Hmmm, I'm not saying anything, I'm just sayin'.

Email Print posted by Squich 02/03/2008 10:41:35 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
HARTFORD, Conn. --U.S. Sen. Barack Obama rallied Connecticut Democrats at their annual dinner Thursday night, throwing his support behind mentor and Senate colleague Joe Lieberman.

So much for judgement, maybe he should have just been "present".

http://boston.com/news/loca l/connecticut/articles/2006 /03/31/obama_rallies_state_ democrats_throws_support_be hind_lieberman/

< HERE COMES OBAMA! | 2008 Draft and offseason >
 Display:
Hmmm, I'm not saying anything, I'm just sayin'. | 45 comments (45 topical, 0 hidden)
OH MY>>>> (none / 0)
Well, thats the kind of thing one wants to hear when youre trying to gather support for the most important election day (thus far) for Obama.

I understand party loyalty and unity, but Jesus, couldn't he have just taken the photo op playing golf with Satan rather than support Lieberman (by the way one of Satan's most loyal disciples)!

The libs are gonna love this shit...

by bobo1 on 02/03/2008 10:46:00 PM EST

Gonna love this? (none / 0)

You saw that this "story" is almost two years old right?  I don't really see the point.

by Spencer on 02/03/2008 11:07:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
maybe I should stop drinking and pay attention... (none / 0)
Hey, Spencer, you are right again! But still, you think he would distance himself back in 2006. he knew he was running, even back then.

hey Squich, why the Hell did you post this 2 years late. Do you want Mccain for President?

Thanks for the heads up Spencer!

by bobo1 on 02/03/2008 11:15:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Why you ask? (none / 0)
For the same reason that a vote from 2003 is the reason the many claim that they won't vote for Clinton. Look in the mirror.

by Squich on 02/04/2008 12:41:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Dude, I'm totally sober when I say... (none / 0)
The reason many libs wont vote for Hillary Clinton is not because of that single Iraq vote, but the 35 years of trickery, coniving, two faced politics that her and her other half have practiced. The woman wants to run on her record, she better be prepared to run on all of it!

I will concede that Obama's judgement (even 2 years ago) should be questioned by giving any support to Lieberman, but why post it in this sly kind of way?

Just come out and say it - stop trying to look like someone whos afraid to say whats really on their mind. Look at my postings, I catch more shit than a public restroom at a Thai restaurant, but i come out and say what I think directly...

Again, Im glad people caught on, but dude, if you want to support Hillary, by all means do so. Just dont use her tactics in doing so. It makes you both look like shit...

by bobo1 on 02/04/2008 12:57:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
you're fooling yourself if you're for Obama (none / 0)
I can slightly agree if you're less against Obama, but you're absolutely delusional if you think he's any great leap better than Hillary Clinton.  We've been handed two crappy choices this year, and I for one don't think it's any better than not having any choice at all.  At least when we got Kerry pushed on us I didn't have to pick.  I might not even show up to our caucus on Saturday because I'm sick of having to vote for these (D)-Republican types.

by ynp7 on 02/04/2008 01:24:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"Crappy choices?" Please... (none / 0)
... don't be completely ridiculous.

Obama is BY FAR the better choice.  He has the most liberal record in the Senate, has been strong on just about every issue liberals care about and has -- most importantly -- actually gotten things DONE by knowing how to build bridges.

An Obama presidency is going to be full of pragmatic liberalism blended with a healthy dose of sensible foreign policy, both driven by a simply titanic mind (as opposed to the simply Titanic mind we have currently in the White House).  I, for one, cannot wait.

by jarett on 02/04/2008 01:37:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Too Much Vagueness (none / 0)
"...you're absolutely delusional if you think he's any great leap better than Hillary Clinton..."

I read a lot of this: hyperbolic comparison statements with no substance behind them.  I'm not trying to pick on you, ynp7, it's just this statement happened to be the one that finally tripped my trigger.

I've been to Clinton's and Obama's web sites' Issues sections and read what they had to say.  I've read some independent appraisals and looked and their voting records.  That's why I was for Gravel while it didn't mean anything, because I agree with more of his positions.  But when, with regard to Democrats beating the Republicans, my choice started to matter, I went to Edwards.  I skipped over Kucinich, naturally, because he turned out to have some rather strange beliefs about his relationship to the universe.

I liked Edwards because of his strong support for labor, election reform, and the poor.  Sure, I know about his past votes, but a person can change his mind, can't he?  Besides, politics is a wierd game with strange rules, and sometimes you cast a vote that doesn't affect anything for a policy you don't agree with so that you can get allies for your cause when it does matter.  I don't like it, but there it is.  And I believe Edwards when he tells me about what he thinks today.

In fact, I have no reason to doubt what any of the Democratic candidates say (although I have suspicions about what they might not be telling me).

I view Hillary's original vote for the war the same way.  The ware was gonna happen.  The climate at the time was overwhelmingly "full steam ahead and damn the torpedos".   An extremely small minority -- myself included -- were against the war, but our voices didn't matter.  No one wanted to talk about it.  They wanted to kill Saddam Hussein.  Clinton made a calculated political decision that voting against the war would have sunk her future -- and I'm convinced she was correct about that.  We would be talking about her in the same breath as Kucinich if she'd voted against the war then.

But I digress.

So now Edwards is out of the race.  Who am I going to support?  I like what Clinton says about strengthening unions, but Obama has public campaign financing right up front in his little book.  Clinton says nothing about it, she's and got too many corporate sponsors "in the room with her".  Obama is relatively clean in that regard.  Since I believe the revolution starts with campaign finance reform, I'm going for Obama with nothing but hope that he follows through on it.

But if it turns out that Obama still supports Lieberman, I'm done with him.  I think of Lieberman as a traitor to Democratic principles.  I'm convinced that his loyalties lie more with Isreal than with America.  I may be wrong, but that's how I've felt since the Gore campaign.  And I couldn't vote for Obama if he spoke the same words about Lieberman today as he used in 2006.  I'd start pitching for Clinton in a minute.  But until then, I've made my choice.

But in the long run, it doesn't matter.  I'm voting Democratic in November regardless of who gets the nomination.

Now, this is not to say that I don't think that hyperbole has its place.  I will gladly use the most nasty arguments I can invent against the Republicans -- as long as I don't have to lie.  I want to destroy their party which has done so much to hurt our country.  But when it comes to Democrats, I have to remember that who gets the nomination is less important to me than which party wins in November.

When it comes to choosing a candidate, specifics are helpful.  I don't think hyperbole is of much use in that.

But when it comes to picking a party, let 'er rip, 'cause it's all out goddamned war.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/04/2008 02:28:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
way bigger problem than Lieberman (none / 0)

"I think of Lieberman as a traitor to Democratic principles.  I'm convinced that his loyalties lie more with Isreal than with America."

Hard to say but to me he's more loyal to Ct military manufacturers which IMHO is a bigger problem. Ideological or religious support for Israel is bad enough but pumping money to merchants of death to keep people in jobs and investors happy... Retrain them and shut down the war profiteers.

by toosinbeymen on 02/04/2008 03:35:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Which came first? (none / 0)

The chicken or the egg?  You could be right.  They both support each other.

Either way, Lieberman scares the hell out of me.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/04/2008 03:55:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Wow! bobo! (none / 0)
"The reason many libs wont vote for Hillary Clinton is not because of that single Iraq vote, but the 35 years of trickery, coniving, two faced politics that her and her other half have practiced."

A Democrat with wide open eyes!

If Hillary gets the nomination, I hope you vote for McCain.

by KenTX on 02/04/2008 02:00:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
get real (none / 0)

Cut off nose to spite face. How much will a 100 years in Iraq cost in blood and treasure? How about the next war?

Ever thought that maybe terrorists want to bankrupt us? Duh.

by toosinbeymen on 02/04/2008 03:28:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Whoever told you I was a "Democrat" (none / 0)
Hey Ken, I find it loathsome that you would assume I am any sort of Democrat. I think both parties are shit, and Im not afraid to say it.

My eyes have been open for many years, thats why I know both parties have their hands in my pocket, ripping me off at every turn.

But I can assure you that under no circumstances would I ever vote for that conniving letch McCain. The man is fucking nuts and he needs to be put down like the sick little animal that he is. Somebody needs to wipe that VC eatin grin off his ugly skin cancer victim face of his.

Again, thanks for your support.

by bobo1 on 02/04/2008 07:38:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"Lech?" (none / 0)
Dude, what?

by jarett on 02/04/2008 11:42:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ok, let me get my thesaurus... (none / 0)
sorry, "letch " is a local word where i'm from - some synonyms are - creep, cretin, jerk, malcontent, scum, sleezeball, slimebucket, asshole, brain damaged, sold out on our vets (how the Hell else did he get out alive).


Ok maybe the last one isn't a true synonym, but I hope you get the point.


Anybody who conciensiously votes for McCain ought to be sterilized or destroyed.


Thanks...

by bobo1 on 02/04/2008 11:54:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
What "letch" actually means (none / 0)
http://dictionary.reference .com/search?q=letch

Say what you will about McCain, but he's never been known to be a pervert.

The Republican base doesn't like him.  That's reason enough for me to be softer on him than you are.

by jarett on 02/04/2008 03:21:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey wait a minute.... (none / 0)
Jarrett, are you Ken TX using a different screen name?

Please remember I live in Arizona, and the few times McCain actually ventures to this state (because we all love him so much) people run for the hills.

I apologize for "letch" if thats the true meaning. I recall it as a word meaning "creep" so I guess thatdefinition could fit in some respects.

I just dont like McCain because he is such a creep. the man is nuts and IMO truly unfit for the office.

But, people did vote for Bush, I suppose...


by bobo1 on 02/04/2008 03:50:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wow! (none / 0)
That's a very serious charge, "unfit for office".  Can you back that up, or are you simply using hyperbole.  "Nuts" can be a very subjective evaluation, although it does require some basis in reality.  For instance, we could make a weak claim that Kucinich is nuts because of the way that he handled the UFO question (badly).  But I've seen nothing similar in McCain.

But if you're simply using hyperbole in your charge that McCain is "unfit for office", then the way in which you are using it is as unethical as Republicans do, because they require no truth behind any of their charges.

I think it would be better for us to distinguish ourselves from Republicans.  One way that we can do that is to be more honest.  I believe that hyperbole can be a very useful tool, but I don't think we have to lie either through ignorance or through malice in order to achieve our goal of wiping out the hipocritical and immoral Republican party.  (See? It's easy to back up those charges with specific examples.  But "unfit for office" requires a high standard of proof that I am convinced does not exist wrt John McCain -- and I'm about as progressive as you can get without being socialist.)

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't want us just to tell people that we're better than the Republicans.  I want us actually to be better.

Cenk gave us a really great example of how to use honest hyperbole in his interview with Sarah Posner about the nutcases who give their money to rich preachers in the stupid belief that they, too, would get rich.  (Well, calling them "nutcases" might not be much of a stretch, in which case Cenk didn't use hyperbole at all.)

One other thing: Dishonest hyperbole can work against us, both by energizing the other side, and by causing some of us to become complacent by believing it.

We must not underestimate John McCain.  He's smart, he's basically a good guy, he really believes what he says, and he's got lots of resources with which to fight us.  In short, he is very dangerous, but not for the reasons you've given.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/04/2008 04:43:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
OK OK... (none / 0)
Maybe I misunderstood th purpose of this forum and its discussion. I didnt know i needed fucking listed referrence material and fucking physical evidence to post. Are we on Lawyers blog.com?

Its a opinion area, not a doctoral dissertation of fact. i say McCain is nuts because all one has to do is look at him, listen to him speak and see him (all the better in person, as I have) to know that this guys has a few screws loose. I can say hes a creep because he is a fucking creep.

i dont work for a campaign, I dont work for the government, I dont have to justify my words or back them up with anything. The founders made sure of this when they wrote that little thing we call the first amendment to the Constitution.

I do not get paid for my blogging, and people are free to respond and discredit anything said on here, but god dammit dont be such a fucking dope! I say he's unfit for office because I dont want "Igor" from the Frankenstein movies running my country. We've already got Dr Evil and Mini Me, and thats bad enough.


As to the part where Democrats need to be better than Republicans, I will point out again that I am neither a democrat or republican. I find it disturbing (especially on this blog) that people find it so hard to believe that you can actually be and vote independent of party orders! Neither one of those bastard parties pay my salary, so i dont have to take any shit from them.


Take a look around you, man! More and more people are coming to the realization that this system is truly fucked, and that a change is gonna come, whether Washington likes it or not. Dont be such a Democrat Progressive Pussy saying "Cant we all just get along?"

And by the way, McCain is not a good guy, you have obviously drank the Kool Aid that says just because hes a "war hero" automatically gives him props of that nature. That shit can only go so far before you actually have to consider what he is...nuttier than a shithouse rat!

Thanks!

by bobo1 on 02/04/2008 08:04:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No it's not "lawyersblog.com" (none / 0)

But who argues AGAINST using facts? 

Just a note for the future:  When you start a post with how you don't want to cite references or have anything laid out in your favor to back up your opinion, you should just assume from the outset that nobody is going to take you seriously.

The system is fucked?  In some aspects OF COURSE...  But in reality, is there anything that anyone could do to make you happier with it?  The more I read your comments, the more I get the picture that you're just one of those people that will never be happy with anything.

by Spencer on 02/05/2008 08:13:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
yeah.. you're right (none / 0)
I must concede to your second point...I am generally not an "Up With People" kind of person (does that age me a bit?)

Regardless, when I blog on this site, I really dont expect anyone to take anything too seriously. There are enough people on this site that take themselves WAY TOO SERIOUSLY, I dont need anyone to do it for my sake!

Again, thanks for your opinion, as always.

by bobo1 on 02/05/2008 10:55:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I believe you're going to find ... (none / 0)
... that a lot of people on this site are "into" what they're talking about, far more so than most people--it's why they're here.  This strikes me as a "safe zone" for progressives, while still being a place for political debate.  Venting now and then is probably good for the spirit, but methinks most people here are looking for reasoned arguments and well-thought-out counter-arguments.  I know I react more positively to that sort of interaction.  Just a thought.

SAM: What's new, Normie?
NORM: Terrorists, Sam. They've taken over my stomach and they're demanding beer.

by Spinny on 02/06/2008 08:09:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Obama Loves Lieberman (none / 0)
He didn't just ask him to menor him, he loves Joe!

"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf,"



by Squich on 02/03/2008 10:50:44 PM EST

I just switched my vote. (none / 0)

I will NOT vote for another politician who supports something or someone as bad for our country as Lieberman.  I'm convinced that his loyalties are primarily to Isreal, not the U.S.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/03/2008 10:59:05 PM EST

Switched to who? (none / 0)

by Spencer on 02/03/2008 11:08:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Damn (none / 0)

I didn't notice the damned date of the article.  That'll teach me to pay better attention to what I read.

But if Obama still supports Lieberman, whom I view as a destructive force against America, I'll vote for Clinton.  I'll be watching this issue very closely.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/03/2008 11:43:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Damn again (none / 0)

Now I've gotta click the "Don't Recommend It" button in hopes that fewer people will see how stupid I was to fall for this crummy trick.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/03/2008 11:48:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Go for it. (none / 0)
Just make sure you never reference anything from Clinton's past like her original vote on Iraq. That would be a trick...right?

Wake up.

by Squich on 02/04/2008 12:47:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I never have... (none / 0)
talked about her original vote except in the context that it was the beginning of a string of votes.  I've also said that while it does cause me some problems, I'm convinced that those votes were necessities for her political survival.

But about her much more recent vote on Iran, I'm pissed.  Yes, it may have been necessary from a political standpoint with regard to keeping the Jewish lobby and conservative Democrats happy, but I'm really pissed about it.

But would it keep me from voting for her if she is the Democratic nominee?

Not a chance.  I'm hoping for Obama, but if Clinton gets the nod, I'll be out there singing her praises as if she is the Second Coming of the Lord.

I never take my eye off the ball in baseball, either.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/04/2008 02:39:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You're not saying anything (none / 0)
So you should vote for Hillary because of this?  I'm not following you. 

by Spencer on 02/03/2008 11:01:50 PM EST

Yes, Judge for yourself! (none / 0)
Obama has a clear lack of judgment...when he bothers to vote.

The United States should launch military strikes against Iran if the government in Tehran does not stop supplying anti-American forces in Iraq, Sen. Joe Lieberman said Sunday on Face The Nation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stor ies/2007/06/10/ftn/main2908 476.shtml

by Squich on 02/03/2008 11:09:20 PM EST

Is that a response to me? (none / 0)
So we should vote for Hillary?  This whole thing is weird and I don't get the timing.  Digging up old semi-irrelevant stories two days before an election.  Fishy fishy. Big fucking deal.

by Spencer on 02/03/2008 11:14:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What a joke this thread is! (none / 0)
BFD is the exact and only appropriate response for this weak attempt to dig up old and irrelevant BS.

by ihavenobias on 02/03/2008 11:38:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
hillary's jock (none / 0)
I agree, this was a peculiar decision on Obama's part, but certainly not enough to get my panties in a bunch over it.  Hillary did give W the go-ahead on the war in the first place, afterall. 

by schmoab on 02/04/2008 12:03:42 AM EST

Are you kidding? (none / 0)
Obama actually thinks that someone who can not keep the electricity on and is trying to feed his/her family will instead pay for health care insurance? They know they can go to the emergency room if they need to. This is not based in reality.

He needs to spend a couple days with poor people to get a clue.

by Squich on 02/04/2008 12:45:37 AM EST

Bitter Edwards supporter perhaps? (none / 0)

by Spencer on 02/04/2008 12:49:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I think he might be a scared Hillary Supporter! (none / 0)

by bobo1 on 02/04/2008 01:01:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Lest we not forget... (none / 0)
We have never had a poor President in this country's history. ever. So wishing for the "Common man's President" is not gonna get you far...

They're all not based in our reality...

by bobo1 on 02/04/2008 01:00:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Is anyone surprised? (none / 0)

I know a lot of people love to think Obama is some big time progressive liberal or something.   But he VERY clearly is not, and that's been pretty damn obvious to anyone who has looked at where he stands on the issues.  I figured it out a month after his 2004 DNC speech when I read about his support for charter schools, which no liberal or progressive would support.

We've been given a shit choice between him and Clinton this year.  At least when Clinton runs to the right I'm pretty convinced that she's playing politics.  Obama I actually believe, and that's extremely troubling. 

by ynp7 on 02/04/2008 01:17:16 AM EST

What? (none / 0)
What's wrong with charter schools?  What is this b.s. about "shit choices?"  The guy is strongly in favor of every liberal principle.

by jarett on 02/04/2008 01:42:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
That's fine I suppose (none / 0)

I look forward to caucusing without you then.  I'm so tired of this "all our candidates suck" shit that comes out every year.  Your options here are pretty clear I think.  Hillary or Obama.  It's up to you to find out who's closest to your beliefs.  And if you can't find anybody good enough, you can sit out or you can run against them.  But later for all the whining please.

by Spencer on 02/04/2008 01:56:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
a "shit choice"?? (none / 0)
I have to wonder how old you are, because at age 46, I can't remember a better choice in my voting lifetime.  I will vote for EITHER Hillary or Obama with equal happiness. 

by desertpear on 02/04/2008 03:37:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That's a good age (none / 0)
I shall be 47 in just under two weeks.

Sorry for the off-topic post, just I see so many young-uns on boards like this ...

SAM: What's new, Normie?
NORM: Terrorists, Sam. They've taken over my stomach and they're demanding beer.

by Spinny on 02/04/2008 06:08:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Obama just loves Joe who loves McCain (none / 0)
I find it fascinating that I'm supposed to trust Obama's decision making when his self proclaimed "mentor" and great friend who he assured Connecticut voters was the right person to send back to the Senate has decided to throw his support to..........Hilary?.......N O!........Edwards?......... .NO!........another minor Democratic contender?..........No, good old Mentor Joe has decided for the sake of the nation to support John McCain.

Yep, Obama keeps looking better and better with every passing day, even his mentor doesn't believe in him.

I hope that it doesn't come as too much of a surprise to everyone who is getting all tingly in their nether regions over the prospect of Obama getting the nomination when the Republican attack machine begins to wind up and start the full blown assault on his character.

At least with Hillary you know what the spin will be and were the attacks will be aimed, and the Clinton machine knows how to counter, with Obama the depths of Republican slime will come down full force and I'm afraid that once again the Dems will be trying to figure out just what happened, because the most recent version of Mr. Nice Guy will try to stay above the fray.

I hope I'm wrong but I don't think so.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 02/04/2008 07:02:59 PM EST

Na Hubble (none / 0)

you are right. They will use the same tactics they used on Harold Ford in 06.

They will send their hatchet men out with all kinds of rumors about white women, drug use, his Muslim father, etc. The Clintons know how to play that game but I think the Obama camp is in no way repaired to deal with what is coming their way.

Sorry true believers, that is just the reality of the situation. 

by z1p101 on 02/05/2008 12:33:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Hmmm, I'm not saying anything, I'm just sayin'. | 45 comments (45 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: