The AP has a story today, Lieberman's public criticism of Obama irks Democrats.
Basically, the only public criticism the article mentions is what follows:
"Lieberman has wasted no time in questioning Obama's positions on Iran and Israel, two topics on which Lieberman and McCain agree. Just one day after Obama clinched his party's nomination, Lieberman joined Republicans on a McCain campaign teleconference call assailing Obama following his foreign policy address to a leading Jewish group.
"Lieberman accused Obama of blaming U.S. policies for 'essentially sort of strengthening' Iran.
"'If Israel is in danger today, it's not because of American foreign policy, which has been strongly supportive of Israel in every way,' he said. 'It is not because of what we have done in Iraq. It is because Iran is a fanatical terrorist, expansionist state'" (emphasis mine).
And that criticism is, well, accurate, for Obama has blamed the Iraq War for making problems worse in the Middle East.
But the Democrats are upset by this. Obama and Harry Reid met privately with Lieberman, presumably to communicate their displeasure (ooooh!). And what really irks me is what Chris Dodd said:
"Lieberman's Connecticut colleague, Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd, said he's heard McCain talk about keeping a civil tone to the campaign.
"'It might be a good message for him to convey to his supporters,' said Dodd, also an Obama supporter."
So it's not civil to disagree with someone, Senator Dodd?
Some people seem to think they should be beyond criticism.