Here's a thought, if Lieberman is (he says) a middle of the road moderate

this implies that he is in the centre of the party, with a left wing on one side and a right wing on the other. Who exactly (other than Zell Miller) is to the right of him? In Lieberman's case, doesn't 'middle of the road, moderate democrat' mean right-wing democrat?

He's a self-proclaimed Moderate, meaning he's in the middle ideologically, between liberal and conservative, not between right-wing (like Zell) and left-wing Democrats.

Yeah, "moderate" in the Democratic Party context means centrist or right-of-center. I'd say Joementum's to the right of center, as he favored, and continues to favor, unilateral invasion of a country which posed no threat. Lieberman is very close to Bush on this issue.

Can't speak to his social and economic policies.

If this weren't the primary discussion board, I'd tell you what Mr. Lieberman's true definition is. But since i can't bash a candidate here, my little smilies will have to do.
:evilfrown: :spank:

as the sole issue to call him a Republican. This is a joke, he is far formt he only one who voted for the war. No Democrat who voted against it in the Senate would win the presidency and I am completely anti-war. Joe is a politician first and formost and while he isn't a flaming socialist he is actually rather left leaning on many issues. He has a 100% rating from pro-choice groups, high 90's from Gay rights and Environmental groups, and he opposed the Bush tax cuts. He was in favor of the war, and he is in favor of faith based funding which I oppose...but he is hardly some evil monster. he is however running a really stupid campaign trying to appear more conservative than he actually is...not a smart thing to do in a Democratic primary.

The right-wing stance seems to be a political manoeuver to get votes, and I cannot understand why he would want to appear so right-wing, given that the electorate consists entirely of partisan, active democrats.

This isn't really accurate, though. NH, for example, is hugely independent. In addition, some states allow anyone to late register and vote in the primaries.

Joe was trying to appeal to the independents and disgruntled Republicans in NH with his "moderate" message.

video game and lyrical content is pretty damn conservative too.

who expresses nothing but disdain for ANYTHING resembling progressive populism.

As Charles Lewis, the head of the Center for Public Integrity described him in an interview on Democracy Now, Joe Lieberman is the go-to guy in Washington for the insurance AND accounting industries.

He has been good on the environment and civil rights, but he is just too wedded to the corporate interests that finance his campaigns -- often, as in the case of his 1997 efforts to lead the campaign AGAINST the classification of stock options as expenses, a move that could have helped prevent the corporate executive abuses of the last few years.

spectrum.

It amounts to:

1. cutting away at the safety net

2. taking away rights

3. instituting policies that are hostile to workers and the environment(NAFTA, GATT, WTO, IMF)

4. censorship

5. preventing accountability at the highest levels of the corporate world

6. starting looting and racist ethnic cleansing wars based on lies

is far from my favorite but would be an improvement from bush

Lieberman:completely pro-choice. he has voted for reproductive freedoms in nearly every vote.

Bush: Anti-choice

Lieberman: Supports anti-discrimination laws and civil unions for gays. Opposes gay marriage ammendment

Bush: Supports ammendment and opposes gay rights

Lieberman: excellent record on environment

Bush: terrible environmental record

Lieberman: led the fight against homeland security because it would break unions.

Bush: opposes unions at almost every turn.

Both support faith based funding
Both support the death penalty
Both support NAFTA
Both support war on Iraq

I think thats where they stand on most major issues.
Also, I believe Joe was heavily financed by ENRON

He created Homeland Security.
S.1534
Title: A bill to establish the Department of National Homeland Security.
Sponsor: Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. (introduced 10/11/2001) Cosponsors: 1
Related Bills: H.R.5005, S.2452
Latest Major Action: 10/11/2001 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Note: For further action, see H.R. 5005, which became Public Law 107-296 on 11/25/2002.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d107:25:./temp/~bdoutV::|/bss/d107query.html|

Lieberman's record becomes anti-environment when he refuses to hold corporations accountable and when he starts trying to push these free trade/globalization agreements

Who of Clark, Dean, Edwards or Kerry does NOT support the death penalty?

Who of Clark, Dean, Edwards or Kerry does NOT support merely tweaking NAFTA?

Who of Clark, Dean, Edwards or Kerry does NOT support ending the war in Iraq in a way that would take months and months?

Who of Clark, Dean, Edwards or Kerry supports gay marriage (not civil unions or states' rights, but gay marriage)?

The real differences with Lieberman is that he (1) takes the 'wrong' type of coporate funding...if you think the others don't take corporate funding, I have a bridge for you; (2) supports faith-based funding; and (3) he is Jewish.

Nothing to do with Joe's abilities (or lack thereof)

So is Breaux, Hollings, and a number of others.

John Breaux is another. Howard Dean.

... that has been coming recently from Edwards. In fact, Lieberman is quite clear in his "moderation" of criticism of anything that corporate America does.

I don't think that your assessment is necessarily a one. Lieberman comes from a state in which he could win being much more progressive than he is. In fact, when he defeated Lowell Weicker for the CT Senate seat, it was that rare instance in which the seat actually moved to the RIGHT when a Democrat defeated a Republican.

Edwards, OTOH, comes from the South -- and probably has had to moderate his rhetoric much more that Lieberman ever could imagine.

that's all you get from Edwards. With Lieberman, I know where he stands; with Edwards, I don't get the sense that he has any stands, other than taking the most expedient, most self-serving, least off putting position possible. All his so called populist rhetoric is so much eyewash when measured against his stands on National "Defense", the drug war, and the death penalty, just to name a couple of issues.

Kucinich is the only candidate running that I trust even slightly, and I hold no illusions that he can win. But frankly, I'd vote for Joe Lieberman (even though I disagree with him intensely on many issues) before I'd vote for John Edwards. Lieberman is a snake, but he doesn't really hide it; he's out in the open, it's obvious he's a snake, and he can readily be avoided. Edwards is a snake in the grass, obscured, camouflaged and coiled to strike just when you're convinced he's little more than an innocuous lump of clay.