything Lieberman has done.  I don't see any evidence that Obama is in any way horrified by what Lieberman has done.  In fact Obama, Lieberman and McCain co-sponsored a bill

Potential presidential rivals John McCain and Barack Obama are joining with newly independent Sen. Joe Lieberman on a plan they say would reduce annual global-warming gases by two-thirds by mid-century.

I thought it was the most cynical thing I had ever seen.  The is Obama rehabilitating Lieberman and McCain.  Also what a hypocrite with his sponsorship of the Coal to Liquid bill.  He reaches across that aisle in a very calculating way.  I am yet to see how his reaching across the aisle has led us closer to the end of the war.  This is triangulating par excellence.

Obama reaches out to McCain and Lieberman, but undermines Feingold.  There are contradictions here that just get worse the more I find out.  

by pioneer111 2007-06-17 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Cheer For Lieberman?

Thank you for saying things I have wanted to say for quite some time.

Go John Edwards!

by raginglibdem 2007-06-17 12:21AM | 0 recs
Jiminy Crackers

I frackin' despise Joe Lieberman for about a million reasons but if a bunch of tepid mofos like Tom Carper and Mark Pryor are going to start a standing ovation and I was in the Senate I'd stand and clap too. It's called politics.

Did you ever see all the bogus standing ovations the President gets when he praises Mom and apple pie in the State of the Union? Pssst....it doesn't really mean the Democrats like him when they do it. They do it because you look like a petty asshole if sitting with a frown is your idea of protest.

by joejoejoe 2007-06-17 01:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Jiminy Crackers

I understand where you are coming from but because there was no audience at home watching and because of the issue of the war and Lieberman's support for it this is bigger than a normal standing ovation.  This was not an "I agree with you" standing ovation like the ones at the State of the Union.  This was a "I'm glad that you showed those grassroots wackos what happens when you try to take one of OUR Senate seats...and the war isn't THAT important" stading ovation.

This was a "glad to see you Joe" standing ovation. Someone like Harry Reid who might have been concerned about Lieberman becoming a Republican or something like that might have an excuse.  But coming from Obama and Clinton (who are running for President, not the Senate) this is saying "I am one of the most, if not the most prominent Democrats alive today and I am glad you got re-elected Joe".  

And isn't Obama supposed to rise above "politics"?

Even if this was the way that things had been done it's not the way that things should be.  We need a leader, not more "politics as usual".

Considering the symbolism of the attempt to beat Lieberman and the importance of the issue that started the primary challenge I disagree with you on this.

Though I thought your comment was funny.

by Team Edwards 2007-06-17 01:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Cheer For Lieberman?

And by the way, you look like a bigger asshole if you cheer like crazy as a dilusional warmonger reclaims his perch so he can continue to spew lies and act like a tough guy.

Considering the alternative - cheering like a jackass for someone who stands against everything that the people who elected you and worked for and contributed to your campaign stand for - sitting down and frowning would have been appropriate.

Of course there's always the even more appropriate (and fun for the whole family)option of playing a quick game of...

"Give Joe Lieberman the finger"

 

by Team Edwards 2007-06-17 01:28AM | 0 recs
ho ham

"obama has fucked my mom" should be the next one; counting, 3, 2, 1... GO!
by pmb 2007-06-17 05:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Cheer For Lieberman?

First off, Edwards wasn't in the senate to cheer, so how do we know what he would have done?

Second, I'm just GUESSING, so correct me if I'm wrong.  I believe it is common courtesy to stand and applaud your fellow senators who got elected, even if they aren't from your party.  They were chosen by their constituents to represent them.  You want to argue the election, that's one thing, but this is something completely different.  

Obama must be your bigger worry since you put him in the title and not Hillary.  

Most of this is old news.  Thanks.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-06-17 05:54AM | 0 recs
you nailed it man


obama and every body else shows common courtesy in the highest legistlative body in the US and Obama gets a hit piece; strikes me as very k-12 stuff.

boy i can't wait for the obama play boy series(cause that guy looks like he had a lot of IT when he was single)

by pmb 2007-06-17 06:03AM | 0 recs
Re: you nailed it man

common courtesy?  What about common courtesy for everyone who worked to beat Lieberman?  The only childish part of any of this is Lieberman and Obama acting like one of those "clubs" that people form in the first grade.

This is not about courtesy, this is about being a DC hack running as someone who is going to change our "small politics".

by Team Edwards 2007-06-17 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Cheer For Lieberman?

The "common courtesy" thing is ridiculous. People do not normally recieve Standing ovations upon re-election.

Where was the ovation for Byrd?
Or Kohl?
Or Feinstein?

There wasn't one.  This was about who Lieberman beat not that he was re-elected.

And Obama is suspect about this because of his behavior towards Lieberman.

- the comments to the CT DEM party

  • endorsing Lieberman in the first place (which Edwards did not do)
  • refusing to campaign for Lamont (which Edwards did)
  • not confronting Lieberman's lies about Iraq post re-election (which Edwards has)

that is a pretty pathetic attempt to dismiss this all.

by Team Edwards 2007-06-17 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Cheer For Lieberman?

"This was about who Lieberman beat not that he was re-elected."

The standing ovation for Liebermann was about Ned Lamont?  Now you're just talking ___.  That doesn't even make sense.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-06-17 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Cheer For Lieberman?

Actually Team Edwards is right on this point.  He is passionate in his view.  But I don't understand Obama's chumminess with Lieberman right after the election.   See my post above.

Obama does not like the blogs.  He gave an interesting lecture to Dkos which was not well received.  He has no interest in convincing us to come to his view.  Obama orchestrates his appearances very well.  

by pioneer111 2007-06-17 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Did Obama Cheer For Lieberman?

He's been the first candidate to use the "P" word.  He's said "Progressive" and "Progressives" a number of times recently.  I think that is rooting a way to reach out to blogger people.  

As for the chumminess, who knows.  I figure he said live and let live.  The election was over and Lamont couldn't overcome Liebermann's name rec and Republican support.  It sucked, but what are you going to do?  You have six years of dealing with this guy unless he keels over.  You're better off not being pissy with each other the whole time.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-06-17 09:36AM | 0 recs
and i can't help but wonder if

the diarist has graduated from high school. this diary is not rec list material. folks, show some maturity here.
by pmb 2007-06-17 06:05AM | 0 recs
and i can't help but wonder if

the diarist has graduated from high school. this diary is not rec list material. folks, show some maturity here. you're feeding tucker carlson and o'reilly talking points.
by pmb 2007-06-17 06:06AM | 0 recs
As a fellow JRE supporter...

I appreciate the enthusiasm, but "Team Edwards", you need to learn to tighten up your arguments. If your posts are more than 5 paragraphs, start thinking about what you can cut out. If your comments are more than two sentences, stop!

And link to some sources now and again, preferably reputable ones. Telling others (especially Adam B, who's definitely sharper than most) to just Google some terms is pretty condescending.

by clarkent 2007-06-17 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: As a fellow JRE supporter...

When someone takes 10 different things I said completely out of context and then blows off cheering for Lieberman it is not about being "tight" it is about taking their argument and piece by piece and taking it apart.  It's nice that you are a JRE supporter but that doesn't mean that I'm going allow someone to muddy the waters about John Edwards (which is exactly what Adam B did) without responding to a simple quetion.

You are right about John Edwards.
You are wrong about how to defend him from smears.

When someone is flinging crap at your candidate it doesn't make a lot of sense to block certain charges and allow others to fly through.

If Adma B was so "bright" he wouldn't have kept acting like I didn't answer his question when I did and he would have actually answered mine.

This diary was about the Obama campaign not answering a question.  It was not titled "Hey Adam B I would like to find some sources for you"

And I did post a link that made my arguement.  When he acted like it didn't say what it said is when I said he should go look for it on his own.

I am not here to answer to him, or you for that matter.

by Team Edwards 2007-06-17 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: As a fellow JRE supporter...

TE, I'm saying that your posts and comments are long, incoherent, and poorly sourced. If you want to be credible and persuasive, you definitely need to tighten up.

by clarkent 2007-06-17 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: As a fellow JRE supporter...

Your posts make ME look credible.

by Vox Populi 2007-06-17 08:22AM | 0 recs
That may be the problem ...

... right here:

When someone takes 10 different things I said completely out of context

I sure as heck am known for writing some humonguous diaries on Energy Independence over at dKos and JE08, and then writing about half the comments in the comments thread to try to clarify what I thought someone misunderstood, or correct a mistake or mistatement that someone picked up on.

And those are diaries that have a lot of enthusiasm and few dedicated groups of opponents, like will always happen in candidate diaries during primary time.

So I think that is the point that clarkent is trying to make (correct if I am wrong, OK clarkent?) ... tighten up the diaries, to make one main point (and it always helps to add up much supporting evidence, pretty pictures, and graphs, in descending order of important) ... especially in a candidate diary that is going to be put under the hammer by supporters of other candidates.

Really, that is the test of a candidate diary, whether it comes through that hammering more than half intact.

And we have half a year before the first primary ... jot down the other points you wanted to add, and then do another diary down the track.

The other thing is, in NASCAR, when there is Team Mountain Dew, or in Tour de France, when there is Team USPostal or Team Discovery, it means that the team is officially sponsored. But the diaries read more like you are one of us folks. Maybe if people get confused and think you are working on the campaign staff, it will make them especially eager to attack. I don't know what to do about that, other than re-registering under another name ... its not a problem that crops up for me, cause I just use a lazified version of my own name.

(... Oh, and that I don't recommend, because even if its not used on the blogs, it will probably be used in the aol.com etc. freemail accounts, and people will always be wondering who the email is from.)

by BruceMcF 2007-06-17 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: As a fellow JRE supporter...

I love your passion for Edwards.  I think you have made some very cogent arguments.  Actually you have been very astute in some of your analysis.  I really think it needs to be appreciated more and your points be more visible.

I do think clarkent suggestion is a wise one.  I think shorter points are more powerful.  However you have to find your own style.  I had a hard time following what you have tried to say with some of your longer points.   I think you are trying to get out too many thoughts in one diary.  Nonetheless I am glad you are on Edwards side ;-).

You are also right, some of the Obama supporters love to deflect from the point of the argument.  They are quite good at that.  Also stay alert to who is with the Hillary group.  

There are some long time posters with each candidate on this site and there are newer ones like me.  The style of this site is different than Dkos and it is something to be aware of.  And as I said before we each have our own style.  I like your willingness to stay focused on a point.

BTW I tend to be longer winded than some of the others.

by pioneer111 2007-06-17 09:03AM | 0 recs
A suggestion

maybe something in your sig to say, 'General Director of Team Edwards, a coalition of supporter
groups working to put Edwards in the White House' would be helpful.

An unfamiliar person could get the impression mistakenly that you speak for the campaign

by okamichan13 2007-06-17 10:57AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads