Lieberman Wants in on Iowa Debate, DNC Says Too Bad

[BurtWorm]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9554-2003Nov24?language=printer


Democrats Exclude Lieberman From Satellite Feed of Debate
Edwards and Kerry Will Participate From Washington

By Ron Fournier
The Associated Press
Monday, November 24, 2003; 12:16 PM


DES MOINES, Iowa -- Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) wants to debate after all. And he's crying foul at the Democratic National Committee for excluding him from a presidential faceoff Monday.

The Connecticut senator, who is not competing in Iowa's caucuses, had rejected an invitation to attend the Des Moines debate sponsored by the DNC. Eight other candidates had agreed to attend.

Later, Sens. John Edwards of North Carolina and John F. Kerry of Massachusetts said they could not be here because the Senate is debating a GOP-backed Medicare bill they both oppose. The DNC agreed to allow them to participate by satellite from a Washington studio. Two television screens will show Edwards and Kerry on stage, alongside six rivals who will be there in person.

Lieberman, who also opposes the Medicare bill, asked to participate by satellite as well. The DNC consulted with the other campaigns, at least two of which said he should not be allowed to take part.

Lieberman's spokesman Jano Cabrera called the decision unfair and singled out the Clark campaign for standing in the way.

[mmm]

Lo Blow Holy Joe, PLEASE drop out!

We have an election to win.

[Egnever]

1. Have to say too bad joe!

he wasnt interested in attending originally just because they are making adjustments for the other candidates because they have a job to do doesnt let you change your mind.

He should pay the price for abndoning it from the start. It says something about his candidacy and that statement should stand.

[annxburns]

2. Gee, another reason for Joe ...

... to attack Clark. How surprising.

Lieberman is pathetic. His random shots at the other candidates are just stupid. He is like a republican mole or something ...

No wonder he is the republican's favorite candidate. We already have Zell Miller, Joe! Drop out!

[Renew Deal]

4. Hopefully this will help end the misery.

The sooner he's out the better.

[YEM]

3. Good. We won't have any whining during the debate.

Time to drop out Joe.

[newyawker99]

10. Hi YEM!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[returnable]

5. If this is true...

"Lieberman's spokesman Jano Cabrera called the decision unfair and singled out the Clark campaign for standing in the way."

If that's the case, I think everyone owes the Clark campaign a big fat donation.

Just kidding. On the square :)

[spindoctor]

6. My heart bleeds

His presence will be greatly missed.

Maybe we can make it up to him and get him a seat for the GOP National?

[chiburb]

7. Glad he's out, this is why:

"Every side seems to agree that the most important swing vote in 2004 will be economically squeezed white families in the heartland. They live in communities that, more and more with each passing month, resemble the Flint, Michigan, depicted in the films of Michael Moore. According to the DLC strategy, the best way to win there is to make sure the Republicans can't convince them the Democratic nominee is a dangerous radical. That's why Joe Lieberman's fighting so hard to become that nominee. I've already argued one reason that hurts the party—that in order to establish himself as the most conservative candidate, Lieberman has to tear down the other candidates in a way that can only play into Republican hands.

Joseph Lieberman adds nothing to the Democrats' chances in 2004. He does, however, take things away. In fighting to the finish and losing the nomination, he will have irreparably weakened the winner. If he wins it, he will suck out something precious: the active enthusiasm of the unwealthy that is a center-left party's only natural advantage against a party of money, the Republicans.

How many Democrats will be willing to work their hearts out for the guy single-handedly responsible, in his kid-glove non-investigation as chair of the Senate Investigations Subcommittee, for the Bush administration emerging from the Enron scandal scot-free? How many, for the man whose most enduring work in the Senate was preserving the favorite accounting dodge, the non-expensing of stock options, of disgraced high-tech companies like Enron and Worldcom?

The senator from Connecticut must withdraw. He should do it fast. "

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0343/perlstein.php

[HFishbine]

9. First of all

I cannot equate the heavy-handed tactic of excludding Joe from a single debate with getting him out of the primary. What ever good reasons one may have for suggesting he get out of the primary, excluding him from this debate is a petty gesture unworthy of the democtratic party.

Secondly, even if there was the ability to force Lieberman to withdraw from the race, do you want that coordinated by a committee? I'd rather that happen through popular will however it may be expressed at this point.

[chiburb]

12. The problem with that is...

By the time "popular will" is expressed, Joe will have tarnished the other candidates and the party itself. Did you read the article?

[HFishbine]

8. Seems undemocratic

to exclude him. I'm ABBOL, but really, is this how we advance our candidates, by excluding others? He opted out, now he wants back in. Big deal. If Kerry and Edwards can be accomodated with a change of venue, so can Joe's change of mind. Lieberman deciding not to campaign in IA is a non-issue. So has Clark, and he's in the debate.

I sure hope the Dean campaign wasn't one that epxressed opposition.

[NNN0LHI]

11. I don't agree with this decision either n/t

[mikehiggins]

13. Apparently Joe suspects he was snookered by Clark

After all, Clark was the most vocal about not taking part in the debate because of his big NYC fundraiser. Apparently that gave Joe cover for backing out himself. Then, Clark found a way to postpone the "unpostponeable" event and checked back into Hotel Iowa leaving Joe hanging in the wind.

Letting the other two participate by tv, on the other hand, is a real rebuff to Joe. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Clark's people were among those who complained. Without Lieberman along the odds are everyone but Clark will be concentrating on blasting Dean. Kerry and Edwards aren't likely to give up any of their precious on-screen moments to bother with him when Doc is on stage.

Youse guys oughta wonder why Joe keeps hitting on Clark when we all know Dean is the target of the day. Could he suspect something about how this is playing out?

Hmmm...

[Renew Deal]

15. The Clark debate was on Dec. 9.

This is different.

[chiburb]

16. I thought it was New Hampshire that Clark was gonna

Skip? If so, so much for your theory. If not, then I apologize.

[JackSwift]

14. This is an Iowa debate for the Iowa caucuses on Iowa issues

and Lieberman has publicly declared that he will not be competing in the Iowa caucuses, and turned down an invitation, thus confirming his status as "too good for Iowans". Why should the Iowa Democrats have to bother hearing Lieberman and have him take up their time when they don't get to vote "yes" or more likely "no" on Lieberman? For Lieberman to demand air time when he cannot lose is cheating.

[dfong63]

17. stop whining, joe, it doesn't look presidential

[tjdee]

18. And he blames Clark because......?????????

Although I think the DNC should let Joe debate (good god, people, what if he DEFECTS to the Republicans over this?), I'm happy that there will only be eight people instead of nine.

STILL TOO MANY.