A friend last night called me on the Obama-Lieberman connection. I did some investigating to make sure I wasn't bat shit crazy. Its happened before...
So. All freshman Senators enter into a mentorship program with another more senior Senator. I do not know how the mentorships are normally assigned or precisely what the mentorship entails.
As a freshman Senator Barak Obama requested having Joe Lieberman as his mentor. I believe this lasted approximately two years, until the next election cycle.
Obama being mentored by "Holy Joe" is in the NYTimes. MinnPost and CounterPunch have published pieces that refer to a Hartford Courant article in which Joe bragged Obama requested him. The Courant charges to view articles in its archives.
In the 2006 Senatorial campaign Lieberman battled with an anti-war lefty, Ned Lamont, and a progressive movement for the Democratic nomination. Lieberman lost the nomination, ran as an independent, and won the general election. While Lieberman was still going for the Dem Nom, Obama flew to Conneticut for a high profile fundraiser. "I am absolutely certain that Connecticut's going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the United States Senate." Reported in the Times and the Courant.
Once Lamont won the nomination Obama endorsed him. Hillary also made the Joe to Ned switch. A few months ago Lieberman endorsed McCain.
Its not exactly steamy stuff but there you go. Also, I was on pollingreport.com earlier to check up on the head-to-heads. It is an excellent website if you want to keep up with national polls on just about any issue. I wanted to check up on some of the electability stuff.
National polls are for likely voters. I am deliberately vague on numbers because every poll has lists different numbers and poll results should be understood as a range anyways.
In McCain v. Clinton: McCain looks to have a slight lead currently although less than a month ago they were neck and neck.
In McCain v. Obama: Obama leads by a few points, up from neck and neck.
The following poll result is for Dems and folks who lean Dem.
In Obama v. Clinton: The polls are a bit all over the place, although the majority have Clinton with a few point spread.
I still don't think McCain's base will turn out in huge numbers unless Huckabee is the VP (but don't forget we could have T-Paw!). Clinton's recent hit against McCain is likely a result of Obama's surge and subtle attacks on her political character. Obama's support is probably higher than these results due to polling issues (such as problems in polling young adults and folks with cell phones).
But then, I don't support politicians on the basis of their electability. Judging electability often stems from uncertain impressions and vague emotions. It is something which can shift drastically in a day, let alone the 9 months until the general election. Furthermore, I believe using it as a basis can cause us to lose our values and make us forget why we care in the first place. Sometimes it is a giving in when we need to stand up. While every person needs to be pragmatic and suppress certain ideals in order to live in society/in community/engage in politics, there are ways to do this in which we respect our values and each other. Choosing my endorsements based on electability is not my way. Perhaps my way is wrong.
I wonder whether my understandings of the candidates and the election fight would be different if I were home. Would I be swept up in the Obama movement most of my friends are in? I certainly expected as much before...
Man! When did I get on my high horse and when did this become a politics blog? I promise no more politics posts for a while, and I will try to get the quality of my other posts back up. Both of those are things we can all vote for.
Abonner på:
Legg inn kommentarer (Atom)
4 kommentarer:
Sniff. I decided not to care about the electability of Ralph Nader when I voted for him in 2000. Perhaps those of us who did played a role in electing GWB. I'm not suggesting that the electability question you raised is the same as the Nadar-Gore pairing. It just reminded me of the whole dastardly mess.
Tomorrow is Lincoln's birthday. I'll think about him for awhile to sooth myself ....
Let's try spelling soothe properly. Proofreading -- it's a powerful thing.
Third party voting can be tricky. For all the consternation on the left about Nader losing the 2000 election, I think the weakness of Gore's campaign had more to do with it. Also consider: Clinton won in 1992 because of Perot. Perhaps I've spent too much time in multi-party political systems to the point where I think voting outside of two-parties is always a good thing. Except I suppose if that extra party is on the crazy tip of the far-right.
Fun facts!
Honest Abe is one of Obama's heroes, if I remember right. Lincoln was also the childhood hero of Jane Addams.
We certainly know here that Jesse didn't help popularize the idea of a third party. You still need to get along with the other guys and all Jesse could do was be defensive and irritating. Alas the idea of a powerful third party to deliver the message to whomever is in charge of the Dems and the GOP that where they've taken the parties is not working for those who desire some sensible center is quite appealing. (That is a convoluted sentence. Hope it can be understood.)
This all from someone who is bummed that her initials are the same as the Republican National Committee.
Legg inn en kommentar