They did endorse Kerry in ‘04. That certainly doesn’t burnish their liberal credentials, but a “right wing rag” it is not.

And, as a progressive firmely in the Anybody-but-Hilary* (* except for Bayh) camp, I actually think this could redound to the tremendous benefit of liberals and progressives in 2008. That is, the emergent “un-Hilary” candidate (unless it’s Bayh or maybe Biden) is almost certain to be better across the board, but in particular on national security (i.e., more inclined to get us the hell out of Iraq and less likely to embrace a “kinder, gentler neoconservatism) and on civil liberties (i.e., less inclined to support, say, torture or partially repealing the first amendment to “protect the flag” whenever it’s seen as politically expedient to do so). But if the un-Hilary (whether it’s Russ Feingold, or John Edwards, or Wes Clark, or the new-and-improved Al Gore, or Bill Richardson) can not only knock her out of the race but in the course of doing so earn credentials in the mainstream media narrative as being the “sensible moderate centrist alternative to the wacky flag-burning leftist Hilary Clinton,” that’s a double-whammy.

As anyone who’s been paying attention over the past six years knows, reality matters far less than the mainstream media frame (“straight-talking John McCain,” anyone?). And after all, it’s about time the superficiality and idiocy of the inside-the-beltway punditocracy works in our favor for once…

The best part was the mailing lists I got on through the subscription: guides for CEOs to outwit cowardly boards of directors, offshore registries for megayachts, private jets, long before the internet bubble made these ads commonplace.

Now it’s all puff pieces, like something from an in-flight magazine.

If DeWine has ethical problems, they’re not enough to stand out next to Burns’ or Allen’s, and perceptions of his ethics have nothing to do with his impending defeat. Talent, meanwhile, is a conservative with the voting record to prove it. I think that because he doesn’t come across as a snakehandling lunatic to The Economist, but as a nerdy suburban Dad, they must assume he’s one of them.

Sorry I didn’t respond earlier, I’ve been a bit busy since posting that comment.

If you have either the CQ or the National Journal political almanacs, you can get a quick and dirty look at Liberman’s and Kerry’s voting records. There are also several online sites that keep track of this stuff. I don’t have time to retrive the details, but the information that would back up the claim is accessible.

Both Senators supported NAFTA, and have been supportive of the other big trade agreements. They both backed McCain-Feingold. They both voted for the second Iraq War, despite Kerry’s later attempts to spin the issue. They both voted against Clinton’s impeachment, in this case it was Lieberman spinning otherwise. They generally have been reliable votes for the Democratic leadership in the Senate, though with something of a pro-corporate slant.

Kerry voted against the first Gulf War, and Lieberman supported it. I can’t think of any other major issue where their voting records diverge.

Edwards, by the way, was the first Democratic nominee for either president or vice president to deviate from the major Democratic fundraisers’ positions on a major issue, in his case trade.

Says who? You’re exactly right; this is what REPUBLICANS think that Democrats want. THEY think Hillary is a screaming liberal; if they would just stop and ask Democrats – hell, any random Democrat would probably do – they’d find out that Hillary is considered just another triangluating DLC Republican-lite centrist, and a lot of us are suspicious of how much of a ‘real’ Democrat she would be.