I don't know whether Obama chose Lieberman or vice versa (different stories are floating around), and I was seriously unhappy when Obama boosted Lieberman over Ned Lamont
But, as Connecticut Bob correctly points out, Obama DID NOT campaign for Lieberman once Lieberman lost the nomination and still decided to run as an Independent against the democratically-elected Democratic candidate, Lamont; to the contrary, Obama stuck with his party (unlike some others, like Mary Landrieu of Louisiana).
And, very significantly, Ned Lamont -- who stands against everything Joe Lieberman stands for -- HAS ENDORSED OBAMA. Think about it: Lamont beat Lieberman for the Democratic nomination. Lieberman ran as an independent and beat Lamont, but Lamont is the closest thing Connecticut has to a second Democratic Senator right now. Lamont would not endorse a Lieberman clone -- so if Lamont can let the "mentor" thing go, shouldn't we do the same?
The bottom line -- which Lamont understands -- is that while Obama's not perfect, Lieberman has a lot more in common ideologically with Hillary than he does with Obama, and that the connections between Lieberman and Clinton run deep. Lieberman and Hillary were in lockstep on the Iraq war resolution, the resolution declaring Iran a sponsor of terrorism (lay the groundwork for yet another war), the surge, and the bankruptcy bill; Obama was on the correct side -- the opposite side of Lieberman and Clinton -- on all those issues. So I think the "mentor" bit is a red herring.
But we may have stumbled on a wonderful opportunity to learn with a fair degree of certainty where Lieberman's loyalties lay, because he apparently is being denied his "superdelegate" status for endorsing John McCain. Not only is that delightful news -- the thought of Senator Palatine playing any role at all in nominating the candidate galls me -- but it may give us a window into the inside working of the Democratic machine.
Here's why: all the major news outlets have been calculating each candidate's delegate count, including both elected or "pledged" delegates AND THE SUPERDELEGATES LEANING TOWARD THAT CANDIDATE. How do they know which way the supers are leaning? By confidentially interviewing them.
Time/CNN has projected Connecticut's pledged delegates to go 26/22 in favor of Obama, with 99% of the vote counted. That's firm. Time/CNN don't say how many supers are in each candidate's camp on a state by state basis -- but they DO say how many supers each candidate has in total: Hillary 193, Obama 106 . Of the Connecticut delegates, according to CapitolWatch, five of Connecticut's 12 (now 11) supers are uncommitted (plus 5 for Obama, 1 for Clinton). Lieberman may also have been uncommitted, but we don't know, and Time/CNN may have had different info than CapitolWatch anyway.
So here's what I'm gonna be looking for: a one-digit change in one of those national numbers shortly after Lieberman's disqualification hits the mainstream media. That could tell us which candidate he backed. If it's Obama, I'll take my lumps and admit that Lieberman was paying back Obama for helping him win re-election and that their relationship was relatively close. If it's Hillary, as I suspect, then the "Obama's mentor in the Senate" anvil should be removed from Obama's neck immediately.
BACK TO VICHYDEMS HOME