Oh, Jesus.  Now Lieberman has proved that he is at heart a true Democrat.

Never apologize, never explain.

And, for God's sake, never cry about your "political and personal" hurt.

Oprah Nation, get the hence.

CORRECTO   Get thee hence.  Thee thee

"Never apologize, never explain?" That didn't seem to work out too well for George W. Bush, now did it?

There is just something about this guy, call it an all consuming sanctimony I suppose, that makes him oily and self righteous even when he is trying to apologize. How Al Gore could stand this dude is beyond me.

Man, I sure wish that the Dems can him if he utters one over the line remark about President Obama...

Didn't Obama campaign for him in 2006?

Yeah, that's the point psantillana - Lieberman could be forgiven being pissed at many of his senate colleagues but Obama very specifically helped bail his butt out of the fire. Supporting McCain is one thing, but standing idly by at some of those McCain rallies where everyone was questioning Obama down to the level of whether he ate American corn flakes for breakfast was really over the top. He said some pretty nasty things too, but he shouldn't have been anywhere near some of the vile crap going on during that campaign. They need him, and Obama's a bigger man than a lot of those guys (and waaaaaay bigger than Joe), but I'd love to see them find a way to thoroughly screw him next time up.

Lieberman really is a contemptible figure.  I actually imagined this petulant, vendictive creep was a potential statesman back in the  1990s, especially when he ripped into Clinton during 1998.

And as everyone has noted before, Obama endorsed Lieberman in the 2006 Dem primary when he was begging for some anti-war figures to help him out against Lamont.  Now Obama has to bail his incompetent ass out again?  Pathetic.

The Supreme Narcissist continues to shock and awe.

So let me get this straight: Lieberman refused to do his job as the head of the Homeland Security Commitee (oversight of Bush's rape and pillage of the Constitution and the breaking of numerous laws) because his widda feelies were hurt? By Democratic Senators who had the temerity to be offended at being called terrorist lovers and unpatriotic? For merely trying to protect the Constituion and our values since George Washington refused to torture enemy soldiers (which is their function as the Senate anyway)?  As usual, it's all about Joe and his endless self absorption, screw the country

The biggest jackass in Washington retains his title easily.

Channy - you're projecting again.

Wand: precious, as always ;-) ...

Channy should be indulged; blackton is right: at least he writes in relatively coherent sentences and even when he makes no sense at all, there is a bizarre internal logic to his ramblings.  And you know that his "projectings" (more like projectiles, but I quibble) are his own and not the speaking points of a troll.  Still, "never apologise, never explain"?  What, he expects Bart Simpson to run the country?

As for Joe, could we please move on, he is SUCH A BOAR - uh, BOOR - uh, BORE.

Icarus - Channy is my friend, even if he blames the world's problems on poor Jane Fonda and the Harvard faculty (do NOT get him started on this, I beg if you).  He's often very wise and funny, spot on about Kerry for example.

He does wish Obama well and has always had a not so secret weakness and admiration for him - like all smart people who happen to be conservative and yes, there are many.  He loathes Hillary AND knows she's tough and brilliant, there's something like respect in there for her somewhere.  

We political junkies are all part time shrinks as well, quite adept and holding opposite views about the same person (although Joe Lieberman is out of this equation, only conservatives can remotely stand the guy).  For example, against all reason I am utterly done "hating" John McCain.  I know all the beefs from the campaign and totally agree with every one of them. And I still am releived I can enjoy his quick humor and old fashioned fly boy ornerness.  I have a feeling he may be at his best relieved of the poisoness ambition that almost ruined him.  It's all up to him.  (One more stunt of his kissing rump to the religious crazies and I'll throw him in he Joe pile).  

For the record, after the 2006 primary, Obama donated money to, endorsed, and sent out emails on behalf of, Ned Lamont against Joe Lieberman.

But anyway, are you sure that Lieberman's statement of being hurt was an explanation of his motivation for endorsing McCain?  That seems doubtful, because if he held a grudge against these Democratic lawmakers he would not caucus with them but instead would go to the Republican party since he was elected with 90 percent of the Republican vote and 60 percent of the independent vote.

When I first read the statement about Lieberman being hurt, I thought it was one of his characteristic lectures to others that they shouldn't be preaching to him about loyalty when they turned around and "betrayed" him.  Not that I agree with the sentiment, but I think that's what he was getting at.

You may be right bigm.

But he also might have meant the hateful things he said about anyone who had a problem with Bush's lawbreaking and Constitution shredding. Or maybe he meant the lies he said about Obama on the trail,  rather than the act of endorsement?  

Who knows, but him personalizing ANYthing too much as a United States Senator and actually acting on that over the interests of the country (as a supposedly objective head of a major commitee whose job is to listen to both sides and let the American PEOPLE decide based on what comes out), is disgusting.  

I've always been rather confused in the end about the Iraq war, and I accept that there are valid arguments on both sides put forth by honorable people.  For him to infer that anything other than the way he thought was treasonous was also beyond the pale - so selfish as to be shocking.  Especially as head of that damn commitee!  I still can't believe what wieners the Dems can be - ugh. For them to leave Leiberman in charge of that gives me the creeps, Obama's shtick can only go so far before it becomes self defeating.  Maybe Channy is right, we can be such chumps.

Let's try this: An entire day without mention of Lieberman on TNR. Please.

Nothing more boring, boorish and buffoonish , than he who is incontinently  "inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity" .

Well, bigm, in 2006 Lieberman vowed to work to get a Democrat elected president in 2008. Surely he knew that his bestest friend John McCain planned to run (because, well, everyone knew), so he either was lying then or he changed his mind after Democratic senators had the NERVE and the GALL to support the Democratic nominee for Senate in Connecticut after the primary.

Now, he told a lot of blatant lies during his 2006 run - he also promised to use his Homeland Security committee to keep an eagle eye on the Bush administration (ha!) - so maybe his support-a-Dem promise was just another example of his dishonesty. But his ego is huge, and his resentment of the Democratic Party can be traced back to 2004, when he felt entitled (as the 2000 veep candidate) to the Democratic presidential nomination and his campaign Joementumed off into a ditch right out of the blocks.

It's all very confusing. Perhaps Lieberman should sit down with Katie Couric for an hour and talk about all this.

mpatrickhenry, in these giddy days of hope and renewal, we can only take so much joy, relief yadda yadda.  We must go back to our deviant, dark ways for comfort.

(PS you're right of course).

In re 2000, Liebermann does seem to have forgotten he was the party's Vice-Presidential candidate eight years ago (it can happen to us all -- with me it's faces and names) and the very Republican Party he's been playing footsie with is the one that tripped up the recount in Florida and kindly accepted the presidency as an Xmas gift from the Supreme Court.

A curious parallel to McCain's warm embrace of the very people who killed him in S.C. in 2000 with grotesquely racist attack ads.

WoodyBombay-

"Well, bigm, in 2006 Lieberman vowed to work to get a Democrat elected president in 2008. Surely he knew that his bestest friend John McCain planned to run (because, well, everyone knew), so he either was lying then or he changed his mind after Democratic senators had the NERVE and the GALL to support the Democratic nominee for Senate in Connecticut after the primary."

He did make that "vow" during the Democratic primary.  After being effectively voted out of the party, it seems understandable to me that he would not feel bound by that vow.  In any case, do you really think he would have endorsed McCain if he was still a Democrat and not an independent.  Lieberman has said no, and that sounds reasonable to me.  As an example, McCain did not endorse Lieberman in 2006 when Lieberman was running in the primary but he felt free to do so after Lieberman began running as an independent.

"Now, he told a lot of blatant lies during his 2006 run - he also promised to use his Homeland Security committee to keep an eagle eye on the Bush administration (ha!) - so maybe his support-a-Dem promise was just another example of his dishonesty."

I know this is a popular complaint about Lieberman and I've tried to find substantiation for it without success.  Can anybody point to a statement made by Lieberman where he made this promise?  I don't doubt that it sounds plausible, but I couldn't find anything.

wandrey, ditto on channy.

bigm, I am not too sure of your ultimate point. Do you think Lieberman should leave the Dem caucus and go with the Repubs since they are the ones who put him in the Senate? He is an independent as you say, so his loyalty is only to the people of Ct. Then why should Dems allow him to be a member of their caucus? He can't have it both ways, to do what he wants yet still be treated as a high ranking Democrat (which he no longer is). It seems that you are saying he should have it both ways. Honestly, what is your view?

For the record I think the Dems should have booted him out before the election when the booting would have had real consequences for them, but since they didn't to boot him out now would be hypocritical so I am not unsympathetic to his being a member of the caucus. I just don't see defending the indefensible, it is simply easier to forgive and move on (but not forget, one screw up and he is gone)

"...and the very Republican Party he's been playing footsie with is the one that tripped up the recount in Florida and kindly accepted the presidency as an Xmas gift from the Supreme Court."

Irony: You always bring up such fascinating ethical nuances for discussion. Do you think a personal grudge against "a party" should have prevented LIeberman from supporting a man from same terrible party whom he believed would be the better leader?

Let's suppose you are a very thoughful and insightful proffessor up for a position of highness in academia, and you also happen to be my friend. I disagree with your politics but find our worldviews more or less are compatible. And I think you'll do a great job in that high position in academia. Should I refrain from supporting you, because we nominally belong to rival political parties? And if my ambitions had been previously thwarted by the very party that now you represent, should that prevent me, person N, from assisting you, person Irony, if I can,  with your ambitions?

At what time do we forego ideology and politics, for what we consider a better good?

blackton-

Thanks for asking.  I really don't have a strong view on it, but my point was more to put forth a possible explanation as to why he brought up his "hurt" about 2006.

My non-strong view, I suppose, is that he should caucus with the Democrats since he votes with them most of the time anyway.  But, as you point out, that caucusing was only really important when it allowed the Dems to be the majority the past 2 years.  It may not be important for the immediate future, and certainly not until 2010 at the earliest.

Wandrey, enjoyed your analysis of me.  I'll let that be my little ego-trip for awhile.  While recognizing it was not precisely unvarnished praise.

Look, I've never liked Lieberman's sanctimonious air, either.  Even when I agreed with him.  But, in a way, that a style problem.

Keep some things in perspective.  On every issue and in almost every respect except the war in Iraq, Lieberman is a by the book, hard core Democrat.

But, from his point of view, partly because of his support of Israel, no doubt, but hardly just because, he believes that our policy in the Middel East and the war against Jihadists, trumps every other issue.

After all, if you concur that this is a war for survival, and the United States does not survive, then single payer health care, gay marriage, and all the rest of the pantheon of Left and Democratic Party issues all are as nothing.

So, if your belief is that the war against Jihad is everything, and that securing Iraq against Jihad is paramount in this effort, and that Obama's promise of withdrawal by date certain would be a catasrtophe, how could Lieberman not campaign for McCain and oppose Obama?

Even if, as you are all saying, Obama helped him save his senate seat.

In considering Lieberman, you must separate your dislike for his personality, and your disagreement with him on Iraq, from where your interests as Democrats are.

It is much wiser-- as Obama apparently recognizes-- to keep Lieberman in your camp than to humiliate him and drive him out.

As I've said elsewhere, few Demcorats covet the Homeland Security chairmanship anyway.  It is not the road to riches in your party.  

If there is never another terrorist attack, neither the committee nor the chairman will get credit for that.  If there is, they'll get some of the blame.

Meanwhile, Envrionment is the glory seat for a Dem.  You got that away from Joe.  Now Democrats can take credit for sunshine, fresh water, and any year, like the past one, that is colder than normal.

So leave poor Joe alone.  He's not hurting you.  And, in fact, never could hurt you.  He doesn't control the Jewish vote.  And you would have won without it.

nogal:  "Let's suppose you are a very thoughful and insightful professor up for a position of highness in academia, and you also happen to be my friend. I disagree with your politics but find our worldviews more or less are compatible. And I think you'll do a great job in that high position in academia. Should I refrain from supporting you, because we nominally belong to rival political parties? And if my ambitions had been previously thwarted by the very party that now you represent, should that prevent me, person N, from assisting you, person Irony, if I can,  with your ambitions?"

Well, person N, one possible reason why I'm in academia rather than politics, beyond my thoughtfulness and insight, is that I wouldn't give the time of day to a bunch of people who prevented me becoming my party's presidential candidate by a series of extremely dirty tricks that involved tapping into an ugly and paranoid layer of racism.  But that's just me.

I think, in terms of the general hypothetical case you advance, that it would be perfectly normal to support one's friend, because the "minimal" question about party affiliation shouldn't play a major role in an essentially non-party-political job.  If, however, a group of senior professors to which my ambitious friend belongs contained a number of people who, a few years ago, had both (a) used procedural tricks to delay my tenure review and (b) previously sabotaged my friend's first attempt to reach that particular academic office, I might have some second thoughts as to whether I wanted to be so close to him -- especially as the group of professors to which I nominally belong has an excellent (and younger) candidate for the same office, and furthermore one who helped me when I had been in a tight spot.

I think one of the unanswered questions in your hypothetical is whether the individual completely trumps the party they -- at least nominally -- represent.  I tend to think that you can't casually ditch your party, even in America.  McCain couldn't convince a majority of the electorate that he wasn't offerring four more years of Bush-style GOP rule.

irony writes, "...I think one of the unanswered questions in your hypothetical is whether the individual completely trumps the party they -- at least nominally -- represent.  I tend to think that you can't casually ditch your party, even in America."

I don't see that Joe in campaigning for McCain, actually "totally trumped the party".

Even if McCain had won, the Democrats would still have strong control in both houses.  On top of that, McCain has a long record of working with Democrats and siding with their policies-- McCain Feingold, Comprehensive Immigration Reform, etc.

Further, if McCain had won, it wouldn't have been because of Lieberman.  Lieberman is hardly a Hillary, say.  

He gave some Democrats who agreed with him on the Iraq issue more permission to vote for McCain.  He was never going to be decisive.  Unless we had had another election like 2000 where the deciding electoral votes were in a state that was a tie.

Those kind of elections happen every 100 years.

I agree thoroughly on all the ironyroad love today - you never cease to impress me Mr Road.

Also Channy, agree with your take on Lieberman - Obama is amazing that way.  With both the Hillary pick and his Joe defense, its a win-win for him no matter what happens to either Hillary or Joe.  Very Obama.

Wandrey, I go pink -- you're bestowing smiles of approval upon a bunch of folks today (Channy, now me, who's the next lucky person?).

I think noga was being a little astringent with her "fascinating ethical nuances," however.  She doesn't take my nuances that seriously.  And possibly rightly so.

"I tend to think that you can't casually ditch your party, even in America."

That's a rephrasing of what that nineteenth century JEWISH prime minister said, under similar circumstances:

"Damn your principles! Stick to your party. "

Ah!  That Willie Gladstoneberg, he got it right!

ChanRobt sez: "On top of that, McCain has a long record of working with Democrats and siding with their policies-- McCain Feingold, Comprehensive Immigration Reform, etc."

I am impressed with how quickly you forgot that McCain reversed himself on all that stuff; in fact, I had even heard that he voted against the McCain-Feingold bill, although that may have just been McCain publicly declaring his reversal on that bill.

As someone who thought highly of McCain before this election cycle, you and Johnny Mac are going to have to do a lot better than this to convince me that he is not the political opportunist I watched implode this year.

GSpinkswrites writes, "...I had even heard that he [McCain] voted against the McCain-Feingold bill, although that may have just been McCain publicly declaring his reversal on that bill."

Not to my knowledge.  I would think that if McCain had voted against his own signature bill that would been pretty widely crowed about and have been common knowledge.

As it is, McCain, in delicious irony for his enemies, hoisted in the past election upon the petard of public finance.  He opted for it.  Obama opted against it.  As a result, McCain was stuck with a paltry sum compared to what Obama raised privately.

Some may argue that McCain would have been even poorer if he'd not had the public money, but, I don't think so.

As it is, no one who can raise money directly is ever going to want the public money again for a presidential election.

I apologize, I was thinking of the Kennedy-McCain bill and reversing his stance on immigration reform.

As for campaign financing, it seems to me that McCain did just fine. I couldn't sit through a single episode of any of my favorite shows, especially the NFL, without seeing at least as many McCain commercials as Obama commercials. As I recall, he stumped pretty furiously for a septagenarian as well. And the vaunted Republican "ground game" is largely a volunteer force of Evangelicals doing "apostolic ministry" and doesn't require money anyway.

I really just don't see where he came up short as a result of too little cash. I can see lots of places where he came up short, but cash had nothing to do with those.