Another example of the Lieberman family’s disconnect from common sense reality. Terrible people who will do anything for money and (perceived) power.

As the sister of someone who died from Breast Cancer, and friend to several much admired survivors of the disease, I am particularly horrified by this information.

Thank you Jane, for letting us know.

There is no greater anguish than watching a family member live with cancer [any cancer, not just breast cancer]…until he or she doesn’t.

Thank you for your plainspoken truth, Jane.

Accountability matters.

A whole family of hateful political whores…wonder what the kids do?

I notice Joe never bitches about the BILLIONS given to israel that allows them to have single payer healthcare…hypocrite!

You must be kidding. It is ridiculous to go after someone for their husband’s admittedly poorly conceived political positions. It is petty, and it is unbecoming of the caring, compassionate left. I’m pretty far left on my views on health care; I vehemently oppose Senator Lieberman’s dithering on the bill. I am particularly sensitive on cancer issues broadly, having lost my father to cancer, another family member to breast cancer, and one of my best friends was recently diagnosed. But this is one of the most hateful, stupid, wrong-headed approaches to dealing with health care reform I have ever seen. How about instead of beating the crap out of everyone who might disagree with us, let’s SELL THE PRODUCT of health care reform, and also be willing to have some respect for differing points of view. This is as bad as the BS the right has been dumping on progressives for a decade now. Stop it. We do not have to play ugly like that.

Thanks Tessa.

I don’t think this is what people are running for either.

Another demonstration of the Crypto Nazism bordering anti semitism of the Obama lovers.

The real stuff is that this Jane Hamshner is only motivated by the fact that the husband (not her) Senator Joe Lieberman does not want the public option. Hassadah is also a Cancer survivor, she is exemplary and her work was never chastised before..

Jane I think that to mention the husband position is revealing.

FYI WOMEN CAN HAVE THEIR OWN OPINIONS AND EXISTS WITHOUT THE HUSBAND DICTATING THEIR THOUGHTSD

It is sad that intolerance, racism and cheap shots are now the trademarks of the so-called liberals.

With such writings Mrs Hamscher has the same intolerance than the SA and SS during the crystal night.

Hamsher:

As an utter alienated cynic who has given up on the American political system, I still must say: your activism is a pleasure to behold, and worthy of respect. Keep the fires burning!

– Seymour Friendly

“crypto-nazism”?! What an utterly deranged thing to say. To try to find some sort of “racism” in Jane Hamser’s letter to Susan G. Komen for the Cure is simply bent. How bizarre, what it is you wrote.

signed.. Thanks Jane for enlightening us to this craziness.

HR676

Are you trying to accuse someone of anti-Semitism here?! I really have to repeat it: your references to NAZIs are utterly deranged and bent. The letter is about the obvious and apparent corruption entailed in Joe Lieberman and his former lobbyist wife being allowed to maintain a relationship with a cancer foundation while trying to kill health care reform.

not again…
T
R
O
L
L
so
S
C
R
O
L
L

Signed

Joe LIEberman is a cancer on America and the voters of Connecticut have the cure.

Such an interesting choice of wording- crypto-nazism. Its origin was actually a 1968 debate exchange between the late Wm. F. Buckley and Gore Vidal-who made the statement.
rougetdelille is out of touch. AND WRONG.
1- Glad that Jane Hamsher is here to write that letter and as a Jew I hardly found her letter to be anti-semitic or even bordering on anti-semitism.
2- Ms. Lieberman, NOT AT ALL, independently of her husband derived and curry cheap favor because of her husband as a highly paid lobbyist.
~rougetdelille, if you need help with the big words, find some help. But,
“Mrs. Lieberman is also a former lobbyist for APCO Associates, which represents the interests of the same major, private health insurance and pharmaceutical companies which Mr. Lieberman seeks to protect.”
These are the entities that don’t want to find a cure for cancer because they are making so much $$$$ peddling their expensive drugs and receiving high premiums (while also telling people your cancer benefits reached their limits for the year – see you next year).
Just how or what implies anti-semitism?
Ms. Lieberman would not, I REPEAT would not have been a lobbyist if not for having a Senator for a husband. AND THAT IS THE POINT. Seeing her and husband smirking in that picture – I find as distasteful and hypocritical as if they would be wearing the robes of the KKK.
Bless you Jane, PLEASE BE WELL.

Signed.

Anything to drive the Liebermans from public life.

What’s next?

Thank you for writing the letter, Jane. I’ve signed it.
It’s tiresome, but we must expose the hypocrites and liars
wherever we find them – whatever their sphere of influence.
Someday, integrity might count for something again.

Signed. With pleasure.

Let us also consider… APCO’s client list ranges from pharmaceutical companies and other health care interests to the governments of Canada and Turkey, NYC’s Department of Public Health, Unions, Alaska and Lufthansa Airlines, Proctor and Gamble, Philip Morris, Nokia, Microsoft… No, this is not a firm specialized in lobbying against health care reform. It’s a large lobbying entity with a very diverse client list, ranging from government to unions to a number of business interests. I expect it’s similar to the sort of client list many large lobbying/PR firms would have. This is sort of like saying someone should not be in a job because they used to be a lawyer for a murderer, or worked in a law firm that represented a particular interest. When the very right wing did that to the President’s pick for Deputy Atty General (who represented pornography related clients as I recall), we stood up and said, no, representation by a lawyer does not equal endorsing particular ideas. I frankly think the same is true for paid lobbyists–I doubt too many of them are passionate about Nokia phones, Microsoft computer products, or any of the rest of it. They’re simply paid to argue for the interests of clients. So, if we want to say, “Let’s ban all lobbyists from ever doing anything productive post-lobbying,” OK, then it’s a good argument. Otherwise, sorry, it’s WEAK. And, based on the above example, it’s very hypocritical. We are not and should not be the horrific, ugly jerks that represent the right wing.

Signed. Thanks again, Jane. When the health care fight is over, I hope you have a wonderful vacation planned. You have been amazing in your energy and insight for weeks on end.

Only read the “approved” posts. Keep scrolling.

signed. If the mrs. is a cancer survivor, why isn’t Joe more interested in the health of other women? Oh, wait, he has money and could pay for her treatment even if they didn’t have insurance. How silly of me.

LIEBERWHORES FOR SALE
a twofer

This is perfect example of a Politician’s greed and selfishness by accepting millions from corporations and speak for insurance companies at the same time denying the rights of people who elected him to the office. Liberman’s family recieve the benefits from the Cancer foundation, and he is shamelessly denying the same or similar kind of the health care benefits to the millions of Americans just becasue of his policy. He did not care about policy when the issue hit his own family.

or use his Israeli national healthcare

HEY

THE LUCKY LIEBEWHORES

f’ yeah I signed – race for the cur

WALK RIGHT OVER THE BODIES OF THE SUFFERING DEAD AND DYING…..

Truly amazing.

Call on Susan G. Komen for the Cure and the Komen Foundation to ask Hadassah Lieberman to step down as a “Global Ambassador” for the organization in light of the inherent conflict of interest her continued presence brings.

Thanks, Jane!

this needs to go viral

RACHEL are ya listening

What is your source for APCO’s client list?

Wrong person in my opinion. If the husband is a dick, then it must be the husband who shud resign.

Signed. Thanks Jane !

haworthia – Not us, you- consider that Mrs. L was only a lobbyist because of switch sides Joe. And when the rug was almost pulled from under him because of his “firm convictions” about health care, he switched on this too.
Jack Abramoff, consider him – the pro-typical lobbyist.
Not ban lobbyist – but how about some transparency?
“Not long after her contract began, Sen. Lieberman introduced legislation vastly extending patent protection for pharmaceutical companies — notably including GlaxoSmithKline, a top client of his wife’s firm.” from the article in salon (scroll up the page and click on the blue link to it) about this, that you should read. Doesn’t sound like passionate about Nokia phones to me? How about you?

PETROVINSKI !!!!!!

Jane:

Have you heard about the yearly limit on health care insurance companies got slipped back in the Senate bill?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091211/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul_senate_loophole/print

Please help get the word out widely…

A mix of the company’s own website, opensecrets.org, and Center for Media and Democracy.

I want to be clear–I don’t disagree that Joe Lieberman is in desperate need of replacement. If I could vote in an election related to him, I would decidedly be voting for the opposition–just about any opposition, no matter their political stripes, because of the fundamental trust issues I have with Lieberman. He’s flat-out horrific in so many ways.

But I don’t agree with the tactics of applying his views or politics to his wife. And I don’t think past employment at a firm that has some, even many clients, that I dislike disqualifies Mrs. Lieberman from advocating very successfully for a cause that is important to so many of us.

argh..i did not know this

Not long after her contract began, Sen. Lieberman introduced legislation vastly extending patent protection for pharmaceutical companies — notably including GlaxoSmithKline, a top client of his wife’s firm.” from the article in salon (scroll up the page and click on the blue link to it) about this, that you should read. Doesn’t sound like passionate about
Nokia phones to me? How about you?

medicines for THEE but not for me

Kathy – click on FDL Action tab above – there are 2 posts on this

and Welcome

she is clearly ambivalent…that is enuf………

Jane posted on this this morning.

o/t

Harry has a full nelson on his hands now

Bill Nelson calls MediCare Buy In a “non-starter” . . . says not affordable for the targeted group

p.s. a snapshot of the depth of denial on the part of the apologists – a commenter actually says it’s all because Nelson was a Hillary supporter in 08 – I kid you not

Signed with pleasure.

The Lieberman couple seems to be living with a forked tongue. The dollars to charity they provide, along with their notoriety, seem starkly at odds with how they make them – by opposing necessary credible health care reforms that would serve all Americans, not just those living in Greenwich and Georgetown. Has Mr. Lieberman dropped his expensive, fully paid, full-dollar, taxpayer funded health care plan yet and paid for a private plan? I didn’t think so.

This behavior has more in common with Mafiosi, who donate liberally to good causes and politicians alike in order to construct a patronage network that immunizes them from the harm they do. Happy Hanukkah, Joe and Hadassah. Give thanks for what you have, and keep others from having.

This woman is as vile as her husband. To survive cancer and actually get “paid” to promote a benevolent organization devoted to curing said condition redefines the word ungrateful.

Don’t the Lieberman’s have enough cash from her reptilian husband selling out the American people to line his pockets? She can’t volunteer in the name of empathy? No, she must get paid. Meanwhile, her family bank account is lined by health care corporations trying to prevent victims far less fortunate than her get the treatment they need. The hypocrisy is staggering.

Vile. Repugnant. Disgusting.

Signed with pleasure!

i said that too,but he is in a position to make it affordable,i can only wish,hope and pray

word!

the Jewish Jesus would be horrified

And what does ANY of this have to with whether Mrs. Lieberman can actively campaign for the Komen Race for the Cure? Is Joe Lieberman at least somewhat ethically challenged? I think we all agree, he is. The logic here, though, follows one of two paths:
1. Joe Lieberman is an ethically challenged politician who tends to shill for corporate health insurance interests. Therefore, his wife cannot be an effective advocate for breast cancer research. That one falls completely flat with me. Sorry. Then one should also say Hillary Clinton should be disqualified from any productive position in society because her husband is a philandering, lying husband. I don’t buy that one either, by the way. That is a horribly slippery slope to go down. What we’re essentially saying is that a spouse should not have employment in a line of work probably pretty personally meaningful because of poor positions or character traits of the other spouse.

2. So, that leaves us with: Hadassah Lieberman used to work for a lobbying firm that represented a host of corporate, non-profit, governmental, union and other clients. Some of those clients are unquestionably opposed to health care reform. Therefore, Mrs. Lieberman should not be allowed to advocate for a cause we all tend to like. So, what do we fear? That Mrs. Lieberman will suddenly be advocating for what? Increased cancer rates to profit current clients of her former employer? The thing we seem to be saying here is, you once worked for a company that represented clients we don’t like. Now you’re disqualified from meaningful work in a cause you may care about. Let’s applaud her for working for a good cause, for which she is probably being paid much less than she was as a lobbyist. And if its volunteer, let’s thank her for working hard on a cause we care about.

And, if we really want to move the cause of health care reform forward, how about we get off our butts and start going after the real problem–the 24-7 lying talking heads and the obstructionist Republican Party who can’t stop lying about the bill? They have an intensity of opposition that is unbelievable, and instead of joining forces with those who may have a somewhat different nuance to position within our own camp, adn going out and swatting down lies and spreading the good news of WHAT THE BILL DOES WELL, we’re fighting our own, letting the right wing dominate the airwaves with a coherent message. If the public were actually calling for reform in substantial numbers, and rallying for it, and pushing for it, Lieberman, and Nelson, and Lincoln, and Landrieu, and Pryor, would come along more easily. We -can- affect that if we go out and spread a positive message and counter the outright lies effectively.

well, hey – this is how many of those non profit people roll. My experience with Gloria Feldt from Planned Parenthood made it clear that her position of President was merely one rung on the ladder of her quest for power, relevance, money, or whatever drives these fucks.

you have stated your opine,it is rejected,on the grounds Hadassah,does NOT oppose her husbands antics…mokay

O/T
a little diversion for ya…. Holidays….

You obviously don’t get the disconnect Mz. Hamsher lays out in her letter.

Mz. Lieberman is being paid to represent a breast cancer foundation working to improve people’s quality of life.

Mz. Lieberman is a former APCO Lobbyist for the same corporations that are killing healthcare reform, and people.

Mz. Lieberman has lengthy and extensive ties to the corporations that are killing healthcare reform and people.

Her husband is a paid shill for the same corporations.

What part of inappropriate don’t you get? Cuz the MORAL fucking part is staring you in the face.

Your points of rebuttal fly in the face of the facts and the moral certitude the objection to Mz. Lieberman’s participation and employment with the foundation is based on.

Are you going to pull the anti semitic card, too? Cuz you’ve GOT no moral card to play, despite trying to twist the whole deck into a shameful and perverted form you can deal off of, from the bottom.

There’s a bridge that’s missing you . . . it’s lonely. Return to whence you came, hater.

what Larue said…
hey check out that link I left Larue… YOU will like it *G*

Again, like the above hateful spewing of illiteracy, you ignore the facts which link Mz. Lieberman DIRECTLY to corporations who are killing healthcare reform and killing people, including cancer patients dependent upon expansive biologics.

Your moral certitude is lacking it the moral part.

Poop, they didn’t know “Grandma got run over by a reindeer.”

It is important to understand why an Independent like Joe Lieberman has changed in his political/economic and philosophic attitudes over the years he has sought public office. Family members and wives/husbands as well as personal associations impact political bias because it is these folks the politician comes home to night after night. It is important to constituents and to voters as a whole to know of special interests of spouses, particularly when these special interests intersect policies promoted by their marital partner who also happen to be public servants. Voters need more information, not less in deciding whether a politician serves their constituency and their country. There are no sacred ‘cows’ in the world of democratic politics.

Are you aware of a practice by which lobbying firms influence the votes of elected officials by hiring spouses of electeds? It’s been happened for years, often enough that it’s been a bone of contention during debates over ethics rules in both houses of Congress.

Are you aware that Hadassah Lieberman had not worked for a decade prior to her last job with lobbying firm Hill & Knowlton? Do you think it’s common for corporations to hire older women who don’t have a continuous record of work experience? (It’s not just APCO that’s an issue here.)

Are you aware that the lobbying firm was not particularly forthcoming about what role or duties Hadassah actually had with H&K?

Are you aware that Joe Lieberman used to be a long-time proponent of the public option?

Are you aware that his position changed after his wife went back to work?

Hadassah Lieberman’s been married to an elected official long enough to understand all these issues. It’s a very simple matter of ethics and the appearance of impropriety should have been enough to cause her to reject the role with a lobbying firm and any other roles which have the appearance of undue influence.

It’s not as if she and her spouse are hurting for money; you are aware you can see Sen. Lieberman’s disclosure about investments, right?

Saved for a gift to my sonny when
He gets home from school.

‘Tis the season for giving.
Thank you

ROFLOL

but sure is fun *g*

Oh, you. It figures! So cute.

Happy Holiday Season demi.. glad you enjoyed..

And, so regiftable. (forward forward forward)

Blushing.
And the very same to you and yours.

“Hadassah Lieberman’s been married to an elected official long enough to understand all these issues. It’s a very simple matter of ethics and the appearance of impropriety should have been enough to cause her to reject the role with a lobbying firm and any other roles which have the appearance of undue influence.”

The point you make in the above is on it’s face and merit irrefutable. Any further attempts to promulgate on behalf of Mz. Lieberman, should henceforth be best ignored.

I fell for the trolls, so now I’ll scrolsl . . . .
Word.

*G*

And, SIGNED, with VIGOR!!!!

You rawhk Mz. Hamsher, and today is a bad day for progs/libs, given Senate HCR issues coming to light, and the piece of shit legislation the House passed for Econ/Finan Reform.

I was right this morning when I said the dentist’s office might be a sanctuary compared to reality today.

Sigh. Merlot anyone? I’ve got plenty.

Just sent that to 5 people. thanks – I liked it.

Signed the petition and put this note in;

Thank you for the support and hope your organization gives women battling breast cancer.

Please take a stand and proceed with the necessary measures to ensure the resume of your “Global Ambassador” accurately represents your most honorable cause and tireless efforts.

Much Appreciation—

Hope this helps — thanks for the heads up—

Via Susan G. Komen for the Cure Advocacy Alliance News:

Washington, D.C. – July 2, 2009

“Health reform provides us with the opportunity to create a shining example of how a generous and compassionate nation cares for the most vulnerable of its citizens – and the world will be watching,” said Ambassador Nancy G. Brinker, chair of the Komen Advocacy Alliance. “With incidence and mortality rates increasing across the globe, this example is needed now more than ever.”

holding glass up…

Hmm, try ‘Walking Round In Women’s Underwear’ . . . . *G*

Hey, ’tis the season, ain’t it?

Starting on the Merlot this early should get you guys just about ripe for late night. :)

pushes forth crystal goblet………love some

*splashes glass to brim*

Those are good points. Formerly, it was traditional for such a wealthy and now, powerful, couple to donate time to their preferred charities in lieu of payment for their services. This multi-millionaire landlord couple, which enjoys lobbyist largesse beyond the reach of most Congresscritters, certainly doesn’t need the money.

For them, it must be an image thing or a point they have to prove. “You can have my time, but here’s the bill, sweetheart.” And, no, it’s not a religious thing, it’s strictly personal. And it’s behavior shared by too many of today’s wealthy. They have evicted the oblige from the noblesse, and left it on the street corner along with the broken furniture and children’s clothing.

me too please

Signed letter, adding as a comment:

Dear Ms. Brinker,

I was greatly surprised to learn from Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake and Joe Conason at Salon that any amount of money that has been donated to Susan G. Komen for the Cure was given to Hadassah Lieberman – wife of Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) – who is now one of your organization’s “Global Ambassadors,” given both her husband’s role in blocking health care reform in the United States and the obvious conflict of interest.

Surely, you recall saying last July that “health reform provides us with the opportunity to create a shining example of how a generous and compassionate nation cares for the most vulnerable of its citizens – and the world will be watching.”

The people who contribute to Susan G. Komen for the Cure trust you to do everything possible to help fight breast cancer. They don’t expect you to channel any of their money to one Lieberman while the other Lieberman is working hard to obstruct the kind of health care reform that you and Susan G. Komen for the Cure acknowledge as being so important.

Please ask Hadassah Lieberman to step down as a “Global Ambassador” for the organization.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Brc

I’ll likely be sawin logs by then at this rate . . . it’s also Foodie Friday at Betsy’s Place, and I still need a topic . . . I’m not sure what will put me under, the stress and frustrations or the Merlot . . . but my TEETH are healthy!!!

Tough day for this Larue . . ;-)

I think thats the point..

*splishsplashsomemore*

they are street folk,hardly noble imo

Naw, they didn’t know that one either. Damn.

it’s also Foodie Friday at Betsy’s Place, and I still need a topic

Roasted Troll with a nice Cajun spice rub…??

Figures. I gotta go back to work.

Namaste

danke…and take good care!

“They have evicted the oblige from the noblesse, and left it on the street corner along with the broken furniture and children’s clothing.”

One of sweetest pieces of sentencing I’ve seen.
Well done, hoss, wish I had said that. It’s a keeper.

We’re all on that street corner anymore, with our pencils, cups and an orange to sell.

your here in spirit…lots of spirits……..teehee

Oh, shit, just saw this. You AC/DC fans will love this.

Ooooooooohhhhhh! Nice!

But Don’t Get Me Started!

Bitte!

Serious reply . . . one of my fav dishes to prep, cook and serve was Blackened Catfish.

Topped with an orange/basil buerre blanc . . .

It was all so easy, and SO packed with flavors!

Recipe for that orange/basil buerre blanc avail here or by emails upon request . . .

If it’s kewl with FDL to post said recipe in the middle of the day . . . do NOT want to detract from all the issues at hand. I’m just pissed royal, and typing about food and beverage calms me . . . *G*

I shouldn’t need to add that my comment is not a criticism of the Liebermans’ religion, but one directed at their hypocrisy and greed. That may be a co-religion to some. It’s really independent of religion, but inseparable from it, because men and women are its actors.

Hanukkah is a tale about heroes and villains, about miracles and redemption. It is a story about victory over oppression. It is a time for mitzvah. It is a time to aspire to avoid hypocrisy – not to relish it, as Mr. Lieberman is doing now in his legislative life.

My all time fave Xmas song.

Had not seen that one – love it.

Also needless to say, Hadassah Lieberman is a public figure with regard to her charitable and lobbying work, especially to the extent that she may gain financially from it owing to her husband’s legislative raging. He, of course, is a public figure in all respects. Well-phrased criticism of their behavior, and their possible conflicts and motives, is a well-established expression of First Amendment rights.

Ms. Lieberman didn’t or doesn’t simply work for a major lobbying firm, handling whatever client comes through the door. She worked specifically on APCO and other health care client accounts. That her husband was a Senator, whose votes could make or cost her clients and their industry hundreds of billions of dollars is not a circumstance she or they missed.

What a gross conflict of interests I can’t support a charity like this. Thanks for letting me know Jane you’re a hero!!!!

Thank you so much for this, Jane. I appreciate the opportunity to support your efforts.

Signed and forwarded.

Earlof . . . you just wrap it up and end the discussion and any probable comebacks so well I wanna cry.

Well, well, done and thank you for backing up Mz. Hamsher so well with your musings.

Thanks for sharing . . .

Hadassah Lieberman is also a public figure and as stated is a former lobbyist for APCO Associates, which represents the interests of the same major, private health insurance and pharmaceutical companies which Mr. Lieberman seeks to protect.

But the key phrase in this article is: …..Hadassah Lieberman – wife of Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) – is currently a compensated “Global Ambassador” for Susan G. Komen for the Cure.

Compensated = paid for, does that couple do anything unless they are compensated? Hey Mrs. L. ever heard of volunteerism? That’s where you donate your time & efforts for free!

You raise an excellent and often overlooked point. The odds of an established corporation hiring a middle aged woman who hadn’t worked in a paying job outside the home for a decade are quite low. Ivy League alums and spouses of public or established figures fare rather better in obtaining paid employment than does, say, the house spouse from Canton, OH, whose husband or wife is out of work because the Hoover factory moved to China. Even if s/he had held an important job off the assembly line.

Have you heard Mr. Lieberman’s many objections to the Bush administration and its DoJ gutting enforcement of federal age and sex discrimination laws? I haven’t either. The legislative response to the Sup. Ct.’s atrocious decision in the Lilly Ledbetter case was small beer. Jane and EW’s refrain rings true in the Lieberman household: “All for me, none for thee”.

Jane, you’re up over @ HuffPo, and the trolls taking a vacation from here have migrated over there to take potshots.

But it’s mostly support from Real People.

If you are coming to this woman’s defense you have to meet at least the relevant objections raised agains her. These objections of her are not motivated by a dislike of Lieberman which is a given, but rather by being complicit in his views.

If she wants to advocate for cancer survival she can’t at the same time refuse to complain against the views of someone that is frustrating that effort, namely her husband. If she is not prepared to take a stand against flagrant attempts to diminish access to health care for these very cancer patients, then she has no business being in a paid position that requires her to do exactly that.

You are completely wrong in your statement that she is an effective advocate for cancer patients. The very fact that she sits idly by while her husband frustrates that effort is proof of that.

We also we don’t know whehther her motives are pure in adopting this position or not. Nobody knows that nor does it matter. It could just be misdirection, or whatever the ego protecting term is. The crucial point is that she is not fit to assume the role of advocating for cancer survival when she fails miserably at that role.

Nicely said.

Sad days. Very, very sad days. I keep thinking of the joyousness I saw in my 9 year old sons face 13 months ago when Obama won the election. Such hope for his future. What have we done for our children’s future this year? Where is the hope? Where is the change? It has been sold it to the highest bidder. Again, sad, sad days.

I guess I am the only one who can appreciate the very disturbing irony in the fact that Hadassah Lieberman, who wraps herself in a prayer shawl of orthedox Judism, bears the name of the leading organization of an international organization of Jewish women dedicated to bringing health care to people who cannot afford it, while she and her pious husband make a living working to block those people from obtaining affordable health care and legitimate health insurance reform.

What is also very disturbing is that I seriously doubt that Ms. Lieberman makes known that she is a paid employee of the Komen Foundation. She trades on her husband’s last name. They eat enough at the goverment trough that if she is going to be a spokesperson for the Komen Foundation and the fact that she is a cancer survivor, she should be doing it as a volunteer. At least wheen Paris Hilton shows up to promote something everyone knows she is being paid to be there. Ms. Lieberman carries a title with the Komen Foundation that suggests that she is freely giving the profile she has to attract attention to the organization or, like Paris Hilton, be honest and upfront about her paid status.

Haworthia,

Both glad and sad to read your posts because they are so reasonable, so logical, and appear so scorned by the majority of readers who are commenting (confession–I stopped reading after a few dozen comments). Although I am offended by the Liebermans (or at least him), you make some good points, countering tennis-match style ala good debate the flaws in what the rest are saying or supporting — BUT THEY ARE NOT LISTENING. That refusal to listen is truly concerning. That is where the real lynch mob mentality can be found. I noticed the author of this article wrote and asked for your source for the other clients of Mrs. L’s lobbying firm — and you answered her. So, I wonder if this point may in fact make a different to Jane who, hopefully, is still in her rational mind expressing an opinion and trying to inform herself as well as others. I would like to know the facts here but I hate being part of any movement when I feel it is taken over by a mentality that rejects facts for passionate rhetoric.

Interestingly, if you support a government run health care…..y­ou probably wont even have access to the drugs those nasty pharmaceutical companies make if your cancer is too advanced. Take a look at the life expectancy of cancer patients in the US verses the those outside the US.

We have the highest survival rate of cancer in the world because we have access to those meds. When the government takes over, you wont have that choice. The government will have a costbenefit equation that will determine if it is worth it to pay for your cancer medications.

If you don’t believe me, check out:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8367614.stm
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/07/21/most-cancer-survival-rates-in-usa-better-than-europe-and-canada/

There are many more…I just have time to post them.

Oh, Puhleeze. I couldn’t care less if Lieberhole was Jewish/Christian/Muslim or Hindu or hell, a wiccan. The man a a scumball pig who with his scumball wife enjoys living off the best insurance paid for wholly by the American taxpayer and then tries to stop others from getting a bare bones version of it. The scumball has been on government healthcare for his whole adult life except for two years post grad.

brdatwork – you do realize those numbers have been debunked – it’s an apples to oranges comparison, the US survival rates are for more easily survivable cancers than those used for those systems that are nationalized.

If you are going to make claims as to better cancer outcomes, the standard of any comparison is statistical significance.

Which comparitive study are you citing that shows other industrialized countries have a worse cancer survival that is statistically significantly attributable to their having a government run health care system. Short of this type of study the results that you cite are meaningless.

In truth I doubt you are familiar with the interpretation of when comparisons are valid.

One last point. Cancer is largely a disease of the elderly, so better survivals may be attributable to the fact that elderly people are covered by Medicare, a government run health care program.

If you are going to make claims as to better cancer outcomes, the standard of any comparison is statistical significance.

Which comparitive study are you citing that shows other industrialized countries have a worse cancer survival that is statistically significantly attributable to their having a government run health care system. Short of this type of study the results that you cite are meaningless.

In truth I doubt you are familiar with the interpretation of when comparisons are valid.

One last point. Cancer is largely a disease of the elderly, so better survivals may be attributable to the fact that elderly people are covered by Medicare, a government run health care program

Jane,

For worser or worst, the Komen Foundation advocates a mandate of PRIVATE INSURANCE for all Americans…

“Congress should require health insurance companies to provide coverage to all, with no pre-existing condition limitations.”

http://www.komenadvocacy.org/uploadedFiles/Downloadable_Files/Health%20Reform%20Position%20Paper%20FINAL%20061609%20II.pdf

Nowhere do I see the foundation push for a Public Option or universal coverage regardless of station in this country. I think the foundation is off its rocker if it thinks private insurance alone can provide affordable access to care, but that’s for the Komen members to work out. I’d advocate for change from within.

-squash

Jane,

For worser or worst, the Komen Foundation advocates a mandate of PRIVATE INSURANCE for all Americans…

“Congress should require health insurance companies to provide coverage to all, with no pre-existing condition limitations.”

http://www.komenadvocacy.org/uploadedFiles/Downloadable_Files/Health%20Reform%20Position%20Paper%20FINAL%20061609%20II.pdf

Nowhere do I see the foundation push for a Public Option or universal coverage regardless of station in this country. I think the foundation is off its rocker if it thinks private insurance alone can provide affordable access to care, but that’s for the Komen members to work out. I’d advocate for change from within.

-squash

Please look at entry 101 and see if you are able to rebutt this rejoinder. If you are not able to then you need to accept that this woman is not fit to be an advocate for cancer patients, much less a paid one.

BTW, I do agree that many responses are not that rigorous.

Thank you for the letter and petition Jane. I signed as well and will personally write another. I’ve written about Lieberman’s conflict myself too and told so many people about it, and yet no one seemed to be paying any attention to it, certainly NOT the media. The only place I’ve seen any mention of it before today was your original post and the article in Salon. This letter is getting people’s attention today, and that’s great. I really hope it does some good, but I just read over at Plum Line that the Komen spokesperson “Pamela Stevens says that won’t happen and they have every intention of keeping”.. Ms. Lieberman on. Looks like we may have to write a few more letters. I am a survivor and have donated regularly to them for several years, volunteered, you name it. I view this as a slap in the face, and I don’t plan on being quiet about it. Below is the link about the Komen response mentioned above.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/economy/happy-hour-roundup-126/

Thank you for saying what, until now, I’ve never seen mentioned anywhere else. I hope that spell is broken.
Don’t forget Matt Taibbi’s new bombshell today: “Obama’s Big Sellout” with Robert Rubin, son Jamie, and the whole G-S crew named and renamed as being at the center of every economy-gutting financial atrocity.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout/print
It isn’t “anti-_______” to point these facts out… it’s just that the “Israel uber alles” crew should move to Israel, and let us Americans have the HEALTH CARE that should come with winning WWI and WWII, and all the other SACRIFICES, _WE_ have SHARED as a nation, NOT the “profit for few” that the Liebermans & Rubins extoll.

Good for Senator Nelson. I’ve been worried which side he was going to come down on in all this (he is an uber- corporate “yellow dog” Democrat), but at least he’s got his antennas up… Health Care access is NOT a “liberal vs conservative” issue, in that CONSERVATIVE seniors LOVE their Medicare (vs having nothing at all). With Florida’s large population of retirees on Social Security & Medicare, and govt. pensioners as well, it looks like even some “Blue Dog” Democrats are FINALLY starting to get the message – you DENY AMERICANS HEALTH CARE access, you will have blood, lives, and angry voters on your hands.

OK, some of the critiques here have been utterly hateful, name-calling and irrational. So, I’m picking a rational post to deal with:

From gamd521:
“1. she wants to advocate for cancer survival she can’t at the same time refuse to complain against the views of someone that is frustrating that effort, namely her husband. If she is not prepared to take a stand against flagrant attempts to diminish access to health care for these very cancer patients, then she has no business being in a paid position that requires her to do exactly that.”

I don’t know what she tells her husband, or does not, related to health care reform. She does not necessarily need to express that in a highly public manner to be doing so. And perhaps, if we did not like the idea that her prior employment could have been targeting her hubby’s vote, then we’re being hypocritical to hope this one is targeting that.

“You are completely wrong in your statement that she is an effective advocate for cancer patients. The very fact that she sits idly by while her husband frustrates that effort is proof of that.”

I don’t know how well she’s doing her job, and I do know that the foundation is more than just a policy advocacy group. I do know that she is a moderately effective communicator–far more so than her husband, in my opinion. It seems to me we should let Komen decide whether she’s doing the job, or not.

“We also we don’t know whehther her motives are pure in adopting this position or not. Nobody knows that nor does it matter. It could just be misdirection, or whatever the ego protecting term is. The crucial point is that she is not fit to assume the role of advocating for cancer survival when she fails miserably at that role.”

Does she fail at it? If she was hired to advocate solely with her husband for the public option, then I agree. But if we believe that her role is broader, than I don’t believe we have room to judge that.

Hi, Gam, thanks for the gauntlet — but I am not actually seeking to “rebut” but rather to encourage rational debate rather than what seemed some kneejerk reaction. I thought many of Haworthia’s points were just simply calls for reason. With that preface, I will address your post 101.
First, I don’t know that Haworthia was trying to “defend” Mrs. L as much as to counter or call into question some of the assumptions being jumped to — for which I applauded her/him.
Second, this comment of yours — “You are completely wrong in your statement that she is an effective advocate for cancer patients. The very fact that she sits idly by while her husband frustrates that effort is proof of that” –strikes me as lapsing a bit into the emotional tone of this whole comment section. Are we to make this assumption because, one, by having Sen L as her husband, she somewhat definitionally can’t be effective (?) and/or two, because Sen L is voting the way he is, she hasn’t been successful in her lobby, or at least, in lobbying her own husband. But heck, I don’t know that she’s not the best damn lobbyist who’s ever walked the halls of the place and just has come up against a really, really, really stubborn, uncaring husband. And I doubt anyone else really does either.
BUT — the one unassailable argument in this whole thing is that it outright looks bad, looks all conflicty to be a lobbyist for an organization that SHOULD (but apparently doesn’t, based on the foundation’s responses to this issue) support health care reform that her own hubby is opposing and trying to defeat.
Last point/comment — this whole thing has made me question the legitimacy of this organization. Regardless of her effectiveness — what signal is this organization sending out? Love to hear your responses.

I appreciate the kind remarks. I like to see passion, I welcome disagreement. Sadly, I think some of the lack of rationality or willingness to listen is simply the left’s mirror of Bill O’Reilly, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and friends. I don’t have much use for that approach on the right, and I find it just as abhorrent when folks I politically agree with employ those tactics. I wish people would use their energy and passion for positive good, rather than to tear down others. But I guess I hope for too much.

Replying: “Are you aware of a practice by which lobbying firms influence the votes of elected officials by hiring spouses of electeds? It’s been happened for years, often enough that it’s been a bone of contention during debates over ethics rules in both houses of Congress. Are you aware that Hadassah Lieberman had not worked for a decade prior to her last job with lobbying firm Hill & Knowlton? Do you think it’s common for corporations to hire older women who don’t have a continuous record of work experience? (It’s not just APCO that’s an issue here.)”

Yep, I”m aware of it. I don’t doubt that her connections helped get her the lobbying job, and no, I don’t particularly like that. but it IS how the “game is played”, and all sides do it, so i don’t think is relevant to her current work for Komen.

“Are you aware that the lobbying firm was not particularly forthcoming about what role or duties Hadassah actually had with H&K?”

Sure. They have no obligation to provide that info, just as most of our employers don’t make that sort of info public. Again, hardly a reflection on Ms. Lieberman.

“Are you aware that Joe Lieberman used to be a long-time proponent of the public option?
Are you aware that his position changed after his wife went back to work?”

I don’t think his position shifted after she went back to work; I think it happened sometime in the early 2000′s, and especially in the last few years as the Senator has found himself without a real political home. I think he’s made the calculation to insulate his right flank rather than left, and hope he can win another election by winning most or all of the Republican vote. It’s terribly cynical, and it gives me a lot of pause about the Senator, but I don’t think it’s his wife’s fault.

“Hadassah Lieberman’s been married to an elected official long enough to understand all these issues. It’s a very simple matter of ethics and the appearance of impropriety should have been enough to cause her to reject the role with a lobbying firm and any other roles which have the appearance of undue influence.”

I don’t doubt that she understands potential conflicts of interest, and typically, there are rules governing how lobbying is handled in those cases. If there were in fact potential or real violations, they are the purview of the Senate ethics committee. But I don’t see this as relevant to her ability to advocate for cancer research funding or better cancer treatment.

“It’s not as if she and her spouse are hurting for money; you are aware you can see Sen. Lieberman’s disclosure about investments, right?’

I am aware that the Liebermans, and indeed, most members of Congress, are quite wealthy. Unfortunately, this seems to be a near requirement of successfully seeking public office. I have no idea what she is making at Komen, but I would be willing to bet she could be making a lot more in a lot of other ways. I do not feel like it is my business to tell someone what they should, or should not, be able to earn for a specific job. I don’t like it when the right wing attacks the pay and benefits of (unionized) teachers — I think they’re generally pretty badly underpaid — and I don’t think it’s my business to tell Ms. Lieberman to be a volunteer only, or not.

The idea that this approach will somehow shame or otherwise persaude Jowly Joe to re-direct his legislative efforts towards a progressive agenda is simply ludicrous. Is the SGKF really that influential in the health care debate that they deserve this?

To me, this seems likely to have an effect similar to the reduced voter turnout that inevitably results from negative campaigning, that is to suppress charitable donations.

Who here will take responsibility (or credit?) for driving down donations to SGKF should this campaign succeed?

Hi, everybody. First post here.

I can understand why some people are squeamish about this. In another, more innocent time, I might have been too.

But this is not a time for incremental change, half measures, and cautious statements. This is war. The insurance and drug industries are the enemy. A charity that works for health care rights cannot be even tangentially connected to these industries. Full stop.

Jane, you’re a hero. Keep up the bold work. Oh, and I read Fatal Instinct a few years back and loved it! And no, this is not just newbie butt-kissing. ;)

Welcome to the Lake!
Moderators are here to help, ask if you need to.

There are a lot better breast cancer organizations out there than Susan G. Komen.
If breast cancer is cured this Marketeer’s money pot dries up, not to mention she’s paid a hell of a lot of money to Heather Podesta’s lobbying firm, She’s John Podesta’s sister, the man pulling Obamas strings, from the start through today.

… Nancy G. Brinker. Now the U.S. Ambassador to Hungary, Brinker is the E.F. Hutton of the breast cancer world — when she speaks anyone who’s anyone listens.

Brinker relies on the blockbuster PR value of the 5K Race for the Cure. The year-round calendar of cancer walks that draw grief-stricken yet hopeful patients and their loved ones, along with a fawning media, preserve Brinker and her group’s image as being on the side of the average American woman tragically afflicted with breast cancer.

So most people would be shocked to find that the Komen Foundation helped block a meaningful Patients Bill of Rights for the women it has purported to serve since the group began in 1982.

Despite proclaiming herself before a 2001 Congressional panel as a “patient advocate for the past 20 years,” demanding access to the best possible medical care for all breast cancer patients, Federal Election Commission records show the Komen Foundation and its allies lobbied against the consumer-friendly version of the Patients Bill of Rights in 1999, 2000 and 2001. Brinker then trumpeted old friend George W. Bush in August 2001 for backing a “strong” Patients’ Bill of Rights, while most patient advocates felt betrayed.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOK —

I agree haworthia. According to the Salon.com article Mrs. Lierberman makes $1000/year from charity. If so, it’s too negligible to consider as income from the Kromen Foundation.

The main point of Jane Hamser’s petition letter seems that the lack of disclosure and Mrs. Liberman’s relationship to Mr. Liberman makes her public work for Kromen unethical.
There is something wrong and sexist to hold one spouse responsible for the other one’s actions, votes, etc.
This letter and petition appear to be a backdoor way of getting at Mr. Lieberman. And yes, if I lived in his state I would certainly not vote him back in office. I agree with hawortia that he’s a cynical politician who is pandering to the right in order to get re-elected.
But that is not his wife’s fault.
We have no idea if she is behind his opposition to health care for those with cancer. Nor can we be sure she can control him in such a way as to make him change his stance.

Still I would be willing to sign this petition if it were better written. If it included more information about Mrs. Lieberman– some more is available in the comments section on the Huffington Post.com –then I would sign it. As it stands, it reads more like a way to punish Mrs. Lieberman for being married to Mr. Lieberman.
Jane Hamser’s letter does not show a lot of concern about those whose lives are touched by cancer. It is a politically charged letter and petition.

btw: I have cancer. f signing this petition would help improve insurance for those who need it I would do so. I am not signing this petition.

You can bet your ass that none of the kids have served in Iraq, Afghanistan or any other wars that Joe has lied and pushed for. Joe Lieberman applied and received a deferment for family reasons during Vietnam. This is a man a family willing to support sending kids from Appalachia and other rural parts of the country to wars that are both illegal and immoral for Israel and oil. But clearly not willing to put their own yellow bellies on the line. The worst kind of cowards.

Creepy very very creepy

Come on the Lieberman family are the worst kind of cowards. Do you think any of Lieberman’s kids, grand kids are fighting in Iraq? “Traitor Joe”

There is an easy solution to this. If Ms. feels so strongly about this cause, she should just do it volunteerily WITHOUT getting paid for it.

I think Ms. should just not receive any compensation and do the job volunteerily. One of the concerns in the letter is that the donations (no matter how much of it) go to L.’s family and so indirectly to Joe L’s political agenda and that is a legitimate concern.

If you want people to take you seriously, I recommend you get off the “cancer hasn’t been cured because people are making too much money from it” kick. It’s counterproductive, and it makes you sound insane.

My guess is that there are probably legal or accounting reasons that Ms. L is paid at all. $1K per year is pretty much a rounding error for a foundation of this size.

Haddasah, your husband has literally KILLED thousands of uninsured people by delaying health insurance reform for weeks or months. How can you pretend to be for health care? As they say in the Bible, a pox on your house.

By now everyone should realize that the Sore Loser party,the bloated pigs of Corporate Welfare, and the apeshi# teabaggers are desperate and are going to fight viciously to the end.
Progressives are going to have to match their ferocity.
The Liebermans, as a couple, are fair game. They’re a disgrace.
The Dems. need to jettison Ben “Trojan horse” Nelson, Blanche “Mary Todd” Lincoln, Stupak, Pitts, etc. as well.
Get the health care bill, get some real private sector jobs initiatives going, get the financial reform going, get Rep. deFazio’s transaction fee passed, and they’ll kick butt in the fall.
Then come back and get single payer.

Gladly signed, linked to on facebook, and if’n I had some spray paint, I’d have it writ large across Omaha.

In response to those against this, if Mrs. Lieberman were actually volunteering, I doubt anyone would be calling for her ouster. However, profiting from her work with SGKF, while her husband actively seeks to prevent others suffering from cancer the ability to save their lives without bankrupting themselves, and in all likelihood their friends and families, is reprehensible. More so, because it’s not as if the Liebermans need the money.

Could someone explain to me the difference between the Lieberman’s case and Michelle Obama’s job at the hospital? She got a huge raise right after Barack Obama got the hospital a healthy earmark, and after she quit they didn’t bother to fill the position. Looks like her job was “be the Senator’s wife and get us federal money.”

J.

Jane seems to have tied Hadassah Lieberman into the lobying efforts against health care reform quite well. 45,000 people die each year due to lack of health care, and you want to play nice? You must be a Cubs fan.

Ah, don’t we wish it WERE that clear. Ms. Lieberman USED to work for a lobbying firm. No denying that. She wasn’t even a lobbyist, it would appear. That firm has many, many clients, and a large swath of issues. Some of those clients are, indeed, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and others with a direct stake in the outcome of the health care debate. Not all are. Not even the majority is. So, no, I don’t think there is a clear case on that.

But more important, I know all too well about the horrors of the health care system. It needs fixed. Badly. Top priority. I don’t care so much about playing nice or evil. I care about playing EFFECTIVELY. If we want to pass meaningful health care reform, we better work to convince the public that reform is worthwhile. Right now, Republicans, businesses, and others have managed to win the message war–big and bad. While we’re moaning over what the public option should look like and attacking a Senator’s wife’s job, they’re driving home the message, every single day, that health care reform is BAD FOR AMERICA. That’s an incredibly powerful message, and it’s one that WE’RE FAILING TO COUNTER. Instead, we’re vilifying Senator Reid for DOING HIS JOB to put together a majority of votes. No, we may not like everything he has had to do, and we can armchair quarterback it all we want… but frankly, the Republicans are beating enough crap out of us on this, we don’t need to add to the carnage of attacking those who mostly share our viewpoints.

So, let’s talk priorities. How about letters to the editor highlighting the failures of the current system? How about taking on the tea party crowds with some real facts? How about talking to your neighbors, countering the barrage of crap they get from the right wing? That might just be an effective way to pass health care reform. The circular firing squad many here advocate is at best fiddling as Rome burns.

By all means, let’s jettison every Democrat who isn’t 100% behind everything we like. Let’s see, we’re up to 8 Blue Dog or similar retirements/seeking other office, all in competitive districts, districts that are more likely than not to go republican. Great. Let’s throw a few more dozen moderates out too. Then we can say “Speaker Boehner” and not have to worry about what health care reform might look like–because THERE WILL BE NO DEBATE ON HEALTH CARE REFORM. Might as well give up on any climate change bill. There would be NO DEBATE on it. Want funding for anything that matters? Don’t count on it. Won’t make it into the bill. Want to see DADT repealed? Forget it. Won’t come to teh floor of the House.

While we’re at it, let’s un-elect Senator Reid, because he hasn’t “held tough” enough against moderates in his caucus. And let’s boot Lincoln, Bayh, Lieberman, Landrieu and Ben Nelson from the party. Let’s not support Chris Dodd, because he’s too “establishment”. Senator Gillibrand–can’t support her–she voted pro-gun in some instances. Pretty soon, we’re looking at a mighty small Democratic caucus in the Senate. Even with 60 seats, it’s clearly hard to pass a lot of things. But imagine how much harder it iwll be for the President to get judges confirmed if that slips to 52 or 54. Want a progressive Supreme Court justice? No way. Want anything we care about to pass? Forget it. Can’t get 60.

I’m all for asking for loyalty to the party that brung ya, but we also better be prepared to find common ground with a big tent party, or we can look at things being a whole lot worse than they are, as far as what comes to debate, much less what can pass.