I feel the same way about the idea certain people have of mounting primary challenges by more progressive candidates against conservative Democrats or Blue Dog Democrats. Unless those incumbent have done a really, really bad job, I don't think it's a risk worth taking to lose those seats just because they are deemed "not progressive enough". There's usually a reason why those candidates can win in those particular districts or states.

Sure, there's no point in having 60 or more Democrats if most of them are going to bolt and not vote with the party. But with a Democrat as President, I don't really see that happening all that often anymore. It is much easier, and tempting, to cross party line to prove ypur independe when you can claim that you want to support the President's agenda and get things done. It's harder to claim that you are crossing party line for noble reasons when you would be perceived as being obstructive to the President's agenda. In other words, I expect that those conservative and Blue Dogs Dems will hew closer to the party line this time around.

The interests of any particular state and those of the entire progressive caucus may overlap significantly but they are still different concerns after all. If they had wanted to do anything about Lieberman, they had their chance. It was really a situation that I really believe could have been handled with a minimum of muss and fuss if Reid had decided to simply show some leadership. I realize that there is some evidence that Obama probably tied his hands in that respect.

Either way this was really his decision and it was his chance to establish how Democrats were going to roll going forward. That is, he could have established that there would be a price to pay for openly working against the progressive agenda. Well, chances are they won't get another chance with Lieberman and I suspect they will very much regret it. I sure hope I am wrong.

There's a censure vote in just under 3 weeks on the CT Democratic Party board -- a vote that is in a lot of ways a proxy vote for renominating Lieberman next time out -- and Obama's move has really damaged the hand of the "dump Joe" crew.

The bigger question is, what happens when Lieberman runs as an independent? Will the Democrats actually stand by their party nominee? Or am I being naive for even asking these questions, knowing full well that Democrats will never ever ever not in a thousand years want to hurt Saint Joe's feeling by, you know, SUPPORTING THEIR OWN PARTY's NOMINEE.

If we get somebody into the majority leader's seat who actually has some courage then yeah there will be party discipline and Lieberman will get drummed out on his arse. But if Harry Reid is still in that chair 4 years from now you can almost guarantee a Lieberman victory. Here is the funny part that nobody ever talks about. Lieberman won this last election getting only 33 percent of the vote from resistered Democrats. Let that sink in for a minute. For Lieberman to win with less than 40 percent of the vote of registered Democrats guess who had to have voted for him in big numbers. Yet there he is with a HSC chairmanship and the ability to caucus with the Dems. Let me stop before I lose the delicious turkey and dressing I just ate.

See, why didn't they know? That wasn't secret. The Senators have staffs. The level-headed case against Lieberman has always been:
a) Name 3 really great things he did with the HSGO committee.
b) Name 5 Democrats he helped to elect.

And there have been no good answers. Meh. I am so tired of hearing the "yeah, but Lieberman felt left out, he felt betrayed, he was experiencing sadness!"

Though I can toss some hate at the left, too, for getting into deep dudgeon about every single grievance rather than coalescing on a simple "if he hasn't made use of the chairmanship, and has worked against Democrats rather than for him, pretty dumb to reward those two things."

I think it'd be more noble, in that case, to be honest. I'd think going against your party and its President has more potential drawbacks than advantages. Granted a person could do it for spite, but a prime possibility to me would be that it's done on principles.

You think Lincoln Chaffee gained much by going against his party and its President? Or the liberal Republicans who mostly got voted out in 2006? Maybe many of them didn't have noble motives, but if they were self-seeking they were among the most unsuccessful forms of self-preservation.

(If Obama's popularity tanks, it's a different story, but if that happens Lieberman won't be the only one jumping ship.)

(The same argument in reverse explains much Democratic spinelessness in the 2001-2005 period.)

You presume that Lieberman believes he can win as a Democrat in 2012. I don't share that belief. I mean he did lose the Democratic primary last time and he only got 33% of the Democratic vote in the general. Besides obstruction is the new bipartisanship. If anything he has said basically the Democrats have legitimized his voting against them and campaigning against them by keeping him in the fold and giving him his chairmanship. Of course he will just label it as being an "independent democrat" while the rest of us will label it as being a traitorous azzhole. Tomaytoh Tomahtoh.

1.
He is a good person who really does believe in forgive and forget.

or 2. (more likely)

He's a good person who also understands that he now OWNS Lieberman, lock stock and barrel. Lieberman already betrayed the Democratic party once, but if he turns against Obama now, after Obama saved his ass... Well, let's just say there won't be a restaurant in CT that will serve him food, let alone a person that will vote for him.

Lieberman will tow the line or he'll be ejected from the Dem caucus faster than you can say "Peace, bitches."

I really want to know what makes you think Obama "OWNS" Joe Lieberman. Maybe its just that you don't understand Lieberman's history but have you ever wondered WHY Lieberman didn't win the Democratic primary in 2006 after being the VP nominee in 2000 of the Demccratic party and a Democratic Presidential candidate in 2004? Its because the guy is a NEOCON! He is a hawk on Iraq and one of the biggest hawks on either side of the aisle on Iran. People keep acting like he has some kind of chance to be reelected as a Democrat in CT in 2012. That ship already sailed! He was voted out of the primary in 2006 BECAUSE the Democrats don't want him anymore. He got less than 40 percent of the votes of registered Democrats in 2006 and that was BEFORE he campaigned for Republicans with an s and broke his campaign pledge both to caucus with the Democrats even if he didn't retain his seniority and to investigate Katrina. And guess what Lieberman did 2 years ago? He threatened to leave the party if he didn't get his chairmanship and seniority even though that was unheard of. But see the last time if he changed parties then the Republicans would have retained control of the Senate so he had the Democrats over a barrel. This time he played the "60 vote" card and the Dems caved again. If you REALLY think this guy is going to change his tune because they gave him his chairmanship and allowed him to continue caucusing with the Democrats you haven't been paying attention to what he has been saying since the vote went down. He specifically said that he was not punished for what he did and that some people probably voted for what they thought was a punishment because they were mistaken about it. He also said that he is STILL an independent Democrat and that by keeping him in the caucus it showed that everyone appreciated his RIGHT to vote his conscious. Joe Lieberman is gonna be Joe Lieberman and this "he owes Obama" crap is fantasy. Or maybe you didn't know that Obama was one of the few Dems who campaigned for Lieberman in 2006 and also continued to back him after Lieberman AFTER he lost the primary. And you see how he payed Obama back for his support THAT time.