DISQUS

ahaque · 1 year ago

John
I agree. Lieberman may have behaved like a scum bag, but it is a very smart strategy by Obama to get to 60 and without Lieberman it may be difficult though still possible. With Begich in the lead and Franken recount still pending, democrats could pull it off if they put all their resources behind Georgia re-run. So Lieberman will be needed.

hit_escape · 1 year ago

Don't forget that Lieberman called for the impeachment of Clinton for a BJ. War crimes by Bush and Katrina? That's okay with him. Lieberman fully intends to be the tail-wagging-the-dog. If we have to keep him, it needs to be on a one-strike-and-you're-out basis.

ahaque · 1 year ago

There is no doubt Lieberman is a sleaze ball. If Dems play their cards and pick up a seat or two in the Senate in 2010, they can dump him. Another possibility would be to start a Recall vote in his State (if the State allows it) and nominate a Democrat in his place. That will be good riddance for good.

Bubbles · 1 year ago

He needs to suffer some consequence for his actions. They should put him on probation (double secret probation?) or something. I would say take away his committee, and put him on something else. Otherwise, I would tell him, that he gets a reprieve of one week for every Bush administration official he subpoenas and one month reprieve for every Bush administration official he indicts. If he Indicts Cheney he gains 6 months. If he indicts Bush he's off probation but stays on a watch list. All of this time he has to vote the way Harry Reid tells him to vote. Once in a while, if he wants to wonder off the reservation, and vote against an issue, he can, but he has to have Harry's permission. Any infliction of discomfort at the Obama administration will have him stripped of everything faster than you can say "hypocrite".

ahaque · 1 year ago

Bubbles, you make excellent points about Liberman the traitor, but right now Dems need him for 60, once they get past that in 2010, then he can be dumped period.

SkippyFlipjack · 1 year ago

Can someone explain senate rules to me? I'd thought that it was essential to get Lieberman to caucus with Democrats when the senate was equally divided (with one independent) because that would make the Dems the majority party and give them all the associated power, the committee majorities and leadership positions, etc. But so what if Lieberman caucuses with them now? There's no rule that he has to vote with them, but he will anyway or his IFL party will lose the next election in Connecticut. What's the import of his becoming part of the Republican caucus? 60 votes only matters if those 60 senators vote with you, and Lieberman's votes are driven more by ideology than caucus. Are they going to let him keep one or all of his committee leadership positions just so they have something they can threaten to take away each time he says he's voting against them?

The Tim Channel · 1 year ago

I had chided John earlier about his lack of faith in Obama on this issue, though I did not provide the overview of this poster in regards to the machinations. Trust Obama UNTIL and IF we find out that we can't. We're all REALLY quick to jump all over every little supposed misstep because we've become accustomed to the constant BS from Bushco.
Enjoy.

DeppFan · 1 year ago

I agree with MG. Bitch slapping Lieberman isn't going to get the results we want.

dad · 1 year ago

I thought Harry Reid was supposed to be the leader of the Senate.

Roxie_Beaver · 1 year ago

MG states "His committee can boot him if and when he continues down the path he has been on so he is on notice." Not true.

According to KagroX on DKos front page yesterday: "The fact is that it would require adopting a resolution on the Senate floor to strip Lieberman of his gavel later on, so it's not quite as simple as snapping your fingers. If he's creating enough problems for his Democratic colleagues that they finally resolve to get rid of him, do you think the Republicans will be eager to help with that, or will they filibuster that resolution? They may very well opt to be inexplicably courteous about it and let it slide. But is that a safer bet than taking care of business right now?"

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/13/14...

lucky hussein · 1 year ago

In that case, I say do not deal with TJ. I was under the impression he could be removed at any time...

Ginger_FL · 1 year ago

As much as I want LIEberman to be kicked to the curb...I am so pissed at that scumbag.....I think MG is on to something.

I suspect if LIEberman strays or tries to go after Obama....he is toast. I suspect he's already been told as much.

Will the bastard stray.....deep down I hope he does so I can enjoy watching him get the ass kicking he sooo deserves.
On the other hand, LIEberman is a power hungry self serving bastard and it will be more expedient for him to go along rather than move against the cause.

dad · 1 year ago

60 with lieberman is 59.

erick28 · 1 year ago

Victory is sometimes swallowing your ego and pride for the better good and ultimately achieving your goals without necessarily sacrificing the main principles. I don't like Lieberman because of what he did, but let's face it, dems and the Obama admin still have to deal with him. Let the people deal with him... in the coming election. Let us be the vote of the people be the reason why he is out and replaced by someone whom we think is alot better than him.

Mitchla · 1 year ago

I completely agree. Revenge would feel great. But helping the country would feel greater.

vkobaya · 1 year ago

Then part of deal should be that if the Democrats aren't 110% assured of a 60 vote filabuster proof majority, then Liebermann is out. Unfair, yes, but it would certainly reassure those of us who voted for these Damnocrats and will only return the favor on Liebermann of his own treachery. And would not harm the potential for that filabuster proof 60 votes.

KerrynowCampau · 1 year ago

Well reasoned argument. I was all for kicking his ass to the curb.

I am rethinking my stance.

dad · 1 year ago

If joe lieberman had had his way we would not be close to 60.

if he had had his way it would be mccain offering comment as President-Elect.

he wanted the other side to win. he did every thing he could to make it happen.

Steve_in_CNJ · 1 year ago

i agree with rachel maddow and Skippy (below) that there is no reason to expect anything but grudging discipline from lieberman. we should expect MUCH better than grudging compliance (and self-important posturing) in one of the most important chairmanships in the senate. however, you don't frame this as revenge for the campaign. lieberman was grossly ineffective as HS committee chairman and needs to be replaced for that reason.

the 60-votes argument is a little shaky too. if lieberman obstructs the dems from the backbench they will try to recall him in connecticut. plus most people believe there are at least 3 gop senators up for reelection in 2010 who will vote for cloture.

pet valet · 1 year ago

--and we should be in a proactive position. Waiting for JL's inevitable treacherous actions is just weak, especially if you are about leadership and responsibility/ accountability. He's proven himself (a la Lucy in the Charlie Brown metaphor cited). If our policies are sound and pol's are competent, they'll get the job done without (or with) his help.

High Crimes & Misdemeanors · 1 year ago

It takes one Senator to filibuster. This is a weak argument. And I seriously doubt you can get 60 DEMS to vote for an Obama agenda. It's not gonna happen. Hell you cant even get 15 to vote against this traitor/PUNK/ASSWIPE. The man has not only stabbed the DEM party in the back, but has bad mouthed the new President of the U.S. And he spoke at the REPUKE convention. WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE NOT GET ABOUT THE WORD TRAITOR??? Do you need a definition??? It's bullshit to to say that he might be good to keep close at bay, you know:keep your enemies close..... blah, blah, blah - we need to kick his ass out. Show some got'damn party discipline, show some got'damn backbone. This is just ridiculous. He could reek havoc on an Obama Presidency, he has already shown his true colors and allegiances. And when was the last time a vote took place to unseat a Chairman of a committee??? We have a DEM leadership that are sycophants. And the status quo lives on.

WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE WORDS HYPOCRISY OR TWO-FACED??????

stefanzo · 1 year ago

Amen - and I have to add that several others of us have been arguing the same points as well- it's not 'contrary' to everyone.

High Crimes & Misdemeanors · 1 year ago

You're living in LA LA land if you think 60 DEMS is gonna make a difference in changing. if all we are looking for is to pass the legislation, do we need a super-majority?? What we have is fine now. If only we had some DEMS with a spine we could have gotten what we wanted. There is no party discipline so you are not guaranteed you are gonna have 60 DEMS vote the same way. And to leave him on as chairman can only mean trouble. If we didn't use the filibuster back then, what makes you think we will do it when we have 60?????

This whole "keep liebermnan on" is a weak ass argument. And placating him for any possible future votes is utterly ridiculous. We don't need him, we don't need a super majority. We have the votes to pass the Obama legislation.

And first things firsts; Universal Health Care FOR ALL!!!!!!

In order to do that, this meme must be started: We do no need corporations profiting off your illness or medical travesty!!! Period End!!!!

PROPOSITION 2008: NO TO HARRY RIED AND NO TO LIBERMANNN

red_dwarf · 1 year ago

...AND NO TO PELOSI. I agree, if it comes down to 60 voting together, we are all wasting our times on this thread.

lucky hussein · 1 year ago

I have to admit, it would be sweet to see TJ backstab the crap out of the reich-wingers ;) however will this cause more difficulty in keeping other senators in line? Will it turn off dem supporters? Actually hurt america more b/c of his crappy performance? So far, I think the FISA vote has not, for example. I can give Obama the benefit of the doubt. With the little knowledge I have of how the senate inside-machinations work, I would not do it, mainly b/c we have other pro-dem repubs (2 in maine alone), but time will tell...

changed my mind again, see comment above

dad · 1 year ago

joe lieberman did not want Democrats to win.

he did not want them to have the majority or the Presidency.

why should he have the priviledge of committee leadership available only to that majority.

sherifffruitfly · 1 year ago

it's funny watching all of these Charlie Browns, just oh-so eager to have Lucy pull the football away again. And again. And again.

dad · 1 year ago

who says we're spineless chickenshits?

Brian · 1 year ago

very good, I agree. I don't know how many times I've thought Obama was on the verge of doing something wrong only to have it turn out that he's just way ahead of everyone else. He's always looking at the big picture.

but I don't know how likely the Dems will be to get 60 votes with or without Lieberman. Even if they have 60 seats, the blue dogs aren't going to play nice all the time.

LynnDee · 1 year ago

The problem with booting Lieberman if and when he decides to launch a series of bogus investigations of the Obama administration is that it would look, not only petty and vindictive, but like the Obama administration was behind it. He should be stripped of his Homeland Security and GAC chairmanships now. Give him something else to do, and let him bolt the caucus if that's what he wants to do.

sashacaius · 1 year ago

Thank you, MG, for your pragmatic view of what to do. It is nice and healthy to vent and blow bile about the despicable things JL has done. But enough. Let's get on with governing. When the inevitable happens, and JL just can't help himself and misbehaves, he'll be out. But at least we'll have had a string of success leading up to it.

sullivan · 1 year ago

I don't understand why we continually say we need Lieberman's vote to get closer to 60 votes to support Obama's agenda when we have so many bluedogs who continually vote with the republicans! The democrats never vote so closely along party lines like the vile republicans.

stefanzo · 1 year ago

btw, as has been pointed out, keeping around Lieberman doesn't automatically give us magic 60 for every vote. But you can bet Lieberman is staying purely by the grace of Obama and Reid, and we already know they aren't stupid. They have a lot of leverage over Lieberman now (before it was the opposite), and the leash is going to be tight. Maybe not tight enough to embarrass him too much (which would be satisfying to us but counterproductive), but certainly tight enough to make him useful.

dad · 1 year ago

i can not tell you how many people in Connecticut have come up to me and said "I should have listened in 2006. I didn't realize he was such an asshole."

please, don't be stupid.

ekwhite · 1 year ago

I agree with MG. Getting revenge on Lieberman, scum that he is, is not as important as getting the Obama agenda through Congress. If letting Lieberman keep his chairmanship helps to get the needed legislation passed, then let him keep his chairmanship.

dad · 1 year ago

either way joe lieberman is going to be on fox news talking about joe lieberman.

it doesn't matter if joe is a Democrat, a republican or an independent, joe will be for joe, and only for joe.

Wolfsinger · 1 year ago

MG offers the notion that: "His committee can boot him if and when he continues down the path he has been on so he is on notice. He was put on notice by Evan Byah last night." This is a flawed and dangerous argument. And, it reeks of FEAR.

The political repercussions for a NEW President who, in the earliest days -the so called honey moon period, has to suddenly remove a chairman once he/she decides to act contrary to Presidential directives is political suicide. Republicans and Democrats alike will scream "Business As Usual - Protectionism and Just-Like-Bush" and they would be right.

Again...WHY do folks who say keep Lieberman think they know how he will vote? Or what issues he will take up as chairman? Nobody has been able to answer this question for me. I keep putting it out there and no answer. Also, WHY...when the Republican's are buried deep in the smoke and ashes of Mr 22% are we living in fear of them? They aren't even a national party anymore. Regional at best. There are moderate Republicans in the Senate who will be a more reliable vote for Obama's policies BECAUSE they want to survive as Republicans than we can ever assume Lieberman will be! They at least see which way the political winds are blowing. Take Lieberman's gavel at the least and let Joe do what is best for Joe. Democrats have to do what is best for Obama.

red_dwarf · 1 year ago

Well said. And I think the question might be asked, what protection does Joe the Traitor afford the Bush criminal white house after the whimp leaves? I'd like to know that answer.

Wolfsinger · 1 year ago

That's a VERY important question. We've seen Lieberman blow off the Katrina investigation flying in the face of Waxman's house committee and very much to the liking of the Bush administration. The people of New Orleans have had to fend for themselves in crappy FISA trailers and watch as Republicans buy up all the former properties of Katrina victims as a result. How is this a good thing? Why should anyone want him to continue and WHY is it considered revenge taking his gavel away from him as a result of his (Lieberman's) decisions?

Joe's gavel is FAR too important to leave in his hands on the off chance that he MIGHT vote the President Elects agenda much less take up issues important to healing this country. I am convinced that one of the reasons that Lieberman and the Christian right Republicans smeared Obama and played the fear card so hard this time out is because they want to STAY OUT OF JAIL.

mamazboy · 1 year ago

With luck this loathsome little Judas will be tossed out of the Senate entirely by the sensible folks in Connecticut next go-round.

marxtone · 1 year ago

Totally with MG on this. I want successful votes on the Obama agenda and if we have to rely on the hunchback in the bell tower to tip it, I'm okay with that. Karma will not be instant with LIEberman, but it will be.

An_American_Karol · 1 year ago

I will never trust Lieberman. Take his chairmanship, and if he votes in the Republican caucus, let the people in Conn. deal with him.

Wolfsinger · 1 year ago

And another thing...Why is it "revenge" to remove Lieberman's gavel? He made his political bed when he turned his back on Obama when he (Obama) helped Lieberman in his Senate race.

He stood with Republicans and smeared the President Elect and the Democratic party. Lieberman CHOSE to do these things. Joe is a self serving politician who knows the risks he took when he campaigned for McCain.

Why are we even spending time on this issue? Lieberman took a political risk and he LOST. Don't reward that and don't defend it either.

BRob · 1 year ago

While I respect Reader MG's position, I would point out the following which militate unquestionably in favor of removing Lieberman from his chairmanship:1. The Palestine-Israel conflict is one of the major sources of violence in the world. It is imperative that Obama bring the US to the table as an honest broker--a position which is untenable to Lieberman; 2. As chrm of a powerful committee, he has condoned the lawlessness of the Bush admr (e.g. torture, FISA, telecom immunity)--issues which are high on the list of matters to be CHANGED, 3 His so-called bipartisan emphasis applies only when the Dems surrender to the Repub position. 4. To get the 60 votes, Repubs like Chuck Hagel, are much more likely to support the Dems than Lieberman on issues of war, the Middle East, and civil liberties. Lieberman's comment during the campaign that Obama puts self ahead of lhis country borders on the unforgivable. I urge everyone to read Glenn Greenwald's comments in Salon (11/12/08) "The Democrats of 2002 and 2007 Haven't Gone Anywhere." and Jane Hamsher's The Case Against Lieberman" in Firedog Lake (11/10/08). Those articles list the examples of outrageous conduct by a Senator who pleaded with Obama in 2006 to come to CT and promote his cause when the Democratic party had chosen a different candidate and Lieberman had to run as an Independent. He is not a trustworthy member of the team.. Are we a party of CHANGE? Not if Lieberman has a voice in it!! Rob

dad · 1 year ago

OK ... try this. Forget about his political treason.

What has joe lieberman done in his leadership role?

Anyone?

Wolfsinger · 1 year ago

Well...He (Lieberman) blew off the Katrina investigation. That wasn't a life or death problem or anything so certainly that was good (NOT)

red_dwarf · 1 year ago

Protected the Bush administration, pissed on the Constitution. We could go on.

dad · 1 year ago

we've fought for Change but we are going to accept joe?

doesn't get more same than that

Steve_in_CNJ · 1 year ago

ha. there's your message. liebersame must go. excellent.

Poopyman · 1 year ago

I can't believe you people who think that having 60 votes magically means party unity. Every Dem senator now knows that there are no repercussions for going against the party line, and every one of them knows that it just takes one vote with the republican bloc to block cloture.

There's no party unity on the Democrat side now, and there will be less of it if Lieberman keeps his chair.

Not that I have a personal stake in Homeland Security. I work in the DC-Baltimore corridor in one of the more high-profile targets, so thanks very much for letting the work of the Senate HSC slide, folks.

red_dwarf · 1 year ago

I have never seen the Dems vote as a block on anything. What makes anyone think that 60 members will vote "together" is beyond me. However, I do remember an argument being made earlier in the week in which the 60 members account for other advantages, not bearing on the event of all 60 voting together on some bill. So, as long as there is an advantage up and beyond all 60 voting together I'd say keep the rat on board [but as CarolAl points out above, at the price of advertising our weakness]. If the 60 is only advantageous if all members "vote together" then this whole thing is a red herring. W.r.t. Joe, he's already trashed his legacy - let him eat a little crow in what time he has left.

SkippyFlipjack · 1 year ago

What's the advantage? Is it a rules-based one, or just the idea that you don't really need 60 votes to kill a filibuster, since filibusters are rarely practiced; you just need the threat of being able to break one?

MNUSA · 1 year ago

You're right. There are the blue dogs, the yellow dogs and all the other dogs.

CarolAl · 1 year ago

Imagine the power Lieberman will have if he is the 60th vote. He'll expect Dems to woo his votes, but I doubt he'll come through. The Traitor from CT can't be trusted. He is a sheep in wolf's clothing. His 2008 campaign sins were outrageous and unforgiveable.

Lieberman was an ineffective Chairman anyway. As Chairman he supported the Bush Republicans by failing to investigate executive sins. If he is left in that post, he will become a stronger Republican ally. He'll be the Democrat who will lead the fight against Obama every step of the way.

If Lieberman retains the chairmanship, Dems will be cast as whimps. There will be no glory in being gracious; the fight has not yet begun. It's time to mean business!

Remove McCain's lapdog from the Chairmanship. Keep him in the caucus and let him swing in the wind for a while. Send a strong message to future traitors and force Lieberman to decide whose side he is really on.

red_dwarf · 1 year ago

"If Lieberman retains the chairmanship, Dems will be cast as whimps."

CarolAl - I would have to agree. To advertise that you are weak is not good policy in a contact sport. Also, I would like someone to clarify why having 60 is critical. Like I said below, if it means 60 Dems voting as a "block" - if this is an argument - I don't see it.

Wolfsinger · 1 year ago

Brilliant! Well said.

BobinBC · 1 year ago

Thank you for that perspective. I suspect that this will wind its way to a conclusion to one extreme, or the other, or somewhere in between. There is another perspective that I think is lost. What about all those Senators who stood up for Barak Obama? What about all those Senators who fought for and defended Democratic Party principles? I guess we forget about them as we argue about whether a Senator who supported neither should be rewarded for his actions. In short, were I a senator, I guess the lesson learned is that you get more reward to opposing the President and/or the Democratic party initiatives than you do for being loyal. Are the 60 votes that important. Not any more because the Democratic Senators are learning that loyalty is not rewarded so they will oppose those initiatives. What we need is a united party to pass progressive policies. I am not sure that this is the best way to get there.

That having been said, I will support whatever the outcome but I believe there are lots of negative implications that may overwhelm the positive ones.

EmGD · 1 year ago

He's a self-centered ass who thrives on attention. What way is he going to get that attention, by acting like a rational adult or by sandbagging his supposed buddies because his "...conscience can't allow blah blah blah"? I think we know the answer to that one. There's absolutely no chance of Lieberman acting like anything other then he is: a slimy opportunist who can only get a boner by claiming the failure of Democrats to rise to some mythical moral and ethical high ground that only he can reach.

http://thesebastards.blogspot.com/

MoonDragon · 1 year ago

My source on most things Obama (a relatively knowledgeable member of the Illinois state gov) leads me to think Obama is a much tougher, down and dirty, savvy player than appears on the surface. One doesn't survive Chicago politics by practicing Kumbaya on the kids' Ronco Karaoke microphone. I think MG may be on to something.

freshpaint · 1 year ago

Exactly. Springfield political scene is filthy. Chicago politics worse. Obama has both screwed allies and been screwed by them. He gets it, whether we like this view of him or not. He's often been painted as an armchair, elite librul professor type, but that's not how Chicago works. Dick Durbin is the same way, which is why they get along so well. They are reality-based individuals.

Poopyman · 1 year ago

I just got an email from Al Gore asking for money for the DSCC to fight for the AK, MN, and GA seats, and I deleted it.

You know, it occurs to me that a lot of the rationale for keeping Joe in the caucus evaporates if one or more of those seats are lost. And it just might make the dem caucus a lot more focused if they have to fight for one or two extra votes. Like I said below, the dems aren't going to be united with 59+Joe anyhow.

It might not be such a bad thing.

jebauer · 1 year ago

Totally what my views are that I expressed yesterday... thank you.

RonThompson · 1 year ago

I don't know where Evan Bayh and MG got the idea that Liebermamn can be replaced in the middle of the 111th Congress if the Democrats choose to do so, but I don't think that's correct.
It's my understanding that the Senate adopts an organizing resolution at the beginning of each Congress, assigning committee posts and chairs. To change that during the 111th Congress would require passage of a motion, which would be subject to a filibuster, and there would not, at present, be 60 votes to invoke cloture if Lieberman and all the Republicans oppose it. Lieberman can be expelled from the caucus by a majority vote among Democrats, but there's no way he will be removed as Committee Chair once the Senate has approved a resolution appointing him to that position.

dad · 1 year ago

if lieberman cared about "the agenda" or the Democratic Party he wouldn't be holding it hostage.

fools.

Ferdiad · 1 year ago

Right on Dad. This isn't a "well thought" out view at all. It is just more of the same Leibercon defending. I am sure John and Kos are getting a lot of heat from the Liebercon supporters to back off a bit. Why, because his supporters control the agenda, not Obama. I am absolutely amazed at how ridiculous these people sound that are defending keeping Leiberman in his Chairmanship. The entire point is that he should be removed because he DOES NOT support the agenda and HAS NOT supported the agenda. I love how everyone all the sudden knows what Obama is thinking. This is pure politics people. Liebercon has a lot of well connected and wealthy friends. If this was anyone else, they would be gone. Obama isn't keeping Liebercon on because Obama has some masterplan to Liebercon to work for Obama, he is keeping him on because Obama is being told to do so. Lets see, Rahm, Liebercon, Hillary as Secretary of State, Larry Summers as Secretary of Treasury, hmmm, isn't brain surgery people. Obama is NOT running the show.

vwcat · 1 year ago

The writer pretty much sums up what I am thinking. Why dump Lieberman when he owes Obama his political lifeline right now. He will vote for Obama's agenda and like it.
Just as Obama may pick Hillary for calculating reasons. To have her out of the senate obstructing his agenda to beef up her profile and plotting against him or make her Sec. of state and keep her and Bill out of the country for large periods of time smoozing with world leaders. Soothes her ego and raises her profile to get some camera time and keeps her busy and out of Obama's hair.
So, with Lieberman, throw him precious committee assignment and keep him around and out of trouble whispering with republicans to plot against Obama. His ass is now owned.
I agree that Obama could care less about how Lieberman really feels about him. Just as long as he votes with him. And Rahm will be around to kick him if he forgets he owes Obama.

franzibear · 1 year ago

I think it ultimately isn't about 60 votes. I feel like Obama knows that this would be a distraction from the agenda he wants to lay forth and, since Lieberman is the type of heel who would only go down kicking and screaming, retribution is ultimately not worth the trouble at this early stage -- a play on the idiom "you're not worth the trouble." It's certainly not worth even the minimal mileage Republicans could get out of such an episode and Lieberman's big mouth.

If he loses his chairmanship, he has nothing to lose. If he keeps his chairmanship, HE is the one in the difficult position, twisting in the wind. Revenge is a dish best served COLD.

MNUSA · 1 year ago

I agree. It's important to pick your battles. Booting Lieberman out may satisfy the need for revenge and punishment, but how will it further the progressive agenda? I wonder why Al Gore picked Lieberman as his running mate. Lieberman was more effective attacking Obama than he was attacking Bush/Cheney.

ahaque · 1 year ago

Lieberman lost the election for Gore. This was Gore's single biggest mistake and I hold him responsible for imposing Bush on the world.

burro · 1 year ago

If HoJo stays, he obeys. Or else.

barkleyg · 1 year ago

I do not like LIEberman. That said, I think this sentence from the article says it all:

"Well, he won by being way smarter than us and them. And I think we have to let Obama do his thing, and so far he has shown himself to be extraordinary at what he does. If he wants Lieberman, I'm with him."

Nothing pissed me off more during the election than when people( you know, the annonymous people we hang our rumors on) said that Palin was more Experienced than Obama. Once and for all, enough of that BS. This campaign, all 22+ months of it, has shown that Obama might not be the 'most' experience, but he is the MOST experienced when you measure the results of that experience.

Obama beat the best the Clintons could throw at him, and he beat the biggest slime machine of the all, McSHAME by running a superior campaign in both execution and thoroughness.

All of that said, if Obama wants Lieberman in the caucus, I WANT Lieberman in the caucus. Obama seems to see things with more insight than most of us, and I'll go with his instincts until I see them proven wrong.

Wolfsinger · 1 year ago

Right. Sure. Leave Lieberman where he is. Watch him crowned "King 60 Vote" and after he kicks the President Elects agenda in the teeth, watch the Democrats weep and wail about his treachery. Like they didn't see that coming.

I can see the headlines now. "Obama's Agenda derailed from within." "Lieberman votes with Republicans. Honey moon is over and Lieberman is in charge. Republicans empowered. Thank him for principled vote." Have the Dems lost their way?

Good grief!

pcvirginiabeach · 1 year ago

"Not sure what to do"... WHATEVER. WHERE THE HELL IS REID. This is a damn joke, and Reid should have had this worked out long ago... "my friends".

freshpaint · 1 year ago

I agree with this assessment 100 percent. Leave him where he is and watch him sweat. He can be disciplined as needed. The guy is now freeking out that the butter is on the other side of the bread but he still wants the whole loaf.

Obama was not born yesterday (nor was Rahm). O has come up thru the filthy world of Illinois politics, where grudges are monumental and well-understood. If people think he's a political neophyte, they have a lot to learn. And they may not like to see an "impure" Obama. That's just tough. He really is his own man, and has disappointed us with some of his votes as a Senator, since he understands stuff like vote swapping, etc. in pursuit of the big picture.

How he handles Lieberman (and McCain, to a lesser extent) will be a really good test of what his administration will be like. He's going to want to do an awful lot as quickly as possible, and will need to buy allies with chairmanships, if necessary. He's quite good at this.

pcvirginiabeach · 1 year ago

"Every Senator will have to vote the way he or she believes they should," Leahy said, in a reference to the upcoming vote on Lieberman's fate in the Dem caucus next week. "I'm one who does not feel that somebody should be rewarded with a major chairmanship after doing what he did."

"I felt some of the attacks that he was involved in against Senator Obama...went way beyond the pale," Leahy continued. I thought they were not fair, I thought they were not legitimate, I thought they perpetuated some of these horrible myths that were being run about Senator Obama."

"I would feel that had I done something similar," Leahy concluded, "that I would not be chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the next Congress."

Pat Leahy, Vermont

Wolfsinger · 1 year ago

Rock On! Senator Leahy!

cowboyneok · 1 year ago

Well, well, well... I am a sucker for a well thought out logical argument.

Good job, "MG!" I think you've swayed my mind on this subject.

cowboyneok · 1 year ago

My biggest argument to not punishing Lieberman is we have to have party unity if we are going to fight with the magic 60 votes. If we can't count on all Democrats to be disciplined then it doesn't matter how many Dems we have in our caucus, they will be wandering off on their own agenda and we won't be able to get to 60 when necessary. I want to see some kind of substantial punishment for Lieberman with the warning it will happen to other Democrats if they don't adhere to party discipline.

Ferdiad · 1 year ago

Liebercon is a conservative, plain and simple. Why not just convince Specter to caucus with the Dems and give him the Chairmanship? It is the same logic. OMG, what is wrong with you people. For those that disagree, someone just tell me one thing you agree with that Liebercon has done? Just tell me one policy position. You can't say "jobs and healthcare." Try and be a little more insightful.

Besides, to those making the whole "Obama is smart and playing politics," isn't that exactly what he ran against doing?

Schmedlap · 1 year ago

The implicit assumption in all the 60 vote discussions is that 60 votes means 60 Democrats. How often did the Republicans or Democrats vote as a bloc? Frankly, I'd rather have 59 votes, have the traitor gone and try for a vote or two from Republicans. Fat chance Lieberman will vote against Obama on most issues. Lieberman is in terrible political trouble in Connecticut right now and voting against Obama will only make it worse. If he goes, he goes. The Democratic base would like to see some courage from the Dems for a change.

LanceThruster · 1 year ago

Why would a Senator who said he was afraid for America should the Democrats gain a filibuster proof majority be counted on for anything? You show some 'tough love' now and maybe the next time old Joey boy wants to stab his former party in the back he'll think twice about it. As it stands, the Dems show about as much firm guidance as Homer Simpson shows Bart.

Homer: All right Bart, that's it! Go to your room! Now!
Bart: Okay, I'll take some white meat and stuffing to go, and
send up the pumpkin pie in about 20 minutes.

socal · 1 year ago

Lets be honest about this. The "60 vote" proof Senate is a myth. Just like the 2006 election when Dems promised big changes with a majority. Won't happen and didn't happen. Does anyone seriously think Dems would ever vote as a bloc on any serious issue? Really?
These Senators http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=25006... have a different agenda. Like their Blue-dog counterparts in the House, they vote much more like and with the Repugs.
Hopefully no one is holding their breath for a 60-vote fillibuster proof Senate.
Kick Lieberman out, now.

CruzBustamove · 1 year ago

Well, we agree on one thing. Lieberman IS an asshole.