Lieberman slams Clark following debate

[robbedvoter]

NEW YORK (AP) -- Igniting a spate of post-debate recrimination, Joe
Lieberman accused new presidential rival Wesley Clark on Friday of
taking ``a journey of political convenience, not conviction'' from
the Republican ranks to the Democratic Party. Clark's camp called
Lieberman desperate.

On the day after a 10-way Democratic presidential debate, Lieberman
took issue with Clark expressing support for the Bush
administration's policies in a May 2001 address to the Arkansas GOP.
Bush was pushing his tax-cut package at the time.

``I was fighting that reckless economic strategy while Wes Clark was
working to forward the Republican agenda by raising money for the
Republican Party,'' the Connecticut senator said.

Clark spokesman Mark Fabiani fired back: ``I think Senator Lieberman
is an increasingly desperate candidate and it's unfortunate that
instead of articulating a vision for the future as General Clark has
with his 'New American Patriotism,' Senator Lieberman is attacking
other Democrats.''

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Democrats-Debate.html

[diplomats]

1. There's another thread on this

Lieberman is pathetic. I didn't like his attacks on Dean, and I don't like his attacks on Clark. He has no one to blame but himself for the fact his campaign has generated zero grass-roots support. Stick a sock in it, Joe!

[robbedvoter]

2. He's name dropping Clinton every other word, but he backstabbed him too

(as he did Gore). I guess he'll namedrop Clark's name too 9 years from now...

[dolstein]

10. Ah yes, the old "Lieberman's a Judas" canard

Of course, you fail to mention that Lieberman OPPOSED the impeachment of Bill Clinton. You also fail to mention that there was widespread agreement with Lieberman's criticism of Clinton's personal behavior among his Democratic colleagues in the Senate. Hell, even BILL CLINTON HIMSELF said he agreed with what Lieberman said.

As for the charge that Lieberman stabbed Gore in the back, need I point out that Lieberman is the ONLY Democrat in the current field who actually pledged to support Gore in 2004? Kerry, Dean and Edwards had begun campaigning for president long before Gore had taken himself out of the race. Hell, Dean had even considered running against Gore in 2000. And why not go to the source? Gore himself has said that picking Lieberman to be his running mate was the best decision he made during the campaign, and he continued to say this long after the campaign was over.

[Jim Sagle]

12. That's because Gore, unlike Jagoff Joe, IS loyal.

If Jagoff Joe is so loyal, why did he suck Cheney off during their "debate"?

If he's so loyal, why did he SLAM GORE'S POPULIST NOMINATION ACCEPTANCE SPEECH AS TOO POPULIST?

During the Florida recounts, why did he go on Meet the Press and cut Gore's challenge to illegal military absentee votes off at the knees?

Fucking RNC mole.

[dolstein]

18. Ah yes, the old "Lieberman kissed up to Cheney" canard

Geez, the Lieberman lynch squad needs to get a new set of talking points.

Of course, the people who slam Lieberman for "playing nice" with Cheney during the VP debate ever-so-conveniently neglect the fact that Gore had been hammered in the press and mercilessly spoofed by SNL the previous week for his overly aggressive performance in the first debate. They also fail to mention that the second presidential debate, which closely followed the VP debate and shared the same format, was also a lovefest. But the people who attack Lieberman never attack Gore for kissing up to Bush during that debate.

The explanation for Lieberman's sedate performance in his debate against Cheney is fairly obvious -- Gore's campaign advisers were determined to avoid a replay of the first debate. Lieberman was told to be on his best behavior and avoid partisan attacks. Gore himself followed this same approach in his next debate. But I suppose the people who subscribe to the "Lieberman-is-the-root-of-all-evil" theory aren't inclined to look at the facts before drawing their conclusions.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dolstein]

23. Sick? Sure, sick of all the lies and distortions

A large number of DU'ers apparently feel the need to blame Joe Lieberman for all of the setbacks the Democratic Party has faced over the past decade. Of course, the last time I checked, it was Bill Clinton who decided to have an affair with a White House intern and then lie about it to his wife, to his cabinet, to his political allies and to the American public (not to mention lying about it under oath in a deposition). And the last time I checked, it was Al Gore whose dismally received (by the press at least) performance during the first presidential debate forced a shift in strategy for the two debates that followed -- both Joe AND Al were on their best behavior.

But why bother looking at the facts when you can simply blame Joe Lieberman? It certainly takes a lot less effort, and besides, I seem to be one of the only people around here (Jiacinto's another) who's actually willing to admonish people for lying about Lieberman. There simply isn't any downside around here to joining the cyber lynch mob, even though the thought of joining ANY lynch mob, cyber or otherwise, ought to be intrinsically offensive to any self-respecting open-minded liberal.

Now you may believe that the hostility towards Joe has nothing to do with his religious background. But I've certainly noticed that DU'ers tend to be far more hostile to Israel and to organized religion than both the Democratic Party generally and the country at large. So perhaps it shouldn't come as any surprise then that the most hated figure on DU would turn out not to be a Republican, but a lifelong Democrat -- and a fairly liberal one at that -- who just happens to be an orthodox Jew. Go figure.

[Jim Sagle]

34. Go to the I/P folder (if you can take the stench) and check out

my stance on Israel. It does NOT follow that anti-Joe = Palestine Firster.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fjc]

3. Mealy mouth joe.

Let me echoe the sentiment about Lieberman. I grew to very much dislike him when he was Gore's running mate. It was that syrupy display of religious faith at every turn that started turning my stomach. He's not gonna be the nominee, that seems clear, and that's all to the good. But he's gone into junkyard dog mode with Clark and Dean.

As to Dean, people have said he has a short fuse. You could see it on his face in the debate. He best get a better handle on that or he'll self-destruct.

[clar]

5. Nah,

Dean was my gov for 11+ years. He never "blew up" or self-destructed.
Yes, he can be snippy, but last night he maintained self-control under serial attacks. The vast majority of news accounts this morning reflect that perception. Don't hold your breath waiting for him to tank.

[leetrisck]

8. I'm not sure I dislike that short fuse

and I believe Clark has a short fuse also - Clinton was said to be like that and we saw evidence of it a few times. Rupukes used to say they wouldn't vote for McCain because of that and that he would be "trigger happy" - now look what we have. I'm not sure I have a problem with a short fuse.

[cprise]

4. Pravda-esque

``I think Senator Lieberman is an increasingly desperate candidate and it's unfortunate that instead of articulating a vision for the future as General Clark has with his 'New American Patriotism,' Senator Lieberman is attacking other Democrats.''


It's almost funny. No it IS funny.

Clark needs a spokesperson who isn't taking cues from the GOP.


Let me qualify that by saying I agree with the first part. But Joe Lieberman is at least consistent with his conservatism.

[dean4america]

7. agree with you

Fabiani doesn't have to be shrill about his criticisms. It comes across as reactionary. yes, lieberman IS a desperate candidate, but joe at least has been consistent with his vision for the future, even if it is a conservative, middle of the road, vision.

clark should get a real spokesperson who won't piss off other democrats during the primary campaign.

[mumon]

22. "Joe's Jobs Tour"

I remember seeing Lieberclown on C-SPAN. Mealy-mouth prig didn't say a damned thing.

Clark? I'm in "wait & see" mode, but Kucinich he ain't.

Still, with the exception of Liberman, ...

[bambo53]

6. Does Holy Joe have dual citizenship?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kentuck]

9. We coud argue about who was working to "forward the Repub agenda"

But it's not an argument worth the time...

[Onlooker]

27. Lieberman has some things in common with Dean

Lieberman has a very good record on civil rights and is a fiscal conservative, just like Dean. Where Lieberman primarily differs, I think, is on foreign policy, where he has largely Republican views. On the other hand, my problem with Dean (who I gave money to, so very much support) is that he's from a state that has very little union activity and is the whitest state in the nation. While that does not make Dean a bigot, it means that he hasn't had to take stands on a number of controversial issues.

[salin]

11. Except this was intentional... it sort of makes me think of him

walking off muttering... Clark, Clark, Clark, Clark, Clark.

[kwolf68]

14. Lieberman is done

Put a fork in him, he's chared.

[Myra]

15. "Lieberman is done"

Then I wish he'd have the decency to disappear
under his rock so the real candidates can move
forward.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

16. Oh, Brother!

:eyes:

DTH

[Julien Sorel]

17. Thanks for the publicity, Joe!

Can we have your endorsement when you drop out? Because we're going to get most of your voters already, but the endorsement would be nice, as well.

[tinnypriv]

21. Lieberman is a jackoff, but the Clark spinners didn't answer the question

Weird that.

[Wickerman]

24. Question?

All I saw here was an erroneous statement

``I was fighting that reckless economic strategy while Wes Clark was
working to forward the Republican agenda by raising money for the
Republican Party,'' the Connecticut senator said.

And the issue has been debated several times on these boards and "answered".

[dolstein]

28. Answer?

Which statement do you consider erroneous? That Lieberman was fighting Bush's reckless economic strategy? Well that's obviously true -- Lieberman was a vocal opponent of the Bush tax cut package. That Wes Clark was raising money for the Republican Party? Well, he was a featured speaker at a fundraising dinner for the Arkansas Republican Party. I have know reason to believe that Clark personally solicited money on behalf of the party, but he was a featured attraction, wasn't he?

Personally, I don't have any problem with Clark calling himself a Democrat And I don't even have that big a problem with him speaking at the Republican dinner, since he had only recently emerged from a nonpartisan career in the military and was taking a close look at both parties. But Lieberman is well within his right to ask whether the Democratic Party should nominate as its standard bearer someone who was speaking at Republican gatherins only two years ago. My answer that is "hell yes, if he can beat Bush." But others may disagree.

[Wickerman]

33. Thanks Dolstein

for a reasoned response. However, my issue was that there wasn't a question asked, there was a statement issued. I do agree with your statement as you tie it up at the end, but I do think that Joe's comment wasn't entirely accurate. Was appearing at one event wholesale fundraising? Reading the transcript I don't think he "furthered the Republican" agenda anymore than Joe L. has furthered the Repug agenda with his votes in the last 1.5 years.

If we reframe Joe's statement as a question, I beleive that question was answered in other threads by others more articulate than me.

I will take a stab, though. Yes, he gave an address to Repugglies in his home town as a returning warrior. He was looking for employment and trying to find his place in politics. He had received some pretty hard knocks in the Kosovo events - I still recall the smears from the Right - largely because of the association with Clinton - he was Clinton's boy - he's gotta be bad. And again, this board has done a decent job recounting all the smears delivered by the Right.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt he may have made that one appearance to feel out the Repug party, Don't know that there was a lot of other contact so I wouldn't say appearanceS at Republican gatherings. I think we could say that he didn't like what he saw.

peace

[KittyWampus]

25. Guess Lieberman Knows Clark Is His PNAC Replacement

at least that's what an awful lot of fools on DU would have one believe....

[Onlooker]

26. Is Clark a fraud?

I must admit I am a Dean supporter who, until recent days, was becoming increasingly interested in Clark. But, as time goes on, my opinion of Clark is declining. He just doesn't seem to have spent the last months thinking through his stand on Iraq and he seems to have some fairly good Republican credentials. While I don't like Lieberman, I agree Clark has to explain his migration from seeming sympathy with the Republicans to becoming a Democratic candidate. He's beginning to seem insincere and shallow. I still have hopes for him, but primarily because of what Michael Moore wrote a few weeks ago in Salon, that was quite favorable. But, come on, Clark, explain yourself.

[ramapo]

29. Lieberman should welcome Clark

I don't know that I'd vote for Clark over the other Dem candidates but so what if he was a Republican? The question should be what does Clark say he's going to do? Can we trust him? About as much as any of the rest of the bunch.

There have been many Democrats who moved to the Republican side over the past decades. Not many going the other way. If nothing else, Clark aligning himself with the Democratic Party is a good thing and it should be encouraged.

[Onlooker]

31. True, but ....

If we're to take a lot of the complaints about Clark at face value, he could be an opportunist. Several of his colleagues didn't trust him, some have accused him of wanting a position bad enough in the Bush admin that he'd support Republicans, and his stand on Iraq has been rather confusing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not that down on him, but he does have to respond to some legit questiosn raised about him.

[demdave]

32. many Democrats who moved to the Republican side over the past decades

Very few have done it over the past few years and are now trying to run for president as a Dem.. I have a real problem with things he said just 2 years ago and how he is refuting them now by simply saying, I changed my mind. It wouldn't bother so much if he wasn't still in my mix of potential candidates. I have not made up my mind yet, and I missed the debate last night (damn), but he is still in my yet to be decided group. So this worries me.

[ima_sinnic]

36. here is a link to a complete transcript of the debate

. . . makes for some very interesting reading. Nice to be able to sit back and really mull each candidates' words.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A433-2003Sep25.html

[0007]

30. I feel exactly the same way

C'mon Clark explain yourself - Still

[karlschneider]

35. Well, to shorten a long tale, I tend to prefer a recent convert to

someone who has fraudently pretended to be a Dem for a very long time.
:eyes:

[saigon68]

37. They are DINOs

Democrats In Name Only

[belab13]

38. I think they're both right

- Igniting a spate of post-debate recrimination, Joe
Lieberman accused new presidential rival Wesley Clark on Friday of
taking ``a journey of political convenience, not conviction'' from
the Republican ranks to the Democratic Party. Clark's camp called
Lieberman desperate.

[leesa]

39. Oh brother...pot calling kettle black...funny

[Isere]

40. You left out the rest of the story! Kerry and Dean criticized him too!

In the predictible DU rush to pummel Lieberman, you forgot to mention that Kerry and Dean ALSO criticized Clark after the debate!


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3197163,00.html
``It looks like it's a journey of political convenience,'' the Connecticut senator said. His criticism was joined by:

- Howard Dean, who questioned Clark's judgment in praising Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in the speech. ``I think George Bush is not up to being president, and I'm concerned that General Clark didn't recognize that,'' Dean said in an interview with The Associated Press. He told reporters earlier, ``The biggest thing he has to do is convince people that he's a Democrat.''

- John Kerry's campaign argued that Clark was more specific in his praise of the Bush administration two years ago than he was in explaining why he's a newly minted Democrat. ``For a lot of Democrats, these remarks will be disqualifying,'' spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

So now can we please have a thread smearing Dean and Kerry?
Some of the posters here remind me of Margaret Carlson who during the campaign of 2000 explained the bad press of Al Gore by saying "it was fun to beat up on him..." or similar words to that effect.

[stickdog]

41. Somebody from the DLC had better tell Joe that he's only supposed to be

attacking Dean.