Oh, let's pretend we're friends with Joe until at least after the 2010 midterms. He should experience loyalty the way he deals it - when it's convenient.

'You have to always assume that anybody in office is running until and unless they not only announce but they actually leave the office to run for reelection.'

Call me naive, but I always assume that any office is wide open for whichever qualified candidates choose to run for it, which could include the incumbent.

2012 is a long time away. If he wants to rehabilitate his image the average voter will have forgotten 2008 by then. I would never vote for him again and I suspect many others feel the same, but he could win a primary or more likely convince those who could beat him not to run if that is what he chooses.

Is this your Friday the 13th scary story?

Say it isn't so, Joe!

Isn't that up to the Democrats in Connecticut? Perhaps he should commit to supporting their decision this time around.

"what possible incentive would the party have to welcome him back when there's a more viable alternative?"

Other than maintaining the fine tradition of being blindly naive Dems? Or of rewarding terrible politicians just because they've stuck around long enough? Or of shutting out younger, talented people to protect a friend--even when that's just "friend" in the personal sense, but in reality is an enemy of the party and (more importantly) of the people the party represents?

I mean, after all these years, why would Dem pols change now?

Anyone remember Paul Hackett, from Ohio?

Shalimar is right -- he'll do this, the party will let him do this, the voters will accept him doing this, and all will be swept under the rug. This is a done deal. Unless Obama and the Dems lose the public's favor, in which case he'll put a wet finger in the wind and go back to being a Republican in all but name.

But if Democrats are still at least reasonably popular, he'll pull this off. The only question is how soon after he wins again he resumes stabbing Democrats in the back.

I'm with danp; if we can trade this for a little bit less "sensible Democrat" posturing, then it works for me, at least for the next 18 months. There's plenty of time for revenge later, we've got stuff to do now.

Since when do Democrats not let backstabbers get away without consequences. Not only would they let him do this, the party will campaign for him.

Leiberman is a creature of the beltway. He hasn't yet realized that he has no hope for winning in 2012. He just doesn't spend enough time there to know how much people hate him. all he knows is that his beltway sycophants love him.

A lot of you are buying into that too. His polls have been one great nosedive since 2006. He has no hope to win a primary. He has almost no hope of even winning a three way genera election. People actively despise him, and they don't have a personal relationship with them. He has no real mechanism to win after that.

He may not be ruling out running as a Democratic candidate, but I am ruling out voting for him as one.

Maybe he wants two shots again. Connecticut should pass "sore loser" legislation of the kind that many other states have: if you run in a primary and lose, you're then ineligible to run in the general as an independent.

(Pennsylvania has such a law, which constrains Arlen Specter's options).

The only way I see ol' Joe should be allowed to run as a Democrat again is if:

A) He works his butt off for the next 4 years to advance the agenda of President Obama and the Democratic majority.

B) He stops going on Hannity's radio show to yuck it up with that disgusting hack as he smears Democrats.

C) He apologizes to Conneticut Democrats for ignoring their votes in the 06 primary and promises to abide by their decision in the 12 primary win or lose.

Why?

Corruption. Lieberman is a survivor.

The United States stimulus package will come to a total amount of some where around 800 Billion Dollars. There is a simple solution to how this money should be used. And ANY questions you may ask are simple to answer. And no matter what is done there is going to be a small group of people that will loose out, in one way or another. But this solution is the most sold and quickest. The Government has not gone this way. I have to believe in some back room they have talked about it. But it does not benefit all the “Money people” that it seems this payoff is for. This aside, let me explain. Our country is in finical peril because of one major problem. We are 800 Billion Dollars in Credit Debt. For a while we were not only living off our paycheck but the money we borrowed from the Credit Companies. The BANKS. Now we are maxed out. And the only thing we can spend our money on is paying back the over bloated credit debt. As you know no money to spend no economy. THE FIX. Pay off the national credit dept. Period. I am not proposing it be a free ride to the people that got into this mess. As we are all responsible in one way or another. What will it do? Well first the banks get 800 Billion dollars. Banking finance issues taken care of. And, the fear of having to nationalize the banking institution goes away. Every person that takes the deal, every individual will decide if it is for them or not, will have there credit debt wiped out. At this point for it to work, they can not get a credit card for at least 7 year. They can’t, and if some bank gives them one they (the banks) are in violation and they basically gave money away. It would be basically be illegal and unethical. Only credit card you could get within those 7 years would be a secured credit card. (a form of savings, further helping the banking instution) This prevents the bailed out individual from moving their freed up money back into credit debt. Hopefully this will also give the country 7 years to figure out how to prevent people and this country from getting back into this situation. This immediate clearing of debt will immediately cause an up swing to the economy. Let’s say on the average that you now have freed up $1,000 a month that was going to the credit company (the BANK). Now, you might be able to afford a car that you and I have been holding back on buying for a while. Now you can buy one. Just bailed out the auto industry. Car sales will go through the roof. You might take your family out to dinner more often now that you have the free up cash. Or do some shopping that you could not before. These are for the most part cash transactions. Business will now start to boom. Money is freed up. This is an exponential process. And more business means more jobs. Another fix. I will answer one question but understand all have an answer. What about the people that don’t use there credit card.
Have money in the bank and live a simple life. First, I said some people will loose out. But having nothing to loose because you have stayed so secure is better then loosing your home or job. And speaking of your home, the mortgage you could not afford and possible foreclosure on the horizon. That extra money could hold you together. Keep you out of foreclosure or bankruptcy. And not being able to get a credit card means you either have to inject the cash back into the economy in the form of product purchasing or now you have money freed up to save. Another feather in the banking cap. Every state has their hand out for this money. They need to stop it. Taxes are already in place for road work and such. If the people in every state now have a substantial amount of cash available to them. Hey guess what, taxes will go up. They always do. Now they can afford to pay them. Hopefully in 7 years the banks, the government, and the people, united. Remember, united we stand divided we fall. United we will devise a plan to safeguard us from, being corrupted by easy money. By the banking institution that basically took advantage of us.
ONE more thing. Not everyone in Debt is going to take this deal. Some people are living within their means. Business needs their credit card to operate. It will probably free up 200 Billion Dollars of the 800 billion. Inject that right into education. Create a secure INTRANET so our children do not have to worry about predators. And since the schools use the internet so much for a teaching too. It will keep the children away from improper web sites. This will allow the money to go directly to our most precious resource. Our children and our future. Another spin off, law enforcement can now re direct funds back into other needs since the children are now on a secure system.

Lieberman did not leave the party because he wanted to make a statement. He left the party because he was afraid of losing the primary, or of coming so close that his credibility as a Democrat would be (even more) in question.

Regular voters probably would forget things by 2012. But primary voters are not regular voters. They are more loyal to the party, and they have longer memories.

I believe he DID lose the primary. Did he not?

"You have to always assume that anybody in office is running until and unless they not only announce but they actually leave the office to run for reelection."

Incoherent. George Bush wasn't running for reelection last year. Teddy Kennedy isn't this year. And we don't have to assume that elected officials are running for reelection until they are actually running for reelection.

Well, I doubt Joe will win a democratic primary, but if he is willing to come back in the fold, we should take Lincoln's advice - "with malice towards none..." The Democratic party is bigger than Mr Lieberman.

he won't bet getting my vote. He has misrepresented himself to Democrats in Connecticut for years. I can't support somebody who has proven untrustworthy.

On the plus side, 2012 is a presidential election year. He knows he won't get away with running as a democrat without endorsing Obama.

George Bush wasn't running for reelection last year. Teddy Kennedy isn't this year. -Ross Best

Oh, great argument. Rolls eyes.

Do you actually have any examples the haven't reached term limitations or have brain cancer?

In lieu of that evidence, I think the safer course of action for political planning is to always assume reelection until otherwise notified.

Sigh.

I will always hate Obama a little for the Lieberman thing. Lieberman like Ari Fleischer, is a walking pestilence and I will refer to him as such now. "That walking Pestilence Joe Lieberman."

By every indication imaginable, Joe Lieberman is a conniving career sociopath. Whom does he serve but himself? Throw that bum out; it's time to purge the Senate of these inherently evil, career imbecile "Statesmen".

Throw that bum out; it's time to purge the Senate of these inherently evil, career imbecile "Statesmen".

While we're at it, let's toss McCain out, too.

Perhaps these "supporters" should become republicans and then try to make Lieberman a VP candidate for the Republican party because true democrats are not blind to the candidate's cheerleading for the republican candidate nor his smearing of the dem party's candidates.

Jerusalem Joe has made it clear he will go with any party that can keep him in power. He has clearly shown a complete lack of integrity and is still struggling with the disappointment he was not chosen as the VP candidate he thought would surely be his if he supported McCain.

He's out...gone...sleeping in the bed he made since he can not be trusted by any party.

RE: I believe he DID lose the primary. Did he not?

He did lose to Ned Lamont. That is why he bacame an Independent Democrat in a party of one.

The republicans deserted their own candidate to support Lieberman.