Lieberman strategy

I don't know anyone on the board who likes Lieberman, and I never have. But my father told me when I was making fun of his last speech, "but you'll vote for him if he gets the nomination" and I will. Will the nation? I don't think so. Among the political "rules of thumb" that I have, being the guy who isn't Bush (or whomever the incumbant is) isn't enough. You have to distinguish yourself. "You can't beat a somebody with a nobody." And "you can beat anybody with an idea." Lieberman is trying to distinguish himself from the pack, but he is trying to soak up all the right end of it. The problem is, that none of the activists are anywhere near that end of the spectrum. So it won't play well with people he needs for volunteers, and it won't play well in Iowa, which are caucuses for activists. It may play okay in New Hampshire, which is a real primary, which is why he is concentrating on Dean, the next door local favorite.

I'd be surprised if he didn't pull out by Spring, he should concentrate on not losing his Senate seat.

Let's talk about things that matter.

Among the political "rules of thumb" that I have, being the guy who isn't Bush (or whomever the incumbant is) isn't enough.

I seem to recall that being the point of many of us who voted for a certain consumer-advocate-cum-presidential-candidate...

could easily see the difference between Bush and Gore. I understand the very young and inexperienced being taken in by Nader. I even understand (buy have no sympathy) for Nader believing his own propaganda. My dear, dear brother voted for Nader pretending not to see the difference. I now ask him every few months whether he can tell the difference yet. He turns really, really red and threatens not to donate to my next campaign. But you bet if he could have voted for Gore in Florida (he lives in Cal like me) he would have.

Since I quoted you regarding Gore's Y2K running mate, and since I've never said or believed that there was *no* difference even between Bush and Lieberman, perhaps you could explain how I'm of lesser intelligence than Your Grace.

The Greens argument was "there's no difference", not "there's not enough of a difference"

The latter is a matter of opinion. The former is just a lie

No, I didn't. Sorry, try again.

I don't think he would have the right commitment to be president. Second he will NOT get the nomination unless two things happen. 1 The vote is rigged. Or 2 Gen. Clark joins as the VP (or Liberman as Clarks VP).

Been There


Done That

2 Gen. Clark joins as the VP (or Liberman as Clarks VP).

a Jewish double-header ticket? or is Clark not considered to be a Jew?

In Connecticut he runs uncontested until the general election, so he is like a fish out of water right now.

but he is hurting his image further with the party base. He is attacking other dems when in fact he could be making his criticism with far more wit. They guy is good at self-deprecating humor. But he isn't using it, or at least that's not the clip on the news.

The left mistrusts him and even if he ran on the liberal aspects of his record the left would still not accept him, so he is doing the only thing he can do and that is run towards the middle and hope that the liberals in the race will split the vote and he can get enough centrist votes to win.

but he'd have to do it more deftly than Lieberman.

who just happens to believe in equal rights for all (including gays and lesbians) and who opposed the war in Iraq.

He is the center our country should have, not the one the right wing hordes are trying to fabricate via cable news.

The question is, is the center ready *right now* to tolerate civil unions the way they tolerate abortion, and if mainstream oppostition to/anger at the war can turn on Bush on Internet time (months and weeks) and not Vietnam-era time (months and years).

I'm not committed to any candiddate, but I'm increasingly willing to gamble on both propositions and back Dean.

until he took over the governorship. While some of the other Dem candidates call themselves centrist or liberal, and some have voted accordingly, they have not been bold enough to actually sit on a board of a controversial group, like Planned Parenthood.

What I found interesting this year is that Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, and Graham, who call themselves either liberal, centrist , or a combination thereof, bypassed attending the N.O.W. convention. Kerry sent a tape, but he should have been there. Lieberman had a valid excuse on this one due to the Sabbath and his religious observence of it, but he should have sent a pre-recorded tape to N.O.W.. I would have respected Lieberman a bit more if he had done so. I'll give Kucinich credit for attending the N.O.W. convention, considering his long anti-abortion record. That was good tactic on his part. And of course, I'm thrilled that Dean attended the N.O.W. convention. As a N.O.W. member, he further solidified my support for him because he respected N.O.W. members by showing up at our forum.

The reason why Howard Dean has surpassed Kerry and Lieberman is that he RESPECTS the Left even though he doesn't agree with everything the Left may believe, and it's been a long time since a viable Democratic Prez candidates respected the Left. And I think that is why those on the Left, who have joined the Dean campaign, continue to support him because Howard Dean continues to respect them and lends his voice to the Left in critisizing Bush and the Dem leaders who diss the Left unfairly. It also helps that Dean does have a good record on social justice. It may not be as liberal as some on the Left want, but it's a more solid list of accomplishments than some of his competitors give him credit for.

Lieberman is nothing but a Bush enabler.

Leiberman LET Enron off when DEMs where still in control
of Senate.

Lieberman is nothing but a whore for corporations