Right. Joe Lieberman who kept his place in the Senate in part due to Obama's glowing endorsement in the CT primary can attest to that.

I'm glad that kennedy hit this one. Out of all the lies and distortions coming out of the clintons' camp the last few weeks, this one p*ssed me off the most. The gd gall, and she didn't even read the gd NIE that said the king's case for war was based on lies. To play this game with obama's record is truly despicable, especially in light of her record of support for the king's war. Disgusting.

As JFK said/wrote, "Failure is an orphan". Democrats have been completely ineffectual in stopping the war, limiting the war, getting us out of war. That includes Edwards, Obama, Clinton and Kennedy.

Let no one deny that truth.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

AJM, Ned Lamont endorsed Sen. Obama.

Stop trying to mislead people.

Thank you, Teddy.

"Joe Lieberman who kept his place in the Senate in part due to Obama's glowing endorsement in the CT primary can attest to that."

First, Obama's endorsement in the primary apparentkly didn't help, as Lieberman lost the primary, dolt.

Second, Hillary (and Bill), along with many other senators, supported Joe in the primary. So your selective outrage either betrays ignorance or dishonesty.

Nice to see that the Big Lie strategy is alive and well among Hillary's supporters. But hey, its politics - the truth doesn't really matter, right?

How about Sen. Kennedy's other poke in Clinton's eye when he said "We know" Sen. Obama will be ready to be president "on day one"?

The whole show was extraordinary.

I couldn't believe, though, that the dumb asses at CNN interrupted Sen. Kennedy's speech so their talking hairdos could tell us what he was saying. They also had their reporter talk while Rep. Kennedy was talking. Unbelievable.

talking hairdos

Oh my. That is the perfect description.

Rezko was arrested again today.

rhoda wrote on January 28, 2008 2:39 PM:

That was a great line, especially considering the brouhaha over this as of late.

If these seem like the heady days following Obama's win in Iowa, that is because the parallel is unmistakable. The only thing keeping the media from declaring Hillary "toast" is their distaste for "crow", having feasted on it following NH. But the ongoing feeding-frenzy has no less intensity than the more open hostility to HRC that had followed IA. However, quietly, with her usual poise and determination in the face of adversity, Hillary is working in the background, going for the kill on Super Tuesday -- a win massive enough that it should quiet the masses once for all. She would once for all re-establish that she is the candidate to beat until the finish line...

And Hillary rode Joe's Mentum Bus in the Demo primary against Ned Lamont

No, she didn't. Bill did. Bill campaigned here, and recorded robocalls for Lieberman.

After Lamont won the primary, Hillary Clinton donated a chunk of change to his campaign.

I'm all for criticizing candidates, again, let's make sure our facts are correct.

Joe Lieberman who kept his place in the Senate in part due to Obama's glowing endorsement in the CT primary can attest to that.

While he is testifying, Lieberman can mention how much it hurt him that Obama endorse Lamont in the general election. Pres Clinton, Sen Clinton and Sen Obama all campaigned for Lieberman in the primary and then turned right around and endorsed Lamont in the GE once he won the nomination. Meanwhile, to look at the support for Lieberman in the primary as a "pro-war" stance is ludicrous. At the time the best hope we had of resisting Bush's bellicose aggression was to gain control of the senate and Lamont's candidacy threatened that prospect. It is nothing but historical revisionism not to place Obama's (and Clinton's) actions in that context.

You people are nasty.

Especially the "Anonymous's" out there, not even able to back up their claims with actual facts.

And, of course, most people here (not including CT Voter, etc) are not following up with real facts.

And, DCS, I think I have to agree with you. Or, at least, I think your opinion is feasible. We'll see how this one goes....

Needless to say, though, it is quite obvious that this race is extremely more interesting since Obama doubled up HRC in South Carolina. JRE is making huge ad-buys across the country as well, and honestly, can anyone view JRE's candidacy, at this point, as anything but a supporting role to Obama's campaign?

Look at the demographics in South Caroline. Who do you suppose JRE helped/hurt?

Anyway, I am interested in what is going on in California. That state might actually decide this thing, in the end. Imagine that... I don't think California has decided a Democratic nomination since the tragic events of May, 1968.

Let us pray events do not take a similar turn in 2008.

I was arrested today. How come TPM won't cover it? Click on my name: Tony Rezko for the details.

Dear CT Voter,

I feel a bit silly arguing with you on this point, not least because I was cheering Lamont on (from the useless standpoint of a man in MO pulling for a candidate in CT). That said, I seem to recall that it was considered an open question whether 1) Lieberman would run as an independant if he lost the primary in CT and 2) whether he would caucus with the democrats if elected as an independant (this blog post on the WaPo from that time, for instance, alludes to that possibility). In other words the democratic leadership had good reason to worry that a Lamont victory in the primary could complicate their plans to take control of the Senate (which, at the time, seemed like the best way of restraining the Bush administration's recklessness). It is not fair to import the hindsight of Lieberman's actual actions back into a judgement of Obama's and Clinton's decisions at the time.

Hey Michael A.!

How's Obama's current support for "the King's War" going?

He's continued to oppose it by not voting for the funding of it ala Dennis Kucinich, right?

It's a good thing that Ready-To-Run-From-Day-One wasn't in the US Senate at the time thinking about his planned 2008 run like Clinton was (and did) back then, eh?

Well, since he's gotten into that US Senate, he's distinguished himself from her on the war, uh, exactly how again?

I for one want to see Monica take up her old position in the white house

hee hee

Hey colonpowwow, did your candidate learn how to read yet? It would have been nice if she knew how to read before her iraq war vote. You know that NIE that she didn't read that revealed that the king's basis for war was based on lies. She might have saved a few hundred thousand iraqi and american lives.

The NIE that she did not read did not say Hussein was no threat. It said nuclear weapons were unlikely. It was much less reassuring on biological and chemical. Gee, me sitting at home knew exactly that, but I'm sure that nothing in Hillary's briefings would have given her that information? "Hold the presses, you mean Hussein *CAN'T* launch in 45 minutes?" No, almost no one in Congress believed Hussein had a nuclear weapon half-cocked at us.

And again, the stated purpose of the resolution was to provide a stick big enough to get Hussein to allow inspectors back in to do serious work. This in fact did happen, after the unanimous approval of the (hoodwinked?) Security Council, including the US' big ally Syria.

The inspectors were in Iraq several months after which came the actual invasion, 5 months after the AUMF. With complaints even from Hans Blix about non-cooperation. Not complete condemnation, but part of the issue post-9/11 with dealing with Hussein was "no more cat and mouse games" (from the FBI agent's talks with Hussein, he obviously didn't clue into this message). Obviously Bush didn't treat the AUMF as a complete green light or he would have simply invaded in October.

I think Bush fudged the data and way overplayed the situation, but that doesn't mean there was no situation. And I think people misunderstand the import of the Senate vote. A Senator has to take the issues seriously and evaluate the nuances or they're no longer in the game, especially in issues of national security (which means more than just inside the US borders). And the fact remains that in October 2002, we did not have intelligence on the ground in Iraq and we had an enormous number of unknowns about Hussein's capabilities and intentions. Hussein would not have taken back in inspectors without a credible threat. So exactly what was the alternative to the AUMF are critics talking about, aside from 20/20 hindsight? I'm not talking about the invasion itself - I'm talking about October 2002.

I'd like Obama more if his rabid supporters weren't so annoying and obvious that his candidacy is, in part, driven by a cult of personality. Some of these Obamatons make the Ron Paulbots look absolutely sane.

I'd like Clinton a lot more if her supporters didn't come off as trolls who sound like they must be secret Republican provocateurs looking to stir up fights between Democrats.

This is merely the beginning of two weeks of growing momentum. Today Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius who gave the Democratic reply speech yesterday is going to endorse Obama.

Inside the campaign rumors abound that President Carter is going to come out and endorse Obama followed by the long suspected Al Gore endorsement. All before Super Tuesday.

With each establishment endorsement and event Obama will gain with substance and surrogates of weight.

Each will say things like Ted did rebutting the mendacity of the Clinton campaign. In many ways it is political irony. Bill was the young outsider who came to DC to reform the party and the nation. Then he sets himself up to be impeached, political partisan opportunity it was and the Democratic Party rallied and protected him which allowed his wife to carryon a political career and constinsuency. But as they have run the inevitable campaign scorching the earth of their chief opponent and opening all the wounds and divides for their own ambition the Democratic Party is recoiling and saying NO.

"pragmatic positively America"

Yeah, allowing the GOP to dredge up all the lowlights of the 90s is really "pragmatic." It's kind of tough to be "pragmatic" when you lose the general election.

Hillary supporters just don't get out of their echo chamber enough, apparently, to see how unelectable Hillary is.

Liam said: "That does not explain why Hillary did not learn from her mistaken Iraq voted, and recently voted for the Kyl/Lieberman green light to attack Iran."

Boy, and you people accuse Clinton supporters of using talking points. Please explain how Obama managed to once again miss a vote that might have actually required him to take a stand on an issue. Then show me where he has said he would have voted against Kyl-Lieberman, if he hadn't overslept, or whatever his excuse was. Then check out Senate bill S790, co-sponsored by Obama, that would have declared Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Then come back and explain how Hillary's vote for Kyl-Lieberman somehow separates her from Obama, other than the fact that she actually had the guts to cast a vote.

Like I said it's quite entertaining watching the Billary apologists like ChrisO get crazy trying to cover the Clintons' dirty tracks and delude themselves that endorsements that matter don't matter. Bill's been trying to demonize the media in Fox/Karl Rove fashion. They sure weren't so bad when Hillary was supposedly inevitable.

Toni Morrison poked the Clintons in the eye with her endorsement for their disgusting racial politics. Her endorsement is certainly much more important than Charlie Rangel's or Maxine Watters' who are only scared and bow to the establishment candidate because they're scared. They should be scared of the Republicans best hope for winning and what will truly mobilize and unite them like nothing else: Billary, the two-headed beast.