Another "serious" endorsement

A Kerry vs. Kerrey day as the former stumped for Lamont and the latter gave an endorsement to Lieberman. At least, I guess it was an endorsement.

As Senator Joseph I. Lieberman stood beside Bob Kerrey, the former Nebraska senator, to accept his endorsement on Wednesday, the two seemed to differ about whether the war in Iraq had made the United States safer.

Like Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kerrey supported the toppling of Saddam Hussein early on and said that the region was safer without him in power. But he added: “Do I think invading Iraq helped the war on terror? No, I do not. I think it reduced the threat in the region, which was serious.”

His comments put Mr. Lieberman in an awkward position. Mr. Lieberman declined to say whether he believed that the war in Iraq had helped the war on terror.

Initially, Mr. Lieberman cited Mr. Kerrey’s comments about Saddam Hussein, saying that overthrowing him had helped make the Middle East safer, but he conceded that terrorists had “poured into Iraq now.”

Then, pressed by reporters, Mr. Lieberman answered, “It’s a more complicated question than that, and it doesn’t have a yes-or-no answer.”

Maybe it "doesn't have a yes-or-no answer," whatever that means. But the choice between Lamont and Lieberman isn't a complicated question. You're either for sticking with an open-ended commitment to having a major U.S. military presence in Iraq (even as that presence exacerbates the insurgency), or you're not. You either believe that the war in Iraq has reduced the danger of global Salafist terror, or you do not. You're either for Lieberman or you're not. Kerrey is simply not serious when he says he supports Lieberman in this, and then undercuts Lieberman's main rationale for his ongoing support for the Cheney administration.

Jeebus, even Tweety gets that.

Chris Matthews: You mentioned some ads, some numbers there, but it seems to me, as a state --- I just looked at here --- 46th on how much they like President Bush, 46th in approval --- the president's down to 31% approval in that state, that means the Iraq war is way down. People who are against this Iraq war in the worst way are going to re-elect the strongest hawk on the Democratic side.

Chris Jansing: Well they might not re-elect him, but you have to look again at that number. 35% of people say that Iraq is the number one issue. For the rest a very strong percentage are those care about the economy. And remember Chris, when the Groton sub base was going to be closed, Joe Lieberman went in and got it to stay open. That's 31,000 jobs right there. He is somebody who they think can go back to Washington, he may be in the Democratic majority and they're saying "Look, I don't think any single Senator can necessarily change the course of where we're going in Iraq but they can make a difference about the things that matter to me like the economy, like jobs, like gas prices. That may be the ace in the hole for Joe Lieberman.

CM: I just don't want to hear from those people later about how terrible the war is because the one thing about these elections is that in every national poll the number one issue is Iraq and the issue is going to turn on that elect because we are already seeing develop a new policy refinement based upon these new political circumstances right now [emphasis added, obviously].

As Matthews noted earlier in the segment, preznit's favorability is polling at around 31% in the Nutmeg State, and the Iraq war is equally unpopular. It is most disorienting then, that the most hawkish Democrat in the Senate (hell, he may be the most hawkish Senator, period) is running ahead in the polls. It seems to be pissing even Chris Matthews off.

MATTHEWS: If you're against the war, vote against it. You only get one vote. Shouldn't you vote against it, if you care about it? If you care about other issues more, fine.

(crosstalk)

DICKERSON: That's where they're coming down, is they're saying they like, you know, the war is complicated, a lot of positions, they like Joe.

MATTHEWS: There's nothing complicated. Use your intelligence and vote your brains.

In the meantime, you know what to do.

UPDATE: Another thing that really bugs me has to do with something Jansing says above: "[Lieberman] may be in the majority," and will, presumably, keep the Groton sub base operating. Don't these pundits (or, for that matter, the DNC), realize that if Lieberman wins as an independent, he doesn't count towards a Democratic majority? Or am I missing something here?