"All Cretans are liars."

treach⋅er⋅ous  /ˈtrɛtʃərəs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [trech-er-uhs]

See images of treacherous

–adjective 1. characterized by faithlessness or readiness to betray trust; traitorous.
2. deceptive, untrustworthy, or unreliable.
3. unstable or insecure, as footing.
4. dangerous; hazardous: a treacherous climb.

Has there been any talk of Ted Kennedy Jr. running for Lieberman's seat in 2012? (He does live in Connecticut.) If not, let's start some!

It's all kabuki. I'm sure if there was a deal, the fact that they're now saying there wasn't only reflects the fact that news of there being a deal came out. They'd have to say this whether there was a deal or not, and the fact of their saying it doesn't have any relation to whether it's still considered to be in force between them. Kabuki within kabuki, too, since the only reason Lieberman said he'd support a filibuster is because saying that puts him in a position of leverage where he can extract more favors from Reid. Plus get the media attention he craves--I assume he has been having hissy fits over all the fawning attention Olympia Snowe was getting there for a while, making him shift and squirm in his seat and whine Pay Attention to MEEEEEEEEE! until his staffers are all going around with their heads down and hands over their ears while waiting for the current tantrum to pass by.

If there was a secret understanding between Joe Lieberman and Harry Reid, this is exactly what I would expect Harry Reid's spokesperson to say. On the other hand, if there was no secret understanding between Joe Lieberman and Harry Reid, this is also exactly what I would expect Harry Reid's spokesperson to say. So from these comments I would surmise that there either is or is not a secret understanding between Joe Lieberman and Harry Reid. I hope that clarifies things.

Sheesh. Just when it looked like we might have some Joementum on the issue. Oh well. A skunk by any other name is still Joe Lieberman.

Why did the original story run without making the call first?

I've always respected TPM as the one of the best of the new breed of media outlets. But lately there seems to be a rush to post stories without attribution, and without making a simple call first.

The story above, posted by Eric Kleefeld, is great: he made the call.

But why rush to post the original story? Couldn't you have waited to have Eric make the call?

Then the story would have been more accurate: "The Hill reports this through their anonymous source, but we called and they deny it -- take it for what it's worth."

Josh, tighten the reins, your ship's discipline is getting loose!