anyone having trouble commenting?

Lieberman should be ashamed.

I think we need the ADL to issue a warning about this hate-monger Lieberman defaming muslims and inspiring hate.

Oh, the idiot voters of Connecticut. What have you done?

I would love to hear how Connecticut voters feel about the disaster they have inflicted on us by reelecting this turkey.

And to think that Gore chose him to be VP ... YIKES!

(p.s. I encountered no problem whatsoever in posting)

Why are the Dems afraid of kicking him curbside right now? Nothing is going to get through Congress at this point anyway. Not until next year at the earliest. So we go to an evenly divided Senate for a few months? Will it really matter that much in the long run?

The aide says Lieberman was "strangely muted" during the exchange.

I am so glad Obama confronted him and called him on his bullshit, yet apparently he did it in such a calm, measured way (in contrast to Bill Clinton's purple-faced tirades) that Joe was shamed into silence.

From this account, it sounds like Senator Schmendrake at least has some awareness that he is acting like a scum-sucking rat-bastard.

As you note, he probably will keep cranking out the slime, but at least now he might be more aware that he'll be called to account for his treachery.

Sad thing for Lieberman is the Republicans won't have him. He's finished as far as elected office goes. Regardless of what happens in the GE, the Senate Dems will have enough seats to boot him out of the caucus and strip his chairmanships. But he's far too socially moerate to be embrace him. He'll be left hanging until Connecticut votes him out.

This is why Lieberman NEEDS a McCain victory, so he can be appointed to a cabinet position or some other job. He could also have a good life as a lobbyist if Obama loses, all the more reason to attack him.

Or maybe he could just run for a seat in the Knesset...

Because if they kick him to the curb now, they lose control of the committee chairs to the Republicans, and then a lot could get through Congress between now and December

That is not true - Once the vote takes place on committee chairs and leadership they are effectively locked in for the term.

Every time he repeats the lie that Obama is a Muslim (or just lets it lie out there), Sen. Joe is breaking a Commandment.

God hate a liar.

Feingold for VP! Best way to put that smarmy Lie-berman in place and get the Jewish vote at the same time.

I will quit my job and work for the Obama campaign full time if this happens.

Obama-Feingold 2008!

Too liberal? In the past, yes, but this country is beginning a new wave of liberalism that started in 2006. Now is our moment!

Lieberman will continue cranking out the slime from now until Election Day 2008, and perhaps beyond, though at that point he may well be doing it from the minority side of the aisle...

It is impossible for Lieberman to be on the minority side of the aisle this year. If and when he switches, the GOP regains the majority. It would behoove Democrats to remember this for the rest of the year.

Next year can be another story.

It is impossible for Lieberman to be on the minority side of the aisle this year. If and when he switches, the GOP regains the majority. It would behoove Democrats to remember this for the rest of the year.

That is not true, read my post above.

Feingold on Lieberman back in 2006....

Nope. You've got it wrong here. If you were right, the Senate would not have changed control in late 2001 when Jeffords switched.

You just proved my point that you have no idea about what you are talking about since my post covers how that was due to a side deal, and without the deal the Senate would have been organized by the Dems during the entire 00-02 period.

I think Obama's chat with Lieberman, out in the open on the Senate floor for all to see, was a shot over Lieberman's bow.

Obama may have been signaling; 'listen Joe, you can f**k with Harry Reid, but don't f**k with me.'

The only good thing about Lieberman working to supposedly rally Jewish votes for McCain is that Lieberman's conservative views on Israel, etc. appeal to a very small minority of Jews. Jews who think like ultra-conservative Congressman Eric Cantor from Virginia are way out of touch with the Jewish majority. Jews overwhelmingly vote Democratic and liberal.

Precisely my point, however, if the theology is one of political activism, the theology becomes of interest to the voters. Why? Because it means the theology will determine policy. Why is this important?

Obama is running for president, and while the news media has focused on these video snippets, I believe they have missed the real story and aren't asking the tough questions. The issue isn't that some “crazy uncle” is making off-the-wall remarks—Obama has, after all, been a member of Wright’s church for 20 years and has been steeped in this theology during all that time. This view has had to been preached in some form or fashion every week, and Obama has called Wright his spiritual mentor.

At best, Obama spent the last 20 years daydreaming in the pews instead of listening to what was being preached. At worst, he firmly believes in what Wright preaches and only disagrees with his methods. With the former, he has used bad judgment by blindly following a pastor, and with the latter he hasn't been forthcoming to America and now needs to be.

What is the “change” that Obama is talking about in his campaign—one of bringing this country together regardless of color, or one of separation because of color?

If we make the religion question off limits, it blinds us to the complete picture of the political philosophy of the man. The question is whether his theological position is one that teaches political activism. If it is, we are going to be blind sided after the election.

I'd be interested to know exactly what Lieberman had said that got Obama upset.

Though Obama is not Muslim now, given that he became a Christian in 1987 at age 26 when he joined Trinity, sharia (Islamic law) considers Barack to have automatically been a Muslim at birth because his Kenyan father was a Muslim (regardless of what his mother's religion was (she was a lapsed Christian)).

As for black liberation theology, it is a hybrid of religion with political activism and the cornerstone of Trinity and Jeremiah Wright's ministry that Obama praised profusely in his memoirs. So it is fair game for a reporter to ask him about it. If he refuses to answer questions about it, that's okay with me too.

"What is the “change” that Obama is talking about in his campaign—one of bringing this country together regardless of color, or one of separation because of color?"

Yep, you figured it out. Nice work. Obama's presidential campaign must be a dastardly plot to enslave white America, including the grandparents who helped raise him. And he would've gotten away with it, if it wasn't for you meddling trolls!

This is in response to Jim Anderson:
"The question is whether his theological position is one that teaches political activism. If it is, we are going to be blind sided after the election.
"
There is in my opinion, nothing wrong with political activism, understood as political participation, inspired by your Faith. This is not a fringe position but rather a mainstream position in the churches (google for the document "Faithful Citizenship" by the US Catholic bishops). Which is different than trying to use the political arena to force your religion onto someone else, which is I think what the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent.
Now, your suggestion that Obama is going to impose racial divisions, I don't see anything in what he says that make me think that. Yes, I know you are going to bring Rev. Wright, but he already renounce those statements by Wright.

I wouldn't underestimate Slimy Joe's campaign of slander. So many minorities, already feeling insecure, take allegations of prejudice against them at face value.

Clinton's people did this to the late Paul Tsongas in Fla. in 1992 in Florida. "Don't tell anybody where you heard it, but Tsongas isn't really for the Jews! Just watch out, okay?" This is always good for at least a few votes, and Slimy Joe will be all over this despicable filth at least until he finds out he isn't up for V.P.... oh wait, eeeeww! Could Slimy Joe get State in a McCain administration? Somebody please tell me no!!!

Doesn't anyone remember that freshman U.S. Senator Obama asked Sen. Lieberman to serve as his "mentor?"

I'm interested in this thread, but not necessarily for its responses to the topic on offer.
What I find interesting here is this: just as some other posts have drawn responses that were almost exclusively from women -- whether known TPM feminists or unknown, and also unverifiable, alleged devotees of Hillary Clinton (who were quite probably not HRC fans worried about sexism, but rather, Republican trolls) -- so did this topic draw, in parallel fashion, an almost exclusively male response, comprised of known TPM
socio/political/religious pedants, and unknown, as well as unverifiable, representatives of one religious far right movement or another.
Granted, I may have the responder category labels wrong. (Fill in your own designations.) But I do not think I am wrong about the parallel split; nor do I think I am wrong about the fact that the more dogmatic among you list no personal data.

Never mind.

The question I have for all of is the same: what's in for you, as individuals, to argue these secondary issues? The point to this election is not feminism (yae or nae). Nor is it religious fundamentalism of whatever sect, yae or nae. The point to this election is that our Constitution has been undermined. And that our young men and women -- our children, your children -- are dying, and will continue to die, in a cause that is already lost. The point is that we are a gazillion dollars in debt, that the economy is in recession and that good people are losing their houses, their credit and their futures.
So I ask you: is it possible that you might put aside your own fears, and your own fixations on the tangential issues that, in this context, don't really matter? So that you can work constructively to elect whichever candidate you believe can and will make a difference in resolving the problems that affect all of us, and not just your subset?

Jim Anderson,

John McCain is a Marxist? How can you tell? Why does McCain hate America more than Bush? If he was an Episcopalian, how can you trust someone who is Catholic, but not Roman, yet joins a religion that pretends to be Prostestant? And since the Anglican/Episcopal Brit bishops in East Africa fomented anti-Colonial unrest and advocated for native African rights, they must be Marxists in your view... So that would make their followers, Anglicans abroad, Episcopalians here, Marxists! Now that we have agreed that McCain is a Marxist, I wonder if don't agree he must really hate America and the Constitution.
Help me out with that big brain of yours Jim, I'm so confused by the truth.

Right on, Jim! Change the subject. Don't respond to Traitor Joe's sleazy attacks and suggestions Obama is a secret Muslim. Bring up Rev. Wright, safety for Israel, "the surge is working" and imply that if Obama is elected, the crazy Muslim extremists will eat your children. Only McCain can save America by keeping us in Iraq 100 years.