HuffPo: Rove's mole deep in the Democratic party is Joe Lieberman

[Human Torch]

Karl Rove and Joe Lieberman: BFFs

Jane Hamsher

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/karl-rove-and-joe-lieberm_b_27100.html



It never ceases to amaze me the thoroughness with which establishment media can instantly internalize the right's talking points. Mike Allen of Time Magazine announces that a Lamont win is Good For the Republicans. As Atrios noted, when is anything not good for the Republicans? But already in the face of no aggressive Democratic pushback and against all evidence to the contrary, a Lamont win is attributable to angry blosopheric hippies and it's accepted as CW that Karl Rove will happily run on cut-and-run Democrats in November.

Except Allen neglects to mention that he won't be doing it alone. Rove now has a mole deep within the Democratic party helping him out, and the mole's name is Joe Lieberman. Rove has put the word out that Connecticut Republicans are no longer supposed to push Alan Schlessinger and his awkward gambling problem out of the race, because he wants Joe Lieberman and his giant wounded ego running against the Democrats from within the Democratic party. It doesn't look like Joe will see his dream fulfilled of getting the GOP nomination in CT after all. His useful idiocy depends on his willingness to keep the Democratic party in chaos and running against their own in November with silly narratives like "hippies, negros and communists vs.
rational centrists (hat tip Marty Peretz).

I realize there was a window when it was necessary to give Joe some graceful exit room, but he's not taking it. He's barricaded himself in his bubble of wounded delusion, refusing to answer the hotel door when Chris Dodd came a-knockin' while staring into that magic mirror which whispers to him he's a Great Man. If allowed to do so by major Democrats like Schumer, Reid and Clinton, he will single-handedly undermine the ability of Democrats to run nationally against an unpopular war and keep the party in disarray as people like Ken Salazar undermine it from within by legitimizing Joe's crybaby beef. The GOP messaging on this has so far gone unanswered, even as right wing ghouls like Dan Senor are dispatched to take the place of Lieberman's lame Democratic consultants and commence the swiftboating of Lamont and those who could capitalize on his victory.

I understand they are in a tough position at the moment that I do not envy, but it would be nice to see those in leadership positions within the Democratic party find their voices over this one and show some, you know, leadership before it is too late.

[MrBenchley]

1. Says the racist Jane Hamsher

"Rove now has a mole deep within the Democratic party helping him out, and the mole's name is Joe Lieberman. Rove has put the word out that Connecticut Republicans are no longer supposed to push Alan Schlessinger and his awkward gambling problem out of the race, because he wants Joe Lieberman and his giant wounded ego running against the Democrats from within the Democratic party."
Funny Rove forgot to tell Ken Mehlman about that "fact." On Meet the Press, Mehlman dodged the question when asked if Republicans were endorsing Lieberman.

Quick, everybody who thinks Hamsher has a clue about what does or doesn't go on in the White House, raise your hand--if you can get iit out of the straitjacket sleeve.

[opihimoimoi]

2. I had a strong hunch there are Pub moles for the longest time.

Some are recent converts, others put into place years ago(Sleeper Moles 247.00).

and they laughed at Hillary for mrntioning the "Pub Conspiracy"...."How dare she?"

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OzarkDem]

12. Do you have proof

that Stone is working for Lamont?

This isn't a presidential race and I doubt it will make much difference in the Dems campaign to take back the majority in the House and Senate.

The GOP has nothing to gain from getting Lamont to run against Lieberman.

[MrBenchley]

13. We know Stone's puppet Sharpton's there

up to his corrupt ass in the Lamont campaign.

"The GOP has nothing to gain from getting Lamont to run against Lieberman."
News flash: They not only had plenty to gain, they got it.

[OzarkDem]

15. Sorry, that's nothing

If Stone were involved, there would be proof. I'm surprised that you would make such an assertion, I thought you were above things like that.

Sounds like more GOP dirty tricks.

In the meantime, lets focus on winning the Senate, or does the DLC not care about that?

[MrBenchley]

17. Sure is something to most of us....

By the way, since you wanted to focus on "winning," how DO you think Lamont playing kissy face with Sharpton played to voters?

"lets focus on winning the Senate"
Which is now one seat harder than it was a few months ago, all because of the lunatic fringe's absurd quest for "purity."

[smoogatz]

81. So, do you support the Democratic nominee in the CT Senate race, or not?

Just wondering where y'all DLCers stand on this thing.

[MrBenchley]

104. Geeze, don't cry to me because you can't be bothered to read the thread

But since you ask so nicely, I plan to give the Unknown Millionaire all the enthusiastic and rousing support that DUers give Democrats like the DLC.

[smoogatz]

117. So, you support the DLC candidate, as opposed to the Democrat.

Good to have that out on the table.

[MrBenchley]

131. They're one and the same, smoogatz

Now go snivel to one of the other purists.....

[Cassandra]

122. Why did Joe Lieberman go down to Florida...

before the 2004 election and speak to Jews there, telling them that he thought Bush's position on Israel was better than Kerry's? Is that the way DLCers prefer to support Democratic candidates?

[LincolnMcGrath]

105. You'll get very little in the way of an honest reply.

Chances are you'll get nothing more than a dishonest attempt to slip a shot at Lamont supporters without technically breaking the rules.

[UpInArms]

83. here's the only "kissy face" that counts

[Stinky The Clown]

22. Nice when you can cite one fact and ignore another .....

Remember this guy? He had a hand in ratfucking McGovern, too.

He was later well-rewarded for his efforts.


SEN. HENRY MARTIN JACKSON
Awarded by
President Ronald Reagan
June 26, 1984


President Ronald Reagan posthumously awarded the Medal of Freedom, the nations' highest civilian ward, to Senator Henry Jackson, "one of the greatest lawmakers of our century." President Reagan presented the medal to Jackson's wife, Helen, in a Rose Garden ceremony. June 26, 1984.

http://www.medaloffreedom.com/HenryJackson.htm

There are bad Republicans and bad Democrats. But 'some people' continue to defend the bad ones.

[MrBenchley]

27. Not even close to true....

But be sure and tell us what Jackson did to fuck with the primaries. We'll wait right here, laughing our asses off.

[Stinky The Clown]

29. "We"?

Where's yer boys, sport?

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Crunchy Frog]

62. Lieberman lost. Get over it already.

"Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here."

The Republican has no chance of winning, unless you consider Lieberman to be a Republican.

[Clark2008]

70. Uphill fight?

The winner will be either Lamont or Lieberman.

And, considering you think so much of Lieberman, that means that a Democrat (or a sort-of Democrat) would win either way.

Schlessinger is of no import.

[digno dave]

107. JJ & Sharpton holding hands with Lamont does little to endear

me to the Democratic nominee. Was he that desperate for urban support? JJ standing behind Lamont on the podium won't win us any converts for our cause come November. Pure idiocy.

[ursula law]

132. best post ever!

not

[Jim Sagle]

71. There might even be one or two right here.

;-)

[Cha]

73. Ya think?

Moles supporting moles?

[Jim Sagle]

82. Pretty soon you'll have your wish.

Joe's flabby old face will indeed be outta here!

[opihimoimoi]

110. Are you kidding me....They are EVERYWHERE....The Pub Mind Snatchers

have invaded our Society along time ago....

A Big Clue is our Polarity..is it POSITIVE or NEGATIVE? By the Looks of things...them Pubs have given us a NEGATIVE SOCIETY with a DISMAL OUTLOOK.

[Evergreen Emerald]

3. of course he dodged the question

When has Mehlman ever answered a question truthfully? He is only talking points. To admit that they support Lieberman would be to expose their transparent plan. I agree with the premise of the article. Look, Lieberman is spewing the right-wing talking points louder then Mehlman. He is hurting our party by lock-stepping with this administration and re-defining our party as "taken over by the left wing radicals."

Their strategy has become quite clear: redefine democrats through Lamont, use fear and terror and "left wing loonies" to terrify the stupid public into continued control of our nation.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[salin]

6. I am unfamiliar with the writer

and haven't yet read the item. I am curious per your charge of racism - what should I know before reading.

Btw, I think all of the proclamations of "meaning" per the Lamont/Lieberman primary results are ridiculous. Three incumbents lost primary runs on the same day. Three different directions led to those upsets. It doesn't a brain surgeon to notice a trend. I know this is a nonsequitor - but it is driving me crazy about now - the multiple scripts, when the most obvious one is in front of our noses...

ANTI-INCUMBENCY.

Think about it - there are three house races, each held by a republican, at risk of being lost in Indiana. In red Indiana there is a growing likelihood that the congressional delegation will shift from 7:2 repub to dem, to 4:3 dem to repub. This isn't about moderates or liberals in the democratic party. It isn't about net roots. It is about a growing discontent in the heartland with the current political status quo... and unhappy with a party whose Governor has plowed ahead on initiatives that the public was not in favor of and was loudly not in favor of... wanting to send a message to the political establishment. "Listen to us... for a change..." Republican friends and relatives have expressed this to me numerous times in the past couple of months.

As much as I have been no fan of Lieberman - I think that the causes of his loss are really no different than why a number of folks in Congress (probably a few dems along with a much greater number of repubs) will lose their seats in November. Many folks want a change. While unhappy with Iraq... the reality is that the "show" in Washington has very little to do with folks everyday lives which have gotten increasingly less economically secure. Wages pretty much stagnate while the cost of fixed expenses increase. When DC looks like they are just about themselves and "politics as usual" - when there are real problems facing real people and those issues are continually ignored, that is when anti-incumbency tends to swell.

Sorry for the nonsequitor - but thanks for letting me vent at what I perceive to be silliness on so many threads, in so many op-eds in the msm, everytime the stories harken some big "message" per the upset, without mentioning the two other upsets on the same day - and mentioning a possible (anti-incumbency) sentiment that helps give some causal explanation to all three... each time I feel like I am hearing nails dragged across a chalkboard.

[MrBenchley]

7. Hamsher was the source of the racist blackface caricature

Anti-incumbancy does play a role, and thank you for pointing that out.

[salin]

9. yikes!

was offline at the time - and only read reference to the incident afterwards... very, very tasteless and ugly. Thanks for the headsup per that.

[MrBenchley]

11. The mindset it took to come up with that in the first place

was especially telling....

[Elidor]

43. That's funny. You attributed it to Lamont last week.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2762867#2762909

And I quote:
"By the way, how do you suppose black voters in Connecticut enjoyed Lamont's racist caricature the other day?"

There's not too much lower you can sink, but I have faith in you, so don't let me down.

[MrBenchley]

47. It came out of his campaign...

Lamont was trotting around with Hamsher on his arm in the closing days of his campaign. And she wouldn't have produced it unless she thought it would play to the target audience.

Hamsher produced a camapign commercial for him. She made personal appearances with him.

As for sinking low, trying to make excuses for racist gibberish is lower than I'll ever go.

[Piedras]

112. Jane Hamsher was not the source of the black-face caricature

McBenchley's is in error to call Jane Hamsher a racist because someone (not Jane) posted a black-face caricature on her blog FireDogLake. FDL moderators quickly removed the offensive caricature. Or, maybe, it's a rightwingish slur against Jane Hamsher because she was/is an early, vocal, and very effective, netroots supporter of Ned Lamont. Calling Jane a racist IMHO smells of a Rovian motivation.

[Cassandra]

118. What do you think Hamsher was saying with the blackface...

caricature? Do you think she hates blacks?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. How is Jane Hamsher a racist?

Not trying to pick a fight; just asking. She does the Firedoglake blog, a solid progressive site; I don't ever recall reading anything there that smacked of racism and I didn't see anything in the cited article. So I'm just wondering.

[MrBenchley]

10. See above....

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. OK, the above was uninformative, so I googled it.

Seems Jane Hamsher, acting on her own and not as a representative of the Lamont campaign, put a photoshopped picture of Lieberman and Clinton on her blog, showing Lieberman in blackface. The implication was supposed to be that Lieberman is a phony with respect to the black community. It was certainly tasteless and inappropriate; Hamsher quickly pulled the picture and apologized.

I don't see show this proves she's a racist, though, since the intent was to suggest that Lieberman is one. It does suggest that her enthusiasm overtook her judgment. Bottom line, though, is that the above criticism of Hamsher obviously stems from her support of Lamont and dislike of Lieberman. Lieberman lost, fair and square, and he's chosen not to be a Democrat any more, so get over it. This isn't the Joe Lieberman Whiny Loser Underground.

[Zhade]

16. "This isn't the Joe Lieberman Whiny Loser Underground"

:spray:

Indeed. Kinda wondering when the mods will start enforcing the "no third party advocacy" rule on these pro-lieberman posts...

[MrBenchley]

19. It isn't the Racist Imbeciles Underground either

"Kinda wondering when the mods will start enforcing the "no third party advocacy" rule on these pro-lieberman posts..."
It isn't pro-Lieberman to point out Hamsher's a racist imbecile, or that her column is transparently a load of horseshit.

[Zhade]

57. I don't know that I agree with your conclusions...

...but it is true that pointing out one thing doesn't necessarily mean you're pro-lieberman.

We know you are, though. Which is fine, as long as you don't advocate for that loser here, since it's against the rules now.

[MrBenchley]

85. I know that I don't care whether you agree or not

[Jim Sagle]

72. Nor is it the Jagoff Joe Underground.

Just thought you'd like to know.

[Missy Vixen]

111. Jane Hamsher and ReddHead of firedoglake manage to limp along

without your endorsement.

>It isn't pro-Lieberman to point out Hamsher's a racist imbecile, or that her column is transparently a load of horseshit.<

Sorry, I have to speak up.
Jane Hamsher apologized for her gaffe. The other readers of firedoglake have managed to move on. Firedoglake routinely gets so many hits per day that they had to go to another hosting group; the one they used the first day they went to their URL was quickly overwhelmed. They were also featured the other day in the New York Times. They must be doing something right.

Just a question, if I may: When was the last time a former US Ambassador and a former CIA agent appeared on a panel with you? Just curious.

Julie

[Cassandra]

119. In what way is she racist?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. Spin it however you like. Lieberman still lost,

and he's still not a Democrat, regardless of whether or not Jane Hamsher is a racist.

[MrBenchley]

21. And now we Democrats have to spend a fortune

to hang on to a Senate seat that we didn't have to spend a dime on six months ago, all because "progressives" like racist Hamsher demanded "purity".....

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

23. "We Democrats"? As of last Wednesday, Joe wasn't one.

That decision was his. All he had to do when Lamont won was what primary losers normally do (at least those who aren't sorry-ass egotists), which is throw his support behind the winner. That's what candidates do if they value the strength of their party more than their own ambitions. That's what Howard Dean and Wes Clark and John Edwards did when they lost the Presidential primary. And Joe could have accepted the decision of the majority of the Democratic voters in Connecticut, which was that they wanted Lamont as their candidate and not him. But no, Joe had to go and form his own party so he could RUN AGAINST THE DEMOCRAT WHO WON THE PRIMARY. If he hadn't done that, then the party wouldn't have to spend a dime defending that seat. It most certainly wasn't on account of bloggers like Jane Hamsher.

So since Joe has chosen not to be a Democrat and to run against the Democrat who won, and to canoodle with the likes of Ken Mehlman and Sean Hannity, why are we even discussing this any more?

[MrBenchley]

25. And as of Tuesday, he was....

"If he'd done that, then the party wouldn't have to spend a dime defending that seat. "
And if Hamsher and the other "purists" had kept their yaps shut, that would be true, too. So what?

[Ghost in the Machine]

103. Are you saying that no one should have ever opposed Joe?

"And if Hamsher and the other "purists" had kept their yaps shut, that would be true, too. So what?"

Maybe I'm misreading this, but it almost seems as if you are saying that Lieberman should have been able to remain in office, unopposed, until he decided to retire... or died. Is that the case?

[ima_sinnic]

24. "we" didn't have that Senate seat when "it" voted WITH the Rs

--and "purity"? it's called Democracy.
As much as you apparently would like to live in a totalitarian system where everyone would march in lockstep with the status quo, you had the misfortune to live in a democracy, where the voters are supposed to have the final say on who represents them. Perhaps you would be happier in, say, Pakistan or China where these troublesome kinds of things wouldn't happen.

[MrBenchley]

26. We had that Senate seat....

"As much as you apparently would like to live in a totalitarian system where everyone would march in lockstep with the status quo, "
Ah, the honesty of the far left.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

28. Explain to me just exactly which of Ned Lamont's positions

can be defined as "far left." He opposes the Iraq debacle, like a majority of all Americans; Joe is in the minority on that one. What else? Does Lamont advocate socialism, Marxism, Stalinism or collectivism? Has he been caught reading "Das Kapital" on the subway? Has he proposed the elimination of private property and sending us all to collective farms where we can grow crops for the glorious state and wear red scarves and sing the Internationale?

Let's get real here. The notion that Lamont represents the lunatic fringe of the Democratic Party is an absurd meme spawned by Rove and Mehlman because they know damn well that Lieberman's PNACery (and yes, Joe was all buddy-buddy with Wolfowitz and his neocon ilk, helping them promote the Iraq mess long before it started) does not represent the mainstream Democrats, so of course they want to discredit Lamont and make it seem like HE's not in the mainstream. But he is; Joe's not. Again -- get over it, or go start the Joemocratic Underground.

[MrBenchley]

34. Since you want to pretend that racist Jane isn't....

I don't feel like "explaining" anything to you.

"The notion that Lamont represents the lunatic fringe of the Democratic Party is an absurd meme"
Says somebody trying to spin away public racism.....

[CTLawGuy]

37. anyone who actually stands up to the Bush Administration

is "far left."

[mitchtv]

31. The War ... is the issue

Joe supports it, he had to go; real simple
far left , yo mama
why do you hate Democrats?

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mitchtv]

38. well, it is an issue that separates the wheat from

the chafferman. I am not a Lamontie, I am a Union Democrat, and I support my party and it processes, I even begrudingly vote for Feinfix.So get this straight , I am the Democrat You? not so sure

[MrBenchley]

40. Me, I plan to give Lamont the same cheerful support

DUers give the Democrats of the DLC.

[mitchtv]

42. good then we should hope that

you at least contribute to the DNC, I trust the good Dr DEAN will alot Lamont his share. BTW , I put up a sign for DiFi last time she ran

[MrBenchley]

44. Yeah, I do.

But then you'll notice that it's never moderates who start those "I'm never giving a dime to the Democrats" threads here.

"I trust the good Dr DEAN will alot Lamont his share."
The dough primarily comes from the DSCC, which is slammed here with monotonous regularity, by many of the same whoopsters now hypocritically screaming for lockstep party loyalty to be enforced.

[mitchtv]

46. I do not,, but I wish more Moderate Dems would

emulate Gov Richardson, and tell Joe to get out. Bill Clinton especially to tell him publically. Hillary might win some librul points , too. I asume Boxer will(she'd better). I have always liked and supported Bill Richardson.

[MrBenchley]

48. You don't donate? Or you don't something else?

Not sure what you meant.

[mitchtv]

77. I do not say that kind of stuff

I do to those who I donate to personally, however= but that is rare
Although Hillary weites a good letter, I respond to Howards letters more often, on the subject of donations, more and more we send to individual Dems, it keeps me from worrying where it goes( out of Calif, quickly) The CDP gets first dibs on limited donation money lately.

[MrBenchley]

87. Ah....thanks for clarifying....

Keep up the good work.

[mitchtv]

98. Discipline ,we could all use a dose

God knows, we don't have to like these politicians.

[MrBenchley]

100. Well said.

[Bjorn Against]

61. Yeah, there is this one DUer who calls the DLC "idiotic"...

Oh wait a minute, that was you who said that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4951026&mesg_id=4951313

Gee, there is nothing like having your hypocrisy exposed is there.

[Crunchy Frog]

67. Nice find.

What's a little hypocrisy among friends?

[Moochy]

76. Ancient Times

That was practically nine months ago!!! Ancient Times !!

Back before the DLC gravy train changed someone's tune.

[LincolnMcGrath]

78. Uh Oh! Busted!

Check out #83 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Everytime I run into anyone from the DLC or anyhting any of them say, I'm reminded of what Harry Truman once said: "Give the voters a choice between a Republican and a Democrat pretending to be a Republican, and they'll vote Republican every time."

Is he stating there is no difference between the parties? Like Ralph Nader?

[MrBenchley]

88. Hey, that was when I believed what the anti-DLC crowd says

Of course, now it's apparent they're chock full of shit.....

[LincolnMcGrath]

89. His response should be a real pisser. (If you get one)

I was misled...

I was hoodwinked...

:rofl:

[smoogatz]

86. Now there's a productive strategy.

So, your loyalty is to the DLC, not to the Democratic party? That's interesting.

[Crunchy Frog]

66. So Democrats on Democratic Underground

who support Democratic candidates for public office are now subject to being called derogatory names? Interesting.

[smoogatz]

95. How long before the DLC and the "New Democrats"

form their own party? They could call themselves the "Republocrats." Or maybe the "Somewhat-Less-Republican" Party. Or there's always the old stand-by: "Republican Lite."

[Crunchy Frog]

113. How about the "Not Quite so Republican as Bush" party.

Who had nearly voted to stop the Alito confirmation. Who had nearly stood up against the bankruptcy legislation. And who had personally wet themselves during the runup to the Iraq War. (Apologies to Monty Python.)

[ima_sinnic]

49. LOL!! waah! you called me "far left"! oh, the horror! oh I am so told off!

apparently you have no facts, no argument, so all you can do is hurl "insults" like "far left."

Like I (and many others) said before, "we" did NOT "have" that Senate seat. It's more than just "R" or "D" after someone's name. Sucking up to * is not a Democratic "position," not even a "centrist" (read: sitting on the fence, noncommittal, status-quo-loving, "safe," noncontroversial, unquestioning) one.

[MrBenchley]

50. LOL....

"It's more than just "R" or "D" after someone's name."
Oh yeah, I forgot. Only the anointed few can determine what a "true democrat" is. (hahahahaha) And surprisngly in this thread, they're the folks trying to defend a racist imbecile and demanding that someone they disagree with be silenced. Because they're so "progressive" and all......

[flyarm]

74. ITS CALLED A DEMOCRACY..WHERE WE VOTE FOR WHO WE WANT TO REPRESENT US..

we live in a representative republic..any part of that you do not get??

try reading the constitution..

joe lost..end of story..now he is no longer a democrat..are you not getting that yet??

it was his choice..

no one else's

the democrats of CT voted

they chose who they wanted to represent them

it was not Lieberman

do you not get that yet??

fly

[Cassandra]

121. We still have that Senate seat.

Or are you part of some other "we" than the rest of us?

[mitchtv]

30. 6 mos ago, we wouldn't have gotten a Dem

we'd have gotten Joe mentum
why are you here if Dems annoy you so much?
Go start and Independent ex dems board,

[MrBenchley]

35. We certainly had a Democrat six months ago

and didn't have to spend a dime defending his seat.

And who says Hamsher IS a Democrat?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

39. I don't give a damn about Jane Hamsher.

The only thing that matters is that Lamont is a Democrat, and the party's chosen candidate for the Connecticut senate seat -- and also that Lieberman isn't a Democrat, having voluntarily chosen to leave the party rather than get behind the candidate who won the primary. And since this is the *Democratic* Underground, I also use this disucssion board to support actual Democrats. "Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

[MrBenchley]

41. You sure spent a lot of time defending her racism

"And since this is the *Democratic* Underground, I also use this disucssion board to support actual Democrats."
Me too. I plan to give Lamont the same rousing support DUers give the DLC.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

52. No. I just googled the incident because I wanted to know what happened.

I am not "defending her racism," but merely questioning whether this was evidence of racism or just stupidity and bad judgment. I am somewhat familiar with Hamsher from reading firedoglake and huffpost, but because nothing I'd ever read by or about her suggested any racism, I simply wanted to know where this allegation came from. The photo was very tasteless and inappropriate, and she apologized and removed it immediately. I don't necessarily infer any ingrained racism from the incident -- that's painting with an awfully broad brush, IMO -- but it's beside the point. Even if Hamsher secretly belongs to the KKK, she is merely a blogger. Lamont's victory was not the result of Hamsher's dumb photo, or her blog, or anybody else's blog. More Democratic voters in Connecticut wanted Lamont to be their candidate than wanted Lieberman. Not hard to understand. Hamsher is irrelevant to that.

[MrBenchley]

54. And then you tried to spin it away

"she is merely a blogger"
So Lamont would have appeared in campaign commercials directed by any blogger that showed up? Ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ight.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

56. I'd love to continue this discussion, but I really have to run.

I have to finish starching my pointy white hood, then me and Jane and Ned are getting together to burn a few crosses, then plot the takeover of the Democratic Party by... which was it now? Aryan Nation? Sendero Luminoso? The Socialist Workers' Party? Hezbollah? Al Qaeda? Dang, I get all those fringe groups whose agenda I'm promoting by supporting progressive Democrats all mixed up. I'll get it sorted out. Power to the people, or something. Gotta go!

[MrBenchley]

84. Always nice to see the "progressives" drop their masks

and reveal the nastiness behind.....

[Moochy]

79. That makes no sense

The DLC is a leadership organization, not some official organization of the Democratic party, you know this.
So why should DU posters necessarily give rousing support to the DLC?

Why, just back November you were badmouthing the DLC:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4951026&mesg_id=4951313

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4951026&mesg_id=4951353

You saw the light I guess... ($nicker)

If the majority of the DU is wise to the lies of the DLC and corporatist apologists who consider "centrism" supporting only 50% of the republican policy, then good for them.

So then, MrBenchley are you supporting Lieberman's independent run?

[LincolnMcGrath]

102. Oh SNAP! Hit over the head with truthiness twice in one thread.

[cmkramer]

45. Lieberman's still a Democrat

He's running as an Independent candidate but that doesn't mean he is no longer a Democrat. As I've mentioned before, New York Representative Carolyn McCarthy was a registered Republican for at least two terms even though she ran and won as a Democrat.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

53. A "Democrat" who's in bed with Sean Hannity and Ken Mehlman.

Zell Miller still calls himself a Democrat, but he denounced Kerry and most of the rest of the party at the RNC convention. They can call themselves whatever they want, but actions speak louder than words.

[cmkramer]

80. Huh?

Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman are worlds apart politically.

When did Lieberman denounce John Kerry at the Democratic Convention? I missed that speech oddly enough.

[smoogatz]

92. In effect, he denounced everyone who opposes the war,

or Bush's conduct of it, or anything else Bush does with his "we undermine the CINC at our peril" remark. Or had you forgotten about that?

[fujiyama]

55. Has he made any clear promises

he'll caucus with Democrats?

And even if he has, why are we supposed to think he'll keep his word? He's already accepting support and money from RWers. He's no better than that rat-fuck Nader or the green party candidates in PA, etc.

He's incredibly bitter and vindictive. I wouldn't be surprised if he stabbed the party in the back and decided to caucus with the republicans.

[flyarm]

75. was he a democrat before * kissed him or after?

personally, i have not been able to stand that traitor for a very long time..he makes me puke and has for longer than i care to remember!

i hope i can clear my memory of that traitor in the very near future! he gives me nightmares!

look back in the mid 1990's when he started working with Mrs.Cheney and they began butting into colleges in this country..and interfering with the professors/scholars in this country...

he and she remind me of the training for the brown shirts!

fly

[smoogatz]

96. We had a DINO. Not a Democrat.

You can't support Bush's foreign policy, AND Social Security privatization, AND Samuel freaking Alito, AND run down your fellow Democrats, AND call the majority of Dem voters in CT weak on terrorism, AND run against the Dem nominee with the blessing of Karl Rove and the Republican party and still be a Democrat. Unless you live in bizarro fucking DLC-world, anyway.

[Bjorn Against]

60. When did she demand purity?

And because you put that word in quotes, I expect to see a direct quote with that word in it. If you can't come up with that quote then I will assume you just lied.

[Crunchy Frog]

63. If you don't like it, go whine to Lieberman

about his decision to run as a spoiler. There wouldn't be an issue here if Joe were behaving as a loyal Democrat and respecting the primary process.

[jsamuel]

69. we wouldn't have to spend another dime if Lieberman would just drop out

and stop being a sore loser

[smoogatz]

97. Bingo. It's all about Joe.

Selfish prick that he is.

[smoogatz]

125. We won't if Joe does the honorable thing and drops out.

You know, for the good of the party. Instead of acting like a narcissistic asshole who thinks he's somehow entitled to his seat.

[V. Kid]

58. Question are you black or even a visible minority?

Or are you just outraged for the sake of argument?

ETA: FYI I ask this, because it seems to be a common thread throught the political talking head sphere for people to point out how offended they are to gain the moral high ground.

Also, would it have been better if Hamsher made the cartoon if she was black, or would it have still been too offensive to even be produced?

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Imagevision]

32. Lieberman? - actions do speak louder then his words, buh-bye Joe...

[demgrrrll]

51. Jane Hamsher apologized profusely to anyone who was offended

by the photo. If you look at the body of her work the photo shopped photograph of Lieberman was in no way any kind of representation of her day to day work. I defy anyone to come up with another post where anyone could even remotely find any kind of racist overtones. I think she genuinely felt badly about the photograph and her lapse in judgment.


Lets talk about Lieberman's lapses in judgment. Unlike a photo shopped photograph his lapses of judgment have hand a profound effect on our country.

[paulk]

59. Lamont needs to publicly disavow Ms. Hamsher

She's seen as too close to his campaign, and this kind of article will be seen by many indepenents (who are needed to win CT) as confirmation of the Lieberman campaign's charges that Lamont is the candidate of the loony left.

Her "blackface" bit has already had a negative impact.

[demgrrrll]

64. Tom Swan called Hamsher and told her that they found the photograph

offensive and inappropriate and asked that she remove the photograph from her post. I think he was the campaign manager for Lamont so I assume that he was speaking for him as well.

[paulk]

99. that's good

I hope Lamont realizes he's got to squash this loony left thing that both Lieberman and the Republicans are throwing at him. The thing that worries me most is Lamont's inexperience at campaigning. I hope he's a fast learner...

[smoogatz]

91. Good thing the DLC is doing their bit

by bringing it up at every fucking opportunity.

[paulk]

101. if Lamont tries to cast this race as some kind of contest between

the left wing of the Democratic Party and the DLC... he will lose

[MrBenchley]

109. Funny, isn't it?

Ken Mehlman tells the country that the left wing is purging Democrats...and up pop a bunch of our rabid anti-DLCers to try to act out what Kenny said.

[smoogatz]

116. That's rich, Benchley.

Now the supporters of the Democratic candidate in the CT Senate race are tools of Ken Mehlman--as opposed to supporters of Joe Lieberman, the bushlicking DINO narcissist who's running as an "independent,"--with the blessing of Karl Rove. Hilarious.

[paulk]

126. Benchley is right

There are some Lamont supporters who, while not "tools" of Mr. Mehlman, are certainly proving his point.

Both Lieberman and the Republicans are trying to paint the Lamont campaign as loony leftists, willing to purge a three term Senator for reasons that have more to do with a very personal animosity rather than reasons of policy. You know, like charactorizing him as a "bushlicking DINO narcassist" or as a Republican mole, as Ms. Hamsher has done. That kind of nonsense plays right into Melhman's (and Lieberman's) hands.

[smoogatz]

127. What a crock.

What plays into Mehlman's hands is Rimjob Joe slinking off the reservation the moment things don't go his way, to run as an "independent." What plays into Mehlman's, Bush's, Cheney's and Rove's hands is Rimjob Joe, characterizing a majority of CT Dem voters as "weak on terror" because they voted for his DEMOCRATIC opponent, thereby tarring not only the 58% of Americans who want all troops out of Iraq between now and the end of 2007, but the leadership in his own party who are advocating changing course in Iraq. Jeebus.

On edit: changed % wanting troops out of Iraq, per Atrios.

[paulk]

128. what you are saying and what I am saying are not

necessarily opposing viewpoints.

[smoogatz]

129. Sure they are.

Look, Lieberman brought this on himself by polishing his own knob at the expense of actual Democrats--which he's done relentlessly on the Sunday bobbleheads since Bushco first started talking about invading Iraq. The Dem voters of CT called bullshit, and now NoMentum's trying to cast his own fucking constituents as terrorist-loving cowards, and doing everything in his power to split his former party and undermine its leadership. Fuck him. Telling the truth about Lieberman in no way helps the Republicans. The people of CT are not required to take him seriously, or treat him with an ounce more respect than he's treated them--which is zero.

[MrBenchley]

130. Yeah, smoogatz, it is rich that you're doing

just what Mehlman said.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Backlash Cometh]

65. We need a new word for "mole."

I mean, I know they are very common because there are so many of them here where I live because of a major civil action that took place a few years back. So people act like they're adocates for your cause, but turn out to be city shills before you get a chance to take any action. We need a new word for it. Someone who pretends to be your friend, but really is working for the other side.

We updated the term mudraking or mudslinging with "swiftboat," so why can't we do the same for the word, "mole?"

[BrklynLiberal]

68. If he isn't, he would like to be...

[smoogatz]

90. Who knows? Lieberman may have been acting as Rove's mole since 2000.

No surprise, turns out that Joe and Kkkarl are apparently on cordial terms. And of course Joe's unseating has caused great consternation and gnashing of teeth throughout the halls of corporate Republocrattia--is evidenced here by the current DLC rage-a-thon. Short version, NoMentum is just another DINO ratfucker who ran down Democrats and the Democratic party in order to polish his personal knob and get himself on the Sunday bobblehead shows. No one could have anticipated that actual Democrats would try to regain control of the Democratic party--least of all the corporate bung-lickers of the DLC. I'm enjoying the spectacle of their impotent rage.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

93. "Impotent rage"... That describes it perfectly.

Lots of that goin' on around here...

[smoogatz]

94. They're scared shitless.

Of course they're enraged. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if the Democratic party was actually committed to a progressive agenda, instead of just pretending to be. Why, corporate influence over national politics would be somewhat diminished!!! And you can't have that--oh, no, you can't!!!

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[smoogatz]

115. I'm plenty sordid in my own way, Benchley.

A purist, I ain't. But I don't think the country's well served if both major parties are completely sold out to corporate interests, and therefore peddling the same narrow, pro-corporate agenda. And I don't think the DLC's "Just Like Republicans, Only Slightly Better" positioning is going to win the hearts and minds of the electorate this time around, or in '08. People want change, and the DLC can only point to their support of the Iraq war, Samuel Alito, the bankruptcy bill, and George W Bush as their signal accomplishments in the last four years (not to mention big losses in the last three elections). Time to step out of the way, and give the Democratic wing of the Democratic party a shot. But of course you know better.

[LincolnMcGrath]

120. If someone make a BS accusation of you, just hit alert.

WE DEMOCRATS have a race to win in 80some days. Let us not waste time with dead enders who only exist to support a NON DEMOCRAT here in a DEMOCRATIC website.

[Crunchy Frog]

114. Wouldn't surprise me,

considering the eagerness with which he capitulated in 2000. His current behavior, in which he's fighting practically to the death to keep his seat, is an interesting contrast to say the least.

I would enjoy the impotent rage a good deal more if it were being kept to places like Free Republic, and wasn't being used to foul up this site.

[cmkramer]

133. he did what the campaign told him to do in 2000

They instructed him to play nice with Cheney because they thought Cheney would be in villain mode instead of jolly grandpa mode.

They told him to say that they did not believe overseas military votes should be discounted.

Why blame him when he was only doing what the Gore campaign wanted? By the way, it was Gore's lefty advisors who came up with the brilliant strategy of distancing themselves from Clinton. The DLC wanted Gore to run on Clinton's record of achievement.

[izzybeans]

124. Pic of Lieberman and his magic mirror found via google images

[ncrainbowgrrl]

134. Locking.

This thread has turned into a flamefest between individual members of DU, rather than discussing the issue addressed in the Original Post of this thread.