Give Lieberman the Bum's Rush (Forever)

According to Roll Call, Obama is now actively helping Joe Lieberman retain his Homeland Security chairmanship:

Support for Lieberman appears to have been growing since Obama began making calls to several top Democrats to discuss the Connecticut Senator's status. Since then, several senior Senators began making statements that seemed to indicate a willingness to let Lieberman retain his gavel.

In addition to telling Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that he would like for Senate Democrats to find a way to keep Lieberman in the Democratic fold, Obama has had similar conversations with other top Democrats – including Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), and Lieberman's home-state colleague, Dodd, sources said.

Obama is close with all four of those Senators, each of whom endorsed him in his quest to win the Democratic Party's presidential nomination this year.

The public argument for keeping Lieberman doesn't have any connection to the actual reasons his fellow Senators are supporting him. Evan Bayh was on Rachel Maddow last night, making the completely incoherent argument that the Democratic Caucus will control Lieberman and the Homeland Security Committee:

MADDOW: Joe Lieberman didn't investigate the government's response to Katrina or the Blackwater shootings in Iraq or anything like that. Are there going to be real interparty divisions on security issues, or do you see a united front going forward?

BAYH: Well, I would hope we would have a united front. And you know, if the caucus and the committee feels that there are areas worthy of investigation -- and you mentioned two that I think would warrant investigation -- then there should -- one would need to go forward, regardless of what the chairman happen to think. And we have the power to demand that sort of thing.

Really? So if Bayh thinks that Lieberman should have investigated Katrina like he said he would (a promise he abandoned immediately after the GOP helped him retain his Senate seat), why didn't they do something before? They're going to take action and make him do it now?

I'm supposed to believe this?

This isn't about "getting stuff done" or "putting partisan politics behind us" as Bayh claims -- this is about conservative Senators who are concerned that "the base" can do to them what they did to Lieberman. It's about Obama making them comfortable that no one will be able to organize against the war, or FISA, or any of their pet projects in a way that could be threatening to them.

I spoke with a source knowledgeable about Reid's reasoning on the Lieberman matter early on in the process, who said that Reid believed taking Lieberman's Homeland Security gavel away from him was more likely to keep him in line with the Democrats -- not less. Knowing that Lieberman can't get elected in Connecticut in 2012 as a Republican and that the Democrats were ready to crack the whip, it was not unreasonable to make an inference that that Lieberman would stop making so much trouble.

Any action on the part of the Senate Democrats will be unlikely to change the nature of Lieberman's voting, which will continue to be petty and vindictive no matter what the Democrats do.

But the fact remains that over the past 7-10 days all the lobbying has been done by the pro-Lieberman forces. "We don't have a spokesperson with the courage to speak up and say 'he should not be able to get away with what he's done to our caucus,'" said the source.

It's interesting that they sent Bayh as the messenger on to the Maddow show, despite the fact that someone like Dodd would undoubtedly be more well-received. After Steve Clemons of the Washington Note published that Bayh was at the top of the VP list, vociferous opposition among the netroots dashed any chance of success.

It's also noteworthy that people now think, much like Obama did when he made a GOTV appearance before the election, that the Maddow show is the way to plead their case before the base. (They're right, BTW.)

But Bayh's appearance was for Bayh. His concern -- like that of Salazar and Pryor and other Democrats whose voting records are probably often to the right of Lieberman's -- is for himself. It isn't about putting partisanship behind us.

It's about political payback, and just as partisan as it can possibly be.

Comments (49)

1. Seems the basic point is...

   what keeps Lieberman in line for DOMESTIC policy votes and procedures.

   He can be overridden on foreign policy (his most major break with the Dems)...and if the President (Obama) wants an investigation in the Homeland Security Committee, Joe the Schmoe won't block it.

   As you note Ms Hamsher, Lieberman can't be re-elected as a Repub in CT...but he may not CARE about 2012 and might just throw a hissy and say "Screw it! I'm a pariah anyway, why not vote down health care, education, tax legislation, etc. and go on the Sunday Talks and attack Obama EVEN MORE...what do I have to lose...that I haven't already lost?"

   If Reid OR Obama held all the cards, he could boot Lieberman and would have done it. They may be thinking Joey has a few left up his sleeve.

   Posted by Mask at 11/14/2008 @ 11:13am

2. "Really? So if Bayh thinks that Lieberman should have investigated Katrina like he said he would (a promise he abandoned immediately after the GOP helped him retain his Senate seat), why didn't they do something before? They're going to take action and make him do it now?

   I'm supposed to believe this?"

   I nearly puked when I heard this. You are correct Ms. Hamsher, and you are not alone. A little context is in order.

   "Bayh was an early supporter of the Bush administration's policies on Iraq.[4] On October 2, 2002, Bayh joined President George W. Bush and Congressional leaders in a Rose Garden ceremony announcing their agreement on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War, and was thanked by Bush and Senator John McCain for co-sponsoring the resolution.[5]'"

   or

   "Speaking to 2002 luncheon hosted by AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobby group, Bayh "described his lifelong affection for the state of Israel, beginning with a boyhood vacation there, and deepening with his many official visits as a governor and senator."[25] A report of the luncheon continued:

   The senator also stated his support for increased foreign aid to Israel. "We have to make the kind of investments necessary to prevent loss of life," he said. "Israel is in jeopardy, they're a strong ally of ours, and I think there would be congressional support for further aid to Israel, particularly regarding security issues." On the subject of the moribund Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, he said, "Yasser Arafat is no partner for peace. Not until there is new and better leadership within the Palestinians will there be a chance for peace."[25]"

   Source: Wikipedia

   Posted by OneVote at 11/14/2008 @ 12:00pm

3. Why doesn't President-Elect Obama just offer Senator Lieberman the position of Secretary of Homeland Security? It would avoid the sticky political issue, it would give an appearance of bipartisan cooperation, and it would open his Senate seat open for a Democrat.

   Posted by In.dependent at 11/14/2008 @ 12:14pm

4. Posted by In.dependent at 11/14/2008 @ 12:14pm

   I think that was Joe's deal with MCCAIN!

   Posted by Mask at 11/14/2008 @ 12:42pm

5. Guess who owns Obama?

   Posted by sloper at 11/14/2008 @ 12:44pm

6. The Senate need to save Obama from his better angels and fire Lie berman's freakily dirty ass.

   Lie berman, Lie ber man, Lie be r man...

   How many times does this snake in the backyard grass have to bite family members before a 'protector' with any kind of a quiverless spine lobs the thing's head off?

   Come on senate dems, don't adopt the new con repub shit of rewarding failure or even worse-- Lie berman's cowardly betrayal.

   http://crooksandliars.com/node/22575

   Who really won here?

   Reward Lie berman and this is not really change, just more of the same ol' dirty misleading shit.

   Sorry, but Obama's majorly wrong on this one. Al Gore learned his lesson with this creep. It'll be too bad if Obama is allowed to step into it and especially when he least expects it too.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 11/14/2008 @ 1:01pm

7. One only need keep an enemy closer than a friend if one cannot destroy the enemy concisely and swiftly.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 11/14/2008 @ 1:08pm

8. Lieberman has become a symbol of the Washington sleaze, keeping him as the chair of HS will instantly tarnish the Obama presidency.

   Yes, it is time for the progressives now to turn and become the opposition to Obama (and I donated money to his reelection without regret).

   Posted by dragan at 11/14/2008 @ 1:23pm

9. That is, I donated money for his election.

   Posted by dragan at 11/14/2008 @ 1:24pm

10. Obama gets the Clinton band back together Ben Smith, Carrie Budoff Brown Ben Smith, Carrie Budoff Brown Fri Nov 14, 4:48 am ET - Politico

    Excerpt:

    The single most important change in that respect is at the top, and the replacement of the slim, tightly-wound campaign chief of staff, David Plouffe, 41, with the slim, tightly wound Podesta, 59.

    Plouffe was the guiding hand, operationally and often strategically, of Obama's campaign. He was also, insiders say, a sharply anti-Washington voice, key to the candidate's outsider message.

    Plouffe came of political age inside the House Democratic leadership in the 1990s, and he was part of a core Obama group who had never worked for Clinton, and who harbored the sense of frustration and missed opportunity that prevailed on the Hill during Clinton's second term.

    Plouffe remains a key adviser and was spotted in the transition office Thursday, but with a new baby, credit for a historic victory, and plans to return to the private sector, he's no longer running the show.

    Podesta, who heads the Center for American Progress, was Clinton's chief of staff from 1998 to 2001 and a key figure in his second term.

    Posted by OneVote at 11/14/2008 @ 1:35pm

11. Yes We Can't.

    Posted by OneVote at 11/14/2008 @ 1:37pm

12. One solution would be to abolish the committee, then create a new committee with roughly the same areas of responsibility and not assign Lieberman to it.

    Do we really need a Homeland Security committee? Do we really need an overfed, bulging bureaucracy called Dept. of Homeland Security?

    Has it really added any additional dimension of security that was absent within the 5,000 departments under its umbrella?

    FBI, DIA and CIA are not big fans of this bureaucracy. They were perfectly happy with their autonomy pre 9-11.

    Something for the Senate and for Barry O to consider going forward.

    Posted by jackwells at 11/14/2008 @ 2:00pm

13. I totally agree, Jane, of course, as you so often speak for me. Throw the bum out! He's not a Democrat! It's obvious to everyone but the good old boys club of the senate. He's not trustworthy, the perfect republicon. I cannot believe, once again!, the dems in congress will spit in our faces, again!, and keep short ride joe in the party. Didn't he run as an independent?

    "We don't have a spokesperson with the courage to speak up and say 'he should not be able to get away with what he's done to our caucus,'" Oh yes you do! The people, silly. A lot of people have been speaking that very thing for a very long time. Many more people are now speaking on a petition to get rid of Joe. He is a small,honorless, irrelevant man. Get rid of him, marginalize him. Maybe the republicons will hold his hand. Duplicitous hands. See? republicon. However, I doubt the DCdems will listen. They do love their little clubs. And there's the whole lack of balls thing. See you at the lake, Jane. JC

    Posted by Recluse at 11/14/2008 @ 2:06pm

14. Obviously Obama doesn't feel the need to heed the commoner crowd now that he is Mr bigtime. a pox upon his house.

    Posted by Lil at 11/14/2008 @ 3:09pm

15. Oh and I thought Mr Nichols was all aflutter with Lieberman, not to mention mS Hillary's plum being leaked. And what about all those Clintonista back in the fold?

    Yeah, just the change we voted for.

    Posted by Lil at 11/14/2008 @ 3:17pm

16. Lie b er man/nam rebeiL: http://tinyurl.com/69r9en

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/14/2008 @ 4:56pm

17. Agree with jackwells that the nation doesn't need, and for that matter never needed, a Department of Homeland Security. We had one, it's called the Department of Defense, and the fellow who ran it should have resigned in disgrace on September 12, 2001.

    Let's take most of the DHS assets and give 'em back to DoD where they belong. Give DoD the right to demand and receive cooperation and intelligence from all other related entities. Goodbye, bloated bureaucracy, hello, efficiency.

    And goodbye, Joey.

    Posted by barnesgene at 11/14/2008 @ 5:15pm

18. I agree with Rachel-Liarman has been allover the airwaves spouting off about how a filibuster-proof Senate would be a gosh darn, no good, very bad thing, so why would anyone in their right mind give him the opportunity to keep a chairmanship? He is clearly ready to throw a stick in the spokes as soon as he gets a chance-Let Reid strip him down to his shorts! BTW, an interesting thought that RM is now the go-to girl in appealing to the Dem base-would that be the intelligent, thoughtful, college educated, appreciative of good journalism with a side of humor base? I'll go for that

    Posted by oldintel at 11/14/2008 @ 5:22pm

19. Had it been another Senator, other than Lieberman, in the Democratic Caucus who behaved in the same despicable manner as Lieberman, the Democrats would have forced him to sit on the stick. The reason Lieberman is treated with kind gloves is the fact that he is Jewish and very close to the American Israeli Public Affair Committee (AIPAC)

    Obama is in no position to alienate AIPAC; no American politician is. One reason behind Nancy Pelosi's decision to take Bush's Impeachment off the table and to withheld a provision which calls on the Bush Administration to consult Congress before attacking Iran, was pressure from AIPAC.

    I am sure that the fate of Lieberman was discussed with AIPAC when they had several private meetings with Obama during the campaign. If Obama decides to do the right thing and ditch Lieberman, he will encounter the same fate of Jimmy Carter; he will become the pariah of the mainstream media. Obama is too shrewd a politician to put himself in such position.

    Posted by CripThink at 11/14/2008 @ 5:42pm

20. So why can't AIPAC, a la Lie berman, become an Obama Sister Souljah moment?

    Granted, AIPAC isn't advocating racially motivated killing... er,

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/14/2008 @ 6:03pm

21. Rachel Madow had an even more on-point segment evening of Nov. 14: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#27708359

    Here are portions of my e-mail on this issue to Senators Reid, Durbin, and Webb, and Senator-elect Mark Warner from the now-blue state of Virginia:

    It is difficult to find words sufficiently strong to express my views on the importance of the Senate Democratic Caucus carrying out the political punishment of Senator Joseph Lieberman. By his actions, over several years, he has committed the equivalent of several political felonies, assuming the Democratic Party has any notion of rules and discipline. Given the general election results, and on the eve of President-elect Obama's inauguration, it is vital that the caucus show some backbone and intestinal fortitude to give this turncoat what he justly deserves -- removal from the Chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee and dismissal from the Democratic Caucus.

    "I've never seen a war I don't like" Lieberman, who loudly trashed Senator Obama during the campaign while shaking hands with and hugging McCain, has fully earned dismissal from the Democratic caucus and removal from the chairmanship of a committee which was key in implementing the Bush administration's ripping large holes in the Constitution. If you must compromise, keeping Sen. Lieberman in the Dem. Caucus would be acceptable, but distasteful. Removing him from the committee chairmanship is essential.

    Carrying out Lieberman's political punishment is not even a close call. If the Democratic Caucus wimps-out on this one, you can count on many nervously hopeful Obama supporters being quickly and maddeningly disappointed and resentful - weeks before an otherwise propitious inauguration.

    Posted by invoxicated at 11/14/2008 @ 6:20pm

22. I am not impressed with Evan Bayh's logic. Barack Obama needs to learn to sleep with one eye open.

    Posted by WeldonRobeson at 11/14/2008 @ 6:32pm

23. Ok, Lie berman can keep the Chairmanship only if he wears lipstick and a blue dress for the next two years and does Monica service on his knees to every dem in the senate and house, every week, at least.

    Nah, it'd be too easy for him.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/14/2008 @ 6:43pm

24. Not even that!

    Posted by WeldonRobeson at 11/14/2008 @ 6:46pm

25. The odious little worm that is Lie-Berman has got to go.

    How corrupt the Dems are will be laid bare if they let that little man hold onto his chairmanship of HLS. Are they OK with his lack of oversight of a bloated, money wasting Dept. in a time of fiscal crisis? Not to mention that Little Joe is a known liar and switches his alliances like seasonal fashions.

    Just think: a few months ago we thought Dodd was a man of character just for upholding the Constitution against illegal searches, aka illegal wiretapping. That was so yesterday.

    Posted by BigVic at 11/14/2008 @ 8:46pm

26. <i>I am not impressed with Evan Bayh's logic.</i>

    Logic? Hahahaha! He looks at every situation and stakes out a mushy middle position. I honestly don't believe that guy has any core, moral positions on any subject. He's a slice it down the middle and hope for the best kind of guy. Which creeps me out.

    Posted by BigVic at 11/14/2008 @ 9:02pm

27. I don't see much in Obama so far that represents "CHANGE". I guess it was just a campaign slogan. He seems to be assembling Clinton II. And thereby shits all over those who believed in his stirring words and speeches. Meet the new boss: same as the old boss.

    Posted by philbq at 11/15/2008 @ 12:28am

28. Creating Clinton II is change... from Bush II. But not the change we hoped for. The change we will get will be about 35 cents. I hope.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/15/2008 @ 08:58am

29. Is Obama's support for Lieberman a sop to AIPAC?

    So we're going to be stuck with Hillary "obliterate Iran" making peace in the Middle East (yeah, right), and Lieberman in charge of Homeland Security, for God's sake?

    Did I just die and go to hell?

    Posted by journey80 at 11/15/2008 @ 09:05am

30. you all seem to forget that Liebermann was reelected by the people of his state, democrats included.

    with all the crowd attacking Obama in these pages, I thought I was on the weekly standard. I mean really barely a week after the election and the good people here call themselves Obama's opposition. it is they who are the traitors.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/15/2008 @ 12:08pm

31. What's the worst case if Lieberman gets booted out? He quits his seat and they put in a Republican to replace him? He goes around embittered and arrogant? He joins the Republican Party and they have a week-long celebration. No matter which, he then fades from view.

    Aw...

    Posted by barnesgene at 11/15/2008 @ 12:12pm

32. Posted by barnesgene at 11/15/2008 @ 12:12pm

    see above post. why should he quit his seat under any circumstances.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/15/2008 @ 1:20pm

33. Right on, emile!

    Regarding big bad Joe Lieberman, here's my prediction regardless of what happens with his chairmanship: Impotence, irrelevance, and ultimately, obscurity. All accompanied by his incessant whining. Boo Hoo.

    Maybe he and Sarah Palin could start a show on Fox. Imagine the sonic possibilities: Golly gee! Whine Whine You Betcha! Whine Whine I can see Russia! Whine Whine

    Oh - wait - under the new administration, torture will be illegal. Guess that nixes that.....

    Posted by Dwight Wall at 11/15/2008 @ 1:28pm

34. Posted by emile duBois at 11/15/2008 @ 12:08pm

    He may not be president yet. But, those of us who have been waiting to see if America can redeem itself ethically and save itself from this long slide into oblivion, can't help but notice that so far, he has made <i>all the wrong moves</i>.

    Name an appointment that seems progressive at all.

    You give him too much credit, where none is, apparently visible.

    What's to get excited about now, other that he's not W?

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/15/2008 @ 1:37pm

35. Now the left is calling me a traitor.

    Hmmm...

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/15/2008 @ 1:38pm

36. If you care about the Homeland and you care about Security you cannot have someone who oversees these committees who has open contempt and has made degrading and insulting comments about the new person in charge.

    As Obama is "Naive" as Joe Leiberman stated, is he now going into use his position to launch investigations into his "Security Naiveté" because he and his Republican buddies know "Security" better? As they have often pronounced.

    If Leiberman ultimately stays, it sends a really bad message.

    There is fine line between bipartisanship and appeasement.

    ...and Obama hasn't really answered for his FISA flip yet.

    Don't push it!

    Posted by rabblerouzer at 11/15/2008 @ 1:46pm

37. "If you care about the Homeland..."

    America is a single country. There is no "homeland".

    Why do we insist (against all evidence) that we are not an imperial power and then go call our country the "homeland".

    Do we have a "czar" of the homeland yet.

    I thought the whole idea of the neo-cons was to create a totalitarian, fascist government, without us noticing.

    "Homeland" just draws attention.

    Thank god (x-tian god here. None other will suffice), we don't illegally invade countries to garner domain over their resources.

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/15/2008 @ 2:07pm

38. Posted by Malcontent at 11/15/2008 @ 1:37pm

    Outside of Joe Biden and Rahm Emanuel, what actual appointments has he made, other than to his transition teams? I wouldn't necessarily rank these 2 high on the progressive scale, but I certainly wouldn't jump to the conclusion that we will continue the slide into oblivion driven by Bush.

    I think progressives will invariably be disappointed by Obama. He's not easily labeled in traditional left-right categories. I think what he represents is a more pragmatic, unified, "community" approach to solving problems - post-ideological, if you will. One can only marvel at how he won his election. I personally feel it reflects well on how he will run the country. I don't think he is a person who will be easily pushed around - he's not a puppet like Bush. And, I believe he is quite sincere in the progressive goals he has set forth.

    I think his repeated references to the Lincoln administration are telling. This is not a person intimidated by or afraid of different perspectives expressed by very strong willed people. I think that's healthy and expect to see considerable ideological range - from conservative to progressive - in his administration.

    Posted by Dwight Wall at 11/15/2008 @ 2:09pm

39. Posted by Dwight Wall at 11/15/2008 @ 2:09pm

    I realize this is just the beginning.

    But, it is not an auspicious start.

    While the left and right will argue over foreign policy and taxes etc., I don't hear anyone, right or left, who does not speak of our economic crisis in terms of too little regulation and too much "privatize the profit/publicize the risk".

    So it would seem, at least for this short moment in history, the left and right could agree that we need regulation and either no bail-out or strict oversight and conditions.

    So, how is it, at all, "bi-partisanship" to reward people who've manipulated the law, for extreme personal fortune, with positions of power, from which they can continue, unabated, using our grandchildrens money?

    There are alot more positions to consider and appointments to come. But, I personally feel that the economy is the one thing left and right see any common ground on.

    I see a big opportunity, to actually help our future AND to look really principled and unpartisan doing it, squandered.

    Not a "hope"ful start.

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/15/2008 @ 2:49pm

40. Bi-partisanship means trying to please the broad left and the broad right. Not special interest groups. Especially those who have done so much harm to America.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/15/2008 @ 2:52pm

41. *I see a big opportunity, to actually help our future AND to look really principled and unpartisan doing it, squandered.

    Not a "hope"ful start.

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/15/2008 @ 2:49pm*

    You also recognize that, ultimately, and especially considering his recent resignation from the Senate, that Obama has zero say in what happens to Lieberman, correct? Sheesh let the man actually APPOINT someone before you tear into him.

    Posted by yutsano at 11/15/2008 @ 8:44pm

42. Posted by yutsano at 11/15/2008 @ 8:44pm

    I realize it was off topic for this thread, but I wasn't talking about lieberman. I was talking about treasury secretary picks.

    I somehow jumped from the corzine thread to here and commented as though it were there.

    Sorry.

    But i stand by my aforementioned pessimism and general malcontentedness.

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/15/2008 @ 9:29pm

43. Posted by Malcontent at 11/15/2008 @ 9:29pm

    That explains the perceived non-sequitur. However, only three folks for sure have been appointed by this point, so until the pieces fall into place right now all is conjecture.

    But while we're on the subject, who would you put up for Treasury Mal?

    Posted by yutsano at 11/15/2008 @ 11:06pm

44. Incidentally, if Lieberman gets shoved out of the chairmanship, I give full props to Rachel for making it happen. She certainly has been VERY vocal on this issue!

    Posted by yutsano at 11/15/2008 @ 11:28pm

45. I hope Lieberman gets booted out, he has been a disgrace during the campaign..."palling" around with John McCain all the time. I don't know how he has the nerve to show his face at any Democratic function, they should get rid of him. The campaign by McCain was vile enough without Lieberman inadvertently being part of it by supporting McCain.

    Posted by Caj at 11/16/2008 @ 4:28pm

46. HOLY joe's senior thesis at yale was later published as a book entitled "the power broker." it was a paean to his political mentor john bailey who launched the political careers of folks as diverse as bowles,ribicoff,bowles,grasso,and of course lieberman. bailey was an old time political boss who depended on iron discipline in the framing of issues,building alliances,getting out the vote,rewarding supporters,and punishing non-supporters in explicitly partisan political terms.the remnants of that machine gathered once again to to haul lieberman's battered ass home to victory after the dem base rejected him in the primary.what would bailey,a former chairman of the national party think of holy joe now ? would he allow the guy to basically slime the party which nominated him for veep a few years ago? its not like lieberman came to national attention floating down the potomac in a basket.the same holds true for reid who owes his leadership position to a power breaker named joe.

    Posted by David Lucke at 11/16/2008 @ 11:02pm

47. It's time for everybody to grow up a bit. Obama's a scumbag. That doesn't mean he won't be a good president and it doesn't mean that it's not great he was elected and it's world's better than President-elect McCain.

    Obama has been in bed with Joe Lieberman forever. He's been in bed the Clintons forever. Lieberman's horrible but Bill Clinton was the best Republican president the USA ever had. Hillary Clinton would have been the best conservative Republican the USA ever had.

    That's on policy and politics for Obama. He's a square and a scold and likes Republicans and conservative Democrats much more than liberal and progressive Democrats.

    Except....when it comes to his own butt. Who does he pick for White House Counsel? The toughest left-leaning big-time criminal defense lawyer in DC, Gregory Craig of Williams & Connolly. This is the ONLY Obama appointment or action I LIKE so far. It least he's strong on his own rights if not on yours!

    Posted by DexterManley at 11/17/2008 @ 2:35pm

48. I hate to sound like Tony Soprano here, but this is about respect. Lieberman deserves the political equivalent of having his thumbs broken. What message does it send if the guy gets away with no consequence?

    Posted by pkgoode at 11/17/2008 @ 2:48pm

49. I think that actions speak louder than words and Leiberman has done both at the Republican Convention. If he talks like a Republican, walks like a Republican, and can't get elected as a Republican then put him where he belongs-with the Republicans. Kick him out of the Democratic Caucus as he isn't behaving as a Democrat and I realize that he has an essential vote but he is going to vote whichever way he wants to anyway. You could get more backing from a Leiberman that wants back in Democratic good graces than one who thinks he can do whatever he wants to and get away with it1

    Posted by RITEON at 11/18/2008 @ 06:15am