Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Laff Hole Moves to Re-bar | Congratulations, Ainu! »

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Joe Lieberman…

posted by on June 10 at 16:34 PM

…is a piece of shit.

Now that Joe Lieberman has emerged as John McCain’s lead attack dog against Barack Obama—even going so far as to suggest that Obama’s judgment could pose a danger to our safety—there’s some very interesting behind-the-scenes back-story to the Lieberman-Obama relationship that you should know about.

Specifically, a top official on Joe Lieberman’s 2006 Senate reelection campaign tells me that Lieberman’s staff practically begged Barack Obama to come in and endorse him at a critical moment—requests that Obama agreed to, helping Lieberman minimize the damage from challenger Ned Lamont’s recent entry into the contest.

And Obama only has himself to blame.

RSS icon Comments


The former, not the latter.

Joe has always been a piece of shite.

The sad thing is everyone is too afraid to call him on it.

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 10, 2008 4:44 PM

To be fair, when CT had more industry, more labor, and was more union. Lieberman was actually pretty cool! We had family friends that worked on his campain. However, since the fucking bush administration and the change of CT demographics, there is little to none blue colar CT anymore and Lieberman just plays the I'm jewish here me roar card. It's really disconcerting to those people who used to support him

Even AFTER the whole Ned Lamont thing, Lieberman back tracked and said he would soften his war stance, which he hasn't.

Come to think of it ... I would be terrified if Lieberman became McCain's running mate.

But who knows, at the rate I'm going I could be moving to a swing state for the next election.

Posted by OR Matt | June 10, 2008 5:03 PM

There are no swing states - just Blue and Deep Purple .... you moving to Wyoming?

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 10, 2008 5:06 PM

"I would be terrified if Lieberman became McCain's running mate."

I would be thrilled. Everybody is sick of that bellicose little shitstain, and teaming up with a jew isn't going to help McCain win over the evangelicals.

Posted by Bison | June 10, 2008 5:13 PM

"If we did what Sen. Obama wanted us to do last year, Al-Qaeda in Iran would be in control of Iraq today."

Oh wow, that's rich.

There's not a political argument I despise more than the "If A would have happened, B surely would have followed" formulation. Unfortunately, it's used a lot by lefty bloggers to illustrate some kind of perceived double standard. ("If that attack had been made against Obama instead of Hillary, blah blah racism blah blah")

Posted by w7ngman | June 10, 2008 5:14 PM

@4 -- That didn't seem to hurt Mr. Poe any...

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | June 10, 2008 5:17 PM

#6, on the measurement of winning over evangelicals, I think Poe is about as low as you can go.

Posted by w7ngman | June 10, 2008 5:22 PM

More likely, Lieberman is aiming to be named Secretary of Defense in a McCain administration. Sikorsky would be THRILLED.

Posted by Bub | June 10, 2008 5:22 PM

@3. I'm trying to move to Seattle (need to get the hell out of Oregon!) I have more contacts in the Pacific Northwest now, otherwise I'm heading back to New England ... CT, which sadly, MIGHT be a swing state this election cycle.

And well, to an ill informed independent a joint ticket could be interpreted as the "end of partisanism" even when it so obviously isn't.

Posted by OR Matt | June 10, 2008 5:24 PM

So Obama single-handedly threw the election to Lieberman. I didn't realize he was so popular in CT.

Posted by keshmeshi | June 10, 2008 5:28 PM

@6 Sikorsky is in the shitter these days anyways. Bush has been pulling weapons contracts out of CT for the entire administration. Most infamously the production of Marine 1. Sent that contract to a airplane company in Houston that has never made a helicopter in its entire existence.

Bush has personally snubbed CT on SO many instances ... it's fucking disgusting!

Posted by OR Matt | June 10, 2008 5:28 PM

Okay, he's *partly* to blame. The Democrats in the Senate acted like Lamont was toxic, endorsed him with great reluctance, and didn't campaign actively for him. And they helped get Lieberman reelected. And... how has that turned out for everyone?

Posted by Dan Savage | June 10, 2008 5:32 PM

@7 -- I meant "teaming up" with someone of the Abrahamic confession. They're a lovely couple -- don't you read the society pages???

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | June 10, 2008 5:32 PM

And Dan, it is Obama's fault that Lieberman is a piece of shit? He endorsed Lieberman and got stabbed in the back. I mean, sure, the endorsement was kind of stupid, but you think it would have been any better had he *not* endorsed Lieberman?

Posted by w7ngman | June 10, 2008 5:45 PM

I've been hanging out with Poe and have met the jew several times. Other than the jew being a bit young for Poe's refined mantastes, I agree, they are a nice couple.

Posted by w7ngman | June 10, 2008 5:50 PM

@14/15 -- I could be way wrong here, but there's this thing known as the honor of the Senate, where you put aside partisan rancor and conduct yourself politely around -- and say nice things about -- your fellow senators. You see this every week on Russert ("What my distinguished friend from Kentucky calls rampant anal warts is mistaken...").

It's even more pronounced between members of the same party.

It's even MORE pronounced when you're a new Senator, expected to toe the line, have had all this drummed into your head by Old Man Byrd over whiskey and cigars, and have some buzz you're expected to share around.

So I'm not at all suprised Obama rose to the occasion. And I'm not at all surprised Lieberman has failed to.

Now, as for that vivacious April-September couple, I'm usually not impressed with people who name-drop their famous friends, but in this case, color me sea foam envious.

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | June 10, 2008 5:58 PM

April-September couple? What the fuck does that mean?

Posted by Mr. Poe | June 10, 2008 6:03 PM

EEEEEEK!!! I saw it! I saw the head of Poe pop out...right up there!

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | June 10, 2008 6:07 PM

Both the Democratic and Republican parties have ironclad rules about primary challenges to incumbents. We just went through this in New Jersey where Frank Lautenberg was challenged by a Democratic Congressman. Lautenberg won that primary. I despise that fucking dickweed Lieberman (or as I prefer to call him, Lieberwhore), but Obama did the right thing in endorsing him. If he had endorsed Lamont, a lot of superdelegates would have gone for Clinton. Yeah, it sucks, but a lot of political compromises suck.

Posted by Chris Tharrington | June 10, 2008 6:20 PM

Yup, helping Joe against Ned is really change and new politics and being all antiwar and shit.

You know, everyone acts like Obama has been leading some kind of million man antiwar organization the last few years. Fact is, he didn't. Fact is, he toed the line. Fact is, well, you've heard it before.

Amazing how we love to worship him for change then the same people start defending him for following the rules as laid down by crusty ol' Sen. Byrd.

@17: I believe April-September refers to some kind of 4th "season" they have in other parts....called "summer." It's allegedly "warm" whatever that means.

We don't have it here, so you are not expected to know about it.

Posted by PC | June 10, 2008 6:26 PM

*namedrops Aislinn*

Posted by w7ngman | June 10, 2008 6:27 PM

Perhaps Obama should have endorsed LIEberman in during the primary. But when Lamont won the primary -- when Democrats picked him as their candidate -- he should have backed Lamont, and backed him strongly, and not sat on his hands, like so many other Dems, because they "knew Joe" and "liked Joe" and had "relationships with Joe."

Posted by Dan Savage | June 10, 2008 6:34 PM

Funny how the only people who think we "worship Obama for change" are those trying to use it against him.

Fact is, after 8 years of warrantless wiretapping, secret energy meetings, appointing inept cronies to important positions, never holding press conferences, and failing at government overall, any of the D candidates could have claimed to stand for change and there wouldn't be a thing you could meaningfully say against it.

You're still nothing but a disingenuous fleck, unPC, and your pseudo-unity schtick isn't fooling anyone. Go away.

Posted by w7ngman | June 10, 2008 6:34 PM

@20 -- I never proclaimed Obama as a voice of change, but he is just following Senate rules. You can't be inventing new ways with every step -- sometimes, it makes sense to move down the already paved road a bit to earn the credits that allow you to go off of it.

And "April-September" is a play on the very old phrase "May-December." Mr. Poe is apparently a little younger than May, and his BF is way younger than December, I gather.

@21 -- Now you're just being mean. I'm seething...

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | June 10, 2008 6:35 PM

First Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 and then Traitor Joe in 2000...I can't believe the assholes I voted for VP.

Posted by RainMan | June 10, 2008 6:39 PM
when Lamont won the primary -- when Democrats picked him as their candidate -- he should have backed Lamont, and backed him strongly

But he did, Dan! Well, eventually, anyway.

Posted by tsm | June 10, 2008 6:43 PM

W7ngman, we need to fire up a bowl soon.

Posted by Mr. Poe | June 10, 2008 6:53 PM


Posted by w7ngman | June 10, 2008 6:55 PM

Here's a fact: Obama's "support" of Lieberman consists solely of one sentence in one speech during one appearance at a *Democratic party* fundraising dinner in March of 2006. You know, long before anyone took Lamont seriously.

The Clintons' support of Lieberman during the primary was obviously more substantial and timely.

While you could argue he should've done more to support Lamont (who would've lost anyways and taken Obama's time away from states that were actually competitive), he still did more to help Lamont in the general than he did to help Lieberman in the primary.

Lamont is a great guy but his general campaign dropped the ball badly. Obama didn't have anything to do with that. His campaign is a weird blindspot for the "netroots" where they're incapable of seeing any fault in his strategy and place blame anywhere but the candidate and campaign, not unlike supporters of a certain former presidential candidate. (And Taggaris of course is going to blame anyone but himself.)

Whatever the case, they (Markos especially) need to get the fuck over it. Ned Lamont obviously did. He gave money to Obama very early on and endorsed him as soon as Dodd dropped out.

Posted by ru shur | June 10, 2008 7:00 PM

What a nothing story. Kos and Atrios still can't get over their Lamont loss, their big chance to prove the power of the lefty blogosphere and it fell on its face. Is anyone besides Dan Savage actually surprised Lieberman is McCain's pitbull?

Posted by Bob | June 10, 2008 7:02 PM

Keeping my mouth shut.

Posted by Le Juif du Monsieur Poe | June 10, 2008 8:56 PM

Dan, you first sentence said it all.

Posted by Sad Comment | June 10, 2008 9:01 PM

@31 I think you are more August.

p.s. I like your new nomenclature.

Posted by PopTart | June 10, 2008 9:07 PM

Thanks PopTart. But don't tell Mr. Poe, August might be a titch young.

For the record, the politically correct term is "age-gap relationship"

Posted by Le Juif du Monsieur Poe | June 10, 2008 10:20 PM

@34 -- I loves me the Juif du Monsieur Poe. Dude, you need to get down here and let me have you to dinner.

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | June 10, 2008 10:29 PM

August was a terrible film.

Posted by Mr. Poe | June 10, 2008 10:33 PM

@36 -- True that, but it was my grandfather's middle name, and my birth month (Peridot!), so I honor that August shit, for realz.

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | June 10, 2008 10:35 PM

"Obama did the right thing in endorsing him. If he had endorsed Lamont, a lot of superdelegates would have gone for Clinton."


Posted by Bison | June 10, 2008 11:27 PM

"Al-Qaeda in Iran"...

I guess someone missed the whole thing about Sunni and Shia, and what they are doing to each other in, let's say, Iraq. Exactly the kind of person you would want to be a senator, or president, or whatever.

Posted by M'thew | June 11, 2008 1:57 AM

You know what you must do now, Dan: make a Joe Lieberman Google bomb like you did for Rick Santorum.

Posted by David | June 11, 2008 7:34 AM

@21: Where the fuck has she been lately, anyway? Not on Slog, I can tell you that.

Posted by Greg | June 11, 2008 8:46 AM

Her boss passive-aggressively took away her internet, or something.

Posted by w7ngman | June 11, 2008 9:30 AM

She should fire him.

Posted by Mr. Poe | June 11, 2008 9:41 AM

It's painful to think what could have been if the voters of CT had seen through Quisling McLieberscum and voted for Ned Lamont. In their defense though, there may have been voter fraud in CT as well considering the numbers for Joe's challenger exactly matched that of a previous election. (see: )

Posted by LanceThruster | June 11, 2008 4:28 PM

Lieberman makes me sick. If he is so concerned about israel, let him pick up a weapon and join the IDF. He is a scum bag. When an american politician puts another country about america he should be asked to leave our country.

Posted by Tony | June 11, 2008 10:31 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.