Am I wrong for holding Obama and Rahm responsible for Joementum?

[xultar]

I mean Obama called Joe to the WH and that lead to Joementum retaining his chairmanship.

Now Joe is kicking all of us in the balls.

So I don't know why everyone is blaming Reid and not including Obama and Rahm in this mess.

[grytpype]

1. He might be the 60th vote we need on climate change.

I hate what's happening too, but throwing people out only hurts your position on other matters.

[AndrewP]

2. Like it doesn't hurt now?

[Robbins]

Lieberman

Trusting he will vote with Democrats on anything Is a mistake.

[TwilightGardener]

6. It's time to assume we'll never have his vote again--just pretend he's a GOPer.

He will say he's FOR something right up until he says he's against it, in order to screw Democrats--it's obvious that he is not driven by any sort of principles or beliefs in policy.

[xultar]

7. I don't think that quite answers my question...why are people holding Reid responsible

for Joe and saying they wish Reid had balls when it was Obama and Rahm that wanted Joe in.


Oh and by the way...

Joe says that it was Liberal Enthusiasm Convinced Him to be Against MC Buy In

So, I guess if we are excited about climate change...
He'll torpedo that too.

Lieberman: Liberal Enthusiasm Convinced Me To Oppose Medicare Buy-In

[treestar]

14. Is Reid supposed to punch the guy in the nose?

This is a politcal process! Why do posters act like it's a bar fight?

[xultar]

17. That is what I've been trying to say. I don't understand why people are so up @ arms

especially with Reid when in reality there are 2 other people who should get some blame and no one wants those guys to punch Joe in the face.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

28. Pelosi and Reid get blamed for a lot of things that aren't their fault.

In general, people like "targets".

[tekisui]

3. I blame the four of them. But, Obama and Reid the most.

[xultar]

9. I do too. No way Obama gets a pass and Reid well he was always whishy washy

[blm]

24. Joe wouldn't even BE in the Senate but for Bill Clinton's focking interference...

It's the same old triangulating Clintons routine. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing, because Hillary (who was planning her presidential race) needed a pro-war Lieberman win to show that anti-war Dems cannot win general elections.

Let's get real with the blame, eh?

Ned Lamont's campaign spoke out after the race:

"Bill and Hillary Clinton

No single senator was quicker to send out $5,000 check after the primary (accompanied by a press release). In fairness, Hillary Clinton did a lot of good, but Bill hurt us tremendously at the same time. Hillary had a fundraiser for Ned. She met with Ned personally and that generated a good amount of press. They eventually (after significant prodding) sent out an email to their CT list asking for volunteers down-the-stretch (but Hillary would not have it sent in her name). Pretty good. There was quite a bit of debate inside campaign HQ about what their motivations were. But whatever it was, who cares. We quite publicly attempted to use our online support as a lever to encourage public officials and future candidates to rally behind our campaign and do things to help. Whatever the reasons, Hillary as an individual was a net positive to our effort

President Clinton, on the other hand, probably provided the singular destructive post-primary moment of anyone outside the campaign. He provided every national Democrat the cover they needed to stay out of the race in one single moment on Larry King Live. He said he wasn't too concerned about who won the election between Ned and Joe. Mind you, this was post-primary, and he was pretty much the first big-name national Democrat to do so. When he was asked to put out a statement clarifying that he supported Ned, we were told he was on vacation, but one would be forthcoming. Well, we got one mealy-mouthed sentence a few days later. He never made it right. Ever.

Here's a little known fact: many folks have complained that we didn't do enough to illustrate the people supporting Ned and those supporting Joe post-primary. Well, we had a commercial shot and ready to go that we were forced to can after that Larry King appearance. The statement also blew up radio and print ads we had ready to go."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/14/122820/27
>>>>>>>>

That kos post was written before HRC declared her presidential pursuit.

Hillary's guy Howard Wolfson was planted in Lamont's campaign as her 'gift' to the Dem nominee. No doubt Howie shared the content of the 'big' ad with with his DLC cronies, and Clinton used his time on LKL to blow up any chance of using that ad when he said Connecticut Dems were so lucky to be in a situation where they win with either candidate.

[jonnyblitz]

4. some claim he is key in getting gay rights legislation passed.

:shrug: I could live without him despite any positives he might have.

[xultar]

8. All that is bullshit. He's not going to support anything liberal.

[Pirate Smile]

5. Yes

We would have 59 Dems and 41 Repubs. That is the only difference. Lieberman would still be in the Senate and we would still need 60 votes.

We would still need 60 votes to do almost anything. Would it be easier to reach that with Lieberman caucusing with the Republicans? I highly doubt it. Sometimes reality sucks but it is what it is.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. IOW, there would be no change whatsoever.

So why not be honest about it and kick his ass out?

[Lord Helmet]

10. The cheese stands alone.

[VMI Dem]

11. Its chess.

[xultar]

18. ROFFPNMFPLMFAO

[Writer]

12. Yes. Why should three adults be responsible for another adult's recalcitrance? n/t

[treestar]

13. No, why should one person be responsible for another person's behavior?

So what if Joe has no chairmanship? He'd still have the power to vote and filibuster.

Blame the population of Connecticut. This is their Senator. They chose him.

Sitting around blaming does no good. It gets nothing done.

[SIMPLYB1980]

16. But blaming other people makes everyone

feel better. That's just the way it seems to be.

[Lord Helmet]

21. Blaming is easier than insight and critical thought.

[LovinLife]

15. When they cut a deal w/ this idiot and refuse to use reconciliation even if it helps the debt, blame

their ass. I am.

[Beetwasher]

19. Nothing Would Be Different If They Kicked Him To The Curb

Not a single thing would be any different. So yes, you're wrong.

[classysassy]

20. Joe is no longer

a member of the democrat party,when he supported his pal from arizona in the last presidential election he should have been given the boot.

[GoCubsGo]

30. He's no longer a member of the DemocratIC party, either.

Please stop using the republicans' childish "democrat party."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. Yes.

Joe was allowed to keep his chairmanship on the promise he'd caucus with dems. Joe betrayed that promise, not Obama.

[polichick]

25. Obama's bending-over-backward strategy toward progressive enemies...

...has very much backfired - unless his agenda is very different from the agenda of progressives.

[Arkana]

26. It's Reid's prerogative to lead the charge to dump Joe.

Obama and Rahm shouldn't involve themselves in a fight against a single Senator.

[xultar]

31. Very true

[SemiCharmedQuark]

27. If Lieberman had been kicked to the curb, wouldn't he still be voting with the Republicans?

I mean, at least we would have the satisfaction of the little weasel not having a chairmanship.

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. If Leiberman didn't have his chairmanship they would still need his vote

[Popular Front]

32. Yes. Obama is a true progressive.

He'll pull through. Give him time and have faith.