Hillary steps up, says voters should decide

July 3, 2006

With Joe Lieberman announcing that he plans to pursue an independent Senate campaign if he loses the Democratic primary, the question now shifts back to the party establishment.

DSCC Chairman Chuck Schumer has hinted that he’s likely support Lieberman, even if Lieberman loses to Ned Lamont, and the New York senator wouldn’t speculate at all on the subject when asked on Meet the Press yesterday. But what about other party leaders? According to Jane Hamsher, one very high-profile Democrat has stepped up and shown some leadership.

Despite this, sources say that Hillary Clinton believes that it’s important to respect the will of Connecticut voters and that she will commit to support the Democratic candidate — whoever that is — in November. It should be interesting to watch and see if others follow suit.

It sure will. Clinton is taking the responsible, democratic — both big “D,” and little “d” — approach, arguing that voters will decide the Democratic candidate, and that she, as a Democratic leader, will honor their wishes. Good for her.

It’s a shot across the bow to the rest of the establishment: the party should support the party’s candidate, as chosen by the party’s voters. It’s really as simple as that. Clinton appreciates that principle; her colleagues should too.

I’ll believe it when I see something more substantive than “sources say”. Sheesh.

  • I’ll believe it when I see something more substantive than “sources say”.

    For what it’s worth, I’ve confirmed the senator’s position with sources of my own.

    It’s true.

  • Lieberman has become such a shill for the GOP that he’d go—and quite willingly so—into a general election, knowing that he hasn’t the chances of a snowball in Hades, but that he’d be guaranteeing that “his” seat goes to another GOP shill. If I were the people of Connecticut, I’d take this snarly little swine right off at the knees. Toss all of his paid-for advertising, on the grounds that his masquerade as a Democrat constitutes overt dishonesty. Groups should start cancelling his appearances out from under him. Groups should stop funding him, and they should stop soliciting funds for him. And the state party should submit a bill to his campaign for every last cent they’ve provided in financial support. He is an embarrassment to himself; to his family; to his state; to his party; to the United States Senate. Somewhere in the not-too-distant future, the term “joe lieberman” (lower-case intentional here) will be nothing more than a descriptive term for Connecticut; something similar to the term “benedict arnold….”

  • Say it ain’t so, Joe.

    Your reputation has fallen from one who has character to being a cartoon character.

  • I’m glad to see Hillary Clinton willing to take a stand like this — even through anonymous sources. It’d be better if she did publicly and in person, but I guess we’ll take what we get.

    A couple of things bother me about the whole scenario. First, the situation paints Senate Democrats as undemocratic. If Connecticut voters choose Ned Lamont, the party establishment will continue to back their turncoat colleague. It’s heavy handed and no establishment Democrat, has made a strong case for retaining Lieberman no matter what. Hell, Republicans at least undermine a candidates chances before the primary (see Katherine Harris and Jeb/G.W. Bush).

    Second, what does this do to Dean’s strategy of building the party state-by-state? Dems elect a candidate through the primary process, and the establishment vetos their choice. That hardly builds trust and cooperation between the state and national levels. It’d be nice if the various fiefdoms in the Democratic party were working toward the same ends here.

  • How much of Hillary’s position can be chalked up to Peter Daou? Not that I am unhappy with the Senator’s stance. Just that I wonder if she would have felt the same way a few weeks ago, and if this is just a part of her attempt to win support from the netroots (and perhaps placate liberals in general)?

  • Thanks CB, I’ve gotten sensitized to reports where “some people” say things…

  • How much of Hillary’s position can be chalked up to Peter Daou? Not that I am unhappy with the Senator’s stance. Just that I wonder if she would have felt the same way a few weeks ago, and if this is just a part of her attempt to win support from the netroots (and perhaps placate liberals in general)?
    Comment by Justin

    She’s been tacking “back to the left” for a couple of weeks now. The same NYT issue that CB has quoted in another instance (McCain/Bush unholy coupling) also has an (opinion) article by Bob Herbert (one of the trio of my favourite NYT “opinionators”), which starts with a — very strong — quote from her on the matter of the minimum wage… All she has to do now is to “reposition” herself on Iraq, cry “mea culpa” like Kerry had done, and she’s “clear”.

    Much as I’d love to see a woman become a Prex of US in my lifetime, I don’t think Hillary is “it”. I’m not especially enamoured of Senator Clinton, and I find her political whoring hard to forgive. But, if she *were* to be picked as the Dem runner, I probably would vote for her, despite reservations (afterall, I did vote for Gore/Lieberman ticket, despite my reservations about Lieberman). But, if I were in Connecticut, I would *not* vote for Lieberman, even if Jahve himself endorsed him. He stinks, whichever way you try to approach him — there’s no up-wind or down-wind. And I used to think Schumer was OK (have been on the same wave-length with him on almost every issue for a long time), but I’m beginning to change my mind… if he’s gonna continue with his headless support of Lieberman, then he’s more of a spineless fool than I took him for.

  • Congratulations to Senator Clinton on “getting it.” It’s really quite simple, and a bit dismaying that her stance is in any way “news.”

    I suppose I don’t have any major objection if Sen. Schumer supports Lieberman personally. But Schumer ought to make it crystal clear that the DSCC will support the Party nominee. Period.

    It’s the DSCC, not the Incumbent SCC.

    Happy Independence Day to everyone.

  • This is a bit like praising someone for not using heroin. It’s about DEMOCRACY. What makes it so confusing for democrats or anyone esle?

  • “DSCC Chairman Chuck Schumer has hinted that he’s likely support Lieberman, even if Lieberman loses to Ned Lamont…”

    The more I see the current Democratic “leadership” in action, the more I’m convinced they are more committed to cronyism than winning elections or standing for anything. They would rather support (to the bitter end) long-time colleagues than respect the will of voters. Hey, there’s a winning strategy!

    I’m a yellow dog Democrat (and never vote Republican), but still feel that the Dems will lose, and deserve to lose, national elections until they remove the trash who lead the party nationally. These folks are worse than useless. They’re spineless weasels.

    Remember what happened to Paul Hackett?

  • Hillary needs to educate Chuck Schumer about the “will of the people”. Since Schumer announced that he would opt to support Lieberman even if Lamont wins, I have opted NOT to contribute any more money to the Democratic Senatorial Committee.

  • Democrats should withold all further contributions to the DSCC until Schumer either committs himself to support the winner of the primary or is replaced as head of the DSCC. In the meatime they should send their contributions to individual Senate candidates instead.

  • She’s finally thinking on her own? Schumer’s comments on Meet the Press this past Sunday were pathetic. He needs a brain scan, or needs to join the repugnikkkan party along with Lieberman.

  • Lieberman’s time is up. It is astonishing that the same man who would stand hand in hand with Al Gore during the 2000 fiasco (I can’t bring myself to call it an election) now abdicates all reason and sanity, and stands in collusion with the biggest liar this country has seen in the oval office in over a century.

    The problem with Lieberman’s position on the war is that to support Bush when he has been shown to be as pathological of a liar as one can imagine, while the democratic party has fought to stand up and confront the demagogery (sp?) of this war and its attendant politics amounts to a giant “fuck you” to the Democratic party, and even more importantly the American people.

    Democratic party leaders need more than ever to display the leadership needed to turn our course around. The game has changed dramatically in the last 6 years. The stakes couldn’t be higher. Out entire existance as a nation of free people is being threatened by this collection of theives and sociopaths, who only pretend to care about our future, while they secretly drive this country towards bankruptcy, global environmental crisis, and the first true evangelical theocracy the world has ever seen. I am neither a democrat or a republican, but I am certain that collectively and individually we need to support those individuals (i.e. Lamont et al) who are willing to confront the evil that has moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

  • i like the way you think libra. lieberman is a traitor to everything progressives and democracts stand for. schumer is headed in that direction. kudos to captain video for a brilliant plan. rid the party of leadership who will not support the will of the party.

  • Lieberman is a dweeb….so much so that some stank-ass female wearing huge white bloomer underwear with unconscienceable hash marks in them could denounce him…DoH !!

  • Ata girl Joe! One day a Dem, poof….the next an Indi. If is suited his political needs I am sure he could become a Rep the very next day too. Such character and committment!!!
    Yep, just the kind of guy I’d vote for…….not!

  • Everyone should send the DSCC an email telling them how much ( we the people ) want Lieberman GONE! If they can’t honor the people of Connecticut’s votes then they themselves should be out of the Democratic party.

  • Hillary does the right thing this time! If Joltin’ Joe is going to make a pre-emptive rejection of his own party before they choose to acceot or reject him as their candidate he is a turncoat!

  • lieberman is a true rat bastard but things like charles schumer is unexplainable. why would ny elect this turd? politics must be nothing but money and fear of blackmail. the national party gets noda from me but people like ned lamont will.

  • I’m afraid I can’t react objectively to anything Hillary says or does. All I can see is political positioning. She makes me think of a Queen on a chessboard.

    I sort of disagree with the CB here. I think the democratic senators who are keeping their mouths shut on this issue are doing exactly the right thing. Schumer was an idiot, and Durbin stepped in it too. I assume those who are not talking about this want to avoid involvement in an in-state issue. They probably look at this, correctly, as MYOB, and will support whoever the democratic nominee turns out to be. No need to trumpet that fact (as Hillary felt the need to do). Just do it.

    BTW, I also have problems with the left blogosphere activism in what ought to be an in-state issue. Makes me think of orange ski caps c. 2004.

  • How would Schumer et al justify a decision to support Lieberman, if he lost the primary?

    Lamont is not a Nazi, a convicted felon or otherwise ineligible to be the Democratic nominee. To the contrary he appears to be honest and honorable, and in fact rather middle-of-the-road in his politics.

    For the Democratic Party to disown a candidate chosen by the people requires a good reason. What reason can they cite?

    • Comments are closed.