Posted on 10/14/2004 11:38:38 AM PDT by areafiftyone
a) Hillary;
b)Clinton fought for 10 years against the moonbat left-wing of the Dem party, which is back in the ascendant
I doubt it. He is campaigning for Kerry after all.
I was indeed disappointed in Lieberman in 2000, because he turned his back on things everyone who's followed his career knew he believed in to become the VP candidate and (as typical in that role) the attack dog carrying water for his Presidential candidate.
It made him look hypocritcal, which naturally it was, because he was out there saying things as his Presidential candidate and party wanted him to say, even though it was clearly obvious he did not believe much of what he was saying. It hurt him, it was wrong, but on the same token that is your job if you are chosen to be VP.
I'm not goign to hold a 6 month VP Campaign against Lieberman, he and Ghephart were the only 2 serious candidates running in 2004... yet the dem party let raticals turn their backs on them.... The party is a joke (even more than it was before) thanks to that.
I would love to be a fly on the voting booth wall when Lieberman goes to pull the lever. Cant help but think he will pull the trigger for W and claim he voted for Kerry.
I read this as Lieberman sending a "signal" to Kerry to add talking points.
I have heard rumors here and there about a big democrat supporting Bush, some I have heard here others amongs friends who heard it through some mysterious grapevine, I am not holding much crednece to such rumors but Lieberman is quantifiably close with his statements, he strong support for Kerry statement though leaves it up in the air.
.....has been my prayer since the primaries!!...We have heard ..... " Win one for the Gipper?"........well Joe ....." how about winning one for ISRAEL....support BUSH"............
If the Dems would have nominated Lieberman, they would have won by 10% nationwide.
heh
Bill or Hillary Clinton???
I mean, do you think the Clinton's REALLY want Kerry to win?
I agree.
If Lieberman had run, I'd still vote for Dubya. However, unlike Kerry, I don't think a Lieberman presidency would be disastrous for foreign policy. Joe's as much of a hawk as Bush.
I look at it this way: if Joe can stand up to the Lefty wackos in his own party, I'm pretty sure he'd stand up for America's interests against France and the other Euro-weenies. If Joe was the candidate, there would be none of this "I voted for before I voted against it" garbage.
Aside from Zell Miller, Joe's the one Democrat I'd trust with our national security.
Sounds like a torn individual, or a calculating one. He differs from his party when it's safe to do so, and when it makes him look like a statesman, but he has always come back when it's important. He spoke out against Clinton, but then voted against impeachment. He took principled stands, and then chucked them all away in one day to mesh with Gore in 2000. He's an Orthodox Jew who votes against the PBA ban. He ran for VP and the Senate at the same time. I personally don't have a lot of respect for him.
Lieberman is no Zell Miller or Ed Koch.
With two weeks to go we will be able to get a sense of what the partys' internal polls look like. If we see more 'moderate' democrats and other hangers on that depend upon government connections to survive start to back a way from Kerry (ala Lieberman) we'll know the party bigs know its over for Kerry.
Dunno. Lieberman lost most of my respect when he changed his mind on violence in the movies because it suited his running mate. I haven't trusted him since then.
If he loves Israel he will vote for W.
Lieberman - The last Scoop Jackson Democrat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.