Hillary supports Joe LIEberman .......NO SURPRISE

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/18/203027/281/162/439176


Hillary calls Joe an Independent Democrat....Maybe he is her pick for Vice Prez...

...GOOD.

screw her and Joe LIEberman

:crazy:

.. doesn't support either one.

That's gonna be difficult, what with him being dead and all.

If not....*facepalm*

.. changes, NOTHING.

Better go look and see what the counts are in the Senate.

.. the Repukes on the war, the piddly shit he votes on our side on isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.

I can count a lot better than you can think.

ON EDIT then prove it you can count better because you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

... when Lieberman has pushed through an important vote or saved us from an important veto. One time. (since he became an "independent" of course.

One important thing. On the war, on the tax system, One Thing.

well, can we lose the rest of them (enablers=DLC) in the process?

free yourself from false notions and people like Lieberman can't blackmail you. Get rid of him and the rest of them. In the end, we'll be stronger for it and losers like Joe won't dare to screw with us the way he has. Don't give in.... create the political reality by standing up.

We hold the Chaairmanships. Yor drive buy won't work.

Impeachment is off the table.... everything good gets vetoed. It's a political stale mate. It is already lost through compromise of the worst kind. Never give worms like Joe the upper hand. Allowing someone like Joe to politically blackmail our political party is allowing Joe and the GOP to blackmail America itself. Too outsiders, it's unforgivable and makes dems look weak.

Wonder what would be happening right now with a Republican controlled Congress. Just some food for thought.

:eyes:

and that seems to be all that forms your opinion that we should do what it takes (sellout our principles) to keep Joe.

committees you're wrong. When they set up the committees in the beginning of 2007 - they set it up so the committees will stay in tact until the new Senate in 2009....even if LIEberman changes sides but he probably won't.

Democrats will be the minority and will have no say in the matter.

the organizational resolution which set up for this Congress put into place in early January 2007 is in effect until early Jan 2009 and does not make the changing of the committees automatic if the composition of the Senate changes - "They" would have to pass a new organizing resolution which hopefully the Dems would block.

Go check out the "googles" its a wonderful thing

and for the record - the Dems would NOT be the minority if LIEberman caucused with the repunks - it would be 49 49 2 as it is now except it would end up 49/1 and 49/1 instead of 49/2 49/0

Doesn't really matter being an election year and considering the performance of the Senate in 2007 nothing is going to happen in the Senate in 2008 more of the same as 2007 - and there is a strong likelihood of the Dems taking a significant Senate lead in November - with the repunks having many more seats up for election than the Dems.

Ooops.........

Are we sure she's registered as a Democrat?

Yep :puke:

It was more of forced tolerance, which has been the stance of the Dems in the Senate toward Lieberman since he played his little trick.

anyone. After the November elections, when the wheels of justice might be swinging towards the Dems, all bets are off for Lieberman-I hope. :scared:

LIEberman will be in the mix

we do. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

decided to caucus Republican for the last year of this senate and this administration :sarcasm:

Don't get me wrong, I can't stand Lieberman I-Con ... but I understand the pragmatics and having Lieberman caucus dem prevents the republicans from chairing all senate committees (do we really think Gonzo would be gone if the republicans ran the senate?) I can not wait until there is a bigger dem sen majority (which I believe will happen in 08) so that Lieberman really can be made completely irrelevant and voiceless. Until then - I understand the senate dynamics in which Lieberman is needed to avoid a repub majority.

we can agree.

Forgive me for bringing up old baggage - but I find the absurd level of bashing on both sides a little loco - including stating that Obama is less qualified than Huckabee to president. ;-) But know that I will speak out clearly to what I consider absurd statements - on all sides. Peace.

I would like to know who saids this though, "stating that Obama is less qualified than Huckabee to president".

asking if *anyone* was less qualified than Huckabee to be president... and a one word response of "Obama".

Perhaps I am confusing the Clinton supporting poster who responded that way. But I chalk it more up to getting caught up into the candidate supporter wars/snark attacks which flare up in this season (I don't participate this round - due to the 04 round on DU), than perhaps to real sentiment.

I only asked because I had not seen it.

pragmatic, and idealistic/hopeful. I try, and know that others do as well. Seems that many fall only into pragmatic or idealistic and it leads to conversations that sometimes get harsh due to different orientations (per pragmatism/idealism).

As always, it is good to see you and cross paths on the forums (with the exception of a couple of weeks ago, I rarely have the time anymore to post much, let alone cross paths with old DU compatriots!)

IBTL!

:hi:

but i'll give you a hint...it hasn't happened yet and if it does happen, i won't be able to tell you here. :crazy:

"In reaction to Senator Joe Lieberman's (ID-CT) endorsement of Senator John McCain's campaign for president today, Al From, founder and CEO of the Democratic Leadership Council, released the following statement:

"I am very saddened by Senator Lieberman's choice, and profoundly disagree with it. We need to elect a Democratic president in 2008." ".

beneath my post are yours and two "ignored". (Have I mentioned lately that I put DLC supporters/defenders on ignore?) :)

Joe LIEberman? The Joe LIEberman that was Obama's mentor in the Senate? The Joe LIEberman that Obama campaigned for in Connecticut?
THAT Joe LIEberman?? Huh.

” When the DLC gets to the specifics of foreign policy, such as supporting the invasion and occupation of Iraq, there seems to be little separating its progressive internationalism from the “neo-imperial” foreign policy of the Bush administration and its neoconservative advisers
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463

:puke: