digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Lieberman Back-stabs Obama

stonecipher.typepad.com — On "Face the Nation" this week Joe Lieberman used his air time to launch unfair and pretty rough attacks against Barack Obama while praising both Hillary Clinton and John McCain. This comes just two short years after Obama answered Lieberman's desperate call for help during the political fight of his life.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • forthewin11, on 07/03/2008, -18/+159No wonder his approval ratings are plummeting. After this term for him is over... his political career is as well.
    • youareretarded, on 07/03/2008, -8/+44I can only hope!
    • didiman, on 07/04/2008, -47/+11Hopefully when Obama loses the election, we won't have to here from him anymore as well.
      • theOster, on 07/04/2008, -5/+20you're not representing yourself well...(at least not hear in this thread)
    • chillypacman, on 07/04/2008, -2/+12It looks like he knows he's going under so he's trying to cause as muh a fuss as possible.

      He's already endorsed John McCain (oddly enough).
    • jcm267, on 07/04/2008, -41/+8Lieberman is popular here in Connecticut. I'd never vote for that scumbag Dodd but Lieberman is a good guy who isn't afraid to take unpopular positions if it means that whatever he's doing is right for America or humanity in general.
      • WallyAnti, on 07/04/2008, -3/+18I seem to find myself disagreeing with most of his positions and his arguments are pretty unconvincing. His manner of speech is uninviting and condescending and he looks like the emperor... not that looks matter but in his case they sure don't help.
      • chicofaraby, on 07/04/2008, -4/+19Why is taking an unpopular position a good thing? Isn't he supposed to represent his constituents?
      • enki25, on 07/04/2008, -1/+11Actually, more people approve of Dodd than Lieberman. This may not be true in the retarded beat farmer demo you represent, but in Connecticut as a whole.

        http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?ReleaseID=1189
      • Ajajadude, on 07/04/2008, -1/+7So, you support people with no sense of integrity? No wonder we get the same jack asses in Congress year after year.
      • quaxon, on 07/04/2008, -1/+8I always wondered what kind of idiots supported that goon.
      • Elranzer, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3It's your state (Connecticut) that gave us Lieberman, Hilary Clinton and George W Bush (as well as his father) and it's assholes like you that gave them power.

        Connecticut is the only state whose DEMOCRATS are part of that elusive 19% who still support Bush. That's saying something.

        Honestly, I don't see why the other 49 states don't declare war on Connecticut if they try electing any more "leaders."
      • theinternets, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Lieberman is popular? Huh, this Research 2000 poll tells me another thing...

        http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/3/11710/3 ...
    • pinchduck, on 07/04/2008, -19/+8He was defeated in his party, left, ran as an independent and won. How is his career over? Unless you're a Connecticut citizen, you can't vote for him or one of his opponents. If you are a Democrat, you can't kick him out of the party, he's already gone. All the tools the Democrats have at their disposal to end his career were rendered moot by his election victory. You may not like Lieberman, but his election is a slap in the face to the duopoly, which is awesome. As to backstabbing Obama, you need to understand something about Lieberman: He is a politician. They are slimy creatures who would eat their children for votes. Remember, Obama threw his pastor of 2 decades under the bus when it became necessary. Why? Obama is a politician, which means he is a slimy creature...

      Obama promises a new campaign, a new way of doing things. In reality, you are being sold a bill of goods. He may be the best of the lot, but politicians are all slimy creatures.
      • chicofaraby, on 07/04/2008, -2/+8"his election is a slap in the face to the duopoly"

        It would be if he didn't vote Republican.
      • cjshamrock, on 07/04/2008, -1/+6"(Politicians) are slimy creatures who would eat their children for votes."

        I don't really think Obama would do that. Unless he's also a SECRET CANNIBAL. Hillary, on the other hand..

        And let's not forget about ol' Bill! Perv.
    • Charlotte_Web, on 07/04/2008, -12/+15So, the point of this article is to argue that Lieberman should support a presidential candidate based on political favors rather than personal convictions.

      Got it.
      • parrotheadpsu, on 07/04/2008, -8/+29No. The point is that IF Lieberman thinks so little of Senator Obama, why did he go groveling and begging for Obama's help? Lieberman only cares about himself and securing a job with some right wing think tank after he's thrown out of office after his next election. Lieberman doesn't care about the Democrats, the Republicans, or America... he only cares about himself and if people are paying attention to him. He's the Paris Hilton of the political world
      • weech, on 07/04/2008, -9/+13Actually, you tithead, had you read the article the "point" of the story is not that at all:

        FTA:
        "The point is not that Lieberman should not be allowed to support McCain, the point is that if he had even an ounce of integrity, he would highlight McCain’s strengths and be tactful enough not to launch these attacks against his recent ally that are filled with fear-mongering and wild and unfounded speculation about the results that Obama’s policies may produce."

        BTW, Lieberman is the one we should be afraid of - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_nS6brC1bE
      • Charlotte_Web, on 07/04/2008, -10/+6Maybe a big part of the reason he supports McCain is that he strongly disagrees with Obama's positions on the issues.
      • FairDinkumMate, on 07/04/2008, -2/+8@Charlotte_Web
        There is no problem with that. The point of the article(as outlined IN the article & again in the comment above yours!) is not that he shouldn't support McCain, but that he shouldn't attack Obama with lies, speculation & fear.
      • Ajajadude, on 07/04/2008, -1/+9It's one thing to support a candidate, it's another to try and trash a candidate through fear mongering after that candidate went out on a limb for you when you begged him, like a dog, for help just a couple of years ago and that candidate helped.
      • Elranzer, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5Correction: Lieberman only cares about himself and Israel.
    • humanerror, on 07/04/2008, -12/+4In 2000, I voted for George Bush because I was genuinely terrified of Lieberman and I was willing to do anything to keep him out of office.

      Eight years later, I look back and I still have to say that I was probably right. But now I know better than to vote for the lesser of two evils. Ralph Nader is getting my vote this time.
      • willywong, on 07/04/2008, -0/+8That's something we all forget. There was going to be a nutcase no matter who you voted for.
      • enki25, on 07/04/2008, -3/+9You were more worried about Lieberman than you were about Cheney? Yeah, I'm glad you're throwing your vote away.
    • kosser, on 07/04/2008, -7/+2obama is for NAFTA. obama = same old puppet.
  • Stonecipher26, on 07/03/2008, -22/+140His career is over unless McCain wins and appoints Lieberman to a post in his administration. Yet another reason to make sure Obama wins this year.
    • Jeremyz0r, on 07/04/2008, -4/+4I like how 50% down the page there was an add for "Take our IQ test".
      Off-topic, but I think it holds some relevance here.
    • brad3378, on 07/04/2008, -4/+2Change!!!
    • willster580, on 07/04/2008, -2/+3Government money for Evangelicals, Real ID, more Patriot Act nonsense, I can't wait!
  • Masternajee, on 07/03/2008, -13/+35He is a close ally of McCain so this is no surprise.
  • Cheezo, on 07/03/2008, -41/+35he won election as an independent NOT a democrat...

    can't have him thinking and voting independently can we?
    • dinot, on 07/03/2008, -21/+32Thinking and voting Republican != Thinking and voting independently
    • bxblox, on 07/04/2008, -1/+32He is listed as an Independent Democrat and refers to himself as such.

      http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ ...

      Lieberman, Joseph I.- (ID - CT) Class I
      706 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
      (202) 224-4041

      Notice the ID
    • chillypacman, on 07/04/2008, -2/+20No, he registered as an independent democrat, in fact the reason he did that was beause he lost the nomination for the democrat.

      He's a loser through and through, he'll jump into bed with anyone or any *thing* if it means he can win.
    • TheInformer, on 07/04/2008, -18/+4Joe Lieberman is a Liberal. Obama, Kucinich, Clinton, Reid, et. al. are Leftists. They're not the same thing.

      We would have found some like Lieberman in Congress in the 70s and 80s.
    • WHauser, on 07/04/2008, -0/+16TheInformer: Lieberman is not a liberal, if anything, he is a conservative. Since the 1970s politics has drifted to the right. What we considered conservative back then (look at Nixon for example) would be considered moderate or even liberal today.

      I don't love Nixon but am merely pointing out that the man, a conservative, created OSHA, the EPA, increased social security payments w/inflation adjustmens, supported welfare and the national endowment for the arts.

      The point is, ideology is not constant across time. When you say so-and-so is a liberal or a leftist all you're doing is name calling. You hope that the word leftist has a negative connotation and, for some, it does. Never mind the fact that you don't actually define either word or provide any support for your claims whatsoever. You see, when I call you a creaton I have at least provided the logic for my argument and you have provided the raw material - your idiotic comments.
      • sensical, on 07/04/2008, -2/+1I wouldn't say politics have drifted to the right, I'd say they've gone downhill into corruption and criminality.
      • Tssst, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1you say tomato...
    • Deanblackoak, on 07/04/2008, -2/+1Not if he's a moron. No, we can't.
  • satyr9us, on 07/03/2008, -20/+69Liarman.
    • ukfan, on 07/04/2008, -12/+4Don't you mean Liarbama?
      • diggn_it, on 07/04/2008, -1/+7"Liarbama"

        I dugg you up because it took a lot of self-delusion and fanaticism to post that bad of a pun just to flame Obama and I think you deserve recognition for it.
      • ukfan, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1If being tired of all the ***** political games on Digg is fanaticism, then yeah you're right...
    • Lutremi, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3McSame
    • Wootstapler, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1I see what you did thar...
    • milkmit, on 07/04/2008, -0/+4LIEberman is a bit more accurate.
  • vermax, on 07/03/2008, -18/+70how does this pathetic smirking little queen still exist? hurry up and rot away already.
    and Al Gore deserves a perpetual kick in the teeth for siding up with him
  • Unicorny, on 07/04/2008, -32/+12Remember the situation. Obama campaigned for Lieberman who was running against the Democratic Party nominee, anti-war candidate Lamont. This was one of the first clues that Obama was not actually against the war. In one speech he called Lieberman his "mentor."

    That Lieberman now stabs him in the back is no different than Obama stabbing the Connecticut voters in the back when they tried to send an anti-war, pro-single-payer-health Democrat to the Senate.

    I'm supporting Nader with the goal to help him get to 10% and get him into the debates. We need better options than Obama / McCain. Nader, allowed to debate, could turn this into a 3-way race. He's got the record, the character and the wisdom to lead our nation back to health.

    http://votenader.org
    • gotigertom, on 07/04/2008, -5/+3great - cast your vote and dilute the democratic vote. Spoiler! You must be a riot at parties.
      • theOster, on 07/04/2008, -3/+3and your way of thinking is what's keeping this country in a *****. i say everyone should vote for who they feel is the right person for the job, not who MSM says are "the only two choices". the two party system is weak, and the internet will eventually dissolve it. it's already happening.
      • 8m4ck, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1http://lpf.org/wastedvote.htm
    • kamau84, on 07/04/2008, -3/+11Your facts are non-existent. He supported Lieberman before he lost the primaries. Get your ***** straight. You are the reason why we get presidents like George Bush. Dimwitted voters and shallow opposition. You are weak.
    • bsmang, on 07/04/2008, -3/+2Don't vote Nader. He's a total loser. I don't even care if he has any good ideas, he ruined the country when he caused Bush to win. He is not forgivable.
      • humanerror, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4>> "he caused Bush to win."

        I can't believe people buy that line.

        Examine it for a minute, will you? Don't you think maybe it was the BUSH VOTERS who caused Bush to win?

        By the way, I am one. I voted for Bush in 2000.

        Because in 2000 I still didn't know better than to pick the lesser of two evils.

        Now don't you wish I had voted for Nader instead?
      • bsmang, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1He did cause Bush to win. I don't know about 2000 - like you, I didn't know any better -- in my case I didn't vote at all. But in 2004, when it became vitally important to save face and redeem ourselves as a nation, Nader was the deciding factor. Had he not existed then, the world would almost certainly be a better place now. Maybe Kerry by himself wasn't exactly a wonderful choice, but placed next to Bush, he definitely was. Nader had no business being there only to steal enough votes to affect the outcome while he had no chance of actually winning anything. Of course, if he had run on a pro-war platform, then it would have worked great, but he took entirely the wrong voters out of the contest.
      • FairDinkumMate, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Why doesn't the US improve its system & allow preferential voting? This way, if someone goes to vote & the person they voted for as number one doesn't win, their vote then goes to whoever they picked next & so on until their vote COUNTS. This would be one of the best things to HELP beat the 2 party duopoly as people could vote for an independent if they wanted without risking an assist to the one person they definitely don't want to elect.
      • 8m4ck, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1http://lpf.org/wastedvote.htm
      • chaosblade77, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0@FairDinkumMate

        As a side note, it would also help if the media didn't choose the candidates. If you look back at the different candidates that got the most media coverage (thus, the most name recognition) they are the ones who make it the farthest, with the exception of Ron Paul (who had the least media coverage, but was never a serious contender anyway after McCain got the votes for the nomination).

        Now that we have our contenders, we'll likely see all sorts of newspaper and magazine articles, and news reports comparing Obama and McCain, but never others like Nader or Barr.

        I'm sure if people knew more about these "other candidates," be it third parties or the people running against the big names in the primaries, they'd be more willing to vote outside of the duopoly.
    • enki25, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2Yeah, I'm certain if Nadar gets into the debates he will cause earth shattering changes that will improve the political system in this country, definitely earning the miracle that would be required to get him 10% of the vote. I mean, almost 3% of America watches the presidential debates, that's just as good as getting into the White House.
    • CaptainShaun, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Please, do vote Nader and encourage others to do so.

      He's been a very useful tool for some time.
  • mwaleed86, on 07/04/2008, -35/+7Lieberman SUCK OBAMA's BLACK DICK!!
    • lajaw, on 07/04/2008, -2/+14It's only half black.
      • mwaleed86, on 07/04/2008, -11/+2Really?...So you have actually seen it!...Did you touch it?...tasted it? (just curious.... nothing much)
      • 11b1p, on 07/04/2008, -2/+5@mwaleed86

        shhhh you just gave half of digg boners thinking about Obamas *****
      • LOLPROFIT, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1after he sticks it in
    • theOster, on 07/04/2008, -2/+6classy
    • ZionicIon, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3Way to contribute...
  • Ne007, on 07/04/2008, -10/+34It's easy to see that whatever these nut-jobs like Lieberman want I want the total opposite.

    Pro-war NeoCons have got to GO!
  • liquidmetalband, on 07/04/2008, -31/+37Nobody cares about this Zionist, Israel-loving goon.
    • jcm267, on 07/04/2008, -23/+7And nobody cares about racist trolls such as yourself.
      • pintomp3, on 07/04/2008, -5/+20zionist is a race?
      • jcm267, on 07/04/2008, -18/+4No, but people who bitch about Zionists (such as yourself) are just about always Jew-hating Hamas-loving pieces of trash.
      • pintomp3, on 07/04/2008, -6/+18that's like saying people who hate the taliban hate all muslims or people who hate the KKK hate all white people.
      • jcm267, on 07/04/2008, -13/+4So you're comparing the Israeli government to the Taliban and the KKK? And people are stupid enough to digg you up for it? Wow.
      • pintomp3, on 07/04/2008, -7/+12israel is a racist state that commits apartheid:

        http://www.rense.com/general14/itisabsurd.htm

        http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/884358.html

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/29/commen ...
      • Radanator, on 07/04/2008, -6/+2EVERY Rachel Corrie should have their guts squashed out by means of bulldozer!! That will teach those peace activists!!!
      • jcm267, on 07/04/2008, -6/+7Rense.com?? Why should I bother to click on any of your stupid links when the first one you posted is from Jeff Rense, the yellow journalist who makes Alex Jones look credible? Judging by your +6 diggs I'd say that the other Israel hating goons on digg are following this.

        Anyways, even if Tutu's opinion about Israel is correct (it's not, Israel's "mistreatment" of Palestinians is reactionary and in their best interest if they wish to exist as a country and a people) Israel is NOTHING like the Taliban or the KKK. As for the Jewish National Fund Law, I don't know enough about it to make up my mind based on one editorial from Haartz. Honestly I'd like to see the Palestinians just accept a peace deal and get their state, then leave Israel alone. The reason why Israelis feel that they must open businesses where Palestinians aren't allowed is because Palestinian terrorists keep trying to kill them for no reason.

        Israel isn't anything like the Taliban and your persistence in saying that it is only proves to me that you are either incredibly ignorant or bigoted against Jews.
      • twiztidsinz, on 07/04/2008, -2/+4Hey thanks, jcm267.
        I had almost forgot why I have you on block!
      • quaxon, on 07/04/2008, -2/+6You are correct, JCM, Israel isnt anything like the taliban or the KKK, they are much worse. They are pussies who use million dollar weaponry to wage war against poor people who have nothing more than rocks and what they can afford to make at home. They have killed many more innocent people and tortured more children than the taliban and KKK combined as well. Simply put, zionists and the israeli government are filthy savages.
      • OYAHHH, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Which one of you jerks who hates Israel is going to volunteer first to fire up the ovens or drop in the first gas canister?
      • jbella, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Why is it that no one can criticize Israel without being accused to being a Nazi?

        @jcm267
        Of course the Palestinians are strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up for no reason. Who is supposed to believe that BS? At least George Bush offered us "they hate us because of our freedom." But you, you can't even be bothered to come up with a disingenuous reason. They do it because they have nothing better to do I suppose.

        Okay.. saying that Israel is like the Taliban is silly.
        But saying that Israel is not responsible for the atrocities it commits is also outrageous.

        http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/israel/occ ...


    • pinchduck, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5Except the folks who elected him.
    • Deanblackoak, on 07/04/2008, -0/+12I don't agree with the way you phrase it, but our ass kissing of the Israelis needs to stop.
    • w3bsag3, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Another antisemitic obama ditto-head. Why am I not surprised?...
  • chewbie, on 07/04/2008, -16/+64i'm going to be buried all the way to China but Don't you find it weird how Obama is always either a victim or a hero in these articles?
    I'm not a US citizen, I find him the better candidate but still. There's some real fanatics in here
    • TheInformer, on 07/04/2008, -4/+24When you can't show (or accept) the good AND the bad of your preferred candidate, you're a myrmidon, a lemming. You tend to blindly follow and accept whatever your candidate says. You purposefully ignore things. Blind allegiance is frightening, no matter who or what that allegiance is for.

      According to the frequency and content of the articles on the Digg front page, one of the candidates is treated as perfect. Let me ask this, when was the last time you met someone who was perfect?

      Why would expect to be buried? Digg is a free thinking, open minded site that revels in diversity of discussion and topic, isn't it?
      • UK4Life58, on 07/04/2008, -6/+6O Rly?

        http://digg.com/politics/Change_We_Can_Believe_In_ ...

        http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Obama_to_expand_ ...

        http://digg.com/environment/Is_Obama_a_Shill_for_t ...

        Seems to me he's been getting quite a bit of negative press here on digg lately, but lets not let pesky facts get in the way your rant not even answering the question you replied to.
      • Jade10145, on 07/04/2008, -1/+6I like what you and Chewbie have to say. Ya it really does seem on Digg that Barak can do no wrong, people are thinking with hearts and not their heads. Barak is good, but hes far from perfect, in all honesty the more I find out about him the more I become critical of him. To Theinformer, ***** I think blindly following and purposely ignoring all the faults of a candidate is how we got Bush in the office twice .
      • Flipdawg27, on 07/04/2008, -2/+2@UK4Life: I hope that was a joke. You just linked 3 articles that are supposedly negative about Obama. That's got to be less than 1% of articles about him. The other 99.999% are ridiculously skewed in his favor. If you actually deny that - you're hopeless.
      • twiztidsinz, on 07/04/2008, -2/+2"When you can't show (or accept) the good AND the bad of your preferred candidate, you're a myrmidon, a lemming. You tend to blindly follow and accept whatever your candidate says. You purposefully ignore things. Blind allegiance is frightening, no matter who or what that allegiance is for."

        Or, you know, maybe we're not blind but can see that the other guy is just 100x worse?
    • enki25, on 07/04/2008, -4/+7Interesting concept but it ignores the actual content of this article. Lieberman said that if we elect Obama we should be worried about another terrorist attack. That doesn't make Obama a victim, it makes Lieberman an idiot. You're projecting.
      • minapolos, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1What Lieberman was saying is that for Bush and Clinton the terrorists did not wait for the new president to learn on the job. They attacked very early in the term. You are trying to skew the comment and make it sound worst that what it means kind of like this article. I am not a fan of Lieberman but I also like to keep true with the facts. Obama has little to no experience which is a valid point and lets remember what electing someone without experience resulted in the last 8 years.
    • quidpro, on 07/04/2008, -0/+6Yes....where are all of the middle-of-the-road articles?! Digg also needs an option for a thumb pointing to the side!!
      Maybe a whole new site should be started and called "Meh".
  • withears, on 07/04/2008, -9/+49Explain to me again why do we care what Joe Lieberman has to say.
    • uptown, on 07/04/2008, -2/+8Sadly because he and Lindsay Graham both have an arm shoved up John McCain's ass using him as their puppets.
    • Thumper13, on 07/04/2008, -2/+3Because the stupid news in this country sticks a microphone in his face when he opens his gob.

      I had respect for McCain and Leiberman in 2000. their actions since then have been sad, to say the least.

      Republican for Obama '08
      • parallax7d, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2wow, truth level is high in this one
      • lolwutpear, on 07/04/2008, -1/+0anyone who supports obama's extremely liberal policies isn't really a republican. however, when our party puts up john mccain, i really can't blame you. my solution is to not vote this year. besides, as an illinois resident, my vote for president doesn't count.
    • w3bsag3, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2Because he epitomizes what obama would like you to believe he is - the cross party uniter - but is anything but.
  • jcm267, on 07/04/2008, -15/+15Please post what the Democrats were saying about Joe once Lieberman lost the primaries. You are being disingenuous here.
    • TheInformer, on 07/04/2008, -6/+6Why are you making a post that goes against the template? What happened before doesn't matter.
      • jcm267, on 07/04/2008, -3/+6Actually I am talking about what happened after the primaries. When the entire Democrat establishment abandoned Lieberman.
      • ichbeineinrcg, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1Who abandoned who? Lieberman was a ***** VP candidate for Gore, and in the intervening years he walked with Bush more than anyone should. The primary voters were right to throw him off the ticket, and I just wish the state as a whole had followed their good example.
    • enki25, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2Since your position is that the Democrats had worse things to say about him, why don't YOU post those statements. Otherwise you're just pulling ideas out of your ass and spewing a lot of hot air.
    • djm19, on 07/04/2008, -1/+0Who said this was about democrats? Obama was lieberman's ALLY in that tough time for him. Lieberman is not attacking dems, hes attacking obama.
  • kamau84, on 07/04/2008, -10/+24This is bull. Just about everyone in the democratic party supported Lieberman before he lost. Then they switched when he was no longer in the party. This had nothing to do with begging for support, but everything to do with being 99th in seniority in the Senate, and having to grovel to the elders. It only takes the smallest amount of knowledge of the political process in Washington to realize this, which is why I'm not surprised it hasn't penetrated the thick skulls of the least of the Digg community.
    • jcm267, on 07/04/2008, -6/+4???? Lieberman wasn't even the Senior Senator from his home State.
      • kamau84, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4At the time, he was in the senate for 17 years. Just because you are the Junior senator doesn't mean you don't have seniority. Kerry has been there since 1985 but serves with Kennedy, which means he is still the Junior senator. Do you say he doesn't have any seniority?
      • jcm267, on 07/04/2008, -3/+3I misread your comment. I thought you were trying to say that Lieberman was one of the most senior Senators and not that Lamont would have no seniority.
    • enki25, on 07/04/2008, -2/+3Um, no...
    • dedknedy, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2Unless i'm completely mistaken, and correct me if i'm wrong but seeing as there was no break in his service to the senate didn't he retain his seniority? As far as the senate is concerned Joe Lieberman is currently the 29th senior senator.
  • 919kwjc, on 07/04/2008, -23/+11You same people attacking Lieberman today were praising Wesley Clark's ridiculous comments last week. Hello hypocrites!
    • enki25, on 07/04/2008, -1/+4The ridiculous comment of "being shot down in a fighter plane isn't a qualification for being president"? Is that the ridiculous comment you're referring to? Because I don't see what's so ridiculous about it. Do you think that's a qualification for being president?
  • RRJackson, on 07/04/2008, -19/+7People are taking sides. That's politics. Face the Nation has a lot of viewers. Hopefully Lieberman's comments did considerable damage to Obama's campaign.
  • stanleyford, on 07/04/2008, -9/+29I don't get it. Regardless of whether or not you agree with him, Lieberman's political beliefs seem to favor McCain over Obama. Is Lieberman supposed to be silent about his beliefs or contradict them because he owes Obama a favor? Wouldn't that be hypocritical?
    • LukasSmith, on 07/04/2008, -18/+14Your either with Obama or your a traitor. Just note these three points:
      1. Obama is now going to get the support of what is now known as the religious right. He not only agrees with Bush's current religious initiatives. He wants to expand them. McCain just doesn't seem to get much love from the Pat Robertson's of America.
      2. The New York Times reported two days ago that Obama voted for FISA with immunity. Change you can believe in? I think not.
      3.Many of the Obama fanatics are simply voting for him because they think he will get us out of Iraq. The simple fact is if you really pay attention to what he says you can clearly tell this is one of those tongue in cheek moments. He typically follows his much loved "I am going to get us out of Iraq" either by saying but first "I will talk to the generals" or "I will observe to see what the situation is at the time". Basically he's saying his agenda does not CLEARLY include removing our troops from Iraq. Only a true Obama fanatic would fail to see this.
      Your being duped America.
      WAKE UP!

      • pinchduck, on 07/04/2008, -2/+10You are getting dugg down, but you nailed it.
      • medfreak, on 07/04/2008, -3/+2I still think Obama is a better choice, but I agree with all your points.
      • LukasSmith, on 07/04/2008, -3/+5So you think a candidate who:
        1. Supports and is supported by the religious right even if just in pretend for their votes.
        2. Voted for FISA
        3. Doesn't seem sure whether he will get us out of Iraq any time soon
        4.Has political knowledge. Not economic knowledge.
        5.Has promised support to Israel, the Miami community, and illegal immigrants.
        is a better choice?
        Hell just take those five and guess what you got buddy?
        George Bush
        Hell just the other day the Democrat party just handed Bush another year in Iraq. Few heard about this apparently. Very hush hush.. at least on Digg.com. But they paid for another year no strings attached. Now someone who was dense might say they did this because they were beaten into submission by abusive Republicans. But then I wonder how politically advantage the Iraq War really is for the Democrat Party. If this war ended tomorrow Iraq wouldn't be in the news anymore. Until of course it erupted into a giant flaming sectarian bloodbath. Would sectarian bloodbaths in Iraq give Democrats the political advantage? hell no. So politically ending Iraq war is not in their interest. America needs to realize the Democratic party is messing with our heads and playing with the lives of our troops for political gain. This war is a godsend for them. THEY KNOW IT! Do you?
      • medfreak, on 07/04/2008, -2/+21. He said he is for the seperation of Church and State, but needs to overthrow the whole Bush system and put a new one in place.

        2. He compared the FISA to the Protecting America Act and is going to strike down the act in the senate if he can.

        3. He still maintains a withdrawal plan. He was against the war from the beginning. That beats 100 years in Iraq.

        4. He does have economical knowledge. He just does not need a degree in one to prove it. Considering his opposing candidate McCain barely knows what determines the market price, I say the choice is clear.

        5. Sadly everyone supports Israel, including the majority of the blind americans because they think it is "anti-Semitic" to do otherwise.

        Lets see Obama:
        1. Clearly states the Iraq War is a mistake, McCain maintains he would do it again even given the current info. Who is like bush?

        2. Obama is for Universal Healthcare, McCain is for spending billions in a useless war... who is like Bush?

        3. Obama wants to exhaust diplomacy with Iran. McCain is singing to the tunes of "bomb,bomb, bomb Iran".... literally. Who is like Bush?
    • WallyAnti, on 07/04/2008, -2/+4It would, but just bc someone is consistently an ass doesn't mean I have to appreciate it.
    • DangerCollie, on 07/04/2008, -5/+9There's sticking up for your political beliefs and there's being a dick. Lieberman lost sight of that distinction long ago.

      I hope the Republicans get buried by a landslide in November and we can finally scrape the Lieberman off our shoe and move along.
    • vexingmodstwo, on 07/04/2008, -12/+3Everything Lukas said above plus one thing: Lieberman is Jewish and a huge percentage of Obamabots on Digg are knee jerk Israeli / Jewish haters.
    • enki25, on 07/04/2008, -3/+8This article isn't about Joe simply saying "I think McCain would be a better president". He said that Obama would lead to another terrorist attack. That fear mongering ***** is exactly what this country is tired of and is why Obama is leading McCain in every poll.
      • vexingmodstwo, on 07/04/2008, -5/+5No, he said that the new President would be tested early. Your fearmongering ***** is exactly what this country is tired of and why national opinions polls mean nothing since we don't have a national election in this country (it is state by state).
  • killuhkt, on 07/04/2008, -12/+18joe liberman is spineless and stupid and he is an independent because neither Democrats or Republicans want him!
  • bigsteve3OOO, on 07/04/2008, -10/+3Joe is an independent. he holds no loyalties therefor can stab anyone in the back but himself. FTW
  • amightywind, on 07/04/2008, -21/+6Gotta love big Joe. Who would have thought in 2000 that he would make such a good Republican? I just heard on Fox News that Obama is backpedaling on his 'retreat from Iraq now!" policy. Seems he will listen to generals in Iraq and 'adjust' and 'recalibrate' his planning accordingly. I am glad that, if elected he will implement President Bush's wise polices. But the radical leftists that made him the nominee might feel a little betrayed. (grin)
    • Number23, on 07/04/2008, -11/+5Obama has essentially adopted the McCain position. No flip-flop there, right digg-tards?
      • ichbeineinrcg, on 07/04/2008, -2/+1When Obama says that we can stay 100 years, then we'll talk. Until then, you're a retard.
      • Number23, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3The truth is ouchie
    • jcm267, on 07/04/2008, -11/+6Lieberman is only looking like a Republican to you people because he is one of the few Democrats who have decided to take a sensible view on fundamental Islam and the war on terror.
      • TheInformer, on 07/04/2008, -5/+4No, Lieberman is one of the few Democrats that is a liberal. Liberals are no longer he power structure of the Democrat party - Leftists are. Leftists run the party.

        Btw, whenever you hear the term "progressive", remember that is the term the communists used to disguise themselves.
    • theOster, on 07/04/2008, -3/+4does everyone understand that the major networks make money by advertising? and to get advertisers, they need viewers. how do you get more viewers? SENSATIONALISM! people watch things that make them laugh, cry, or get angry. the news corps know they're losing viewers to the internet and they're scrambling to bring you back. don't buy it.

      any time you find yourself getting worked up watching the news or shaking/nodding your head with the reporter, step back and think "am i being manipulated?" chances are, you are. and i'm not being an ass here - i've been a victim of it too. it's really easy to get wrapped up in the emotion of all these issues. all i ask is that you step back and think rationally enough to ask "is this a biased account?"
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 07/04/2008, -2/+4FoxNews is not a credible source for anything except Britney Spears and Anna Nichole Smith, which puts it on par with Entertainment Tonight.
      About as credible as a pastor from a Fundamentalist Church.
    • banderwocky, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1Big Joe???? That little old man ? HA!
  • pintomp3, on 07/04/2008, -17/+40Joe Lieberman (R-Israel) has been back-stabbing america for years
    • chaserm, on 07/04/2008, -3/+9got that right! He's a zionist traitor!
    • w3bsag3, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1The anti-semitic obama supporters seem to be numerous enough to form their own party!

  • Number23, on 07/04/2008, -9/+16How does not support equal "back stab"?
  • jesusmurphy, on 07/04/2008, -7/+21Joe Lieberman drives me insane.

    At least this is a break from his attacks on video games!
  • Rudegar, on 07/04/2008, -6/+1doubt he would have had the guts if it was
    http://0at.org/img/projects/mullet_bear/mullet_bea ...
    who was running vs. mcain!
  • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/04/2008, -9/+3Jittery Joe is the world’s first Likud country bumpkin. One of these days he will be caught talking in his normal voice. Meanwhile he is a danger to both the US and Israel.
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/04/2008, -1/+0Are you people seriously in doubt about this? JJ supports both US and Israeli militarism in the ME. That overspending by the US weakens us. Weakening the USA, the best friend to Israel after all, makes no sense! It weakens the dollar, drives more speculation, and puts more petrodollars into the main terrorist funding countries of Saudi Arabia and Iran. It strengthens Iran and the Shia who are worse enemies of Israel than al-Qaeda. So this is a friend of the US and Israel? G-d save us.
  • JimmySpaza, on 07/04/2008, -20/+16"Sen. Lieberman used his appearance to promote his fear-mongering, pro-war agenda and to attack Barack Obama."

    Wah! Cry me a river, you baby. The above sentence sounds like fear-mongering and pro-attack...just like it accuses Lieberman of.

    Our enemies will test the new president early. Remember that the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton administration. 9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush administration."

    Hit the nail on the head. This is reality. And Obama is vulnerable. The article tried to assert that this was an unfair, inaccurate, and plain wrong statement.

    If Stonecipher, the author, wanted to retain ANY credibility, then he would admit this and move on. There is nothing wrong with admitting one's weaknesses...especially when evaluating his/her capability to be president.

    Stonecipher is biased and a propaganda shill for Obama. Nothing more, nothing less.
    • brad3378, on 07/04/2008, -0/+6Was the Obama logo icon next to his name a dead giveaway?
    • gtw398, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1Disagree completely.
  • deadbaby, on 07/04/2008, -7/+15Lieberman should really go run for office in Israel. I have no problem with him supporting Israel but it seems to be the only issue he cares about so perhaps he could do more good over there.
  • insomniacal, on 07/04/2008, -15/+13... as if Obama didn't backstab Hillary. That's politics.
    • Paranor01, on 07/04/2008, -5/+12Obama didn't need to backstab Hillary, she did that quite well on her own to herself :)
  • Chip53, on 07/04/2008, -17/+13Joe knows Obama is nothing but an empty suit. What's sad is the rest of you DON'T know it.
  • portnoy, on 07/04/2008, -5/+8If the war in Iraq is so important to Leiberman why isn't he grabbing a gun and moving his a** over there? This war was a mistake from the first, Bush intentionally lied to the American people to make it happen. If there is any justice Bush and his entire administration will be held accountable for it. We nearly destroyed Iraq when Hussein invaded Kuwait to steal their oil and then Bush does the same thing to Iraq. Bush is no better than Saddam was. I'm really surprised that no country has come here to "liberate" us from GW.
    • w3bsag3, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Obama disagrees with you. Who are you with?
  • JointVenture, on 07/04/2008, -16/+14Now this is funny, a bunch of Obamabots bitching about someone stabbing a buddy in the back.

    Shall we list the Clinton supporters who stabbed her in the back and were greeted with praise from you *****?
    • bsmang, on 07/04/2008, -7/+7There's a difference when someone deserves a back stabbing or otherwise brings it on themselves.
    • oneiroi, on 07/04/2008, -4/+4I love the post-primary angelic Hillary image. Yes poor mean Obama, Hillary never slandered Obama.
    • Wronghead, on 07/04/2008, -3/+2Please make posts about people who are politically relevant. kthx
  • mgenovese, on 07/04/2008, -8/+8It's only backstabbing if you like the candidate. If you don't, he's "bravely telling the truth."
  • vexingmodstwo, on 07/04/2008, -12/+17Wait... didn't Obama backstab ALL of you by going along with FISA and promoting faith-based initiatives?
    • nedzeve, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2No, Ron Paul did that to them already.
    • ShellShock11, on 07/04/2008, -4/+1No, he just wants to get elected...Which is a good thing.

      He doesn't actually believe in that crap, but hes going to do what he has to in order to get elected.
      • HanFastolfe, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1"He doesn't actually believe in that crap, but hes going to do what he has to in order to get elected"

        Then how do you know that he believes in the crap you agree with him on? Moreover, doesn't the tone of your post sound just like every other politician? What happened to hope, and change?
      • ShellShock11, on 07/05/2008, -1/+1Hope and change don't matter if you can't get elected!
      • wojtyk, on 07/17/2008, -0/+0"He doesn't actually believe in that crap, but hes going to do what he has to in order to get elected"

        By that same logic, McCain is still a maverick from 2004.
        He hasn't changed...he's just saying what he has to say to get elected.
        Seriously man, expose the hypocrisy...don't fall for this ***** again.
  • NelsonR, on 07/04/2008, -8/+3Lieberman is a cowardly traitor but I have to agree with vexingmoldstwo above.
    Obama is just another politician.
    "Change we can believe in." What a load of B.S. proved daily of late.
    "Hope", myself I now see where hope is, in the commode concerning any politician with true character, morals and ethics.
  • WHauser, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3In an election the candidates win the primary by first energizing their base - this means moving to the left or right. In the general election both candidates will move back toward the center. Call it flip-flopping if you like but it is classic political science. Obama is not perfect but he is far better than the alternative and sure looks shiny and promising after the last 8 years of hell. How can you blame people for being excited and perhaps overly-enthused about a candidate - isn't that better than total apathy?

    I don't know what Lieberman's plans are but my guess is that he'd like to get on the McCain ticket and he's certainly worth more as a so-called Democrat than as another rank and file Republican. Washington can see that there's blood in the water, the Republican leadership is bracing for a bloodbath come November. Lieberman may be a tool but he's not a total idiot, no one wants to climb aboard a sinking ship.

    Classic: "Joe Lieberman is a back-stabber and sadly, this is a prime example of why if you want a friend in Washington, you better get a dog."
    • CaptainShaun, on 07/04/2008, -0/+18 years of hell? What hell have you endured that was directly because of the specific person that took office in the White House? Think very carefully before you answer this.
  • TheInformer, on 07/04/2008, -3/+6Let's do a comparison of how many articles have praised Obama vs how many have been critical. Interested in popping your bubble? The empirical data is not in your favor. A minor handful of somewhat critical articles doesn't compare to the huge number of articles praising Obama and carrying his water.
  • mrzack, on 07/04/2008, -12/+2Lie berman knows 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB!!
  • TheInformer, on 07/04/2008, -2/+13People should not blindly follow any candidate. When you can't explore and discuss all aspects of a candidate, good or bad, then you can't defend or critique that candidate honestly.
  • katagana, on 07/04/2008, -3/+4Obama showed once again that he isn't affraid to go against the popular opinion to do the right thing.. He is a candidate who can cross the divide. McCain will only strengten the divide..
    • Akairenn, on 07/04/2008, -2/+2Sure he can cross the divide, right over to the other side of the aisle with FISA.

      Protip: Your Messiah is just another slimy politician, willing to do anything for power.
      • Anzat, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1*****. He didn't flip-flop on FISA at all. He accepted the best compromise available, which is something you've got to do when you're 1 of 100 senators instead of a dictator.
    • wojtyk, on 07/17/2008, -0/+0"He is a candidate who can cross the divide. McCain will only strengten the divide.."

      Umm, you _do know_ that McCain has a WELL-ESTABLISHED voting history of "crossing the divide" (so much so that many Republicans don't like him).
  • blackbamboo, on 07/04/2008, -7/+3But it's ok for anyone (Richardson) to stab anyone else (Clinton's) in the back as long as it's for Obama? Should we add this to the list of things you can't say about the Messiah Obama? Oh wait didn't he just say the war in Iraq was ok and the troops wont be coming home if he is President?
    • nedzeve, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Richardson didn't stab Clinton in the back. He spoke well of both candidates, but in the end said Obama was the better of the two.

      What Lieberman has done is nothing short of a cold blooded assault on Obama.
    • Mike415, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0what are you talking about? Show me the quote where he says the Iraq war is ok and troops won't be coming home. I think you hear what you want to hear.

      As for Richardson, he stabbed Bill in the back, not Hillary. But this goes to the point of many Obama supporters that Hillary should have been able to stand on her own two feet.
  • armorking, on 07/04/2008, -3/+71. McCain and Black discuss events that will benefit McCain's campaign.
    2. Black candidly said a terrorist attack would be good for McCain's campaign.
    3. Lieberman is supporting McCain.

    How can anyone support such a heartless candidate? I am still shocked to hear that those comments came from McCain's camp. So much for truly loving one's country. What a bunch of bastards...period.
    • w3bsag3, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1Hey, I can. How can you support anyone who would throw his mama off the train along with his mentor Rev. whright?
  • yellowcakewalk, on 07/04/2008, -3/+10Lieberman is being groomed to be McCain's "Cheney". McCain, if appointed, will run around making incoherent speeches, back-slapping, and making an ass out of himself, while Manchurian candidate Lieberman uses the American military to conquer more middle eastern nations for the benefit of his own country.
    • twiztidsinz, on 07/04/2008, -3/+2While I cant disagree with most of your statement, I do believe that you got the whole 'Manchurian Candidate' thing wrong.

      Now, it's been a while since I saw the movie and it didn't interest me enough to pick up the book and read it, I could have sworn that the Manchurian Candidate was a charismatic presidential nominee who won the office and was just a puppet.
      By your comment, you're saying that Lieberman is the 'Manchurian Candidate' (implying that he is being controlled) and yet you say he'd be the one puppet-mastering McCain, which contradicts the actual meaning of the term.
  • j4nj1m3n3z, on 07/04/2008, -2/+6Lieberman is supposed to be one of the candidates for McCain's VP, so this is no surprise.
    • ndseifi, on 07/04/2008, -1/+2Spot on. The only surprise about this is that people are shocked.
  • clippypog, on 07/04/2008, -10/+5whyd does Liebeman even bother? Obama ain't worth a damn
  • clippypog, on 07/04/2008, -10/+4why does Lieberman even bother? Obama ain't worth a damn
  • jugglingjon, on 07/04/2008, -8/+3Noob, Obama should have had a flare up, or been casting Frost Nova to de-stealth the Rogue.
    • jaykaywhy, on 07/04/2008, -2/+1Lieberman should have opened with Cheap Shot anyway.
    • nedzeve, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2I dugg you up because that was funny.
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 07/04/2008, -3/+9If Hillary were the nominee -- Liebermann would be saying the same things.
    He is as authoritative as a looney raving from a park bench. The new Zell Miller. After losing half his brain cells, it was inevitable he came to understand the Republicans.
  • incredibilistic, on 07/04/2008, -8/+6My mother always taught me that if you change the rules in the middle of the game it's called cheating. For Lieberman to change from Democrat to Independent and now supports a Republican shows that he has no moral integrity and doesn't care whose side he's on as long as he's on the winning side. Changing his stance and changing and bending the rules to his liking is exactly what this country doesn't need anymore.

    Having said that, news that Obama is spreading his policies thin doesn't give me much hope but I'm still optimistic that he'll come back to his senses and get back to the BO we all grew to love and will vote for in November. So long as he doesn't f*** up.
    • blackbamboo, on 07/04/2008, -2/+3What if change from muslim to christain? what if you change from hating whitey to needing whitey's vote? What if you chnage from not being proud of America to being proud of America? What if you changed from bringing the troops home in 16 months to listening to what the commanders on the ground have to say? What if changed from supporting Kerry because he is war hero to hating McCain because he is too? What if changed from hanging around in chicago with criminals and terrorist to hanging around washington? What if you changed from opposing Bush on everything to supporting faith based programs? What if you changed from supporting your Pastor to not supporting your Pastor? I guess thats called Hope?
      • Tssst, on 07/04/2008, -2/+1Well, you are wrong on all accounts there, except perhaps borderline on the FISA. Obama was always a christian, never hated whitey, was always a proud american, still wants to bring troops home in 16 months (that flip-flop thing was a rumor, check his site, it's not true), does not hate McCain, respects his war-hero status, never hung out with criminals, started his political career at a very humble position and worked his way up, earning all the success and achievements, and only changed his stance on his pastor when his pastor changed his stance on racial equality.

        Hope that helped.
    • CaptainShaun, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Well, it isn't a game and there are no rules, so that analogy doesn't work too well.
  • agoailam, on 07/04/2008, -3/+3QUOTE:
    First, here’s what Sen. Lieberman said to Bob Schieffer:
    "Our enemies will test the new president early. Remember that the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton administration. 9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush administration."
    Lieberman implied that if we elect Barack Obama, the terrorists will attack.
    ---------
    Since when is stating facts the same as stabbing in the back? Lieb's a tool, but all he's saying is the pattern is likely to repeat itself w/ the next president.
    • CaptainShaun, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2Lieberman implied that terrorists will attack no matter who is elected - democrat or republican. Quoting him then saying it means something it clearly doesn't looks like a smear more than anything.
    • w3bsag3, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Re>> Since when is stating facts the same as stabbing in the back?

      Since Obama invented it!!
  • HubbertWins, on 07/04/2008, -2/+2Back stabs? Is this a team sport or something? Monolithic morons.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 94 of 94 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.