BREAKING: Lieberman To Endorse McCain!

Comments (52)

Legalize wrote on December 16, 2007 3:39 PM:

If nothing else happens in '08, I will be moderately happy just to have a Lieberman-proof majority in the Senate. Strip the skunk of all of his committee powers and cast him out.

Jeremy wrote on December 16, 2007 3:45 PM:

Wait, Connecticut For Lieberman isn't running a candidate?

POed Lib wrote on December 16, 2007 3:45 PM:

Is there a recall option in CT?

nrglaw wrote on December 16, 2007 3:55 PM:

Does anyone really care whom Lieberman endorses? Looks like the man is getting ready to jump parties after the '08 election.

nrglaw wrote on December 16, 2007 3:56 PM:

POed--No recall option.

Anonymous wrote on December 16, 2007 4:13 PM:

Kiss of Death. Is anyone any more unpopular than Leiberman?

DTM wrote on December 16, 2007 4:22 PM:

I doubt this will help McCain in Iowa, or in most places, but it might in NH, particularly among independents (basically the same people who elected Lieberman in CT). One of McCain's big problems, though, is that right now most NH indepedents are planning to vote in the Democratic primary.

CalD wrote on December 16, 2007 4:27 PM:

I'll bet Connecticut Democrats are feeling pretty vindicated right about now.

Mark from NY wrote on December 16, 2007 4:33 PM:

Thank god, LIEberman didn't endorse my candidate, or any democrat for that matter.

Virgil (The Turk) Sallozzo wrote on December 16, 2007 4:39 PM:

Throw the bum under da bus...

Barry Champlain wrote on December 16, 2007 4:41 PM:

Someone (who is knowledgeable... this is not a rhetorical request!) please tell me again why Harry Reid won't strip Holy Joseph of anything resembling Democratic responsibility. Especially with a damned good excuse, like his endorsement of a pro-war Republican presidential candidate. More political cover to take action, one cannot be bequeathed (WWGOPD?).

It's my understanding that we're officially supposed to be quaking in our boots that if the Democratic leadership does literally ANYTHING to piss Joe off, he jumps parties pronto, and "we" lose "our" "majority".

(Because, you know, being in the "majority" has really done one hell of a lot for us...)

So beyond the CW of this one rationale, is there anything else here I don't know about?

Jane wrote on December 16, 2007 4:49 PM:

Obama -- Mr. I know how to unite us -- gave a big speech for Lieberman at the Connecticut State Dinner during the primaries and then Lieberman turns around and does this. Hillary runs ahead in the polls of registered Democrats and Obama may need the same independents McCain is trying to tap in New Hampshire.

Anonymous wrote on December 16, 2007 5:05 PM:

I wish Sen. McCain on the Joementum in the world.

anonymous wrote on December 16, 2007 5:24 PM:

Well, it serves all those democrats who refused to support Lamont in CT in '06. It's especially ironic for the Clintons, who, if I recall, campaigned for Lieberman in the CT primary but declined to campaign for Lamont in the general election.

Ned wrote on December 16, 2007 5:30 PM:

I'd like to once again take this opportunity to apologize to the other 49 states on behalf of my home state of Connecticut.

Ned wrote on December 16, 2007 5:31 PM:

I'd like to once again take this opportunity to apologize to the other 49 states on behalf of my home state of Connecticut.

hello_world wrote on December 16, 2007 5:31 PM:

Jane nailed it. This does two things. It hurts Obama in NH where he will need the support of the same independents that McCain is going for, and it basically puts a final nail in the coffin for McCain's hopes for the Republican nomination, since now the word amongst the GOP base is that if McCain wins, he's take Leiberman as his VP. Lieberman may be a warhawk ousted by his own party, but he's still a Democrat (at least he used to make that pretense) and that'll never fly with the base outside of a state like NH.

Basically, this is a net gain for nobody but Clinton. And I'm very sure that both Lieberman and Hillary know this.

Tina wrote on December 16, 2007 5:39 PM:

I'm not all that surprised since he has said that he was open to endorsing a Republican but I figured it would be Giuliani. And much later in the game.

FTR, the only Democrat I could imagine him endorsing would be Hillary and I've thought that all along.

Ned wrote on December 16, 2007 5:45 PM:

I'd like to once again take this opportunity to apologize to the other 49 states on behalf of my home state of Connecticut.

stlounick wrote on December 16, 2007 5:56 PM:

Jane and hello world couldn't be more wrong. Obama gave a tepid acknowledement to Lieberman at one dinner and during his brief remarks acknowledged that he and Joe did not always agree--it got a laugh since it was well known that Obama opposed the Iraq war while Joe was for it (and still is). But, keep up the myth-making. It is soooo helpful in making vote decisions. (That's sarcasm in case one needs to know.)

I doubt that knowing which war supporter is clapping another on the back will drive any NH independent to choose the GOP ballot. Instead, I expect independents to choose the DEM ballot in overwhelming numbers in this primary. It is a tight race and I suspect most independents (rightfully so, IMHO) believe that the Dem candidate will win in 2008 and so want to have a voice in who that candidate is.

The match-up polls tell the same story, don't they? The GOP candidates lose to the Dem candidates--no matter who the Dem candidate is. So independents will want to choose the Dem ballot in the primary.

See how that logic works?

DemAC wrote on December 16, 2007 6:07 PM:

If McCain ends up not being the GOP nominee, will Lieberman back the Democrat or the Republican?

Really, who in the whole wide world gives a rat’s ass about whom Liberman supports in the General Election? hello_world wrote on December 16, 2007 6:27 PM:

@stlounick
I would love to see Obama get the nomination. I started off somewhat skeptical of his qualifications and have grown into a huge supporter of his. I think he has the best ideas, the greatest ability to bring the country together, and he's proving to be the best when the pressure is on.

My point was that Lieberman wasn't helping McCain so much as he was attempting to help Clinton. The timing of this was no accident either. The Globe goes out and endorses both Obama and McCain, but McCain's campaign looks listless and tired compared to Obama's. Barack is set to pull in the majority of independents. In steps Lieberman, and his endorsement still means something to independents in that part of the country.

McCain is all but done. He's already hated by a large percentage of the Republican base, and with the prospect of a Jewish Democrat as VP, he's unsellable in the south. Thought the 'Black Baby' push poles where bad? Let's see what happens this time around.

At one point, Hillary and Lieberman were inseparable. Obama pledges to remove combat troops in 2 years. This was Lieberman deciding that Hillary was going to roll with more his type of foreign policy, and giving her a hand. I don't like it, but that's what happened.

RalphB wrote on December 16, 2007 6:53 PM:

If you think Liebermann endorsed McCain only in order to help Clinton, please get back on your meds.

Sen Bob Kerrey endorsed Clinton today in Iowa. I'd much rather have him than Mr Joementum.

Jim wrote on December 16, 2007 7:02 PM:

Bill "Mr Hillary Clinton" Clinton went to Connecticut two days before the primary and stopped the bleeding. Then he repeatedly declared that it didn't matter who won the general election because the two front-runners were both "great Democrats". This line was repeated by head of the DCCC (and former Clinton White House aide) Rahm Emmanuel. Chuck Schumer, head of the DSCC (and one of Hillary Clinton's earliest supporters) did nothing to help Ned Lamont post-primary.

IT would've been great if Barack Obama had lent his then-growing star power to Ned Lamont in person, but there are a whole lot of (then) more influential Democrats who did a lot more to sabotage the Lamont campaign.

DemAC wrote on December 16, 2007 7:19 PM:

RalphB wrote: Sen Bob Kerrey endorsed Clinton today in Iowa. I'd much rather have him than Mr Joementum.

Yes, a quite nice endorsement actually. Kerrey endorsed Hillary hailing her as a fellow warrior. Said Kerrey: “She has been standing up to the extreme wing of the Republican party for 15 years while they tried to tear her down, and you know what? She’s still standing”. Helter wrote on December 16, 2007 7:22 PM:

I can't imagine too many people in the democratic party give a crap what Lieberman thinks at this point. What's more, I can imagine each of the dem candidates wanting to avoid that particular endorsement.

hello_world wrote on December 16, 2007 7:44 PM:

Which is exactly why is was given to McCain instead of to Clinton directly.

Again, this announcement helps nobody involved but Clinton. Not a conspiracy theory, just a tactical observation.

Barry Champlain wrote on December 16, 2007 7:47 PM:

If Obama had even the testosterone it takes to show up for controverisal Senate votes [g], here's what he could do in New Hampshire:

Blitz of touchy-feely TV spots. Centerpiece is a tortuously-lonnnnng sustained slide of Obama and Joe Lieberman shaking hands, hugging, flashing toothy, phony grins at each other...

Message for New Hampsherites with the sound down: JOE HEARTS OBAMA.

Sorta pisses all over Joe's actual message, doesn't it? And pisses-OFF the entire Republican machine AND Holy Joe.

Aww.

Buckminster wrote on December 16, 2007 7:52 PM:

I just don't understand why ol' Joementum hasn't switched parties already -- he could endorse himself and choose McCain as his running mate.

bm wrote on December 16, 2007 8:05 PM:

Surpise
I thought he would back his fellow neocon - Hillary

Asp wrote on December 16, 2007 8:09 PM:

I hope that Lieberman's endorsement does McCain a modicum of good. He's the only Republican candidate who doesn't terrify me as a prospective President.

Moishe Goldberg wrote on December 16, 2007 8:13 PM:

Thank G-d for Sen. Joe. Now we can relax and watch Iran get bombed back into the Stone Age.

john McCutchen wrote on December 16, 2007 8:24 PM:

Old JoeMentum, Senator from Likud, Avigdor's cousin strikes again!

Hillary-endorsed 2006

Anonymous wrote on December 16, 2007 8:36 PM:

Is Sen. Lieberman invited to the Dem. Convention? And if so is he considered a delegate with nomination voting rights?

Daniel wrote on December 16, 2007 8:52 PM:

The signs of life McCain is showing in NH could come at Obama's expense, signs are showing -- since Obama and McCain both are hoping to get the votes of non-affiliated independent voters.

destor23 wrote on December 16, 2007 8:56 PM:

I can't believe that we ran a Republican for Veep 8 years ago. Why Gore, why?

Deven wrote on December 16, 2007 9:37 PM:

If someone like Hagel were to come out and endorse Clinton because of the overriding issue of the war, above all else, many of you would react very differently.

Jim wrote on December 16, 2007 9:47 PM:

If someone like Hagel were to come out and endorse Clinton because of the overriding issue of the war, above all else, many of you would react very differently.

...and if the Iraq War were a good thing, and if Chuck Hagel had survived a primary defeat through the help of the Republican Party establishment and the complicity of the Bushes and the RSCC (to say nothing of lying his a$$ off), your point would be valid.

Chris Brown wrote on December 16, 2007 10:38 PM:

Yawn

Robodok wrote on December 16, 2007 10:59 PM:

... and if Hagel were supportive of the war, which he most assuredly is not. He was the only Repug who didn't frighten me.

Robodok wrote on December 16, 2007 11:08 PM:

Moishe Goldberg wrote: Thank G-d for Sen. Joe. Now we can relax and watch Iran get bombed back into the Stone Age.

Keep your freakin' God (or FSM pr whatever) to yourself. As a Jewish American, I prefer my representatives to act in the best interests of the country that they actually were elected in. Not that I think bombing any country "back into the Stone Age" serves the interests of anyone!

Mike timmons wrote on December 17, 2007 12:37 AM:

Don't worry blue dogs, he will still back Hillary at the convention. I'm sure he will fit right in at your corporate suite.

Teddy P wrote on December 17, 2007 12:48 AM:

You libs crack me up.

Robodok wrote on December 17, 2007 1:00 AM:

Re: Mike timmons

You got that right!

I don't buy Ralph Nader's line any more that the only difference between the D's and the R's is how fast they drop to their knees when the corporations come a-callin', rather the difference is between one dropping to their knees and the other one in more of a "69" type position. Either way, the corporations come away feeling satisfied.

DemAC wrote on December 17, 2007 5:26 AM:

john McCutchen,
Your stupid lies about Hillary Clinton are often an amusing insight into the psyche of the proponents of “Hope” and “Change”.

For those with a sense of reality it can however be helpful to be reminded what actually transpired in CT around election time 2006.

Thethinredline wrote on December 17, 2007 5:35 AM:

What a f**************************ing joke.

JohnG wrote on December 17, 2007 6:49 AM:

The problem with "traitor Joe" is that, at any time, he could caucus with the Republicans, giving Chaney the deciding vote, and turning Senate control over to the Republicans.

So, the Dems have to put up with him until January 09!

(On behalf of Connecticut, I apologize to the civilized world for this!)

And Yet... wrote on December 17, 2007 8:00 AM:

Re: JoeLie's pending endorsement- in a related thought, anyone else wondering if Reid might endorse Romney? @ least then we could be rid of him as majority leader...

Reid, oh hell, Harry Reid. Wouldn't have predicted you'd be such a weakwad on these all-important issues like FISA. Will you try to cut Chris Dodd off @ the knees today? For an ex-boxer, you're amazingly cringe-prone. Glass jaw much, Reid?

bleh wrote on December 17, 2007 9:26 AM:

Just curious. How would the meaningless endorsement of a worthless "Senator" from another state actually help McCain? Would it actually be any more helpful than the Globe endorsing Obama?

The only thing it proves is that Lieberman represent the Party of Joe, and the Party of Joe only, and I suspect most of the posters here knew that already.

RECALL LIEBERMAN wrote on December 17, 2007 1:57 PM:

Obama did ACTIVELY enthusiastically endorse and campaign for that vile turncoat Lieberman. Just do a search for "Obama endorses Lieberman" to confirm reality.

Between Obama's pro-homophobia hypocrisy and his support of Lieberman, he completely lost any chance with this household.

So did Hillary. What about Edwards? I don't know if he endorsed, supported or campaigned for Lieberman. If he didn't, he'll get my support.

I.e., Who DID NOT campaign for or support the traitor? That's who gets my votes in the primary and general.

The true nature of the scorpion -- that's the moral of the Joe 'rightwing GOP pro-zionist' Lieberman story. Shame on Hillary & Obama for proving then that they weren't for 'the people' -- they're for the status quo. Recall Lieberman. Bring back Ned Lamont.

votenic wrote on December 17, 2007 9:45 PM:

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

Nativewmn wrote on January 9, 2008 5:18 PM:

I am researching if Obama requested Libermann as a Freshman senate. I do know that Obama crossed party lines to back Libermann (the vile) over Ned Lemont. Why? Isn't Obamas loyalty to the cause first? The mere mention of Libermann and people bristle yet Obama backed him. Why? When the Kyle-Libermann was up for vote Hillary did vote for it this we know. Obama disappeared. At that time we would have known exactly where his loyalty is. We do not know. As a patriot; I must tell you these things; google. Find out just where does this love fest begin and where are they today. I am.

Peace!

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)