Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Why is Bill Clinton campaigning for Lieberman?

Posted by Jan Frel at 1:51 PM on July 24, 2006.


A friend running for Congress tells me it has everything to do with 2008, Hillary, AIPAC, and Israel.
190-clinton
hillary

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get The Mix in your
mailbox!

 

It made a lot of sense to me when I read that Hillary Clinton said she'd support the Democratic nominee in the Connecticut Senate race -- on the surface it appeared she met the demands of online activists who rightly think it's crazy that Chuck Schumer and other senate Dems said they'd support Lieberman even if he didn't win the party's nomination. But the deep reality, I thought, was simple payback from Hillary saying F-U to Lieberman for dogging Bill in his zipper-related Monica crisis.

Now Bill is out campaigning for Lieberman, and for that deep reality to be true, which for some reason I care to think about, and stick to, I need more background to explain it. Enter a conversation I had this morning with a really smart guy who I talk to who is the Democratic nominee in a congressional race against one of the worst, most venal, House Republicans I've ever witnessed. He explained Bill's campaigning for Lieberman this way: Lieberman was furious that Hillary came out and said she'd support the nominee, so he lookedin his ever-shrinking rolodex and called up AIPAC, remembering that Hillary Clinton's rep with the 'Israel Lobby' isn't quite the A-grade she wants it to be for her 2008 campaign. Sure, Hillary's crazy speech outside the UN with Vito Fossella and other creeps outlining her staunchissima eternal support of Israel went a long way in helping her cause, but it didn't deliver the amnesty she needs for her kissing of Arafat's wife, all those years ago: "'...We can’t forget her kiss to Suha,'" said Helen Freedman, executive director of Americans for a Safe Israel, who attended the rally." To get the A-grade from folks like Americans for a Safe Israel, you really have to go all out. So Hillary channeled Hubert Humphrey at his most craven and offered this insane analogy to Lebanon in her speech across the block from the United Nations: "I want us here in New York to imagine, if extremist terrorists were launching rocket attacks across the Mexican or Canadian border, would we stand by or would we defend America against these attacks from extremists?"

And there it is -- in this light, it makes sense that Bill would suddenly find a passion for Joe Lieberman's re-election. It keeps my deep reality alive, and all of it was passed on by a reliable source. And after I finished typing all this, I read from Kos that Hillary was the one who got Bill to go out to Connecticut. So there you have it.

Digg!


On the religious right 'nuts,' liberals, and catching a break
A response to a colleague...
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 17, 2006.
Bush thinking of 'replacing' Iraqi government? [VIDEO]
A whole new definition of Democracy.
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.
Religious right rally's first gaffe
Church opposes bigoted agenda
Post by Evan Derkacz. October 16, 2006.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
AIPAC
Posted by: mythbuster on Jul 24, 2006 2:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How can anyone claim that AIPAC is bad for US foreign policy? We are loved everywhere, Iraq is a success, we get a huge diplomatic boost by backing the Zionist project, and we get to pay for Israel to bomb Lebanon and then pay to rebuild it.

Oh, and didn't I mention that gas prices have gone down in direct proportion to AIPAC's influence.

P.S. What a bunch of vindictive sh*ts they are at Americans for a Safe Israel. I wonder if Hillary had kissed Suha's baby, they would have opposed her run for the Senate?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why is Bill Clinton campaigning for Lieberman?
Posted by: mbought on Jul 24, 2006 4:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to Pat Buchanan and Bob Shrum on "hardball" today; they agree the Clinton's are looking to get Lieberman on their side, along with whatever "polictical capital" that comes her way from AIPAC.

If Lieberman loses his seat in the Senate, Hillary and the rest of the Dems will have to rethink their position on the war in Iraq. I am so hoping Lamont wins, It will finally send the message that in order to win the Democratic Party has to go all the way Progressive~!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's Our Problem, Not Theirs!
Posted by: sirossisofliver on Jul 24, 2006 5:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WTF?

When are we Liberals going to stop genuflecting over the Goddamned Clintons?? They're not remotely "Liberals" (nor even remotely "Progressives" for that matter)!

Ignore them, and they'll go away!

If we don't, WE ARE GOING TO BLOODY-WELL LOSE THE NEXT ELECTION(S)!

As for Lieberman.... he's "Repugnican Lite"...a "DINO" (just like Hillary and Bill); he's the best Republican that the Reublican Party and it's minions ever had.

Wake up, and recognise a "Slow News Day", Alternet!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You ask why?
Posted by: blackinjun on Jul 24, 2006 5:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
because he's the type of guy that also put his office in Harlem....arrogant/elitist SOB...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So your answer would be what? to the question:
Posted by: Sojourner on Jul 24, 2006 7:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"...if extremist terrorists were launching rocket attacks across the Mexican or Canadian border, would we stand by..."?

Funny she didn't mention Cuba, in 1961. In that case, there was enough sanity there to take the likelihood of being pulverized seriously. Too bad that under current circumstances, absence of sanity is a foregone conclusion.

How long before nuclear tips made their way to Hizbollah missiles? How surprising is it when an explosive situation explodes?

I hope your friend is a better politician than your remarks indicate you are. Or is it another Nader-like noble sacrifice that you haven't had enough of yet? I also love losers, but this time it's necessary to win--by whatever means necessary, to quote Malcom X. Or was he just another fool, in your opinion?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Answer: Neo-cons, Zionists and One World Gov't
Posted by: Reader11722 on Jul 26, 2006 12:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lieberman is definitely a zionist. He might as well move his offices to Tel Aviv. They all support Israels aggression (everyone forgets the Israeli soldiers were captured on LEBANON's side of the border). As Israel bombs Lebanon, the US erodes rights at home by wire-tapping illegally, stealing private lands, pressuring book outlets to drop the book "America Deceived" by E.A. Blayre III and caging protestors. Soon the US will invade Syria and Iran, throwing the entire region into chaos. Then another false-flag operation will occur on US soil (like 9/11) and the masses will clamour for the safety of One World Gov't (with Lieberman, Bushes, Clintons and the ilk in control).
Final link (before One World Gov't shuts down Google Books):
America Deceived - book

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]