Wed, 2008-08-20 10:08 — lambert
Remember how hard we worked to replace Joe Lieberman with an actual Democrat? Well, it looks like Joe has been looking carefully at Obama's platform, whose preamble reads:
A great nation now demands that its leaders abandon the politics of partisan division and find creative solutions to promote the common good.
Yes, Joe's taken those words to heart, and he's putting them into action by addressing the Republican convention!
Isn't that great?
I'm so full of hope and change I can hardly stand it!
»
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Boy, the nutroots support for Lamont keeps paying dividends
Talk about Pyrric victories
------------------------------------------------
“When someone engages in divisive behavior, any resulting division is their responsibility” - Melissa McEwan
I think it was a great start by netroots
Obviously, it didn't deliver the desired outcome, but it showed that bloggers could have a tangible impact on politics.
That this tool would be so badly abused this year, that's not-so-great.
That great progressive Zell Miller led the way!
How wonderful that even four years later, post-partisanship hasn't lost its bloom!
For a country which began by being highly divisive (rebelling
against its founder and governing power), suddenly division is sure getting a bad rap.
And, as has been pointed out over and over and over, with Repubs bipartisanship means rolling over and playing whimpering puppy underdog. The Repubs have Pres. 28% Approval, and Obama needs to make nice to them?? And trash his own* party's principles while doing so?
*Granted, there is some disagreement as to which party is actually Obama's party. Has he taken over the Democratic Party or supplanted it with Obama Nation? And just what are Obama's principles concerning governing? Who knows?
*Granted, there is some disagreement ...
as to which party is actually Obama’s party.
Hint: They're called ObamaCANs, not ObamaCRATs.
Maybe, I am insane...
But, looking back at the Lamont-Lieberman (via the background account in Matt Bai's The Argument), I'm not sure Lamont was so much better as opposed to "2% Less Sucky".
I agree that it showed the power of the netroots, and perhaps the positive power, though. It's just so bizarre to see how they've directed that power. It's as if they learned absolutely nothing from that highly televised battle in Connecticut.
Lamont didn't turn out to be a strong candidate, obviously
And we didn't predict that the GOP would unfund its own candidate to support Holy Joe.
But driving Bush Dogs out of the party with primary challenges is a good practice.
But what if it costs you the seat?
Is a bad Democrat better than a Republican?
What about party unity?
------------------------------------------------
“When someone engages in divisive behavior, any resulting division is their responsibility” - Melissa McEwan
myiq2xu
That's a question I've been asking myself ever since reading the background on the race. Joe may be a hawk-and-a-half, but he was solid on just about every other liberal issue from what I understand of his record. And, the loss of Lamont and his party turning against him ultimately only emboldened him to go completely bat-shit crazy on the war.
I also forgot who his Republican opponent was. Wasn't it the former governor of Connecticut, and what were her views on the war, I wonder? Given the lean of most New England Republicans, she may have very well been against the war, herself.