Posted on 08/09/2006 5:38:30 AM PDT by teddyballgame
In the meantime, Lieberman's primary defeat sends a message to all presidential contenders, particularly Sen. Hillary Clinton, that they have to move to the left on the war or be buried by the party's increasingly radical and leftist base. Al Gore is emerging as the one for her to worry about in 2008. Anti-war from the start, riding the global warming issue and a proven popular-vote winner, Gore will be increasingly attractive to the same left-wing voters who nominated Lamont in Connecticut. Hillary's convoluted flip-flops on the war won't play well in the primaries.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Hillary is trying to have it both ways which is why she came out so tough against Rumsfeld last week. The Dems have also moved Nevada up as one of the early primary states to take away the left wing's influence in Iowa (Hillary is running behind the Breck Girl in polls there). The Left is nervous because they have been highjacked by the radical kook fringe and top Party officials know it.
This Leiberman loss - even if he wins as an Independent, is great news for Republicans. The McGovern Wing of the Democratic Party is back. If the Left truly believes this is where the country is at over the War in Iraq and the War on Terror - they are headed for landslide losses.
This is a perfect example of partisanship in action. Hillary backs Lieberman against Lamont in the primary. But now the same two guys are going head to head in the general election, and Hillary is going to back Lamont because he has the party nomination, while Lieberman does not.
So Hillary is obviously supporting the least qualified nominee solely for partisan reasons.
Yep and IMO look for a raucous democrat 2008 convention ala 1972, where McGovern didn't make his acceptance speech until 2:00 in the morning.
It would be great if the democrats had to hold another telethon like they did after their 1972 debacle, but with Soros money waiting in the wings, that probably won't happen.
That's OK. Hillary will take out Gore. We all know the Clintons must have a lot of dirt on Gore and will be "leaking" it if he does look to be a contender.
IOW, the Dems will self-destruct if not this election year then surely by 2008.
The Dems won't have Howard Dean imploding in Iowa next election. Let's hope some left wing nut DOES win the nomination and THEN drives the bus off the cliff.
It's hilarious that the Republicans had absolutely nothing to do with the best thing that has happened to them in years.
They are using this story as a lead to say that VOTERS are against the war, therefore, they voted for Lamont.
The word DEMOCRAT never enters the story!
Worked for her in 1992.
'So Hillary is obviously supporting the least qualified nominee solely for partisan reasons."
Strategery. By Hillary supporting Lamont, she will pick up the anti-war votes. It is anti-war by association.
The fact that Lamont was flanked by both Jackson and Sharpton in news photos has not been lost on many a reader.
The Fall will get interesting.
Hillary has got a real problem. She's trying to have it both ways and the kook left won't have anything to do with her. Let's hope some left wing nut emerges (like Dean in 2004).
The circus is in town and the clowns are putting on a show.
Told ya. Gore will be the nominee - he's got credibility with the enviro-wacko Left and enough pseudo-gravitas to keep traditional Democrats on board. Everyone else in the Democratic Party is an either/or who will turn off half of their base: hard left anti-war zealot or Liebermanesque semi-patriot.
1) NYTimes, et. al., think these were the 'moderate' voters that backed Lamont and that spells doom for GOP.
2) The Kos/MoveOn, et. al., think it is the anti-war vote and that spells doom for GOP.
3) Carville, et. al., think this is an anti-incombant vote and that spells doom for GOP.
All of them deny it is a radicalization of the Dem party, that this is a trend against Bush...etc.
The only telling thing for me was that Carville was asked if he would support Lamont. Carville said, "I will support the Democrat nominee." It took a few moments for him to say he would support Lamont--and it was with reluctance. I think Carville gave us the real truth: Dems are very worried that this Lamont vote will turn off center/independent votes since he is indeed a radical kook Leftist. I also saw Lamont on CNN, a softball interview, and he was very much a political lightweight, gave us all anti-war/socialist rhetoric. It was embarrassing.
It's not a problem at all. Senator Clinton has a myriad of tricks and illusions up her sleeve. If you can't get people to vote for you, knock their other choices out. Her trump card in all this is the ability to torpedo competitors for the nomination behind the scenes. Unfortunate and we don't like to hear it, but reality.
bump for later reading
Didn't Bill Clinton campaign for Joe Lieberman? I tell ya, Bill's really got the mojo.
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.