I know there has been alot going on about this already in the blogosphere, and this is a page for VA-politics, but I just had to chime in to this one.  And it's such a contrast to what Webb/Miller have done to unite the party, that I am besides myself.

I had to vote YES in your poll.  I just couldn't NOT vote yes, and let me tell you why...

I believe that Joe Lieberman can call himself whatever he wants, and your poll asks "Can Joe Lieberman still call himself a Democrat?" 

I have to say, it's the wording of the poll, and unfortunately, I have to choose YES.

Now I, on the other hand, would not call Joe Lieberman a Democrat, a Democratic candidate, or a man of Democratic principles for any reason whatsoever - because I don't believe he is one.  At ALL.

But that's just me.

kinda.  He can call himself whatever he wants in the press, but not on the ballot.

But he was claiming he would be on the ballot as an "independent Democrat", problem is, he can't use the word Democrat at all he now has two choices.

1. Run as an I
2. Start a one-man political party, and name it whatever he wants, as long as it doesn't use the word, Democrat.

I was just speaking of your poll.

As for Lieberman?  Well, no, he CANNOT call himself a Democrat (or anything close to it) if he were to lose the primary election.

And I for one think that if Lieberman loses the primary election, he shouldn't call himself anything but Joseph Lieberman for a while.  He seems like he might have some thinking to do...

I had to vote YES in your poll.  I just couldn't NOT vote yes, and let me tell you why...

I believe that Joe Lieberman can call himself whatever he wants, and your poll asks "Can Joe Lieberman still call himself a Democrat?" 

I have to say, it's the wording of the poll, and unfortunately, I have to choose YES.

Now I, on the other hand, would not call Joe Lieberman a Democrat, a Democratic candidate, or a man of Democratic principles for any reason whatsoever - because I don't believe he is one.  At ALL.

Given Nate's history, I have never seen such vile hypocricy. 

NATE (who) can now tell our VP nominee from 2000 that he is not a Democrat?

Not on my watch.

I agree with the gist of the post and I am rooting for Lamont, but this is disgusting.

I have spent my entire career working for Democrats.  What exactly have you done?  Spent it writing about how we should vote for Republicans that want to allow guns in school?  I'm encouraging people to support one Democrat after another, you were telling people to vote for a Republican being backed by the Club for Growth.

The respect that I have extends beyond the borders of the Commonwealth.  I doubt yours do.

Did you noticed that a few days after you directly attacked me  and asked for me to be banned from RK, Markos stopped linking to NLS and NLS was taken off the netroots combined fundraising page on Act Blue.  Do you think that was a coincidence, or that some e-mails were written.

Please explain what my history is other than working for Democrats, 4 Congressional, 2 Statewides and Delegate Marsden.

Speaking of Delegate Marsden, this is where the rest of his campaign staff and some volunteers are now.  Head trainer for the DNC, blogger for the DNC, Campaign Manager of the coordinated campaign of Maryland, Field Director Sherrod Brown for Senate, Research Director for Maria Cantwell for Senate, and numerous other posts around the country.

That, Ben, is why you can never be a politician, because you don't know when to keep your mouth shut.

My understanding is that Ben founded the Fairfax YDs, which you site in your signature line.  Ben has also worked hard for numerous Democratic candidates over the years, including Chap Petersen among others.  That seems like a lot to me!

That is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I have ever read, and I read a lot.  I even read your blog a lot. 

Ben, you are one of the most hateful, spiteful, petty little men most who know you have ever come across and you have the sheer audacity to wonder why someone doesn't like you? 

Either you're so completely oblivious that I pity you or you are a pathelogical liar who'll say anything that comes to mind.  Either way, that's just incredulous coming from you.

Call me hatefull, your the one who started this whole thing by running around troll rating my comments as soon as you found out I had worked for Delegate Marsden.

Additionally, you say you agree with the gist of this diary, who is it any different from what you did?

You wanted to run in the 41st, the Committee decided that you were not even worth a primary, and nominated Marsden instead.  How did you react?  Instead of backing the Democrat, you publicly support the Republican, classy.

because Ben also used his access to the voter file (which he had no right to still use) to send out a flier to Democrats in the 41st District listing his 10 Reasons Why I Am Not Voting for Dave Marsden.  It hit the Saturday before election day and could have not only cost us a seat in the House of Delegates, but depressed turnout amongst Dems enough to have really hurt Tim Kaine (we didn't know how much he'd win by at the time, remember).

Please just think of this Lowell, the next time it strikes you as a good idea to defend Ben Tribett: while you were out working your rear end off, giving you blood, sweat and tears to elect Tim Kaine, Ben was trying to suppress Dem. turnout in an important swing district and elect a radical right-wing nut to the House of Delegates.

Now it's one thing if you don't want to actively support the Democrat running in your district.  One can't get out and work for every candidate and we can all understand that.  It's another if, in the privacy of the voting booth, you pull the lever for the other person.  While that's not the kind of DEMOCRAT I am, it's what democracy is all about and it's what the Democratic party believes in: everyone has the right to make her or his choice. 

But Ben took money from a truly despicable source which he (and others) know and I'm not going to name here in order to do his best to torpedo the campaign of the only DEMOCRAT running for the House of Delegates in the 41st District of Virginia and see to it that a radical rightwinger named Michael Golden represented HIM!  He tried to elect a right-winger in his own district and put Tim Kaine's campaign in jeopardy in the process.  That's just despicable, no other word for it.

And yes, Lowell, that sounds like a lot to me too.

:;paces room::
::gets out boxing gloves::
::hops around, warming up::

You wanna mess with my boyfriend, you gotta get through me first, "laughingoutloud."  I am his loyal stalker and protector.

::uses best Rocky voice::

"I got your back, TRIBETT!!!!!!"

Seriously, though-you obviously dislike Ben Tribett.  ALOT.  I missed all of whatever you are talking about, mainly bc I moved here only 4 years ago, and only got into the VA blogosphere within the past year.  So, maybe I don't have all the facts.

Or...maybe I'm not as personally biased as others.

My opinion?  I don't know all the good and bad of all of the bloggers I have met, but I DO KNOW that VA is lucky to have a strong and popular PROGRESSIVE and DEMOCRATIC blogosphere.  And I thank all who helped create it.

And I have to ask, sir or madam-what have you personally done for Democracy lately?

You better ask someone, and then you would know.  It's not about me, but since you asked, I definitely haven't tried to torpedo the campaigns of any Democratic candidates, I can tell you that.  Yeah Jaime, that's pretty progressive alright.

It's not about liking Ben or not, it's about finding his actions so counter to everything Democrats are supposed to be about that it's hard for me to even put it into words.  If that's what it means to be 'personally biased' then count me in. 

I'm 'personally biased' against anyone who calls himself a Democrat and tries to defeat Democrats.  There's a name for that: Zell Miller.  That's what we're talking about here: Northern Virginia's version of Zell Miller.  A big Zell Miller fan are you?

And just so you know, we're talking about November of last year (November 2005), well after you got to Virginia and supposedly got into the blogosphere.

Switched to a friend's computer and forgot to log him out and me in.  My bad.

it was rude.  No need to be snotty.  I was trying to bring humor into a silly argument based on personal feelings between two Democratic supporters.

BTW-if you think I like Zell miller, please actually read my comments above.

But you need to tell Ben to stop bringing this sh*t up.  I write a diary about Democrats supporting Democrats (in regards to CONNECTICUT) and he comes strolling in punches flying.

It's not the smartest thing to do when he has a history of campaigning for Republicans.  (might want to let him know)

I'm sorry.  You were trying to be funny and so was I.  Obviously, you're not a Zell Miller fan.  But you still missed the point.  It's not about personal feelings, it's about actions.

Burn!  Ouch, I won't sleep at night now.

Did you publicly back the Democratic or Republican candidate for the House of Delegates in the 41st District in 2005? (in case you need a reminder, you can click here for the reasons you voted Republican, looks exactly like a mailer that was floating around before election day '05)

it's that simple Ben.

Also, if you could, please expand on what you meant by my "history", if you are going to throw around accusations, please be a little more specific.

Ban me?  Why, because I'm reminding everyone about what you did?

In 2005, I supported Kaine/Byrne/Deeds/Golden.  I linked to my endorsement just a few days ago on my blog in the 100+ comment posts.  I'm very open to my reasons why, as I have continued to be in the community since then. 

What "history" you were reffering to above when you attacked me.

I just pointed out your vile hypocricy.

The history I was refering to was when you supported a DINO for Delegate in 2005.

but your history of supporting Republicans is better?

I have worked as paid staff at one point for EIGHT of them (over 1/4).  I have earned the right to tell people when I can not support a Democrat because they are unsuitable for public office.

...but I definitely did not agree with his support for Michael Golden.  In fact, I expressed this to him strongly on numerous occasions back in the fall of 2005.  The thing is, it's now July 2006, and I don't see what purpose it serves to continually (and angrily) rehash this issue.  For myself, I am trying to stay focused on helping elect Democrats in the future, regardless of what other people - friends included - happen to think or do.

Look at the root parent for this thread.  It is not I nor any of Ben's enemies that are bringing this up again.  He is constantly attacking me for my "history" without even voicing what the hell he is talking about.

Might want to have a little chat with your friend.

You're right Lowell.  I'm absolutely wrong.  I got riled up about something and it's time to move on.  We definitely should be talking about electing Democrats in 2006 and not shenanigans of 2005.  I apologize to the community, but not the source. 

Excuse me.  Forgive me for trying to have an opinion without getting involved in your little hatefest with Ben.  But lemme tell you something-uprating a comment to EXCELLENT that was written purely to ATTACK AN ACTIVE MEMBER OF THIS BLOG is plain rude.  I'm surprised by that, I really am.  A 4, a 4 for a post that calls me a Zell Miller fan, from a person who does not post often, and just used rhetoric to trash me without reading my comment on this subject above?

OK.  Thanks.  I'll make sure I remeber that the next time someone needs someone defending them against unwarranted attacks.

Nice meeting you, btw.

I took off the rating, that was uncalled for.

It was great meeting you at the parade too, thought it would be a great place for some Democratic unity.

...but then your friend Ben had to go make some stupid remark to me after the parade.

Let's all bury the hatchet, kiss and make up, have a group hug, sing cumbaya-whatever.  Let's just stop this bickering.  we have much bigger fish to fry.

Bitches.

;)

As a transplant from Connecticut (or as a recent blog called the state, “Louisiana of the Northâ€Â�) Lieberman’s treasonous actions can only be accounted for from the fact that the Democratic party has become so weak that he has calculated that the benefits of fleeing the party outweighs the costs.  Not only must our party be a true “opposition partyâ€Â� but also those office-holders who find it easier to go along with the Republicans instead of demonstrating they have the guts to do what is right should be affirmatively booted from the party.

What’s most offensive however is that Lieberman has no sense of gratitude to a party that nurtured him and to a system of rules that helped make him.  Now that the “gameâ€Â� is turning against him, he’s decided to pick up his toys and no longer wants to play by the rules.  I hope that his loss will be the party’s gain, with Lamont being the prime beneficiary.

The party needs to trump our candidates (with the caveat that the party first needs to set and stick to its principles).

Nice way to repay the Party that put you on the national ballot for VP and funded your sorry equivocating act for all these years.  But the Party bears some blame - they should have cut this loser free 2 years ago - then we wouldn't he having this problem.  A relic of the DLC.

Good,concise point.

Some of you seem to forget that Lieberman still is the incumbent Democrat and remains so unless Lamont beats him in the primary later this summer.

It is noteworthy that Senator Chuck Schumer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee crowd (the same crowd that endorsed Webb in the primary) has said they will support Lieberman whether he wins the primary or not.

There is no difference between the DSCC endorsing Webb prior to the primary and the DSCC endorsing Lieberman after the primary.  In both cases, they took unorthodox actions to support the candidates they felt would stand up best to Republicans in November.

In both cases, the DSCC decided to support what they believed to be the most electable candidates.

As for Lieberman saying he will run as a Democrat on the Independent line, I believe this is part of a strategy to convince some wayward Democrats to back him rather than Lamont by creating the specter of a Democratic bloodbath after the primary.

Let's not forget that Jim Webb didn't say he would support Miller if Miller won the June primary until a week or 10 days before the primary election.  Let's not forget that some misguided Webbies suggested they might support the Green candidate or write-in Webb's name if Miller won the primary.

So, a lot of this talk of Lieberman running on the independent line is nothing more than bluster right now.  Lieberman is still the front runner for the Democratic nomination in Connecticut with polls showing him 10 points ahead.

Let's not condemn Lieberman, the Democrat, unless he loses and unless he runs as an Independent.

And if he does, I expect that you will also condemn the DSCC for stepping into the fray in Connecticut even though they will be taking the same action they took in Virginia to help Webb win the primary.

It's only fair.

...the DSCC will back the winner of the Democratic primary:

In blow to Lieberman, senior party official says campaign committee will back winner of Democratic party in Connecticut

I guess someone reminded them what the 'D' in DSCC stands for...

Webb vs. Lieberman:  One (Webb) opted in to the Democratic party and is now proud to be a Democrat, while the other (Lieberman) is making overt threats to leave the party entirely.  Fact is, in the business of politics, the notiong of "what have you done for me lately" is the best barometer to judge loyalty.

Loyalty flows from the people and their ideas to the candidate - not the other way around and if Lieberman is too good for the people I just assume he go the way of Sen Zell Miller.