http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/us/politics/19cong.html

This must really sting for those soapboxers that wanted to see Lieberman punished for daring to think outside the caucus.

Of course, even though I'm glad this will piss off "progressives", I may also have a new respect for Senate Democrats. Maybe this is a sign that they actually are willing to work with those they disagree with and that the partisanship of the past 8 years is over. Maybe they won't just try to cram their entire agenda down everyone's throat as quickly as they can.

Or, maybe it's just that most Democrats care more about subsidizing corn farms and union workers at GM than they do about homeland security (Lieberman's committee), so this really isn't a big deal.

I guess time will tell.

11/18/2008 2:34:24 PM

They need him to help reach that magic number of 60 in the Senate. Also, it wouldn't look so good for them to vindictively boot Lieberman after their presidential candidate won on a campaign of bipartisanship and unity.

I'm sure that they'll hold their tongues for now and quietly figure out a way to politically eliminate him when he comes up for reelection.

11/18/2008 3:26:46 PM

February '09: Department of Homeland Security disbanded. Component organizations. are reabsorbed into Department of Transportation, Dept of Defense, become their own entity, or are dissolved.

11/18/2008 4:08:37 PM

^ Heheh. I didn't think about that. That would be pretty funny.

11/18/2008 4:41:59 PM

Seriously, this should be a blog post.

11/18/2008 5:11:05 PM

Quote :

"Or, maybe it's just that most Democrats care more about subsidizing corn farms and union workers at GM keeping Team Blue in power than they do about homeland security (Lieberman's committee) anything else, so this really isn't a big deal."

...and the truth finally rolls in near the end.

11/18/2008 5:43:16 PM

or it might also have something to do with the fact that Obama has let all his Senate colleagues know that he does not want Lieberman punished. Better than 3-to-1 of senators agreed with him: the vote was 42 - 13

So it seems cooler heads prevailed. A spirit of bipartisanship and working together prevailing over politics of divisiveness -- or some such.

Because if you think about it, other than being a douchenozzle for Israel and McCain, Lieberman has generally been a solid supporter of most progressive policies.

and i think his apology was sufficient

Quote :

"Some of the statements, some of the things that people have said I said about Senator Obama, are simply not true. There are other statements that I made that I wish I had made more clearly, and there are some that I made that I wish I had not made at all. And obviously in the heat of campaigns, that happens to all of us, but I regret that and now it’s time to move on."

[Edited on November 18, 2008 at 7:43 PM. Reason : ]

11/18/2008 7:42:57 PM

Quote :

"douchenozzle for Israel"

to be fair, he is a practicing, though not totally observant Orthodox Jew.

11/18/2008 8:07:11 PM

being a Jew -- practising or otherwise -- does not mean you necessarily support various aspects of US foreign policy towards Israel, or Israel's actions on the international stage.

there's a broad spectrum.







[Edited on November 18, 2008 at 8:36 PM. Reason : ]

11/18/2008 8:32:09 PM

i know it's complex, ass

i'm just saying, he's more likely to support Israel, more blindly than most, by virtue of his heritage and religion.

[Edited on November 18, 2008 at 8:37 PM. Reason : it's not like I don't know any Palestinians..oh wait.]

11/18/2008 8:35:15 PM

eh, i edited my post to tone down the condesension. but, apparently too late.

11/18/2008 8:36:51 PM

what is he apologizing for exactly? not supporting Obama? seems weird to me. he shouldnt apologize because he favored one candidate over another.

11/19/2008 9:11:38 AM

In fairness, the guy actively campaigned for McCain, trashed Obama, and pimped some Republican challengers to Democratic Senators.

Which is all fine and good if you don't really care about holding committee chairmanships in a Democratic-lead Senate.

Otherwise, enter groveling.

11/19/2008 9:26:13 AM

i dont' know if i buy this. but here is one take (and i've heard a couple others say similar things):

Quote :

"One of the most important points about winning poker is counting your opponents' chips. Joe Lieberman is "small stacked" in chips and that's why Obama wants him at the table. How so? Because Obama will win those chips later on in the "game." Obama is a poker-player (and I'm sure that Lieberman is not). He knows "when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em." Trust me, he will call Lieberman's bluffing (actually, he'll have someone else call it) when it's time, when he needs the votes for important legislation, for example. And if Saint Joe starts to feel comfortable and begins to "bully the table" again, he'll get called and show his weak hand against, undoubtedly, Obama's winning hand. The President-elect hasn't missed a "read" yet; he knows he can play Lieberman for as long (or as short) as he wants to."

11/19/2008 10:41:00 AM

I don't know if the entire poker analogy is the best in this example, but it is true that Lieberman's going to owe Obama after this episode (not as if he would have done so regardless on most issues).

11/19/2008 11:08:03 AM

there's also this interpretation (highlights from http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/dear-democrats-if-you-must-blame-blame.html):

Quote :

"In our interview with him yesterday, Howard Dean dropped some very strong hints about what Obama is up to. We should expect him to be as methodical and meticulous about spending his political capital as he was about spending his advertising dollars and his ground game resources during the campaign. One can debate whether the Democratic caucus was more likely to achieve certain progressive policy outcomes with or without Lieberman in its ranks, but to Obama's mind, kicking him out would have been a giving both the Washington press corps and the Republicans a sort of shiny red apple, creating a huge distraction and requiring a significant expenditure of political capital. "

Quote :

"So how you feel about Lieberman should ultimately hinge on how you feel about Obama, and how you feel about Obama should ultimately hinge on your opinion about whether he is liable to put that political capital to good use."

11/19/2008 12:29:37 PM

i pretty much can't stand Lieberman. The sound of his voice and his flapping neck-skin nearly puts me off my lunch. And the angry partisan in me thinks he should be treated like a traitor: his unqualified support of Bush's foreign policy misadventures, and his subversion of the democratic primary in 2006 was enough for me.

but Obama rises above the petty vindictiveness of mean-spirited cranks like me. he shows us there is a larger purpose. Or, at least, a more subtle opening strategy.

in any event, I respect Obama's judgment more than i care about sticking it to old Lieberman.




[Edited on November 19, 2008 at 1:48 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2008 1:45:22 PM