Late Nite FDL: Nedrenaline
The fabulous Robert Greenwald has applied his many talents to helping craft a great video on Ned Lamont. Ned is a really admirable guy and the video offers some good perspective as to why people are so committed to helping him win the Senate seat in Connecticut.
Meanwhile over at MyDD, Hillary Clinton is lending her many talents to helping Joe Lieberman. One of those talents seems to be a lack of familiarity with recent history. Matt Stoller reviews a letter she recently sent out on behalf of Bush’s favorite Democrat:
[T]here’s a right way to endorse and a wrong way to endorse, and Hillary Clinton recent letter to Connecticut Democrats is particularly egregious. Here’s the passage that struck me.
Last year, right after the 2004 election, President Bush announced that privatizing Social Security was his highest priority. Joe Lieberman fought tooth and nail to protect the guarantee of Social Security that this country has honored for seven decades to its senior citizens.
This is not true. Let’s go back to January, 2005:
[President Bush] described the perils of the current system, how it would be "exhausted and bankrupt" by 2042. From the Democratic side of the chamber came cries of "no" – unusually raucous behavior for this most traditional of forums. And when Bush urged Congress to consider changes, only two Democratic senators – Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman and Nebraska’s Ben Nelson – stood up and applauded.
And in February?
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., is undecided about the concept of using payroll taxes to fund private Social Security accounts, bringing to three the known number of Senate Democrats who have yet to publicly rule out the idea.
Joe Lieberman wouldn’t even sign a letter with other Democrats resisting a phrase-out of Social Security until March, 2005. Tooth and nail? Whatever. Lieberman wouldn’t join the battle until it was basically over. And now he’s claiming credit for stopping privatization, and Hillary Clinton is backing and promoting this claim.
When Hillary Clinton travels around the country much of her support comes from women. How would they feel if they knew she was backing a man who thought rape victims should, by law, have to get up off the gurney in a Catholic hospital and catch a cab to one that will provide them with emergency contraception? Does she really want to lend her name, her support to someone with this kind of baggage?
Look, if she wants to engage in a bunch of revisionist history on behalf of the man who sided with the Gang of 14 to put Strip Search Sammy on the Supreme Court, if she’s willing to wear him around her neck for the next two years, let’s go. I’ll be the one with the rope and the anvil.
You can give to Ned here.