Same old Joe. The "partisanship" argument is such a dodge. There's been a lot chatter out there about the weakness of the Senate. I guess. But what I see here is the incredible weakness Joe Lieberman shows in this video. His defense of that "Is Barack Obama a Marxist" crap is, coincidentally, Clintonesque. He dodges, hedges, reframes and recasts, but never head-up addresses the question, "Was I wrong?" "Should I have answered that question differently?" I'll never understand what a man like that has to lose by saying "You know I was wrong to say that, I should have said xxxxx." I went over this with Ayers, but people who express a fake regret, who can't actually publicly and honestly say where they were wrong display a certain dishonor. He can't man up. It's sad. But as always, I really believe that's on him--not Obama.
It's also amazing how "ending the partisanship" is always code for "I am right" when Lieberman is speaking, like crossing party-lines is somehow, in and of itself, valuable. Lieberman is an opportunist of the highest order. I understand why they didn't take him down yesterday--it really isn't Obama's way. My man is focused on getting shit done--I really believe that--not meting out justice. But there is a time and place for meting out justice. 2012. Connecticut.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
He's the reason I voted for Nader in 2000. (In Massachusetts, OK? I'm not a total dork.)
Not returning Lieberman to the Homeland Security Committee chair is not inconsistent with getting shit done.
I'm not saying Barack will be a bad president but this is an issue where he was just wrong. And if Barack can't be wrong and we're going to rationalize every mistake he makes, if instead of being weak, he's focusing on getting shit done then Barack has been transformed in our minds into something more than human.
He was wrong on FISA, he's wrong here. I'm not even saying either is a big deal, but I'm more comfortable saying he's wrong but I still like him than trying to come up with a way to make everything he does right.
"Not returning Lieberman to the Homeland Security Committee chair is not inconsistent with getting shit done."
That was a triple negative. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around your point.
My take on it stacy is that....kicking Lieberman out of HSC IS getting shit done...like taking out the garbage is getting shit done. But then again, i'm my own man, i think for myself, like many other Bama-supporters!
My interpretation -- "Not returning Lieberman [...] is or can be consistent wth getting shit done," I believe.
I'm seriously tempted to move to Connecticut to be part of rectifying this matter. I could commute.
Jack, I completely agree about admitting when Obama is wrong (at least to you). I like and support him but would hate to be like so many Bush supporters were, defending him no matter what.
But I feel like Lieberman isn't a huge deal, don't know why.
Oh, don't worry. Connectiquois are chomping at the bit to get Lieberman GONE.
Stacy, if you can recognize a triple negative, then you know enough to figure out what it means. Honestly.
I'm not saying Lieberman is a huge deal, but this is not a case of Obama focusing on getting shit done. It is a case of Obama avoiding confrontation, and doing so in a way that he isn't officially on the record, avoiding confrontation again.
That's a bad thing. That's a weak thing. Not that there was anyone better running but even though I'm glad Obama is president, he's acting weak right now.
I understand Obama is trying to mend fences and reach out to all kinds of people. Obama obviously wants to get some real work done in Washington. Still, Lieberman is a pathetic figure, unrepentant as George W. Bush for his mistakes. Let's hope that we don't hear a whole lot more from Lieberman for awhile.
"Connectiquois" is my new favorite word.
This is probably the negative side of having an intellectual mind instead of a knee-jerk reactionary in the WH. I realize I may be oversimplifying things but this is the effect of actually thinking things through before one does something...im not sure im used to it yet....
Keep you friends close, your enemies closer! Lieberman is a dead senator wlaking, and he doesn't know it!
I agree, Joe is weak. Like a lot of them up there on Capitol Hill. It's a kindergarten---from hell. So much corruption (yet we think we're so clean and pure). At least that's what our corrput senators tell us: No corrpution here. The truth is, we don't have strong leaders. I can think of only a handful of senators that I believe have an inkling of conscience; Byrd is one. I love that poor old tiger. When I compare him to Joe (Or Hilz---the lot of them) I realize how bad it's become. Hopefully things will change.
Looking to Washington to fix Washington is troubling. One needs to look no farther than the Lieberman debacle as a microcosm of this fear. Why do Democrats consistently feel that they don't have to exercise party discipline only to discard it to reach for the "holy mantle" of bipartesenship? When, in the last eight years, have the Republicans ever reached for this cloak? When, in the last eight years, have the Democrats exercised party discipline? (I can think of exactly two occasions: Social Security and John Bolton). So here we have our Democrats securing their mandate and trying to build momentum for change with penalizing a disloyal and incompetent Chair of an important committee (how many DHS/FEMA hearings have we had to fix the Katrina debacle?) by removing two minor sub-committee chairmanships. Holy Joe, the Sanctimonious Scold of America, then spins this as a new policy to get young blood involved in the legislative process. If Joe were a Republican, at the very least, he would be punished by cleaning the Senate toilets with his toothbrush.
This may seem small in the greater scheme of things, but it isn't. 84% of Americans feels dissatisfied about the direction of our country. The reason we got so screwed up is because the President and the Congress marched in lock-step for eight years. We need to swing that pendulum hard the other way. This calls for far more than cosmetic changes. We need some discipline going the other way to adress this structurally.
"I'm not a member any organized political party, I'm a Democrat." - Will Rogers
TNR pointed out that letting Lieberman get off easy also scores points with moderate Republicans like McCain and Lindsey Graham. Health care and energy are going to be really really tough to pass: Obama will need every vote he can get from either side of the aisle. (Along these lines, see also the Waxman vs. Dingell battle in the House.)
Reagan once said that it's amazing what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit. I see a similar pragmatic streak in Obama. He doesn't care how "tough" he looks, he cares whether he can get his agenda passed. If the velvet glove works, great, but the iron fist is there if needed.
He beat the Chicago machine, he beat the Clinton machine, and he beat the Republican machine. Maybe it's time to give him a little credit for political savvy?
TNC,
You're letting your dislike for Lieberman miss what happened. Obama saved Lieberman, and now Lieberman is in his pocket.
But you want him to apologize in a particular way? Who cares, Lieberman is back on the team.
Obama has trapped this transparently egotistical, vapid piece of political trash naked in the cold out of doors. Lieberman's next move for relevance and political survival was to react to be thrown out of the caucus "for speaking his mind." Now, he has no raison d'être whatsoever. And if he acts like a punk, he's doing so in the face of all the leeway he's been granted.
I would never have thought of this move, but it seems the political equivalent of a midnight assault by the Navy SEALS.
"Clintonesque" - no other way you could describe it?
Not saying you have to love the Clintons, and I know a lot of your readers don't, but the continual stray anti-Clinton knocks are tiresome. Your guy won, you know. If you're interested in getting things done, not sure it helps to keep beating the drum against the Clintons. The case against them has been more than made, and it seems to me increasingly not in the interest of our side going forward to continue to beat down the last semi-successful Dem presidency in many decades, as well as probably the second-most important Dem politician alive.
I'm not saying it's a particularly active part of your blog, but somehow it's all the more annoying as a continually recurring stream of minor (and seemingly relatively thoughtless) toss offs. It'd be one thing if it were original, but it's just a tiresome adaptation of old right-wing stuff that was suddenly handy for a segment of the left during the primaries. Maybe it's time to recheck the thought process on the Clintons.
Again, whatever, not trying to word police you, but that's my feedback as one reader.
Uh, Rhonan? I think we just elected a guy who spent two years saying that Republican-style hyperpartisanship is the problem. *You* may want to see the Democrats shove their mandate down the throats of their opponents, but the vast majority of voters don't.
Katherine,
I hope that you are correct and that the velvet glove/forgive and forget approach will work. I am just supremely doubtful that it will. Your assumption is predicated on the fact that our opponents are rational beings. I have seen how Washington has operated over the past sixteen years, and I don’t see it. From Whitewater, to the Iraq War, to the Military Commission Act, I have lived this story. I know what is going to happen when Charlie Brown goes to kick the football. A recent example of good faith bipartisanship I can recall when Tom Daschle tried to reach across the aisle? Remember how well that worked out for him and for our country?
The constant hyperpartisenship line I recall was not continually uttered by Obama, rather by Lieberman as he continued to stab Obama in the back.
And finally, I don’t know what “vast majority of voters” you are writing about. According to the most recent Hartford Courant poll, 70% of Connecticut residents are unhappy with the way the Senate handled Lieberman – 30% approved. I’m not talking about shoving anything down anyone’s throat. I’m writing about changing the disastrous policies of the last eight years and moving forward in a progressive direction that will benefit out country.
Obama helped save Lieberman once before by campaigning for him in 2006. Lieberman still stabbed Obama and the rest of the party in the back this year. I don't see any reason to believe Joe won't play ingrate again if he feels like it.
Here's the thing: Obama has Lieberman by the balls. If he supported booting him from the HSC chairmanship, ol' Joe would have a chance to regroup with the other side.
Keep your friends close, enemies closer, etc.
Yes, Lieberman stabbed Obama in the back after Obama had helped him in 2006. And look how weak he now looks after having done that. Also, let's not forget the episode where Obama pulled Lieberman aside on the Senate floor during the campaign and had a private chat with him. It seemed an almost physical act of intimidation. I don't think Obama is afraid of him at all. Maybe because Lieberman has no political base of power any more. He is just an empty shell at this point, despite his high and mighty chairmanship.
"I don't see any reason to believe Joe won't play ingrate again if he feels like it."
Joe isn't going to have the opportunity.
"Lieberman still stabbed Obama and the rest of the party in the back this year."
That implies that he dealt a serious blow to Obama and the rest of the party. But Obama and Party won in a landslide. Lieberman didn't stab anyone in the back, he merely pelted them with spitballs. Perspective, people.
And I agree with Joel.
I am late getting to this thread and for that I am sorry, but I think that Coates you have yourself this day played the "Barack the Magical Negro" card by saying keeping that slimeball Joe Lieberman as HSC is "getting shit done". For that statement to be true Joe Lieberman would have to feel both remorse and a sense of indebtedness to Obama. He feels neither as he expressed on the record yesterday. So how exactly is keeping a guy in a chairmanship that he hasn't earned and doesn't deserve qualify as getting shit done? Mind you when Bush would keep incompetent azzholes in the their positions instead of firing them we would all pitch a fit. But now that Obama is endorsing doing the exact same thing we are trying to frame it as "Change".
Actually its boils down to more of the same. Don't believe me??? Here is the test. Answer this question honestly. "Does Joe Lieberman deserve to be chairman of the Homeland Security Committee on Government Affairs based on both his past performance and his campaigning for the opposition this year?" If you can't answer that with an unequivocal yes then it is INDEED more of the same Bush like cronyism that we all claim to hate. By the way I pointed this out in two different posts of my own. Not trying to pub my stuff but I also am not trying to write a book in this thread. So if you want to see my rationale in more detail for why this move was NOT change we can believe in go to this post
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/18/8249/5873/416/662662
And here is my post about Lieberman laughing at the Dems the very next day after they let him keep his gavel
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/20/91650/621/72/664039
In closing Harry Reid has shown he is a spineless chump (shout out to Congressman Cummings) and the rest of the caucus followed suit. Please don't get your feelings hurt thinking that jackass Lieberman is going to now turn all progressive on us in gratitude for not taking his gavel. Hell if you click on my links you will see that the guy says unequivocally that the Dems did not punish him at all. Seriously. So what exactly is going to "motivate" him to step in line? Absolutely nothing. I tried to shield Obama from blame in that decision but the truth is if Obama was responsible then this is officially the first dumbazz move of his Presidency. Hopefully it will be the last for a long time.
Now. He doesn't have the opportunity now.
I agree that we should have some perspective, but this perspective needs to extend beyond the warm and fuzzy afterglow of the election. Things aren't always going to be peaches and cream and if Senator Sanctimonious feels that there is some attention to be gained down the line by making noise about something, do you honestly think he won't? As for taking away the gavel then? Just wait to hear the outcry that will accompany that. It will be a mess, and we will reflect back on this period now and kick ourselves. Trust me, he is not the chastizable type.
The incentives are all wrong. Lieberman should have been stripped of both chairmanships and Harry Reid should have been responsible for it. He's the leader of the Senate, for chrissake, not Obama. You can't let members be insubordinate and not expect the others to pull the same antics. Even worse, it now looks like they are kowtowing to Lieberman. They are just asking for a leadership crisis.
Rhonan: I'm thinking of the voters who have been kicking moderate Republicans out of office for the last two elections, precisely because of their lockstep obedience to the radical wing of their party. I'm thinking of the moderate Republicans who voted for Obama--in spite of serious doubts about his policies--because they were repulsed by the McCain campaign. I'm remembering that every time McCain unleashed a new attack, *McCain's* poll numbers went down. And I'm remembering that the speech that catapulted Obama onto the national stage in the first place was all about how the things we have in common are more important than the things that divide us. I don't think there's any evidence whatsoever that Obama has a mandate for the DeLay-style bare-knuckled enforcement of party discipline that you seem to admire.
If the citizens of Connecticut want Lieberman punished, they need to talk to Chris Dodd. Their other Senator helped rally the pro-Lieberman forces. As for the rest of the country, I would say they mostly couldn't care less. As I see it, the American people want their government to quit squabbling and get to work on the problems facing the country.
As for the rest of the country, I would say they mostly couldn't care less
Posted by Katherine
Thats simply not true. Maybe the rest of REPUBLICANS don't care but if you go to any progressive/liberal website right now you will see how wrong you are. And I am not talking about far left wing sites. Thinkprogress.org, Crooks and Liars, Open Left, Huffington Post, Firedoglake are all progressive websites where thousands of people are expressing their supreme displeasure with how the Senate Democrats handled Lieberman. The problem is people have been sold this 60 vote myth that all the Dems need is 60 Democrats or something close and a few Republicans and they will be able to push all of their agenda through. But in the last two years Lieberman has shown himself to be unreliable on many of those crucial votes. And there are many Democratic Senators like Ben Nelson and Claire McCaskill who are horrible when it comes to voting with the party on progressive issues. But the 60 vote meme is really meant to cover Harry Reid's ass. By allowing Lieberman to do all he has done AND be a crappy HS chairman and still keep that chair thats a clear signal to the other "Blue Dog Dems" that they can vote however they want because truly, what will happen to them if they don't? And I GUARANTEE you that when the Dems dont pass their grand agenda all of America will be concerned!
Markos of the dailykos represented for the progressive blogosphere today on MSNBC. Kinda ruined their "Crazy Leftist Liberal" caricature of him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VCtoiPawX0
Doesn't this vote just keep Lieberman in his committee for the lame duck session, during which they still need him for 50?
I'm pretty sure they entirely reorganize the whole senate in January, when the new freshmen are sworn in. They can still take it from him then.
If Obama needs things done it is he needs a vote not someone whom has repeatedly stabbed him in the back. As the scorpion said to the frog mid- stream, its in my nature. No guarantee he'll get it.
When I walk in hell for the murderous things I've done, it will not be on the level reserved for kapo traitors.
Doesn't this vote just keep Lieberman in his committee for the lame duck session, during which they still need him for 50?
I'm pretty sure they entirely reorganize the whole senate in January, when the new freshmen are sworn in. They can still take it from him then.
Posted by wendy
No Wendy, Lieberman now has that chair for at least 2 more years. They only way they can strip him is by a vote of the full Senate including Republicans. And it would be subject to filibuster. Basically the Dems have no leverage over him anymore so if he goes back to being bat sh!t crazy they just have to grin and bear it. Thats why most people recognize what a dumbazz move this was by the Dems
sgwhiteinfla: Liberal and progressive blog readers/posters are not a majority of the country. Sorry. They aren't even a majority of Obama's general election supporters.
"Thousands of people expressing their displeasure?" Obama got nearly 67 million votes nationally. I would bet money that the vast majority of those (outside Connecticut) don't even know who Lieberman is, much less care whether he keeps his chairmanship.
Yes, millions of people will care if Obama can't pass his agenda. Obama is clearly betting that forgiving Lieberman will help him more than it hurts him. Given he's been right on almost every political calculation he's made for the last two years, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
sgwhiteinfla: Liberal and progressive blog readers/posters are not a majority of the country. Sorry. They aren't even a majority of Obama's general election supporters.
"Thousands of people expressing their displeasure?" Obama got nearly 67 million votes nationally. I would bet money that the vast majority of those (outside Connecticut) don't even know who Lieberman is, much less care whether he keeps his chairmanship.
Yes, millions of people will care if Obama can't pass his agenda. Obama is clearly betting that forgiving Lieberman will help him more than it hurts him. Given he's been right on almost every political calculation he's made for the last two years, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by Katherine
Here is the point that you are missing, those liberal bloggers who don't seem to mean much to you were also a substantial majority of the grassroots and netroots efforts of the Obama campaign that helped to get those 67 million voters to the polls for him. They were also instrumental in raising money for down ticket Democrats as well. If the liberal bloggers arent important I wonder why Howard Dean got on a conference call with 4 of the biggest liberal bloggers in order to try to smooth over the situation on Tuesday. That being the Howard Dean that engineered the 50 state strategy which helped Obama pull joff his historic victory. I guess he just likes wasting his time huh? Why are Dems like incoming freshman Senator from Oregon Jeff Merkley and NY Governer Paterson all frequent posters at dailykos? Have you noticed that one of the major reasons that the Republicans keep pointing to as why they didn't do well the last two cycles is that they haven't learned how to maximize the internet yet?? You can dismiss this all you want but it flies in the face of reality. Just how do you think all of those anti prop 8 demonstrations that went on last weekend were orchestrated??? Thats power. And the reality is the liberal/progressive blogosphere was in fact instrumental in getting Obama and many other Democrats that you probably never heard of elected this year and if they pull back their support its going to hurt the Dems severely in 2010.
Katherine,
You seem like a very nice person, and we will have to agree to disagree. The fact that you believe that the majority of Americans don’t recognize Joe Lieberman doesn’t do anything to convince me that your view is valid. The point is that keeping him in this position needlessly endangers Obama’s policies down the line. It isn’t something that I “admire.” It is something that I have learned through history. If, as you believe, the country doesn’t care about Lieberman, than the Dems should have acted now to remove a potential threat. By allowing him to keep his soapbox, he will soon resurrect the squabbling that you so despise. That is what he does. It is his nature.
One last point, it would be a wonderful thing if your post-partisan view of the world was indeed accurate. I want to live in that world too, however, history tells me that this is not the case. Your view on the election turning on McCain’s negative campaigning ignores a pretty vitriolic Republican Convention that resulted in a huge Republican bounce and a lead. Palin’s speech was flat out nasty, and the polls responded. The election hinged on the economy and the public discovering the unseriousness of McCain because of his selection of Palin (post-Couric interview)
Time will tell whether Obama's decision on Lieberman was correct. Until we see how he actually votes, it's all speculation. The ultimate leverage lies with his constituents, who went for Obama by 20 points and fired Chris Shays, the last House Republican in New England.
As for the netroots, I don't deny that they helped put Obama where he is. I don't deny that the Internet has revolutionized American politics. But if the netroots have any sense at all, they'll make their 2010 decisions based on actual legislative successes (or failures), not internal political sausage making. If Obama (or Reid or Pelosi) allows liberal bloggers to micromanage every leadership decision between now and then, he'll end up making Carter look effective. The liberal bloggers can afford to make enemies. Obama can't: it's his job to get stuff done.
Basically, it was too early to pick this fight. I don't understand why Reid decided to take up this issue now vs after Jan 20. There was no way Obama was going to pick a controversy before the inauguration.
A controversy like kicking him out would have taken up a lot of time and then you would have had the media and the Lie-man on every show with his riduculeous statements and more lies to deal with.
Obama made the right call and now the Lie-man would remain on defense until the Obama admin decides to dump him after the inauguration.
Let's be a little more serious for a second. If Lieberman had lost the homeland security committee, I'd say Obama did the right thing. If Obama issued a statement that he thinks Lieberman should stay in the interests of post-partisanship, I'd say Obama did the wrong thing but in a courageous manner.
If Lieberman had lost the committee, everybody saying "getting shit done" requires leaving him on the committee now would be saying "getting shit done" requires taking him off the committee.
If Obama issued a statement that Lieberman should stay in the interests of post-partisanship, everyone defending Obama's decision to play this role behind the scenes would be supporting Obama's decision to publicly express his opinion.
Why go through this? Just say you are always going to say Obama is right and I'll respect that as much as I can. If right and wrong is based on what Obama does in your world, then what more can anyone possibly add once you've seen what Obama did?
Katherine,
Nice job. You managed to work two O'Reilly talking points (Carter and liberal bloggers!) into your last comment. Double Word Bonus for you.
I am not a liberal blogger. I am a pragmatist. "Obama can't afford to make enemies?" Here is a newsflash for you. Lieberman is an enemy! What more does the man have to do to convince you of that?
The sausage making is what gets things done in Washington. You can try to wish it away, but you ignore it at your own peril.
"Lieberman is an enemy!"
Why? What harm has he caused? There were other Democrats who signed onto the Military Commissions Act, you know. I don't believe Lieberman's endorsement meant anything, practically speaking.
My head's not in the current week's news cycle. Its in Spring, 2009. Lieberman is not going to obstruct Obama's economic or domestic legislation. And the Executive is so strong that Lieberman is individually helpless against Obama's initiatives re: foreign policy.
Anyway, I predict Obama is going to continue to frustrate a number of true liberals.
Kuros, I hope the sky is the same rosy color when you remove your head from it in the spring of 2009.
Are you going to argue that Carter was an effective president, Rhonan? As for liberal bloggers, they were first invoked by sgwhiteinfla, to whom I was responding.
Lieberman is not an enemy on domestic policy. Nor will he gratuitously become one if he wants to get re-elected in deep blue Connecticut. Obama's calculation is that he needs votes from Lieberman (and moderate Republicans) on domestic policy more than he needs to punish disloyalty that was ultimately harmless anyway.