« Al Gore To Campaign In Georgia Senate Runoff | Home | Lawyer Alert: Minnesota Senate Race Recount Set To Get Underway »
Hillary Votes To Let Lieberman Stay As Homeland Security Chair
We hear from a Hill source that Hillary was one of the 42 Senators who voted for the resolution condemning Lieberman but allowing him him to stay as Homeland Security chair.
We're still trying to determine who the 13 who voted against Lieberman keeping the chairmanship are. Current tally:
For: Senators Clinton, Kerry, Durbin, Tom Udall, and Cardin.
Against: Senators Leahy and Sanders.
More in a bit.
Advertisement
Thanks for tracking this down.
November 18, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Merkley the Senator elect voted to kick out LIEberman from his chair...Kos reported that!
November 18, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually AP reported it and Kos repeated it, then AP retracted and said Merkley spoke in favor of Lieberman, but there is no indication of how he or anyone actually voted.
November 18, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is getting silly. Why single out Hillary?
November 18, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Clinton is being singled out--her vote was probably verified first. (verified by Greg, I mean).
November 18, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, that is accurate. Now maybe Greg can do an accurate piece on the tremendous conflicts of interest concerning the clintons acting as co-secretaries of state. How about a piece explaining all the known donors and dollars contributed to the "foundations." He can start with the Kazakhstan dictator uranium deal and work from there. Or how about the marc rich payments. Or how about the fact that the clintons were broke when they left the whitehouse and now are multimillionares. No payback expected for all those millions of dollars "contributed." Yeah, right.
Any chance of seeing that? Nah.
November 18, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've never indulged in the "Why does Hillary stay with Bill" kind of bullshit, because frankly, it's reallly none of my business, and marriage is a complicated thing.
But here's the thing: I really wish she'd dump Bill. He's a deadweight around her political future.
And I actually have more confidence than you that those issues will, in fact, be examined, because if the vetters don't do it, the press certainly will, addicted as it is to perpetuating the Clinton drama years.
November 18, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, you are right on her dumping mr. bill. He is a total dead weight on her future. Also, I bet you if she dumped him and he had no possibility of pulling in favors in a new administration, the "donations" would totally dry up big time. Mr. bill is using her big time.
I am very frustrated in that I fear the clintons will derail obama's presidency from the start with all the drama and allegations surrounding them. I really don't think that it would be intentional on their part, it would just happen. I really hope that he picks someone else.
November 18, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is weird shit. You wish she'd dump her partner of 30 something years? An ex-President worth over $50 million who's leading aid campaigns for Africa "dead weight"?
Who are you people? What do your neighbors think about you?
November 18, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what my neighbors think of me, but I tend to think that Bill Clinton, at this point, is more of an obstacle to Hillary Clinton than anything, and since I'd actually like to see her play a role in the Obama Administration, former President Clinton is a drag.
I guess there isn't any way to express this particular opinion without being lambasted by people for even voicing it. But Bill Clinton creates more obstacles for Hillary Clinton than he does opportunities, in my opinion.
Sorry if that offends you, or my neighbors.
November 18, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the thing: your point is based on nothing to do with his infidelity. I think there might be some truth to what you're saying (that his prominence makes it more difficult for her to shine), but would you be suggesting it if he hadn't cheated on her?
I.e., to the degree that his place on the world stage interferes with hers, it has nothing to do with his infidelity, but if it weren't for his infidelity, no one would be suggesting that she dump him, right?
Do you see why there's some logical disconnect there?
November 18, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair point. But it's hard to disentangle all these factors. Had the infidelities never taken place, I wager there would have been less press attention paid to Bill Clinton, and hence, less obstacles created for Hillary Clinton.
The press attention stems, in part, from the fact that he's a popular former President. But so was Reagan. And that brings up the other part of the press attention: the press is prurient. The first kind of press attention is positive. The second? Not so helpful.
But in any event, why is it so horrifying if I express my personal opinion that I wish Hillary Clinton had dumped Bill Clinton a long time ago?
If it happens to be because of the crap Bill pulled, if that's my opinion, why does that bother people?
Asking what my neighbors think of me?
November 18, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it doesn't bother me, but I do wonder what your neighbors think. I've heard stories…
November 18, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I have heard nothing but good things from ct voter's neighbors.
November 18, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did they tell you about the catnip orgies?
November 18, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too funny. Shhh. I promised not to tell. Your secret is safe with me.
November 18, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the time has come to rehash the reporting on the 300 mysterious deaths surrounding the Clinton's. A simple web search brings up THIS.
Some goof at my work was bringing this up to me when she was the forerunner of the race. He forgets the Internets has the Googles so I can look this stuffs up myself.
November 18, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe in conspiracy theories. As anything in dc, it's all about cold hard casssshhhh and the conflicts associated with the casssshhhh. Do you dispute the kazakhstan uranium deal or the payments by rich for buying a pardon?
November 18, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps because Clinton as S.O.S. is the next shoe/big load of crap to drop.
November 18, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
They do take care of their own
Totally emptied of any political significance, this Senate she's so apparently and wisely intent on leaving
Andrew Bacevich..interview with Bill Moyers..worth watching in this dark hour
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/profile.html
November 18, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look who AIPAC gives the most to, those are the ones that voted
to keep LIEberman and enabled his lame arze ....
November 18, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
No matter what Joe Lieberman does, the people who are protecting him hate you much more than they hate him
Does anyone else think this is over the top?
It helps people like Kos to keep a part of the left angry all the time. I wonder when is his next booking on MTP?
November 18, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
They don't hate you
Worse, to them you do not even exist..except at election time
November 18, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
When ole GIVE EM HELL HARRY comes begging for your money
Fool me once...
November 18, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're just very angry.
Iraq War, Healthcare, Minimum Wage, direct diplomacy- I really don't see much of a difference between the left and the leadership in power when it comes to major issues. At least there is vast commonground.
Lieberman is a stupid reason to stay angry.
November 18, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are DAMN right I am angry - I am FURIOUS.
The Congress is a worthless institution and the Democrats there unworthy of a second thought. This is part of an unbroken string of political cowardice. Worse it demonstrates that the Senate is a hollow hulk in a hallow democracy
I want no part of funding their precious little club
Watch the Bacevich interview and if you aren't angry too, you can contribute for me
November 18, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are DAMN right I am angry - I am FURIOUS
Be my guest.
November 18, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't know I needed permission of the Marmot Wing of the Democratic Party
A national disgrace
November 18, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't have to get personal. That's just cheap.
November 18, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. My priority list:
1. The economy is going down the crapper
2. GM is about to go under, taking tens of thousands of jobs with them. Who's next?
3. tens of millions of people have no health insurance and many more have such bad coverage as to be practically uninsured
4. tensions in Iraq are bubbling under the surface and could blow up at any time
5. The Taliban is practically back in power in Afganistan
6. Russia has decided to play missile chess at the Polish border
....
....
....
....
87. Joe Lieberman is a putz.
Perspective, people.
November 18, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
What if #1 on Joe Lieberman's priority list is something like this:
Investigate the Obama small donor base. Or the Obama Christmas card list. Or firings of Bush appointees....
You think any of those other issues are going to get any attention from the media?
November 18, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
And why did you think Obama doesn't seem to predict as intelligently as you do?
November 18, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does anyone persist in thinking that Joe Lieberman will behave honorably?
I guess Obama thinks so, because that's how he seems to behave. But Joe isn't that way. Why, given his past behavior, would you expect him to be different now?
And for the record, I don't lay the responsibility for this on Obama. This decision is the baby of the Democrats in the Senate. If Obama had really wanted Joe to continue as chair, I imagine the vote would have been 55-0.
November 18, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think most of them including Obama see lil joe more threatening outside the caucus. Now probably atleast he will dream about reelection and tame down.
Anyway we'll see. As I said I wish they expelled him, but I worry less about the consequences than you do.
November 18, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
This decision reeks of the same thinking that brought us the last 7 years. Instead of a fresh page, it seems we've got the same old bullshit. That's why I'm concerned.
November 18, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad we had a chance to clarify where we stand. Seriously.
November 18, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, we've been butting heads over this for a week now, I believe.
November 18, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since when does Joe Lieberman get to set the Senate agenda? There are plenty of ways to clip his wings if he gets out of line. He still needs majority votes of his committee to call witnesses and issue subpoenas.
I'd have liked to see Joe get kicked out on his ass as much as anyone else, but with all the issues we're facing, it's barely a blip on the importance scale.
What Obama's doing is keeping his eye on the important stuff and not letting the small stuff interfere. He knows Lieberman is going to be running for re-election in 2012 at the same time Obama is.
November 18, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 18, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The US Senate's Democratic Caucus is a black hole in an institution that has today as it has more and more over the past decade proved itself totally irrelevant if not inimical to a functioning democray
Thanks for the list of reasons to throw those bums out
As if we needed a reminder
November 18, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 18, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
hillary doesn't surprise me, but kerry does! kash, singling out hillary is relevant b/c she was obama toughest opponent during the primaries...her critiques, though off-base, were so nasty that mccain recycled them....moreover, these people are very ambitious...all this kumbaya talk is politics....a 2012 hillary c with foreign policy creds thanks to the dummy obama handing her SOS would be icing on the cake..and let's not forget that bill c's legacy is at stake should obama trump his golden years....there is every reason to believe that none of these people are acting out of the goodness of their hearts...leaks everywhere, strong-arming for the SOS position..all of this sounds like the VP run earlier....
even so, i dont blame them, i blame obama...i hope he knows something we don't because right now, this all seems bone-headed.....
November 18, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not blaming them and only blaming Obama lets the Democratic leadership entirely off the hook. That's wrong.
November 18, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Additionally, I'm hoping that Obama is the serious Constitutional scholar that he portrayed himself as, and as such, he's emphasizing the fact that his role is in the Executive branch and not in the Legislative branch. Separation of powers and all that.
Reasonable people can argue about the merits of removing Lieberman from his chairmanship (and although there was at least one good reason given, there were unfortunately far more bad reasons given), but I think it's really difficult to place this at the feet of Obama whether or not you agree with the Senate Dems. It wasn't his place to weigh in, and that's all that he said. When people started interpreting his not weighing in as support for Lieberman, one could argue that he should've clarified why he wasn't weighing in, but that could've been taken as weighing in on the other side.
November 18, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman supporters have their opinion and I have mine. Fair enough. This election cycle taught me the power of my voice and money through the internet and I plan on using it.
My vote this election was for accountability to the people. Now let us see how this turns out.
November 18, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Senator Reid, there's a church mouse on the phone.
He says when you're done borrowing his balls, he wants them back.
November 18, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haven't had a laugh like that since you were a regular, Lamont! Please come back often!
November 18, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto, hilarious.
November 18, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dodd, Salazar, Nelson and Carper also voted for McCain to keep his Chairmanships...
November 18, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've been Liebermanned!
November 18, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
While there is an argument to be made to let Lieberman keep his chair, mainly that if he bolts to the Republicans he could do some real damage it is frustrating and maddening as hell that he's not been demoted to a lessor committee.
Hillary's vote seems typical of her as she's closer to Joe on national security issues than Obama. Which is why Obama's possible choice of Hill as Sos is mystifying. A giant leap backward to the bad old days when the Democratic Party was Bush light. This vote, though probably inevitable feels the same.
November 18, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's no dummy. She wants to sail through confirmation and right out of the door of this pointless club of self important asses
November 18, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't imagine she's very popular in the Senate right no. Her campaign threatened to split the Democratic party and destroy the Dems ability to capture the WH.
Fortunately support among the super delegates collapsed, other wise there would have been a divided convention. That's why she's she's pushing so hard for the job of SoS.
November 18, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you forget that had Obama lost, he would have rallied his supporters to back her after June 4. Right? He's a good Democrat? Remember?
November 18, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one doubts his experience. It's his integrity that is in question. Still, I wonder what has changed in terms of his political capital (his chairmanship notwithstanding) as he re-emerges out of this caucus. What leverage that does Obama have?
November 18, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. I hope Obama and Reid are holding Lieberman's feet to the fire in some fashion. Maybe they some sort of deal in which Lieberman has promised to toe the line for Obama, especially on national security issues. If he did, it would make Lieberman's keeping his seat, kinda, sorta OK.
November 18, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Repeating myself....I believe that a political deal was struck and it involved McCain, Lindsay Graham, and Joe. Joe got the chair and Obama has a few votes for ???.
November 18, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liebermanned Again
How much more evidence do we need?
November 18, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
More than you've got.
November 18, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Impressive.
The Congress is a useless hulk ..inimical to a healthy democracy.
November 18, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Marmots leading lemmings
Give Em Hell Harry
November 18, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paul Light of NYU is a key player in the transition. Recently made the same point in the NYT I believe it was
Used to be, when the Congress was healthy, that it was an incubator of policy and programs. Legislation was ready to go more or less whenever a new President came into office..Now they are nothing...they do nothing except care for their own
Half assed oversight...in Lieberman's case running for SecDef then for GOP VP...and Harry Reid Giving Em hell and asking me for money for this crap
To Hell with Harry
To Hell with the Democratic Caucus
November 18, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
ANDREW BACEVICH: I'm not - my job is not to be a media critic. But, I mean, one - you cannot help but be impressed by the amount of ink spilled on Obama and McCain compared to how little attention is given, for example, to the races in the Senate and the House.Now, one could say perhaps that makes sense, because the Congress has become such a dysfunctional body. But it really does describe a disproportion, I think of attention that is a problem.
They only exist to re-elect their kind
November 18, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the name of reconciliation and unity, let us consider the following:
Politico reports that a Sarah Palin for President '12 organization has been formed:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/
November 18, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome! Now that should bring a smile to everyone. Also, it will give more work to tina fey in 2010. Too funny.
November 18, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
We should all be glad she's not the President of the Senate of Marmots
November 18, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give Em Hell Harry had a "nice discussion..Joe Lieberman is a Democrat" and Harry's "ready to move on to address the great problems facing this country"
What a joke
November 18, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Lieberman gets out of line can't the caucus revote and kick him out later?
November 18, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mentum trembles at the thought
November 18, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. These appointments need to be by vote of the entire Senate, which makes them subject to filibuster. When they're made en masse at the beginning of a Congress, no one is going to filibuster, but if they try to kick Joe out for doing what the R's like, there's a risk of filibuster.
November 18, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give Em Hell Harry had a "nice discussion..Joe Lieberman is a Democrat" and Harry's "ready to move on to address the great problems facing this country"
What a joke
November 18, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman would have been completely fine with Palin as President on January 21st, 2009. How's that for "Homeland Security"?
November 18, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frightening thought. I was having nightmares up until November 4.
November 18, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shhh. It's time to "move forward". The fact that Lieberman demonstrated a colossal lack of judgment by backing McCain/Palin doesn't matter any longer. That's so last election, you know?
November 18, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm hoping that Reid and Obama did a deal with Lieberman that amounts to, what ever Obama wants Obama gets. Otherwise it would be disappointing, at best.
November 18, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Hopefully this isn't just another version of Democrats "compromising" (with Joe, I mean).
Let's just say that right now, today? I'm not all that optimistic.
November 18, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given their track record you have every right to be pessimistic. If there is a deal it probably came from Obama.
On the other hand, for the life of me I cannot figure out the benefit of having Hillary as SoS. It would be one thing if she had expertise but she's shown such poor judgement in foreign policy.
If Obama had offered her the AG post, it wouldn't have been nearly as unsettling.
November 18, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, obama just nominated holder for attorney general. I was hoping for Napolitano from Arizona. Also, the holder appointment confirms that the clintons are well on their way to be secretaries of state. Ugh!
November 18, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
On one of the cable stations on election night, someone reported that Obama wouldn't have any Clinton people in his cabinet, it would be a fresh start. I remember thinking how good that felt, what a great idea it was.
While some of these people are fine, Obama seems to be relying too much on Clintonites, to feel like there will be any real change. In fact there are so many leftovers I'm wondering if Rahm Emanuel isn't behind some of or all of these picks, especially Hill as SoS.
November 18, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that Obama wants people that know the lay of the land so that he can carry out HIS PROGRAMS AND POLICIES (NOT the Clintons') as expeditiously as possible. Anyone to whom a position is offered will clearly know (as did Biden) that they are there to carry out OBAMA policies and programs.
I see nothing wrong with that.
November 18, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I see your point, it was the promise of change that attracted so many of us to Obama in the first place.
On the other hand, I see no point in refusing to hire a qualified person just because they were associated with the Clinton WH. Holder and others will probably be fine. It's just that there are more Clinton leftovers than I'd like.
As to Hillary, I will be inconsolable if she gets the nod.
November 18, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had hoped for less clintonites in top positions as well. Lower level positions would obviously involve clintonites, but cabinet level he should be able to move beyond clintonites. Oh well, it is what it is. I just don't want the clintons as secretaries of state.
November 18, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just read Holder's bio, and see nothing (other than he worked in the clinton administration) but good work, good experience, and all around "good". What is bad about him. Please tell me why he would fail to carry out the law of the land, like Ashcroft and Gonzales.
This is a serious question. I don't know much about him.
November 18, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Serious answer. I am unaware of anything bad about him. I would guess that he would be fine. I just liked Napolitano and thought that she would be a good fit as AG as she is term limited out as governor of Arizona. She was an early obama supporter and threw her weight behind him early on.
Also, I don't want the clintons as secretaries of state, which this appointment would point to in my opinion.
November 18, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
gotcha.
i just don't want to lose our last two years of Richardson here in NM. He has done a good job, and I want him to help us get through this depression until his term runs. i don't see ANYONE else here (that wants the job) even remotely qualified to be the governor.
November 18, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
maybe not. could be emanuel and holder will be enough.
christ, he beat her, why would he think his network is inferior?
November 18, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
not inferior. he's bringing in HIS advisors to the White House. My take is that he wants people that really really know how to navigate the hill to help him get HIS policies through fast. Clinton people have that know-how. They've been there before. Don't forget they'll be carrying out OBAMA policies......
November 18, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
you know what would really bring the nation together? phil gramm at Treasury! also, bolton at State! good thing we won!
November 18, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
ThePolitico
http://laughatlieberman.com/
November 18, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the anger is over the top. If anyone should have been pissed it was Obama, who Lieberman conspired against. He's shown a maturity and magnanimity that others could learn from.
I just hope the good people of Connecticut will reconsider their choice of Senator next time (and this is afterall a Democracy -- mistakes by the people do occur). If they had kicked Joe out then, we could have easily had a Democratic senator who was far more trustworthy.
ps - One more thing, this could have been some kind of peace offering to John McCain, a personal friend of Lieberman's, and likely major player on the GOP side. Obama will need GOP cooperation for his major legislation. I don't think this is a politically unwise move. We have big problems, let's not get petty.
November 18, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn Clinton!
She did exactly what Howard Dean says Obama asked her to!
She did exactly what 41 other senators did!
Her utter betrayal of Obama and his supporters is complete.
Kick her to the curb.
November 18, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since the primaries, it's been hard to see Hillary as a team player for the Democrats. Plus, she and Lieberman are closer in ideology than is comfortable for a lot of lefties.
Hillary's vote for Lieberman is irksome because it seems characteristic that she would side with him, whether that's true or not.
November 18, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
During the primaries, I was becoming very anti-Clinton. But her efforts on behalf of Obama have satisfied me. She's more hawkish than Obama, but I agree with his premise, that he will gather a wide variety of opinions and make decisions taking them all into consideration. Hawkishness is only a problem if it is not balanced and kept in check by dovishness and realism.
November 18, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
This really, really bothers me and maybe you have an answer. The republicans are coming out in droves praising clinton for secretary of state. I am listening to Pat "the Nazi" Buchannan screaming her praises and why she should be secretary of state. Also, kyl was praising her as well. Why do the republicans always come out of the woodwork to praise the clintons to get them into a position of power in obama's administratiion, or when she was running for president? There has to be an ulterior motive, why else would they be doing it? It really is unnerving listening to these wingers praising the clintons.
November 18, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been wondering the same thing. I don't have a problem with Hillary as SoS, it's Obama's choice to make and he has a lot more insight in these selections than I do. But what is up with the Republicans being so excited about her? Is it reverse psychology? Because you would think they would be worried about Obama building a dream team. I'd like to see TPM tackle that question. What's up with the Republicans loving on Hillary these days?
November 18, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hawkishness is a problem if it leads to the destruction of villages, homes, children, the unnecessary death of our service men and women, their loss of limbs, their traumatic brain injuries, their PTSD, not to mention trillions upon trillions of wasted tax money not devoted to healthcare, education, the environment.
Hawkishness promotes hell on earth.
Our government no longer has a moral compass. We have felons in the Senate and traitors heading committees, and expedient opportunists heading up cabinet departments.
What we do not have is anyone who is going to change any of it.
I despair. It's hopeless.
November 18, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never had much of a preference between Clinton/Obama during the primaries. (That said, I thought her remarks about her and McCain being qualified to assume the mantle of the US Presidency -excluding Obama- were waaaay out of line)
There was never much daylight between their respective policy positions or in their approach to government or their ideologies. It shouldn't suprise anyone that both she and Obama support Lieberman.
Jane Hamsher called it. I totally agree with Mr Anonymous Democratic aide's brutal assessment of how progressive/liberals are viewed by the Senate: "They can rant and rage but they still do not put the fear into folks to actually change their votes."
November 18, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes, I love Matthews, "You don't need elections for this crap". Well said, Chris. Well said.
November 18, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is a DLC Corporatist like Schumer and Fienstien. When they are forced to choose between the Party activists that do all the hard work at election time and "the club," they will choose the club everytime. The only way to send a message to Lieberman is to make sure this is his last term.
November 18, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the Republicans want Hillary as SoS because it removes her as a campaigner and fundraiser for other Democrats. ???
November 18, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink