The problem with Chris Matthews playing footsie with the idea of running for US Senator from Pennsylvania: when he says something nowadays, how can you tell whether he means it, or is just trying to position himself for a possible run?

Take this evening's Hardball, during which Matthews castigated Joe Lieberman as having been a "terrible" running-mate for Al Gore in 2000. Kiki McLean, a senior Clinton advisor, was Chris's guest. McLean mentioned that she had been an aide to Lieberman in 2000, and to Gore when he was the Veep candidate [1992?]. That set Matthews off.

New York Times reporter John Broder's front-page Week in Review story was titled "Gore-Lieberman: A Hyphen Apart? Try Poles." Much like the story itself, Broder's lead was a lazy attempt at provocation. (NewsBuster Warner Todd Huston also dissected the piece on Sunday.)

Imagine for a moment the Supreme Court had gone the other way in Bush v. Gore in 2000. We would now be in year eight of the Gore-Lieberman administration. Well, maybe not the Lieberman part.

"Whose side is Joe Lieberman On?" demands the subheading for "The Demublican," a January 24 Newsweek Web Exclusive centered on Sen. Joseph Lieberman's (I-Conn.) endorsement of John McCain for President. In the interview, reporter Jeffrey Bartholet presses Lieberman from the left on a host of policy issues and questions and on his loyalty to the Democratic Party. For his part Lieberman often points to issues where McCain has left the conservative fold, such as climate change and the Gang of Fourteen.

At no point, however, does Bartholet ask Lieberman if he feels the "party has left him" on national security/war on terror issues.

Below are the agenda of questions. I've bolded the ones that skew leftward or suggest Lieberman is disloyal or has no good reason to back a Republican over his party's standard bearers. For the full interview, click here.

On Monday's "NBC Nightly News," correspondent Mike Taibbi oddly suggested that Barack Obama could be considered an "independent" or centrist politician as he included the liberal Senator as one of several politicians with an "independent streak" with whom New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been associated. Taibbi: "Bloomberg was a long-time Democrat, turned Republican mayor, turned Independent, who has kept company with others with an independent streak, from Senators Joe Lieberman and Barack Obama to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger." Such a juxtaposition seems especially out of place in light of National Journal's 2006 vote ratings which found that Obama had a more liberal voting record than all but nine of his Senate colleagues. (Transcript follows)

According to ABC’s Kate Snow, support for the Iraq War automatically makes one a conservative, even if that individual is liberal on most other issues. In reporting on the increasingly tight race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Snow briefly mentioned at the end that Joseph Lieberman endorsed John McCain. She dismissively referred to Lieberman as a "conservative Democrat."

"And he won over long-time Democrat, all be it a conservative one, Senator Joe Lieberman, who ran with Al Gore, will endorse McCain later today."

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Joe Lieberman Endorses John McCain for President:

"Being a Republican is important. Being a Democrat is important. But you know what's more important than that? The interest and well-being of the United States of America," the Democrat-turned Independent said in announcing his decision Monday morning in New Hampshire.

"Let's put the United States first again, and John McCain is the man as president who will help us do that," he said.

Months ago, I opined to friends, family, and colleagues that the GOP ticket could be McCain/Lieberman. Is this possible? How does this announcement change the landscape if at all?

What's another $500 taken out of your paycheck over the course of a year? It probably isn't much to global warming alarmists like Al Gore, but that's what it could cost you if legislation pending in the U.S. Senate is passed into law.

Does that $500 have your attention? Well, multiply that times every member of your immediate family.

According to a November 11 Washington Times editorial, a bill introduced in the Senate by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) that would require companies to scale back greenhouse-gas emissions could cost Americans $4 trillion to $6 trillion over the next 40 years.

If that bill were passed and made law, the tax would cost every man, woman and child - more than 303 million Americans - $494 a year, a significant burden on the U.S. economy.

Folks that watched Sunday's "Meet the Press" debate between former Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-Tennessee) and Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas might have witnessed the final transformation of the Kossack leader from Netroots chief to Democrat Party operative.

In fact, you could almost hear Emperor Palpatine cackling in the background.

Ignoring the actual lack of substance in the discussion, one thing was made impeccably clear: Markos is now fully ensconced in today's Democrat Party, while Ford and his centrist DLC are persona non grata.

By no means does that validate Moulitsas' absurd claims that Kossacks and Netroots members represent the center of American politics as reported here and here. However, the inanities and hypocrisies uttered by Moulitsas Sunday could easily have been stated with a straight face by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada).

For instance, read the following nonsensical assertion made by Markos if you have the stomach for it, and ask yourself how many of the current Democrat leaders and presidential candidates could have said the exact same thing (video available here):

Thursday was a bad day for anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan.

First, she got booted from the ultra-liberal website Daily Kos (h/t Ace) due to her decision to run against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California).

Then, during a visit to Montgomery, Alabama, as part of her “Summer of Love 2007” tour, Cindy was confronted by a Bush supporter who actually asked a rather cogent question that frankly few on the left or in the media care to address: “What happens to Iraq after we leave?”

This prompted a somewhat predictable exchange wherein Sheehan answered questions with questions rather than address the likely horrific genocide that will follow a capricious American troop withdrawal (video available here with relevant section beginning at minute 3:50, partial transcript follows):

The Stamford Advocate has an article out today describing the efforts of one John Orman to determine if Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) broke election laws last year when he created the Connecticut for Lieberman party but did not officially join it. The party was created after Lieberman lost the Democrat primary to Ned Lamont, who as we know, ultimately lost to Lieberman in the general election.

Orman, a political science professor at Fairfield University, is described in the article as being a "longtime Lieberman critic." We're also told that Orman joined the Connecticut for Lieberman Party in order to bring attention to Lieberman's "abandonment of it."

Much to his chagrin, Time’s Joe Klein has become a Democrat that liberal bloggers love to hate, thereby making him the Joe Lieberman of journalism.

Of course, rightwing bloggers don’t care for him much either, conceivably making Klein more like Rodney Dangerfield.

Fortunately for our entertainment pleasure, since Klein isn’t a politician – actually, his frequent disabuses of fact lead one to believe he’s more of a comedian! – he doesn’t feel the need to take the attacks lying down.

Maybe more fortunate for us on the right is how Klein seems to be more offended by what those in his own Party are saying about him, making this whole thing that much more delicious.

With that in mind, Klein published a piece Wednesday that is guaranteed to put smiles on the faces of right-thinking Americans across the fruited plain (emphasis added throughout):

Has Thursday’s capitulation by Congressional Democrats over funding the war in Iraq made Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas replace his youthful idealism with old-fashioned pragmatism?

Such appears to be the case in Kos’ post published at his website Friday dealing with this interesting turn of events before the Memorial Day weekend.

As his piece entitled “Moving Forward” began, one got the sense that the strongly antiwar Moulitsas might slam Democrats he supported in November for this obvious betrayal (emphasis added throughout):

The Today show’s very belated attack on Rush Limbaugh on Monday, complete with Hillary’s minions comparing the hilarious Al Sharpton parody to a "minstrel show" (complete with blackface film clip), reminds me: how did NBC cover the last blackface controversy? That would be leftist blogger Jane Hamsher Photo-shopping Joe Lieberman in blackface on The Huffington Post last August 2 as she claimed he was an "integral part of the GOP’s bully machine for the last six years."

NBC didn’t. A Nexis search for terms like "minstrel show" and "blackface" found no mention of the blogger who stepped over the line. On the August 6 edition of Meet the Press, in a segment featuring Lanny Davis for Lieberman and Jim (brother of Howard) Dean for Ned Lamont, host Tim Russert ended with a very weak tip to the bloggers in that race:

It goes without saying that Fox News’s Sean Hannity is never one to mince words, especially when the subject matter is something he feels passionately about.

In such instances, one better strap oneself in tightly, for you're in for a bumpy, no holds barred ride.

Such was certainly the case Sunday evening when the outspoken conservative did a ten minute segment on “Hannity’s America” (h/t Tim Graham) about how the Democrat Party has been taken hostage by extreme left-wing forces on the Internet (video available here).

First, Hannity addressed the recent blog posting by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) on the website that last year got itself into a bit of a brouhaha for publishing a blackfaced picture of Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut):

Assume for a moment that you were the frontrunner for the Democrat presidential nomination in 2008, and that one of your competitors had recently created a bit of a brouhaha for having hired a couple of liberal bloggers with "tainted" records.

Would you want to post an article at a website that got itself in some trouble of its own last year when it featured an offensive, Photoshopped picture of Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut) in blackface?

Well, on Tuesday, Hillary Clinton (D-NY) posted an article at Firedoglake, the very website guilty of publishing the offensive picture of Lieberman as reported by NewsBusters.

The Washington Post's Mary Ann Akers reported that some Democrats are quite concerned this decision could come back to haunt the junior senator from New York (h/t Glenn Reynolds and Beltway Blogroll):

CNN’s Anderson Cooper reported Monday night from the Center for the Intrepid, the new rehabilitation facility for wounded soldiers in San Antonio, Texas. Cooper announced he had a problem that this facility was privately, not publicly funded, as if raising private funds for Iraq vets was outrageous and inappropriate. This prompted the CNN anchor to ask Hillary Clinton a softball question using a quote from partisan hack and unwavering Clinton supporter Paul Begala about how the government could fund Halliburton and tax cuts, but not its heroes. Hillary said: "And I say Amen." But Cooper unintentionally answered his own question later in the show as he fussed over bureaucracy stalling funds for Hurricane Katrina recovery.

Throughout the show, Anderson Cooper was horrified that this $50 million state of the art facility was funded through the generous donations of the American people rather than government funds. He inquired to Bill White, president of the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund: "This center was $50 million in donations from corporations, and even individuals, school kids giving them dollars here and there. Why didn’t the government do it?"

NBC’s “Saturday Night Live” did a wonderful sketch last evening that in one fell swoop made fun of “Hardball” host Chris Matthews, Sen. Hillary Clinton, and the media’s sycophantic enthrallment with the former first couple from Arkansas (video available here).

The skit began with the mock Matthews gushing over finally getting the chance to interview Madame Clinton. After he finally composed himself, the first question he asked admittedly was “actually written by a member of [her] staff.”

Sounds about right, correct?

Then, the mock Matthews said that he’s got some questions of his own, and demurely asked, “Is it all right if they’re about Iraq?”

The mock Hillary said:

How do you know when someone's gone off the deep end of the liberal pool? When she manages to outdo Keith Olbermann at the art of invective.

On this evening's Countdown, Olbermann and Arianna Huffington were discussing Joe Lieberman's support of President Bush's Iraq policy. Olbermann's opening bid was to suggest, given Lieberman's backing of traditional Dem positions on ethics and global warming and the fact that "he could give the Senate to the GOP if he feels crossed or just feels like it," that the independent Democratic senator from CT was a "necessary evil" from the Dems' viewpoint.

"Necessary evil"? Was that weak beer the best Keith could do? Arianna easily trumped Olbermann's opprobrium: "this is like somebody having a horrible disease and looking at some positive side-effect. Like having terminal cancer and saying 'but, I'm losing weight in the process.'"

In the wake of absurd media assertions that the 2006 elections represent the end of conservatism as reported here and here, “The Chris Matthews Show” Sunday depicted a much more rational and well-reasoned analysis of what happened last Tuesday. And, the sanity came from some surprising sources, the first being Dan Rather:

What killed the big tent was the war. You can overanalyze this. The war was the issue. Come 2008, this breakdown may be completely different again. But, this time, it was the war, the war, the war.

Matthews then asked: “So, once the war is over, they can be back together, the big crowd?” Rather elaborated:

In a post entitled Sen. Lieberman Violates His Own Privacy Policy, it appears Ned Lamont, Democrat nominee for Senate in Connecticut, is willing to stoop to spreading an obvious falsehood through his campaign blog in his bid to unseat Senator Joe Lieberman.

As per the title, the Lamont Blog accuses Senator Lieberman of violating his websites privacy policy, from which it quotes extensively:

My office will not share any personal information communicated through my Web site with any outside organization or individual, except in the following situations: (1) when needed to perform constituent casework at your request; (2) in the course of an authorized law enforcement investigation or emergency posing an imminent risk to public safety; or (3) if you choose to participate in my interactive online E-Government comment page, and authorize me to publish your comment, your name, and the organization you represent.

What an obnoxious post at the official Lamont Campaign blog. Let me get this straight, to hurt Lieberman, his opponent is bragging about what looks like a fascist tactic of denying someone an ability to be heard via the Internet? Is that what Lamont's idea of democracy is? I hardly see this as a positive, and certainly not something worthy of bragging about.

And these vendors who are allegedly denying Lieberman service don't have much to brag about either. Suddenly independent, or heaven forbid, Republican dollars are no good, assuming one happened along? That isn't business. It's trying to close off debate and limit one's speech. There was a time when I thought that was precisely what the Democratic Party was about.