Listen, I hate Joe Lieberman. I think he’s a fucking rat and should be drowned in his own piss.
That doesn’t mean that my solution (or those of the frothing millions here) is the best way to “handle” him. I think Obama’s way is not only the right way to deal with him, but also consistent with his “change” message.
Again, let’s not forget how Obama gave Lieberman the LBJ treaatment (and that’s when he was a mere Junior Senator and candidate for President!). If Lieberman fucks up, I’m confident Obama will be swift and thorough. But let’s give him more than half a day before we get all frothy is all I’m saying.
That was said before the election (actually the day of the election, but technically before there was a winner), and it wa also said in pretty general terms. He didn’t say he would automatically vote to support any filibuster, he only gave lip service to the idea that filibusters, in general, were a necessary tool (which I agree with). That’s a long way from saying he’ll necessarily side with Republicans in stoning appointments or that he won’t ever vote to break a filibuster on a legislative bill.
Why the HELL did Gore ever choose this fucking prick as his running mate in the first place? What the fuck was he THINKING? Seriously, what was the deal there?
Gore didn’t just think this - he knew he had to distance himself from Clinton. But I think he could easily have done this regardless of who his running mate was.
His secret weapon should have been Tipper, whose family values credibility was plenty strong. He should have not criticized the Clintons at all, but campaigned as much as possible making joint appearances with Tipper. People would have understood well enough that they’d get a traditional Democrat in office without embarrassing family drama, which they were tired of.
I think this is an apples/oranges argument. Whether you like Gore as a man or liked the policies he was pushing in 2000, it still should be obvious that he made quite a few tactical errors in the conduct of his campaign. And frankly, he only needed to be a little bit better to win.
I don’t care if it’s consistent with his message, if it turns around to bite him - and us all - in the ass.
I don’t care what treatment Obama gave Lieberman then. Did that keep Lieberman from saying nasty shit about Obama on the campaign trail? No, it sure didn’t. So I’d not be quick to ascribe utility to that confrontation, or any future encounters of a similar sort.
There’s not a damned thing Obama can do to Joe, because Joe isn’t after anything for himself, except a lot of appearances on Sunday morning talk shows. And Joe has always managed to get those gigs by being a Dem who slams Dems. Broder & Co. just eat that shit up by the gallon.
He knows his time in the Senate will come to an end in four years. So in the meantime, he’s free to do what he likes. And he likes sticking the shiv to Dems.
If we get through 2009, and Lieberman hasn’t done exactly that multiple times, I’ll be the first to come back here and start a thread saying just how wrong I was. But it ain’t the way to bet.
This has nothing to do with bipartisanship. This has to do with the members of the U.S. Senate representing the interests of their constituency, namely, U.S. Senators. Lieberman had club privileges, simple as that.
He needed to distance himself from Clinton on a personal level, I agree, but he ended up distancing himself from their political accomplishments as well, which only hurt him. Granted, it was a complex situation and it’s easy to manage his campaign from eight years in the future, but he ended up picking Lieberman and pushing too hard on that angle.
Nope. I said Gore chose Lieberman because he made quite a few mistakes in the campaign, this among them. Now, how this relates to the decisions of an entire political party, I really don’t know. Hence my comment to you.
Agree totally. And that’s why I think relying on Tipper to drive home the fact that there would have been no drama with him would have been the way to go.
I don’t agree with everything Clinton did in office, obviously, but I can’t deny how popular it was at the time. Gore absolutely should have run on that record but should have driven home that he was a more honest and chaste administrator of Clintonism than Clinton.
Instead he tried reinventing himself as a faux-populist, which didn’t wear well.
You went for a general slam of Gore’s entire campaign, rather than giving a single particular reason why Gore might’ve chosen Lieberman. That’s a pretty hefty jump. So it’s funny that you should turn around and say that going from a blanket slam at one Presidential candidate’s entire campaign, to a slam at the other party for choosing their Presidential candidate, is too big a reach.
Suffice it to say, shitnozzle, that your best case is that there’s some pedantic, trivial distinction that makes your comparison slightly less of a reach than mine. Feel free to argue that point if it gives you pleasure.