Is it too much to ask for? Bill Clinton vs. Sen. Lieberman, CT. 2006!

Why can't this happen?

Why shouldn't this happen?

Why should this happen?

Post your thoughts, thanks!

He does excellent work as a former President of the US.

That is why should not happen.

and he can't leave there and stay married, I would think.

They live in NY!

have to live in different states.

Bill CLinton can pretty much take Lieberman's U.S. Senate seat in a heartbeat, IMO.

There is no other person, that I am aware of, that can do that.

Forget about the "married but in different states" problem.

In my opinion it is able to be overcome, gracefully.

DON'T FORGET ABOUT THE LIEBERMAN PROBLEM!

IMO, it is not likely to go away given the absence of a legitimate challenger.

The reasons stated do not exclude Bill CLinton from establishing his home address in CT, running for US Senate as a resident of CT, and from enjoying his wifes company in DC where the both of them need to be trying to keep Democracy from being snuffed out by Republican Neo-con enablers.

If former President George H. W. Bush was able to establish residency in TX by use of an address at a hotel there when he was rarely even in the state and certainly did not primarily reside there, then how is my idea far-fetched?

Personally, I'll settle for Weicker as an IND. in a three way with a no-name republican. It's worth a try.

for any reason?

I bet Bill Clinton knows Lieberman's got 70% approval ratings among ALL voters in Connecticut, and sees no reason to split the Democratic base for any reason, especially given that Joe is in tune with the Democratic base on so many issues (reproductive rights, the environment, workers rights, stem cell research, health care, racial equality, the ANWR, job rights for gays, gun control, energy conservation, etc. etc. etc.. ).

He can vote like the biggest liberal on all issues other than War and Peace, and endear the Neo-cons agenda better than some Republicans can!

By appearing to be left wing, inconsequentially, and being ready, willing, and able to vote Neo-con on matters of War and Peace, Lieberman undermines the entire platform of the Democratic Party and risks the defeat of Democracy.

Votes on matters of War and peace have become votes against certain civil rights, rights to privacy, rights against unlawful imprisonment, rights against illegal search and seizures, and rights of Habeas Corpus.

Those are just the beginning.

As you may see, if you turn your attention to Congress and its activities and the content of its legislation, rights to public accountability for electronic voting machines are next on the chop block.

If you are willing to believe that unseating Joe is tantamount to pissing away a Democratic U. S. Senate seat, then you are clearly willing to do so in the face of the preponderance of the evidence that suggests that Joe needs to go in order for Democracy to stay!

Lastly, nobody is indefinitely unbeatable.

*No disrespect intended. This is posted as a differing opinion not an attack to squelch the argument or messenger.

edited for final remark - civility.

"By appearing to be left wing, inconsequentially,"
I doubt very much that many Democrats think reproductive choice is inocnsequential. I know I sure as shit don't think it is. Nor is the environment, or workers rights, or the rights of gay Americans, or health care for the poor and children.

"Lieberman undermines the entire platform of the Democratic Party "
Bull and shit.

While the issues you point to are valid, they are inconsequential once you frame them in a minority argument that has no voice in the U.S. Senate, because the Republican control of Congress affords them no voice.

Certainly, all the matters you point to are of paramount concern.

That is why Joe needs to go.

By ending Congressional support for the War and Peace issues that are undermining Democracy and the many other RIGHTS I alluded to, amongst others, you are giving both Democracy and the Democratic agenda its best shot at surviving.

Replacing Joe gets rid of his War and Peace votes, but is only part of the broader need to get rid of more of those votes and to gain a majority in Congress.

From a majority position, the Democratic agenda may advance, but from its current minority position in Congress, Joe could vote like a left-wing liberal on all issues other than War and Peace, and not make a damn difference for women, minorities, working people, and all others who are relying on the Democratic Party for representation and preservation of their rights.

"because the Republican control of Congress affords them no voice."
Yup, that means now's the time to piss all over a Democratic Senator with a 70% approval rating in his own state and no serious GOP opposition, all righty. Especially a Democratic Senator with a 70% approval rating in his own state and no serious GOP opposition who votes liberal on most issues. Because we sure wouldn't want to even take a risk on gaining control the Senate, would we? /<sarcasm>

You continue to deny the real issue.

The issue that undermines all credibility here.

Lieberman is a Neo-con enabler.

I don't care if he has a 99.99% favorable poll.

That poll just demonstrates the ignorant perception that he is working toward the goals of the Democratic Party AND the equally ignorant perception that he is not doing more to undermine and eliminate the agenda of the Democratic Party.

If he votes for War and Peace issues that already have demonstratively denied certain civil rights, rights to privacy, rights against unlawful imprisonment, rights against illegal search and seizures, rights to free speech (after receiving a "person of interest" letter from the FBI), and rights of Habeas Corpus, and that are being readied to deny public accountability for electronic voting machines, then he is voting to undermine some of the rights upon which all others rely.

With further erosion of CONSTITUTIONAL rights, Democracy becomes more and more weakened, NOT STRENGTHENED.

It is faulty logic to dismiss and deny the above losses of rights as a direct result of Lieberman's votes on War and Peace (that actually result in frequent and expanding laws that usurp rights of Americans) as not being valid reasons to unseat Lieberman, because Lieberman is important to the Democratic Party as a supporter of most of their agenda (even though those votes rarely result in any laws or budgetary victories for Democrats), except "War and Peace," he is popular among his constituents in CT (see MrBenchley's polling #'s), and he is not even challenged by a Republican!

Of course he isn't challenged by a Republican.

He is supporting their real agenda: Bringing down Democracy.

With every vote in favor of liberal agenda, those few that actually survive to the floor and make it into law under Republican control of the Congress, he does nearly NO damage to the actual agenda of the Republican Neo-con enablers.

Yet, with each vote in favor of War and Peace, Lieberman advances their cause, by enabling the erosion of certain civil rights, rights to privacy, rights against unlawful imprisonment, rights against illegal search and seizures, and rights of Habeas Corpus, for example.

Your logic is dismissing the logic that envelopes it.

If you want to pretend Bill Clinton is as silly as you are. Feel free. But he isn't.

"I don't care if he has a 99.99% favorable poll."
Because when it comes down to it, you really don't give a damn about Democrats taking control of the Senate, or any issue that might be of importance to anyone else. You want the rest of us to kiss your ass and tell you how noble and dandy your simplistic ideas are, and adopt them as a political platform. Wait right there while I consider the prospect.

"With further erosion of CONSTITUTIONAL rights, Democracy becomes more and more weakened, NOT STRENGTHENED. "
And therefore people in Connecticut must be prevented from voting for the Senator they've voted for term after term and continue to want in office, all because leftists throw tantrums on a website. And so anything that rat fucks Joe's election is really peachy, even if it's utterly unlikely.

They resorted to name calling and using false claims as points of argument.

*

It is considered to be flaming.

*

Hopefully, you will someone willing to satisfy your apparent Republican standards.

*

Maybe then you will be less offensive in your discourse with others.

running to take another Democrat's seat?

"Maybe then you will be less offensive in your discourse with others."
Which others, exactly?

if Bill Clinton were to run for senate, he'd be a shoe-in in many states, so I'd rather see him run in another state against someone worse than Lieberman, like, say, a Republican (like maybe in PA).

the dems are united behind bob casey in his run agaist santorum in pa

As a US Senator, he could again defeat a President Bush!

Who could speak to power with more authority than former President William Jefferson Clinton in the United States Senate?

Where will you find a greater advocate for the Democratic Party in the United States Senate?

No insult to US Senator Reid, who is the minority leader, but who also would benefit from having "US Senator William Jefferson Clinton" as his go to guy and pitchman in the United States Senate.

I can already envision C-Span ratings going through the roof.

This idea may be far-flung, but it is not ridiculous and should not be dismissed outright on appearances.

These are drastic times, and drastic times call for drastic measures.

Have you ever listened to one of his speeches? His speeches are articulate and informative, but, they tend to be rather windy(long). He would have to filibuster to get enough time to give a whole speech!

Presendientor, Senpresidatordent, I don't know, what would you call him if he were to win a Senate seat?

Would I like to see him as a Senator? Yes I would.

It can!

It should!

Interesting insight: to stop the War vote is to stop the Republican's Modus Operandi for the erosion of Constitutional rights!

As much as Holy Joe makes me sick, if you're gonna take him out, can't you find someone who actually lives there?

Admittedly, the idea of Bill Clinton becoming a U.S. Senator, CT., is certainly not easy to negotiate, but I will not relent in advocating the importance of unseating Lieberman and defending my reasons for supporting his unseating.

Ask the question. Solicit comments.

I do not view this as a waste of time, because it can solidify the perception that "Joe" must go, and might lead to the ideal candidate to get the job done.

Certainly, I need help in advancing the cause.

that's why.

Maybe you can try Jimmy Carter...

from CT. The money for a decent campaign is out there nationally for anyone with a little smarts.