Is anybody surprised?  Lieberman was the "family values" guy who showed up regularly on Don Imus' potty-mouthed radio show.

Demerits to Obama then for his poor judgment in backing the ferbissenah charlatan from Connecticut.

But even greater demerits to Hillary for raising unnecessary tens of millions of dollars in 2006 and doing little to help other Democrats that year, which combination of selfishness put Democrats in the position of needing Lieberman's vote to maintain a majority. Schedule Hillary's reelection campaign for 2004 or 2008, and Democrats almost certainly win one more Senate seat thanks to the resources that would have been available to other Democratic challengers in 2006.

Thanks for finding that, Jason.  I linked to it in my Facebook blog.  Having supported Lieberman in the past, I think this item should get much more publicity, so the world can see what a douchebag the Senator has become.

..ferbissenah charlatan..

Don't agree , but gut gezogt.

Is it the case then that Lieberman owes an endorsement to Obama because of past political favors rendered? But I thought, based on the slamming Clintons received for expecting Richardson to back Hillary, that this was unacceptable!

Oh, now I remember. Hillary does not get to expect gratitude from those ones once showered with Clinton favors. For Obama, the rules are different. Just the type of reasoning I would expect on Obama-besotted TNR.

And for the record - I dislike Lieberman just as well as the next person. But his right to back whomever he considers best for the country is no lesser than that of Richardson, regardless of how distasteful that choice may be.

Chris and Jason 's feeble protests notwithstanding, it looks like Obama is in fact a closet Marxist

Oh, come on now.  

Obama, along with the rest of the Democratic establishment, endorsed Lieberman in the primary (notable exception was John Edwards).  Then Obama, along with (virtually) the rest of the Democratic establishment, switched and endorsed Lamont in the general election.  This is, of course, understandable but it did not show any particular excessive loyalty or courage on Obama's part.  

(It does show that endorsements are very thin though considering a person can change their relative assessment of two candidates based exclusively on that person's party affiliation.)

jkolic, nobody here is criticizing Lieberman for endorsing McCain (although if he were a loyal Democrat he would not) nor are they saying he owes Obama the endorsement (he could have endorsed Hillary) what is objectionable is Lieberman saying "I’d hesitate to say he’s a Marxist" which is just bat shit loopy, especially since 2 years ago he willingly took the endorsement from Obama. And if he said the same thing about Hillary I would say the same thing. This is miles away from Richardson. If Richardson said "I’d hesitate to say she’s a Marxist" I would rip him a new one too. But his saying, I support Obama is absolutely beyond reproach, since that is his exercising his freedom of choice, which is sacrosanct in a Democracy. Exercising your freedom of speech, on the other hand, means subjecting yourself to the reproaches of others based on the content of the speech.

jkolic,

Ugh, this wasn't about Joe Lieberman endorsing McCain. Frankly, nobody cares about that. This is about him suggesting that his parties likely nominee, and one time friend, is a pinko. I'm fairly certain Richardson didn't go on Fox News and insinutate that HRC was a communist. So your point is basically nonsense.

Obama's endorsement of Lieberman (worst thing Obama's ever done? possibly) doesn't matter much, and Saint Joe certainly doesn't owe him anything because of it.

However, the way in which he's bashing Obama is disgusting, sleazy and even immoral. Even for a weaselly little duplicitous shit like Saint Joe, it's revolting.

I certainly hope Hillary doesn't start running with that like she has with the rest of the GOP's talking points. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if she started airing an ad questioning whether Obama is a Marxist, though.

I agree with jkolic and also bigm.  You can call Lieberman many things, but "ungrateful" isn't one of them.  The reason he is supporting McCain in the first place is cuz of their decades-long personal relationship.  McCain has endorsed him and helped him politically and legislatively much more than Obama.  And as bigm pointed out, everyone in the Democratic establishment supported Lieberman in the primary and Lamont in the general.  McCain, of course, supported Lieberman in both.  Also, let's not conflate what the Fox News guy said with Lieberman's own words.  Everyone knows that saying "That's a great question" is a classic stalling tactic when being interviewed to give yourself a few seconds to come up with a response.  And if Lieberman did honestly think it was a "great question," he much more likely was referring to the elitism part, not the Marxist part.  And you know what?  Obama is an elitist.  There's nothing wrong with that.  Most TNR readers are elitists also.  Just about every leading politician in this country is an elitist, including the ones who pretend not to be, like our current president.

I know we all love hating Joe right now, and he certainly deserves it for a lot of things he's done.  But he doesn't deserve any for this.