On what grounds was Lieberman not permitted to remotely participate

[dsc]

in the debate? I had assumed it was his withdrawl from Iowa but since Clark is there that can't be correct. Does anyone know why he was not permitted to do what Kerry and Edwards could? Just like them he was doing his job.

[La_Serpiente]

1. No clue

he was raising a fuss about it though. However, I felt he had every right to.

[pruner]

2. on the grounds that he had never planned to participate in the 1st place

he withdrew from this debate several weeks ago.

Lieberman doesn't need no stinkin Iowa votes.

[La_Serpiente]

3. Oh, nevermind

I retract my first post. Screw him if he had no interest in participating in the debate.

[dsc]

4. That seems awfly unfair

While I understand Iowans being peeved this debate is also being broadcast nationwide. The rest of the country deserves to hear all of the candidates.

[Jacobin]

5. By all means!!!!

We need to hear this Dem flagellating neo-con Iraq War Supporter as much as we possibly can!!

I missed his gurgling delivery, his dissing of all values Dem and his worship of Bush*. I mean, ALL THE OTHER candidates were saying bad things about LordGodBush!!! Holy Joe couldn't have straightened all those Lefties out and said some really nice things about the Chimp.

I demand that the debates be re-done and that Holy Joe be given twice the time to speak, to make up for this horrible slight.

[HFishbine]

7. Yeah, I missed him too...

NOT! But it was petty to keep him out and beneath the DNC.

[Trek234]

8. So who's fault is that?

Lieberman said he wouldn't do it a long time ago. Then at the last minute he changes his mind.

It was planned with out him. It's his own fault for indicating he did not wish to attend beforehand.

[Rowdyboy]

6. On Inside Politics they said

DNC insiders were pissed at Lieberman and passed the decision on to the candidates, knowing it would be rejected.

[pruner]

10. on MSNBC they said Clark was one of two who said…

Lieberman should not be allowed to participate.

if they had asked me, Clark would've been one of three.

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. That is not what happened.

The DNC took a vote among ALL of the candidates and they ALL voted NOT to let Lieberman participate. While on Hardball, Lieberman just happened to pick CLARK for his "point of contention" about the vote. CLARK was only ONE person among ALL the candidates to vote.

[pruner]

14. I know that all the candidates voted…

but the impression I got was that only two had voiced opposition to Lieberman participating, and one of them was Clark.

I may be wrong, and I apologize if I am.

in any case, I would just like to point that I don't think Lieberman should have been allowed to particpate in this debate.

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. If they all voted and only 2 voted no

how was he kept out of the debate? A minority vote now wins? The vote was "Do you want Lieberman to be included in the debate?" There were 8 people so 2 voted no and won? I don't think so. Lieberman just picked those 2 out to complain about.

I think he should have been able to participate. Edwards and Kerry had initially said they couldn't attend either. They changed their schedules so they could make the debate. Lieberman did the same thing. Why is he any different than Edwards and Kerry? Beside the fact he's a damn bore? I don't get it.

[JI7]

21. it's was a "veto" vote

meaning just one person saying no is enough to keep him out. in this case it was 2.

[pruner]

23. that was my understanding as well

:)

[pruner]

22. Edwards & Kerry only said they couldn't attend because of the filibuster

Lieberman said he didn't want to/plan to attend the debate several weeks ago.

he only changed his mind when he saw that efforts were being made to accomodate Edwards & Kerry since they couldn't be there… despite their intention to attend.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

9. I think the rationale was that he is a putz.

[arewethereyet]

12. on the grounds that they don't like him

and he's not been making nice with them. Dean would have received the same treatment.

More petty bullpoop that makes out side look foolish. Sheesh...

[TheWebHead]

13. he's current whining on Hannity and Colmes

Alan of course is sucking up to him in agreement that he should have been allowed.

[arewethereyet]

16. whining ? ought to be suing

maybe talking to B'nai B'rith about how the Democratic Party is treating one of their own.

It was a classless move to force him off the island as it were.

[Capn Sunshine]

15. the MAIN reason is he withdrew from the primary

in addition to passing on availability for the debate; so why give airtime if he's not even in the contest????

edit: I just realized that CLARK withdrew also. so my argument negates itself.But Clark RSVP'd yes; Joe did not.There's limited food to go around.
Nevermind.

[arewethereyet]

17. its a national debate that happens to take place in a primary state

if you want to make such a point then Sharpton, Kucinich, M-B ought also have been left off as they have no serious intention of capaigning there.

It was wrong and no amount of retionalization will make other than wrong. And Brokaw et al should have refused to air it without him.

[pruner]

18. Lieberman is the one who originally chose not attend the debate…

he's got noone to blame but himself.

[NewJerseyDem]

19. He didn't want to go before

Lieberman had never planned to attend the debate. Then, he found out that Kerry and Edwards were going to do it by satellite from Washington (because they had to vote on Medicare) and Lieberman then wanted to do that. I probably think he should have been allowed since it really doesn't hurt anyone that much. However, it seems like he only wanted to do it when he realized that he didn't have to travel out to Iowa.

[Fleshdancer]

24. such an odd thing

Now I can understand the DNC telling Lieberman no since he not only opted out, but was also in DC (when Clark changed his mind, the only thing the planners had to do was add another podium, I imagine it's not as easy for satallite setup at the last minute??)

As for the vote thing...wtf? Why would the DNC do this? Why would Clark or any other candidate give a sh*t if Lieberman was there or not?? I could be completely wrong about this, but I think Lieberman received some false information about the vote situation. It's too insane for me to believe.

[DoctorMyEyes]

25. He declined the invitation because

he was campaigning in NEW HAMPSHIRE!

He is not on the ballot in Iowa, and when invited he declined to debate because he had a fundraising engagement in New Hampshire.

The debate was planned without him (ie time allotments and Brokaws questions)

When Edwards and Kerry notified the DNC today about the status of the medicare bill and that they felt compelled to stay in DC and do their JOB, rather than fly to Iowa for the debate - arrangements were made for them to participate in the debate that they had ALREADY INDICATED THEIR DESIRE TO PARTICIPATE IN - and everything was already set up in expectation of their participation, Lieberman started whining.

To which I can only say "FUCK JOE"!

It was nice to watch a debate where the candidates had a few minutes to express themselves without that useless bag of wind sucking all the air out of the room and droning on long, long, LONG after his own allotted time is over - as he has done in EVERY previous debate he has participated in.

again...... just cause it feels so good:

Fuck Joe!

(Do you hear me, Joe? Fuck you!)

[Scott Lee]

26. On the grounds that he already had declined.

It's like deciding not to take that flight to Bermuda and then suddenly changing your mind as the plane is taxiing to take off.
Do you expect the plane to screech to a halt and turn around for you?