Top Lieberman Campaign Official: We Begged Obama For Help In 2006 -- And He Came Through
Now that Joe Lieberman has emerged as John McCain's lead attack dog against Barack Obama -- even going so far as to suggest that Obama's judgment could pose a danger to our safety -- there's some very interesting behind-the-scenes back-story to the Lieberman-Obama relationship that you should know about.
Specifically, a top official on Joe Lieberman's 2006 Senate reelection campaign tells me that Lieberman's staff practically begged Barack Obama to come in and endorse him at a critical moment -- requests that Obama agreed to, helping Lieberman minimize the damage from challenger Ned Lamont's recent entry into the contest.
This back-story is particularly relevant right now in light of Lieberman's harsh assaults on Obama's national security credentials.
The top Lieberman official, who was directly involved in securing Obama's help, tells me that the campaign was desperate for Obama to come to Connecticut in March of 2006, soon after Lamont entered the race.
"We needed him to strongly validate us as a candidate that liberal Democrats should not desert," the official tells me. "We went to the Obama operation with a very urgent plea for him to come out for us."
It's well known that Obama's 2006 endorsement was important. But it's not widely understood just how urgently the Lieberman people begged for Obama's help at a critical moment in Lieberman's career -- and in that light, just how much of a back-stabbing Lieberman's attacks on Obama now represent.
In response to the Lieberman camp's pleas for help, Obama subsequently endorsed him at a dinner of Connecticut Democrats later that month.
"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf," Obama said at the time.
"It was a favor as huge as we could have gotten -- it was like a drowning man getting thrown a life preserver," the Lieberman official continued. "Just when Ned was trying to establish himself as a credible alternative on the war, Barack Obama came in and said, `Hey, I disagree with him on the war, but you should send him back to the Senate.'"
Anyway, the back-story seems kind of relevant right now.
******************************************************
Late Update: Story edited to remove references to Obama's general election behavior, which is disputed, and to Obama's alleged viewing of Lieberman as a "mentor" -- in fact, mentors are assigned in the Senate.
Late Late Update: After endorsing Lieberman in the primary, Obama endorsed Lamont in the general election, gave $5,000 to Lamont's campaign and sent out a fundraising email for him, but didn't campaign for him, which was a big disappointment to the Lamont forces.
Late Late Update: A Lamont campaign official emails to say that Obama's fundraising email actually only went out to a few hundred people.
Meanwhile, an official from Lieberman's campaign emails this quasi-confirmation: "Senator Lieberman asked Senator Obama to come to the Connecticut JJB dinner at the request of the Connecticut Democratic Party. A campaign staffer may have asked for an endorsement, but Senator Lieberman did not."
Late Late Late Update: Markos -- a Lamont and Obama supporter -- adds some more back-story and some tough criticism of Obama's treatment of the Connecticut race
Comments (152)
Anyway, the back-story seems kind of relevant right now.
Geez, ya think?
I knew that Obama came here and spoke on Lieberman's behalf, obviously, but I didn't know that they had begged him to do so.
Makes Lieberman look pretty petty and small right now.
And I guess Obama really knows what a deserter Lieberman actually is.
June 10, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT Voter, what do you hear and see about how people feel about Lieberman?
June 10, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every Democrat I know loathes him at this point.
Broadening out from that circle of people? Markos Z. commissioned a poll in April that revealed:
Link: Description of poll
Finally, there have been editorials criticizing Joe.
June 10, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope CT kicks that dude to teh curb, come next re-election.
June 10, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this comment failed to post before, but just wanted to wish you a pleasant trip.
June 10, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto!
And bring Stash back!
June 10, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
MonicaL. Thank you. I hope the hoofmark has healed.;) I look forward to more hoofy flirtations when I get back... ;)
I'm so jealous that you get to go to the dance with my uber-fluff Mr. Crankypants. I left him a hug on his thread.
June 10, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, but first CT and the whole US has 4-1/2 more years of the putz.
June 10, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's almost like he woke up one day and wondered, "Hmm, I wonder if I could completely fuck up my career." and proceeded to find out.
June 10, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama should have stood up for Ned Lamont and real progressive values back in 2006. It was already crystal-clear that Traitor Joe was a scumbag and a Republican-in-waiting. Karma's a bitch, no?
June 10, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Karma's a bitch, no?
That it is. Sorry, Obama, I ain't with you on this one.
June 11, 2008 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
What was that about Wormtongue?
Lieberman is either schizophrenic - I mean it - or has an interest in retiring early with his spate of benefits. If the Dems pull their 60 and Obama takes the inaugural oath in January, you might next see Joe as a Wal-Mart greeter.
June 10, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Karma will be doing its wonderful return on LIEberman and Obama is just the guy to facilitate it...
Joe..for your own good(not that I care)...tread lightly this election..If you think you can handle Barack...be prepared he is in charge and you will be dealt with..
June 10, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman IS small and petty.
He is so compromised, and so smarmy, that I don't think he will end up being a significant plus for McCain over the long haul.
June 10, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Especially small. I mean, have you seen the dude?
June 10, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
No good deed goes unpunished....
June 10, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama needs to pull an Anton Chigurh on LIEberman, and put him out of his political misery with a pneumatic steel rod punch-gun.
But seriously, how can Obama's activists crush Liebs ASAP? We have to send a message...
June 10, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
We get all angry when Hillary makes a reference to Bobby K.'s assassination, but then we write stuff like this.
Can we please avoid talking about killing politicians, even the ones we despise?
It lowers the community.
June 10, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
DWinATL: It's obvious I meant no offense. My comments are always respectful of the TPM community. I clearly said "political misery" and intentionally made such an outlandish reference to "No Country for Old Men" for fun and so no one would really take offense.
My statement wasn't any worse than someone saying a politician waits for you to "turn their back before they stick a knife in your ribs" (as someone said on MSNBC a few weeks ago) or when someone says to be careful of a politician looking to stick you with a shiv, politically speaking (as Lieberman clearly did to Obama here with his horrible political betrayal).
A laughing donkey using a silly metaphor is NOT the same as Hillary Clinton uttering the "A" word on a national stage.
June 10, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
YES, WE can "write stuff like this" because "WE" are not running for the Presidency.
Secondly, If you was referring to: (Wade Hussein Blazingame34,June 10, 2008 4:34 PM), It was quite obvious, he was joking...your girl, Hillary, WAS NOT!
biggggGGGGGG Difference, but good try!
June 11, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks OIC! :)
June 12, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even the wingnutz, like a broken watch, are correct 2 times a day....
LOSERMAN!
June 10, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uriah Heep. Reminds me of Uriah Heep. He's like someone out of Dickens. Unctuous & Untrustworthy.
June 10, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Unctious" captures him. There is a picture of Joe by the word "unctious" in the dictionary. Everything about the word -- conjures slipperiness, ostentatious religiosity. Ugh.
June 10, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right now Lieberman's overriding concern is to help McCain win so he can become a cabinet member, most likely Secretary of Defense, though God knows he is abysmally qualified for the job. That means he will be as sleazy as he has to be the make that happen.
As SecDef his overarching goal is to destroy Iran and make trouble in the Middle East. Peace in the Middle East is the last thing he wants. He is an extremely dangerous man.
I have read people who compared Lieberman to Iago (Shakepeare's Othello), and I agree that is an apt comparison.
June 10, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unctuous, oleaginous, smarmy--why does he get reelected? What up with you folks in CN?
June 10, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, I guess I was inventing an alternative state (CN instead of CT)--maybe the voters in that universe would have better taste.
June 10, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wanker.
June 10, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I second that with - Planker.
June 10, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You guys have potty mouths.
June 10, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Monica. I truly didn't mean to offend your delicate ears.
June 10, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Et tu, Smurfette.
June 10, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
hey, I could have said Clanker or Canker....
June 10, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tanker.
would that work here?
June 11, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chancre
June 10, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know this fact makes Loserman look terrible. That kind of ingratitude and betrayal really does wonders for a politicians image.
June 10, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
His staff have to be suffering -- as I understand things, most of them are loyal Democrats.
June 10, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
November,5 2008. he's dead to us.
June 10, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess Obama's judgement failed him on that decision.
June 10, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
He failed the "Is Lieberman is a treacherous, Jewish-lobby, sack of shit?" test.
June 10, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
That should be Israel-lobby; not Jewish-lobby.
Very different thing.
June 10, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed it should have been. Mental lapse. Thanks for the correction.
June 11, 2008 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Viva la difference!
June 11, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman is always there when he needs you
June 10, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great line.
June 10, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alright, this is off topic, but I haven't seen it brought up anywhere else, so here goes:
Was anyone else surprised by how quickly Obama, as opposed to his surrogates, responded to McCain's speech this morning?
I am out on the West Coast and caught McCain's speech as I was making breakfast. I got up to get some coffee and put the dishes away, and Obama was already on TV. The reporters didn't even have time to set up real cameras and they had to use a web camera for Obama's remarks.
Now it is normal to see surrogates get out there after a speech to respond, but it was striking to see Obama out there himself. Am I making too much out of this.
June 10, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you are.
It's becoming clear that Obama is ceding no ground on the message. He's counterpunching consistently, and rapidly.
June 10, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been watching some news coverage of McCain's speech from this mornign, and it has generally been followed with Obama's response.
Contrast this with yesterday, when Obama gave his speech and was allowed, more or less, to go unchallenged by McCain for most of the day. Any time Obama's speech was covered, it was just him. Today, it is McCain, followed by Obama.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out if it keeps up.
Also, the Lieberman thing is clear proof that Obama understands the Jews. Play the guilt card. . .
June 10, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please don't do this.
This issue, the loyalty of Obama and the betrayal of Lieberman, is too serious for us to go for the cheap ethnic jokes.
June 10, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, and duly accept my lumps.
June 11, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL - That's funny! No "swiftboat" action if Obama has anything to do with it.
June 11, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If HRC had become the nominee, the Clintons would have flipped -- WJC was more supportive of Lieberman than practically anyone, including when he was running as an independent. Joe's burning down many, many bridges right now, but that seems to be his plan.
June 10, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Hillary was one of the first senators to donate money to Ned's campaign, and lent Howard Wolfson to help with communictaions (for all the good that did). It was Obama who really let down the Lamont campaign in the general election. See Tim Taggaris's diary at Kos or MyDD.
June 10, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton was personally supportive of Lieberman -- I saw him on many television shows in the run-up to the 2006 election saying that the Dems are lucky Lieberman is agreeing to caucus with them.
And don't forget about Lanny Davis. Our favorite, Lanny.
June 10, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's right. In fact, while Hillary was helping Lamont in the general, Bill was hurting Ned on Larry King. And Lanny Davis--oh, brother . . .
June 10, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Y'all are digging up painful scabs.....I'd completely repressed Lanny Davis and 2006.
June 10, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lanny Davis.
Terry McAulif
Oy.
June 10, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, the whole episode and Lieberman's shoddy treatment of Obama, serves Obama right. I think a cow could tell what sort of snake Lieberman was.
June 10, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
Which is it, did he endorse Lamont or Lieberman? (see Late, Late Update, supra)
June 10, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama flew to CT and publicly endorsed Lieberman at the JJ dinner during the primary. He then endorsed Lamont in the general but refused to come to CT to campaign for him.
June 10, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
This could provide some great entertainment, as well as a lot of discomfort for Senator Bush McCain.
Ron Paul's own convention
Posted: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 3:06 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, Paul
From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
That thorn in the Republican establishment side is back.
Ron Paul's campaign is planning an event at a "large venue" with a "sizable" crowd Sept. 2 -- the Tuesday of convention week -- in the St. Paul-Minneapolis area a couple of miles from the convention site.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/10/1129290.aspx
use link to read the full report.
June 10, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would generally try to say something more substantive and intelligent... but having watched the senate since Cspan first started airing it, being an activist... well.. Lieberman is a weasel and a weenie(sp?). He is like a Grima Wormtonge. He needs someone to serve and hide behind...creepy.
June 10, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
He endorsed Lieberman in the primary, which he lost and then Lamont, the DEM, in the GE. But he didn't do any campaigning for Lamont out of "respect" for Lieberman, the non-dem.
June 10, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love this, from the update:
June 10, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman is now a backstabber, too?
June 10, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not exactly. Joe's a "true friend" of Obama
"True friends stab you in the front."-- Oscar Wilde
June 10, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paging Al Gore, paging Al Gore...
June 10, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
No shit.
Time for Gore to represent here and give Joementum the smackdown he's begging for.
June 10, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
No kidding.
June 11, 2008 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's behavior in 2006 is something he really has to explain. I mean, it is funny, at least, that Obama beat Clinton by running, in part, against Clinton's foreign policy judgment, as exhibited by her vote for the Iraq war. And yet he endorsed Lieberman against Lamont in spite of that. And then, even though he switched when Lamont won the primary, he did nothing of substance to help Lamont in the general.
I would like Obama to explain himself. I'd also like somebody to ask Lamont what he thinks of Obama right now.
June 10, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lamont enthusiastically supported Obama.
June 10, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lamont endorsed Obama in the primary back in January.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/10/184519/630/624/434646
June 10, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purely politics for Obama, right? He was part of the DCCC deal to stay out of the race in exchange for Lieberman's caucus vote. Plus, Lamont was being labelled in the media as an anti-war liberal--something Obama didn't want to be branded with going into a presidential campaign.
Just as it made political sense for Obama to stay away from Lamont, it now makes sense for Lamont to endorse Obama.
June 10, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your argument doesn't even make sense. Many people would argue that if Obama wasn't an "anti-war liberal", he wouldn't have beaten Clinton.
Even if you take the most cynical possible view of Obama, that would have been exactly how he wanted to be seen going into the presidential campaign.
Also, as I said earlier, Lamont endorsed at the very beginning of the primary, when Clinton was very much still the likely nominee to most observers. It was by no means the politically expedient move.
June 10, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
justinh?
How do you know this: He was part of the DCCC deal to stay out of the race in exchange for Lieberman's caucus vote.
Seriously? Obama agreed to not actively campaign and Lieberman agreed to caucus with the Dems?
June 10, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really have my doubts Obama would have voted against the Iraq war resolution had he been in the Senate in 2002.
June 10, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you have doubts?
June 10, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
His pandering speech before AIPAC, for one. If he was being honest, he's not too liberal and would have supported the war for Israel's sake.
June 10, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well your doubts are not at all well founded.
June 11, 2008 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think many Obama supporters suffer from a lack of skepticism, something kinda necessary when evaluating politicians.
June 11, 2008 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I beg to differ.
June 11, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Both, you and your doubts will never bring factuality to fruition!
June 11, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
This whole thing is obviously a poke in the eye by the Lieberman camp to Obama and the rest of the Democratic party to try to embarrass them by going over exactly how we got to this point, and exactly what Obama's role in it was. Lieberman has gone completely rogue. He's all in and is in the process of burning his bridges right now in public. If McCain doesn't win in November, the rest of Joe's political career is going to be a very unhappy one.
Right now, Lieberman is a politicians with no real options. I can't even begin to describe how dangerous a person like that is. Everyone that's ever had any dealings with him need to watch their backs.
Let McCain reap the benefits of JOEMENTUM™ this time around. God knows we don't need it.
June 10, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
dangerous? Like Inigo Montoya said, I do not think it means what you think it means.
The word you're looking for is useless. As in: useless sack of shit.
June 10, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh what a surprise! It's all about Holy Joe Loserman!
Loserman is the poster boy for being a self centered, two-faced, back stabbing, hypocritical liar. Scum. Just pure scum.
June 10, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and to think he was put on the 2000 ticket to bring back "decency" to politics. What a joke!
June 10, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe's done. He knows that. Even if Obama were to lose -- highly unlikely -- Joe is gone from his chairmanship. This is his last term as Senator.
I knew he'd turn out this way. All of Connecticut should be ashamed.
June 10, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been arguing for a long time that this endorsement reveals Obama's lack of judgment and the insincerety of his opposition to the Iraq War.
That speech he gave was a pure echo of what polls were showing was Illinois opinion at the time and here --- when Obama could have made an effort against the Iraq War -- he cozied up to Lieberman -- does it much matter whether this was a matter of choice or simply buckling to pressure?
Or looking for AIPAC support in the future?
June 10, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
AJM, You previously wrote that you are supporting John McCain, so who the hell do you think you are bullshitting with your current protestations. Get bent.
June 10, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
What nonsense. You make huge, and erroneous leaps of "logic" and fraudulent extrapolation.
June 10, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, not that any of us had any doubt about this, but for such a little guy, what a huge schmuck.
June 10, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Though I disagreed with Obama's decision at the time, allow me to say a few words in his defense, if for no other reason than to play a bit of devil's advocate.
A lot of factors probably went into his decision, most of them very practical in nature. For example, this incident occurred during Obama's first two years in the Senate. This made him particularly vulnerable to pressure from a long-time incumbent Senator who had a committee chairmanship. Also, Obama had presidential ambitions. Simply throwing Lieberman under a bus would probably not be seen well by his colleagues, and Obama wanted to build support. Finally, perhaps Obama saw a potential way to diffuse the Lieberman time bomb, for his future political career, while not doing too much damage to Lamont's chances.
The fact that the decision didn't work out doesn't take away from the problems of the time. And there would still be no guarantee that Lamont would have won. It's too bad, though. With Lamont, it would've been that much easier to get a Democratic supermajority in the Senate.
June 10, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could Lieberman be any more bitter? What a hollowed-out petty little man. I can't wait to see him fade into irrelevance for the next few years, before Conn voters cut him loose altogether.
June 10, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am surprised no one has called him a Judas yet. Just saying.
June 10, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those asking Obama to explain endorsing Joementum need to remember that this putz was also selected to be Al Gore's running mate. Joe is a boil that has been allowed to fester on our party's neck for years.
June 10, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our neck?
June 10, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I said "ass" then we get into pun territory and "budduh-BOOM" and "thank you, thank you... please tip your waitress..."
So I went with "neck." Like Mr. Potter.
June 10, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a boil, but a carcinoma.
June 10, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
axshully, i think it is pretty clear that Ass-wholy Joe has been a GOP mole since at least 2000...
June 10, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Wingnut I know and don't much like refers, hilariously, to Joe Lieberman as the "Garden Gnome":
http://blog.ugo.com/images/uploads/gnome_wideblog.jpg
While I think this *is* pretty funny, coming, as it does, from a die-hard Wingnut, I personally think this bears a closer resemblance:
http://www.deadissue.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/gollemsized.jpg
June 10, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a CT Dem who worked hard for Ned Lamont, I have no sympathy for every “knife” Lieberman sticks into Obama’s back. I voted for Obama in CT’s Feb. 5, 2008 primary because I am basically an “Anybody but a Clinton/DLC and Republican” voter this election year.
Obama should have held the same position as Sen. Russ Feingold who stated on Meet the Press in 2006 that he’d support the winner of CT’s Dem primary. Granted Obama gave Lieberman a lukewarm endorsement at CT’s JJB dinner but Obama failed to come to CT to campaign with Lamont in the 2006 general election. Obama managed to go to Massachusetts for book signings and fundraisers but failed to stop by CT to help Ned Lamont. I noticed that in 2008, he managed to make it to CT to win our delegates for his Prez nomination. This is why I can’t get enthusiastic about Obama. However, I will enjoy watching the cat fight between Lieberman and Obama. It will be entertaining. Karma is a B*tch and not just for Hillary.
Hartford Courant columnist Colin McEnroe picks up on this story and offers a clear example of Lieberman’s half-hearted defense of Obama -- Broin' out with O and Joe.
There is only one thing that will make me forgive Obama for snubbing Lamont in 2006 – him getting the Senate Dems to strip Lieberman of his chairmanships in 2009.
June 10, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what would Joe have done in the organization vote first thing the 110th Congress convened had Obama and the rest of the party gone nuclear against Joe in the GE in 2006?
We would not be holding the majority in the Senate as we speak.
June 10, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply |