Bill Clinton's democratic party shrinks a bit

[sisyphusshrugged]

According to Senator Lieberman, people who oppose his position on the war are extremists who are rejecting the mainstream party of Bill Clinton. He doesn't get to say that any more.

Comments

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

I'm gonna puke.
Wasn't "Souless" Joe one of the Democrats who went after Clinton with sharpened knives?

[jmhm.livejournal.com]

let's just say that his feelings about undermining a president in time of war has evolved a bit.

[cosmicbob.livejournal.com]

He certainly was. He was mighty sanctimonious about it too.

Bill Clinton should be campaigning night and day for Lamont. I couldn't figure out why he campaigned for Lieberman in the first place.

[jmhm.livejournal.com]

because by not running away from Lieberman in the primary, he positions his wife in the mainstream and Lieberman-the-independent as an extremist.

Frankly, I never thought he wanted him to win the primary. He's a smart enough man to realize that his appearance was going to lead to a flood of Lieberman stabs Clinton in the back stories.

[archaica.livejournal.com]

Oh, but the new spin on that is that he provided the Democrats the cover they needed, once they put their moralist-in-chief out front, to support their President and oppose impeachment (you know, which most of America did too). Funny how Joe keeps disagreeing with most of America. And yet we're supposed to admire him for it.

[jmhm.livejournal.com]

Yeah. Shame low-information voters aren't the most fertile ground for insider beltway bullshit.

[archaica.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, my subscription to The Hill lapsed. All I have to go on is his suckerish record. If only I knew the real Joe.

[jmhm.livejournal.com]

You know, I find it amusing that the punderati, who have been giving the man ridiculously disproportionate attention for the past eight years, are all wailing that we don't know the real Joe.

Not doing a very good job, then, are you?

[archaica.livejournal.com]

You can be the nicest man in the world in private, but if you're a sanctimonious, anti-democratic, back-stabbing jerk in public, no one's going to vote for you. And acting like they've personally betrayed you when they don't isn't going to help later, either.

[jmhm.livejournal.com]

Um.

I think maybe the punderati kind of like sanctimonious, anti-democratic, back-stabbing jerks.

I mean, we are talking about a group that contains Cokie Roberts and the Davids Broder and Brooks

[archaica.livejournal.com]

Oh, yeah. They love him so much, because he's one of them. That's why they're so baffled that the rest of America somehow doesn't like him.

Honestly, the journalists covering Washington have gone native. That's why all of us taking a look at it with outside eyes is so valuable.

[jmhm.livejournal.com]

but, see, we're reading what they write.

I just don't think they can understand how we can perceive it any other way than they do.

[archaica.livejournal.com]

Well, there are objective facts - 99% of what they write is commentary on those facts, or commentary about what others are (or aren't) saying about those facts. But those facts still exist, and (hopefully) absent any beholden interest in the outcome of our analyses, we can make them as reasonable adults. But yeah, if we just uncritically read what they write? We're fucked.

The real question is, why would we understand it the way they do? A Senator's job is not to invite his constituents to a cocktail party the way he might David Broder. It's to serve our interests and represent us. The interests Official Washington has in Congressmen and we as the voters have are completely different.