If Lieberman had even been one-tenth as aggressive as he was versus Lamont in 2000 when he was debating Dick Cheney, maybe he would have been less of a drag on the ticket with Al Gore.
» Breaking News
RNC Spent Almost $30,000 More In Clothes For Palin
Mumbai Terrorist Ajmal Amir Kasab Promised $1,250 For Attack
Economy Kills Broadway’s Latest Version Of “Grease”
Katie Price: Dwight Yorke Ignores Disabled Son Harvey
Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe Writing Book
As much as I disagree with Lieberman on Iraq, I feel more strongly about this:
I would much rather have Lieberman as President than GWB, period. Democrats need to stick to policy. They will not get anywhere by trying to demonize one of their own, who otherwise has voted for issues that are also critical to the future of this country and the planet as a whole, including the environment.
Of course, we most sane Democrats would rather have Lieberman than Bush, but we don’t live in that world. We live in a world, where Bush IS the president, and where Lieberman’s support for this president provides zero input into his decisions. Lieberman has thus been an enabler of this president and his policies, and so I don’t think that we even have to resort to demonizing.
For just as Lieberman would be better than Bush, my guess is that Lamont would be better than Lieberman for the Democrats interests. I mean its pot calling the kettle black, when we have Lieberman constantly harping about his own party instead of criticizing the other one that’s got us into this mess.