No Ezra this is a foolish decision. A jettisoning of Lieberman is a one week story during Thanksgiving. Keeping Lieberman means a platform for him during every single nomination fight.

I have a hard time seeing Lieberman as a troublemaker during the Obama years, really. What would it get him? He seems like a very narcissistic politician to me, and now that will mean recasting himself as a loyal Dem as much as he can, while maybe grumbling from time to time.

I just hope he slides into irrelevancy and we can forget about him, and he decides to retire in 2010 rather than kick up another big fuss in Connecticut.

I think this is the first sign of what will be a difficult transition period for the progressive blogosphere. For years the best they could hope for was to "bring down the bad guys." That kind of thinking, focusing on "justice" in the sense that Hollywood movies define justice (Look at the bad guys die in slow motion!) is no longer enough. There is a deeper justice that needs our focus--getting things accomplished that will actually make people's lives better. Humliating Joe Lieberman would have been emotionally satisfying, but other than that, what would it have accomplished? The idea that he could be a danger to Obama with that chairmanship is, I think, overstated. He likes to hug guys that are in power. I think Obama should get ready for alot of hugs.

While I'm not sure that the punishment fits the crime here (I would like him stripped of the Homeland Security Chair) your comment about gravitating toward affirmation is a cogent one.

If Obama is this good at burying the hatchet in order to get what he really wants, then my guess is the next 4 years will go just fine.

But what can he really do with the platform? He's no longer "Even the Democrat Joe Lieberman." He's defeated, and any crusade he might launch would be seen as a partisan attack. This is not the Clinton scold of 1998 or the hawk of 2004/6. He's a Republican in Democrat clothing and everyone knows it.

I wonder if Joe doesn't learn his lesson. Am I a Pollyanna for thinking that Joe is reminded who campaigned for him in 2006 and who has shown himself willing to forgive in 2008? Time will tell, but I wonder if Obama hasn't just made one last, best offer of friendship to Lieberman, who would be wise to remember his patron this time.

Humliating Joe Lieberman would have been emotionally satisfying, but other than that, what would it have accomplished?

Well, it would send a pointed message to others regarding who is in charge around here. Politicians are very simple creatures and respond to basic incentives and punishments. As in parenting, refusal to set boundaries and limits in politics invariably leads to uncontrollable misbehavior.

Ezra,

Bill Maher made a great comment about Obama's impending presidency last night, to the effect of, - Obama's demonstrated his intelligence and consideration, so I'm willing to cut him some slack. We've had a dimwit in the Presidency for so long we've adopted a knee-jerk reaction to whatever decision comes out being stupid, self serving and counterproductive. Obama has demonstrated he's an excellent strategic thinker and knows what he's doing.

Maher also commented that his favorable opinion of Obama doesn't let him off the hook for his policy decisions.

All this sounds like the Democrats are coming back in control of the country again.

I would prefer retribution, but I can understand why Obama and/or the Senate Dems (who claim to be taking their cue from BHO) would want to hold their fire.

What makes me nervous about leaving Lieberman in place that he is in a position to continue his vendetta against Obama with all the powers of a committee chairmanship. One of the perks of being a president whose party controls congress is that your political opponents are not in a position of power over you. Why Obama wants to forgo this perk is a mystery to me.

I can't understand the Senate's motivations either. Don't they even care about their own self-interest? If you boot Lieberman, that's one less guy in line ahead of you! I guess they think they can buy his good will, and that it will come in handy later, but this relies on the premise that Lieberman possesses "principles" or "good faith" or "the slightest shred of decency."

Holy Joe will lose his next Senate election. The only person who doesn't know this is Joe.

But if Lieberman can use his position to attack democrats and foil progressive legislation, and by so doing get him more tv appearances, what holds him in check? Stripping him of his power and soapbox would have.... taken away his power and his soapbox. I find it hard to believe that lieberman won't use his position to make life tough for democrats.

Reading my comment above I realize it doesn't make sense. What I meant was this: I can understand why the Dems might decline to punish Lieberman. But I think there is good reason to remove him totally apart from punishing him. Generally speaking it just isn't smart to leave your political opponents in a position of power if you don't have to.

Maybe Lieberman won't make life difficult for Obama. Maybe the Dems are banking on him toeing the party line because otherwise his seat will be in danger in 2012 (but who says he's going to run for re-election? Maybe he's planning to retire and move down to Arizona so he can personally fellate John McCain on a daily basis).

But why take the chance? What's the upside? Kick this bloodthirsty, limp-dicked mother-fucker to the curb and be done with it. Let him join the Irrelevant Party and expose himself as the amoral scumbag that he is.

I think a better question is "what does Lieberman have to lose?" He is not going to be re elected and this just gives him more incentive to a complete road block to Obama. He is not an ally. He has earned no trust and this is not Obama's decision either. Obama is in the other branch of government now.

Lieberman was horrible teammate and conspired with the opponent to help them win. He should pay REAL consequences with punishment he does not enjoy. This man can never be trusted ever again. As a DC resident and oppressed citizen, he is still in charge of the Committee that rules DC. The district went 95/5 for Obama and is mainly but now takes orders from a McCain cheerleader. Terrible Decision.

I think the real deal is that Obama figures being generous to Lieberman will engender some nice feelings from some Republicans like McCain and Graham. They're the obvious candidates to cross party lines and help him pass his agenda, so why anger them over spite?

It's fine and smart for No-Drama Obama to pay little heed to the resentments of the campaign, and I'll sign on for that wise approach myself.

But it's foolish to believe he'll get many votes out of Leibermann, especially when it comes to cloture votes on judges. And Obama's intervention smells too much like the Bush-ist control of two branches of government. Bad start, dude.

Lieberman is a war monger on behalf of the state of Israel. It's plain. It's simple.

Lieberman moved right only to advance his conservative Israeli agenda, and to start wars with any state that he feels threatens Israel's existance.

On most all other issues, Lieberman is in fact a Democrat, but Iraq and the Middle East seen through Lieberman's eyes is an Arab world to be conquered, in the name of Israeli security.

As long as Lieberman has a one track mind he is a dangerous little man as it concerns anything to do with our constitution and our rights as a people . He represents tyranny in the name of securtiy for Israel.

He has no business chairing Homeland Security and should have kept those lessor chairs where he could do some good.

On the other hand, my hope is Obama will accommodate and contain this joker as it concerns his influence on the bigger issues concerning our effective leadership in the Middle East.

This, incidentally, is the other side of No Drama Obama: Part of avoiding drama is refusing to make decisions based on your own drama. You're seeing it with Lieberman and you're seeing it with Clinton.

I think there is a very big difference here, Clinton did not campaign against Obama. Clinton did not go the the Republican National Convention and attack Obama. Clinton makes sense because she is a democrat who actively supported him. Lieberman did not and therefore should not be rewarded for his behavior with a chairmanship. This is not about retribution or anything, I would think it's more about having some respect for your party and rewarding those who are with you.

I believe the Susan Collins, Olympia Snow, and Arlen Specter are more likely to help Democrats pass key legislation than McCain or Graham.

Count me among those hoping this works out. Lieberman's only hope of staying in the limelight he so clearly loves is to be a good boy so he can win re-election in 2012. And he has no reason to vote against Obama's policies out of spite. He can go on the Sunday shows and bemoan the nasty politics of the far-left or make sad faces about the Iraq withdrawal. But I expect him to be a reliable vote on health care, energy policy/global warming, stimulus, education, judges, etc. Basically, the things that matter.

I think its important to understand where Lieberman's votes matter. Pretty likely he will not be the marginal 50th vote on any particular issue. Where he will matter potentially is for cloture votes, where its more plausible for him to make the difference. But his history of voting with the democrats for cloture is also mixed.

I think Lieberman's slap on the wrist is the logical consequence of Obama's post-partisan agenda. The thing a lot of us progressives may have missed as we cheered wildly for his call to end Rove style divisiveness is that he actually meant it. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but merely the logical consequence of everything Obama told us very plainly would be his governing style.

Plus, in the world of down and dirty politics: Joe Lieberman knows who called off the hit and who can put it right back on a again if he gets out of line. He won't make waves.

So in the end, this may turn out to be both an extension of Obama's high-minded ideals and an extension of his tactical brilliance. A pretty neat trick he was able to pull off multiple times during the campaign. I hate Joe Lieberman, but trust Obama's judgment. And if we didn't elect him for his judgment, what did we elect him for?

i guess i'm in the minority here, but lieberman is nothing but (you should forgive my yiddish) a "shande far di goyim." he crossed a line and suffered no punishment: this gets the incentives all wrong for the future.

i'm all for cutting obama slack on keeping gates, on picking emanuel, and in any number of other areas, but not on this one: this simply makes him look obsessed with kumbaya-ism.

meanwhile, michael s, the votes that are available to obama on key matters aren't mccain and graham, they are snowe and collins, and keeping lieberman in place to be disruptive and annoying doesn't do a thing to get their votes.

Well, it would send a pointed message to others regarding who is in charge around here.

Given that Obama supports Lieberman, no punishment for him would be a pointed message that the person in charge is... Obama. Which is (a) true by other measures as well, and (b) despite all Obama's faults, still probably better than Reid being in charge.

mkd: I disagree that in the future lieberman can be removed from his position. Doing it now looks like proper punishment for bad behavior during the election. Doing it later, after he's been allowed to keep his seat initially, in response to lieberman future bad behavior will end up looking partisan. I think its pretty much now or never.

Ezra, Joe Lieberman is incompetent. His decision to go balls to the wall to support a ticket that was all-but-guaranteed to lose was simply one more example of how poor his judgment is.

So, he's incompetent and disloyal... and the Democrats reward him by placing him in charge of a committee where he can do real damage. This is neither smart politics nor is it doing the people's business.

This is a clear lesson. Never support the Democrats. Find a good Democrat and support him or her. Too many Democrats are opportunists and need to be retired.

Thank you Ezra! Glad to see a liberal blogger with some sense. Your analysis about Lieberman's hurt feelings is exactly right, and that's precisely the reason that reconciliation with him is the best way to pass a progressive agenda.

I think, Obama first helping Joe get elected over Lamont, then letting Lieberman retain his chairmanship makes clear that the years of spineless Democratic leadership are far from over. Perhaps we are not even midway? Lets remember, we've had almost eight years of Democratic assistance to Republican goals [or do you say post partisanship]. My making excuses for the party stopped in 2006, the fact that "progressives" like Ezra still sound like a bunch of high school cheerleaders turns my stomach.

"Whatever else one might want to say about "bipartisanship," there is nothing new about it. By definition, it does not remotely constitute "change." To the contrary, the last eight years have been defined, more than anything else, by overarching bipartisan cooperation and consensus." - Glenn Greenwald - today

Well Ezra, if you get the coveted MSM media spotlight will all this hapless sycophancy seem worthwhile?

Also, it's quite sad that the liberal blogs have wasted so much time on the politics of grievance with the Lieberman fight, while letting the far more important Waxman vs. Dingell fight go all but ignored.

The Lieberman fight is about settling scores. Waxman vs. Dingell could be momentous for the future of energy legislation. Which matters more?

Doing it now looks like proper punishment for bad behavior during the election.

Who cares about punishment? We now have as Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee chairman a neo-imperialist war mongerer. There's no other way to put it. If you want to make him procedurally less effective, whatever, but that's the issue.

Obama first helping Joe get elected over Lamont

Your facts are a little off here. Obama campaigned on Lieberman's behalf during the Democratic primary against Lamont, but once Lamont won the party's nomination, he then supported Lamont (but did not campaign on his behalf).

I am second to none in my seething loathing of Joe Lieberman. But I also feel strongly that it's better for the progressive agenda if he caucuses with the Dems. I personally wish the Senate Dems had him flagellated on the steps of the Capitol, Henry-II-stylie, but sadly, that was not to be. But you don't win 'em all, and what with the smart new president, the solid majority in both houses, I'm willing to let this one slide.

The is part of the change that you can believe in.

malraux: I think there is no time it will look more partisan than in the aftermath of contentious election where the guy you want to remove from his position campaigned for the other side.

Committee assignments are regularly switched around after election years, so I see this being a very plausible scenario: Lieberman proves himself to be a genuine pain-in-the-ass by hampering Obama's legislative agenda. The Dem caucus meets after the 2010 elections to reshuffle committee assignments, except this time Obama refuses to involve the Executive Branch in what is clearly an internal Congressional matter. Lieberman gets the boot (just like the majority of the caucus always wanted), but this time it doesn't look like Obama is purging the ranks of the disloyal, it looks like the Senate is removing from power a malfunctioning colleague.

Again- I think Lieberman knows the Dem caucus wanted to punish him, but were denied the opportunity by a magnanimous Obama. I think he also knows that next time around he may not be so lucky.

PS. I would have kicked him out of the caucus entirely. Lieberman has no right to the perks that come with being a member of the Majority after actively campaigning to prevent that very Majority from existing. I would have cast him out and let the chips fall where they may. What he did was intolerable and little good usually comes from caving to the demands of spoiled, petulant, whiny children.

Lieberman Day

by paradox

I am tired and a little discouraged outside of the political realm, so today is really not the best time to hoist the little grey cells into some futile meander while our Senate leadership most likely swords us in the back this morning, playing patty-cake with Joe Lieberman in their little DC love shack.

Discouraging doesn’ t come close to the incredible phenomena of Joe Lieberman, at its base his presence will always be a manifest testimony to a political party that cannot adhere to any principle. Nothing.

Coupled with a disdain and open defiance by politicians to one of their core, most active, most lucrative constituency alliances, The Left, as we’re called, a term no one can really define in DC except in a frame of appalling cowardice.

Today is a good day to eat shit, The Jedi intoned first thing. He knows, as do we all, there really is no silver lining to the continued acceptance of Joe Lieberman, just a massive display of stupidity, callousness, betrayal, and probably the most nauseating episode of Senatorial ass-kissing--such a disgusting rectum lock on that foul creature—that we will ever see in our lifetimes.

It’s a nauseating spectacle, and today is a very bad day for the country.

Email this • Technorati Links • Add to del.icio.us
paradox @ 7:53 AM :: Link :: Comments (13) :: Spotlight :: Digg It!

IF Obama and the dems can't, or more likely won't, stand up to Lieberman now, then they won't ever stand up to corporate interests or the Republican party either.

It's time ot give some serious consideration to starting a 3rd party. Maybe if the Dems lose the next 8 elections expressly because of a left wing 3rd party, they will smarten up or the American people will.

The decision is insane. Committee chairmanships are an award for lifetime achievement and involvement in a party. If you explicitly reject that party, you don't get rewarded with Chairman position. Stripping the chairmanship position would not have been a punishment. It would have been the logical conclusion of splitting with the party.

Does the fact that he openly said he would be interested in caucusing with the Republicans make any difference?!?! God, he is such a douchebag.

I think the real litmus test here is what happens the first time Lieberman goes on Fox and lies his sanctimonious head off about something Obama actually gives a damn about. Either he'll get away with it, in which case he should have been castrated last week, or he'll be not at all gently reminded by Rahmbo that he owes his continued chairmanship to Obama's intervention and that he should remember that.

You know, I think I'm gonna go with the odds on this one, and trust Obama's judgment and foresight over mine. When Obama initiated his campaign, I worried that he wasn't tough enough or willing to take on the Rs, so I leaned toward Clinton or Edwards. When Obama pitched the ideal of being post-partisan, and offering a new style of politics, I thought he was being unrealistic. When he refused to counter-attack during the debates I worried that he would be viewed as weak. On these and many other choices he made, my armchair quarterbacking was wrong, and Obama proved he knew what he was doing.
What has become increasingly apparent is that he may actually bring a new paradigm to politics. His temperament matches his vision, and he, so far, has been unshakable from keeping his eye on the prize; long-term results are more important that tactical victories. The lessons learned from being an organizer are serving him well. All indications are that he is a careful student of history, and he is analyzing what worked and what didn't work for past presidents, especially Lincoln, FDR, Reagan and Clinton. His steady, sure-footed method is not just based on charm, instinct and good luck.
I think what we are seeing, and going to continue to see is Obama framing the issues by presenting a pragmatic post-partisan approach. First he'll set the agenda, then he'll invite participation from all sides, then he'll out maneuver and discredit the policies of anybody who obstructs progress, without attacking the individuals personally.
In the process he will continue to restore people's faith in the ability of good government to do good, and continue to marginalize the right wing naysayers.
On Lieberman, I think the Ds made a tactical error in bringing this up before Jan.20th, and before AK, MN and GA are resolved. (I also suspect Obama will look to name at least one sitting moderate R Senator to his cabinet, from a state with a D Governor, which will give him one more D Senate seat.
If Lieberman doesn't play nice and isn't "a small, humble Rabbit" after being saved from the fog, he can be booted at any time later, and I think if that becomes necessary, Obama, Emmanuel, and Reid will be able to apply enough force behind the scenes to get Lieberman to quietly step aside, rather than suffer the embarrassment of a vote.
For what it's worth, I think that's exactly what's going on with Clinton, too. I don't think she and Bill were ever going to make it through the vetting process, and both camps knew that. Obama's honoring her, and giving her the exposure and her supporters the strokes they need. Ultimately I suspect that she will publicly announce that she wants to stay in the Senate, and Obama will choose the SoS that he really wants.
So, I'm betting on Obama this time. He's a better man than I.

I agree with the "we're ag'in it" crowd. Lieberman should have been dumped, just to make the point. What downside is there to doing so? none, I think. I agree with all the "let's move forward with the Obama agenda" stuff but letting Reid toss Lieberman would not detract from that.

Now if Obama has a fancy sit down with Lieberman in Chicago to bury the hatchet, I will be not just pissed, but surprised and disappointed. Lieberman should be treated like trash unless there's a very good reason to do otherwise.

If I could just toss in my two cents here. I'm from New Orleans, and during Joe's reelection campaign he promised to use his gavel to investigate the Bush administration's handling of Katrina. Plenty of incompetence and corruption there to keep a Senate committee busy for a long time. But once elected, Lieberman said he wasn't interested in dredging up the past. Except of course, for me it isn't the past, you know. All I want is someone accountable in charge of that committee. Someone who will get things done. For me, it isn't really about the election, because by the time Joe was Zell Millering at the RNC, I already wanted his gavel given to someone who would use it.

He just kneecapped Reed's ability to whip the senate (with Reed's apparently enthusiastic support)-- and created drama by pissing off a lot of people.

Forget Lieberman, he has an approval in the low 30's and will almost certainly be removed from office in 2012.

Reid is the weak link in this. His election is in 2010, and he hails from a state thats only nominally Democratic. For that reason, we shouldn't bother primarying him. He'll probably win, and that will just make us look weaker. But in what is likely to be a weak D year, and with him likely being the focal point of a lot of Republican anger, even a small defection among the base would seriously wound him.

So we start a PAC, we raise money, then we spend it in GE ads aimed at lowering Democratic turnout in Nevada. If we take Reid down, that will show the party that we mean business. IF you're not prepared do that, you don't really want better Democrats. You only want more fake democrats.

I can see the political jujitsu here: Lieberman has a martyr complex, and punitive measures feed it. But we also know that he's a limelight-seeking troll whose sense of personal loyalty extends to himself and John McCain, and he'll find it hard to resist the lure of the Faux News cameras.

I also think that this bites Obama on the behind in terms of Senate politics: McConnell now knows that he can play dicksplash obstructionist for the next two years, cast Reid (correctly) as ineffective, and see if there's someone to recruit for the 2010 election in Nevada.

That's to say, unless Reid is going to take steps to get past unanimous consent agreements that require the 60-vote cloture threshold, it's same old same old. And this particular decision doesn't seem designed to discourage McConnell, or to make it feel as if it's in the best interests of the few moderate GOP Senators to break with the party.

Bill Frist managed to get the GOP agenda through the Senate between 2004-6 with 55 in the party conference, and play extortionist over judicial confirmations. You had Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson hopping across the aisle like it was double-dutch. I don't see Snowe, Collins, Specter et al. doing that.

I wonder (and fear) that this is the first step in the 'let bygones be bygones' approach that will extend to the investigation and exposure of the abuses of the Bush administration. If so, that just guarantees we will have to deal with it again sometime in the future.

I would vastly prefer that actions have consequences in all these matters.

Fake Democrats. Traitors. The Enemy. These blogs sound just like The National Review and Redstate. Some of you are no better than the rightwingers whom the American public has soured on. It wasn't just policies, but also the destructive politics.

Haven't you guys listened to a thing Obama has been talking about these past several years? (Dem convention 2004) Normal Washington business would be to excommunicate the sinner. Obama is all about redemption and coopting them to your agenda.

We need to start looking at the bigger picture.

Normal Washington business would be to excommunicate the sinner. Obama is all about redemption and coopting them to your agenda.

Can't speak to what normal Washington business would be but I know that normal business anywhere else in any organization in the world would be to levy a severe penalty for the kind of disloyalty that Lieberman displayed here. Most organization would expel a member that so publicly and deliberately attempted to undermine their agenda. The Dems did not propose anything quite so harsh but they decided not to even follow through on that.

None of this needed to be complicated and certainly none of it needed to involve any "destructive politics" at all. Very simple. A member of the caucus attempts to undermine and damage the caucus' agenda, at the very least that member will not be rewarded for such an action. For any institution that has an interest in preventing its members from acting against its shared goals, that is about as unremarkable an policy as there can possibly be . It is the sort of reaction that one would expect in any organization from a girl scout troop to the Microsoft Corporation. And apparently the argument is that Dems should not be willing to act in such a fundamental way to discourage betrayal by its membership because it might violate the new spirit of something or the other.

I am all for looking ahead to our new hopefully wonderful world of post partisanship. I just don't get why on Earth that has to involve a lack of accountability. And I don't get what is supposed to be so destructive about such basic accountability.

You don't let the fox guard the hen house.

Normal Washington business would be to excommunicate the sinner. Obama is all about redemption and coopting them to your agenda.

Redemption and forgiveness come after repentance. Why does everyone forget that last part?

It wasn't just policies, but also the destructive politics.

Lieberman was about "destructive politics." Do you want to reward that or punish that?

The only thing that keep me giving Obama the benefit of the doubt is that, so far, he seems to know what he's doing.