LIEBERMAN'S SWAN SONG ON NATIONAL TV?

Wow, imagine if the mellow Joe we saw "debating" his pal Dick Cheney in 2000 would have been as aggressive and assertive then as he was tonight in his rude front attack on Democrat Ned Lamont. But of course, George Bush's and Ann Coulter's favorite Democrat has a lot more practice and experience attacking Democrats than he does attacking Republicans (who he generally kisses).

Tonight, self-proclaimed and very studied "decent" Joe Lieberman came across as the vicious gut-fighter he has always been. He was angry and arrogant-- and, more than anything else, he was pissed off that he had to deign to acknowledge some usurper-- a usurper to something Lieberman seems to think he owns, one of Connecticut's two seats in the U.S. Senate. Tonight Connecticut TV viewers saw a desperate and angry Joe Lieberman, a man filled with hatred for Democrats and hatred for democracy itself. Afterall, it is democracy and Democrats who have forced him into his uncomfortable and unpatriarchal position of having to defend himself for years of anti-democratic and anti-Democrat behavior in Washington.

Substantively, it was also a bad night for Lieberman. He lied... a lot. And he lied when the record of his lies is easy to access for anyone with a computer. Before I get into his obvious Iraq lies, let's look at the delusions v the realities of Social Security. He claims that he fought Bush's attempts to privatize (destroy) Social Security from day-one. This is clearly a bold-faced lie. When Bush was desperately looking for a Democrat willing to give the Republican Dream of wrecking Social Security a bipartisan patina, he knew just who to turn to: Holy Joe Lieberman.

Iraq was even more pathetic. Lieberman seems to have convinced himself that no one has noticed that he is Bush's biggest booster in the entire Senate when it comes to the occupation of Iraq. Tonight he made some kind of bogus assertion that he doesn't support an open-ended commitment. Unless "open-ended" means decades and not years, he's just plain lying his ass off and hoping no one will call him on it. Lieberman has consistently supported every single Bush Regime subterfuge in Iraq, including the establishment of permanent bases there. Even three years ago Lieberman was pushing the worst neo-cons to be bold and aggressive in establishing permanent bases. "Lieberman couldn't put a timetable on how long troops will be in Iraq. Pointing to the experiences in the Balkan wars in the '90s, he said, 'deadlines are arbitrary. We may, over the long term, with the consent of the new Iraqi government, establish some permanent bases in Iraq. And wouldn't that be a dramatic change, where we have an allied government there in Iraq, at the center of the Middle East, where we may have not a permanent police presence, but one or another military base that's working in cooperation with the government there?' he asked."

He's either senile and delusional or just a big ole liar (or both). In either case, he doesn't deserve another 6 year term of towing the Republican line in the U.S. Senate.

Lamont is a novice at this kind of debate, but he came off very well, the kind of sincere, honest and trustworthy man-- everything Lieberman showed himself to not be-- people would like to represent them in Washington. Lamont was there to talk about issues; Lieberman was there to attack, attack, attack. He sounded just like a Republican. And why shouldn't be? He has turned into one-- an angry and self-entitled one. The sooner Connecticut gets rid of him, the better off the whole country will be! I hope Barbara Boxer was watching tonight. If she missed it-- or if you did-- you can watch it here; or she can. Perhaps she'll watch it before she depletes all her hard-earned goodwill with the progressive community that has admired her battles against the Bush/Lieberman agenda over the past several years. Arianna speaks eloquently of this tonight.