if it means we save America and establish an enduring progressive majority.

Call it growing pains.

.. as you point out has ZERO political capital (maybe negative political capital) ... so there's nothing left of him, politically ... but to be a side-show. So it's magnanimous of Obama and Party leadership to throw him a bone.

I ask you though, HOW MUCH HAS Joe Lieberman CHANGED since he was Al Gore's running mate?

I submit nothing about him has changed as a person with political views. What is clearer now ... is that he is foremost a HAWK for Israel. That is why he was and remains a big supporter of the GWOT even with its ILL CONCEIVED strategy, because at core it benefits ISRAEL.... not the United States.

The GWOT is a threat to Israel since it makes the whole region more unstable. After all, we are very far away from the Middle East, but Israel is right there.

There are just some people who are hawks. They enjoy aggressive actions against other people, even when strategically it hurts the position that they are championing.

They will use any excuse to support their aggressive viewpoint: personal safety, national security, Israel, peace, anything. Lieberman is one of those people.  

what are you talking about?

He is foremost a representative of the State of Joe, serving the United states of Joe, for everything that would benefit Joe.  

  I was thoroughly unimpressed by him as Gore VP choice and the intervening years have done nothing but confirm his self-centered, self-preservationist nature.  

 

not the Senator from Connecticut. About 55 years ago we had Knowland, a Republican, often referred to as the Senator from Taiwan (but elected from California). In both cases the individual Senator had such an affinity for and interest in another country, they were basically not putting the interests of this country first, although both maintained that being so considerate of the other country was really in the best interests of the United States. Sort of the way it was once said by the Sec Def Charles Wilson that, since what was good for General Motors was good for the US, it was okay to show preference for GM, and make federal decisions which benefitted GM.

...is that he will not be progressive enough on a very, very important committee that represents one of the biggest areas in which CHANGE WE NEED should be delivered.

I could care less about Lieberman's outrageous actions during the election, and the truth is, he does still vote with the Democratic caucus like 85% of the time, or so I read.

However, I care a great deal about the postures and directions he takes as Chairman of his committee, and ensuring that nothing stands in the way of Obama's vision for getting us responsibly out of Iraq, and re-engaged in Afghanistan and Pakistan in a more meaningful and constructive (read, partly & especially with Pakistan a less hawkish but more determined way) manner that builds a stronger relationships between the US and both countries in a way that actually benefits the people there and makes their lives better.  In that part of the World, there are a lot of fundamental socioeconomic problems that are shaping the threats to us.  Yes, we need to attack Al Qaeda and hunt them down, and even when Pakistan won't, but we also need to win the war of popular support by making sure the Pakistani people know we support them in their striving for peace, prosperity, and democracy.  That will do far more to prevent additional terrorism against us than any missile strikes we could launch.

I don't trust Lieberman to "get" any of this.

Lieberman may not be the best Democrat, but he's now a humbled Independent who will often vote with Democrats.  He owes the caucus and the President a huge debt.

Where's the evidence that he's humbled? Seems to me that the rest of the Senate Democrats groveled to him.

He does owe the caucus and the president, but he owed the caucus for supporting him (and failing to support Lamont) in 2006, and we saw how much he cared about that debt then. Lieberman will do what he wants, and I see no leverage that anyone has over him at this point.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see how leaving him in place can be anything other than leaving a time bomb to hit the Obama administration later. Senate Democrats will regret this vote within a few years -- then again, those of them with any sense should have regretted helping keep him in the Senate in 2006, but they seem incapable of learning.

See that smirk on his face.  He knows no one can touch him.  So far Israel is in charge.  I can't wait until we finally get to the change WE voted for.

I am by no means pro-Israeli all the time, but the use of comments about Joe being indebted to Israel is making me very uncomfortable.

The comments of "The Senator from Israel" and "Israel is in charge" are pretty ugly, and borderline anti-Semitic.  I hope people will stop with that unnecessary tactic.  It's an old and ugly idea, and it should not be used.  Being hawkish does not mean that Joe Lieberman is serving Israel's interests before what he believes America's interests are.

I can't believe I'm defending him because I totally disagree with him, but I think the tone of these comments is potentially very concerning.

Thanks for listening.

I'm very uncomfortable with that sort of language, even though I can't stand Lieberman.

Israel has referred to Rahn as their man.  I'm sure they would prefer Hillary (a non-diplomat) as Secretary of State.  Now Joe gets his wrist slapped someone said on here.  His wrist was hardly slapped.  We are stuck with him in the driver seat again.  He has done a lousy job. I have an opinion and it is based on what has swiftly happened.  Now I'll say again, I hope we can get to the change that we voted for.  At least Daschle has been picked.    And I'll also mention that I will never forget Hillary refusing to come to the Senate when the Iraqi came to plead with our congress to NOT rush bombs to Israel so they could blanket them on Lebanon.  Who was she covering for.  I can be as hard headed as Israel.

.....has any shred of evidence associated with it that "Israel is in charge".  That is inflammatory.  Yes you're allowed to have that opinion, but I hope that you will at least recognize the ugly underbelly of the tone that you are espousing.  I am not accusing you of it, but please be careful not to endorse anti-Semitic thoughts.

I think it's funny that you think Daschle represents the "change" that you are looking for, but Rahm, Hillary, and Joe don't.  They are all peas in a pod.

I have every confidence that Barack will drive this agenda and do so respectfully and effectively even with some of the folks around him who've been around the block...

One more thing---your assertion about Hillary "covering" for Israel based on an Iraqi request not to supposedly "rush" bombs to Israel (as if they don't have their own)--does this mean that we should let Iraq be "in charge" of our foreign policy?  Obviously not, so why would you assert anything of the sort about Israel?

We were at the time rushing (expediting) bombs to Israel.  Hillary did dis his appearance.  So it is OK to aid one side and not consider that we are part of the warring in the mid east?

Some people are wondering if we elected a clinton presidency.  I don't think so but early signs are tempting to question.

Reid was ready to take action until he was pressured from afar.  Suddenly he stopped.  This was a Senate issue.  I realize we don't want to martyr Lieberman but he should NOT set an agenda for that committee.  He has no right.  Will they have another one choice ballot as they did yesterday. It sounds useless.    

 

...that Lieberman should not be setting the agenda of that committee.  That is what worries me as well.

However, I still don't understand what you are saying about Israel, Hillary, bombs, and an Iraqi?  Please provide a link to indicate what you are referring to, if you have one, please.  Of course I don't think we should be part of "warring in the Middle East" but we are--that is Bush's fault (along with a host of idiot Neocons) not Israel's or Hillary's (even though she capitulated on it), or heaven forbid an Iraqi's fault.  Who did Hillary dis, and when?  Thanks...I honestly want to understand what you're referring to....

I'm not trying to continue this but here are some articles.  They don't mention Hillary joining the boycott but she did.  I remember it.  They also don't mention that Maliki was criticizing our sending bombs to Israel (on expedited basis) during this war.  His criticism was of our logistical support.  He probably well remembers how painful american bombs are.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4811

http://www.npr.org/templates/s...

http://articles.latimes.com/20...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/...

http://findarticles.com/p/arti...

Even Israel now realizes that war was a mistake.  I don't see how Hillary could suddenly become a diplomat.

 

I agree with Josh. This episode is not really about Lieberman, it's about Obama being a leader and keeping focused on goals while providing moral direction. There are a lot of folks that went through the cathartic process; going from anger to acceptance of the fact of Democratic reconciliation with Lieberman.

In fact, I'd go one further and say this is not a progressive concept at all. It is a decidedly human principle that goes way beyond Washington and the narrow field of politics. The rest of the world is watching this intently. I believe that our allies are being greatly reassured; those who will choose to remain our enemies are beginning to see the depths of their problems; and the people of the world are seeing the possibilities of hope for real moral change.

On a purely practical basis, this will be seen as a sign of weakness by the "crush your enemies when you can" crowd.  Lieberman would be able to obstruct from either caucus. Attempting to use his chairmanships to obstruct can easily be overcome by leadership. Due to events, he is left both less able and less willing to obstruct. His potential policy adversaries are left strengthened for any future actions by their magnanimity now.

All in all, Obama is providing the change so many of us had hoped for.

I know people are angry about Lieberman, but I've been a little disappointed with all of the venom on Kos this week over this wrist slap.

I personally can't stand Lieberman and would love to have gotten some payback, especially for the RNC.  But this was the politically smart move on Obama's part.  I also think it helps the Democrats to take the high road, and be the better man or woman.  If Democrats are promising to change the culture of Washington and politics as usual, they have to lead by example.

Everybody knows what a rat fink weasel Lieberman is.  That doesn't change whether he keeps his committee chairmanship or not.  And I will happily donate to his opponent in 2012.

You actually convinced me with your post.  Well done.

Betrayal and Treason for example. Joe Lieberman has shown that his allegiance swings between crass self-interest and the Nation of Israel.  He just advocated the election of VP Sarah Palin, and McBush for God's sake.  The man would put America on the highway to hell if it profited his ends. Even his contrition comments were filled with conceit.  

He owes the caucus and the President a huge debt.

Which he will deny ever owing.    

One of the most infuriating things about the Democratic Party is the inability to defend its Honor (or even value it).  Who wants to be affiliated  with a bunch of equivocating wimps unable to defend their honor?  Joe Lieberman kicked us in the nuts, hosed Obama, and lobbies for a NeoCon foreign policy. Make an example of him...and then hand him over to the Republicans. They have even less use for traitors.  

The Dems should have nodded to Obama, then stripped Lieberman of everything, Reid taking the heat for what needed to be done. The Senate is not a tool of the Executive. We needed bold action here, and we got triangulating calculation. And don't think the lesson was missed by any half-bright American, or our adversaries. This was capitulation and weakness by the Senate Democrats.

The only problem with this IMO is that it wouldn't have been Reid taking the heat on Lieberman.  The GOP and the media would have pointing at Obama and calling him out as a crass politician.  

I just don't think Lieberman was worth it as much as I would have liked to have kicked his butt.

This is a Senate Chain-of-Command thing.  Obama made his opinion clear, but in the end he runs a different branch of the Government and stands above this fray looking large.  Harry Reid however is the guy that has to get things done in the Senate. If Reid wants to work with this miserable excuse for a man, it says as much about him as it does Lieberman.

Hopefully the good people of Connecticut will see clear on this nonsense, and retire Lieberman.

"the inability to defend its honor - or even value it"  

I'm all for reaching across the aisle - but rewarding L's behavior infuriates me. It's total capitulation and weakness as you say.

And: The good citizens of Connecticut will no doubt decide what to do with the good Senator in the next election cycle. And: Vengeance is mine saith the Lord. And: What goes around comes around. And: (fill in your favorite cliche here)...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

I guess it wasn't a secret vote afterall and it was for only one resolution.  Not fair, period.

This is why Holy Joe is merely a symptom; the disease is ineffectual Senate leadership. Reid and Durbin need to be replaced.

You're completely right.  Lieberman will get what's coming to him.  

"So that leaves us with a new reality of the Obama era.  Obama's actions towards Lieberman, Clinton, and McCain are a testament to his earnest belief in the authentic Change he championed during the campaign.  Obama is steadfast in his devotion to delivering on a dramatic Green New Deal agenda, and he knows that the old politics of ignorance and division must be replaced with a non-ideological pragmatism.  The moral principle here is decidedly progressive.  We are watching the moral principle of responsibility triumph over the politics of ignorance.  

This is disorienting to partisans of all stripes, but it's just like team Obama to keep their eyes on the big picture and lead by example.  Welcome to the Obama era; the era of moral pragmatism.  This is going to take some getting used to."

I am curious are people on here really upset that Obama isn't acting partisan enough?  

 

We're not upset that Obama isn't acting partisan enough. We're upset that he's giving undeserved power to a political enemy who will be a ticking time bomb throughout his term. Lieberman is not a Democrat in the area that this committee deals with, and it makes no more sense to have him as chair than it would to have Arlen Specter as chair of a committee.

We'll see in the next few years whether our predictions that the Democrats will come to regret this spinelessness come true again, as they did after the 2006 election.

Obviously at this point what's done is done, and we have to move on, but I wish someone could point to one iota of evidence that Lieberman can suddenly be trusted now.

"We'll see in the next few years whether our predictions that the Democrats will come to regret this spinelessness come true again, as they did after the 2006 election."

This is the same line of thinking that conservative republicans spout constantly

It seems nobody seems to understand Virginia.  You win by winning the moderates/independents.  This country isn't progressive or conservative its moderate.

This is just about effectiveness. Presumably the moderates and independents voted for Obama and the Democrats because they wanted them to accomplish some of the agenda they talked about. If Lieberman uses his committee chair to sabotage the Obama presidency and prevent any progress, then I would think moderates and independents could see that would be a problem. There's no reason to believe he won't do that, and every reason to be he will.

In 2006 Senate Democrats supported Lieberman (or at least failed to support Lamont) even after he lost the primary. After winning, he did caucus with them, but he was a thorn in their side throughout the next two years, continuing to support Bush, and completely failed to live up to his promises to Connecticut voters. Now we're supposed to believe that this time he's really sorry and will behave himself. For some reason Obama buys that. I don't, but we'll see.

Where the majority is anything but moderate, and their base once again voted conservative in the vast majority of the House districts.  I assure you that these people were comforted by this show of weakness and equivocation. They will see this as vindication that Democrats are wobbly appeasers. And there is nothing to indicate that they will not return their majority to Richmond with that firm motivation.
 

Its a totally different situation.  The house of delegate seats are small enough that you can actually win as a progressive or conservative.  I was talking statewide

Since you asked about HoD though...

By continuing down their partisan road the R house of delegates will continue to lose seats.

Once normal redistricting occurs many seats will be up for grabs.

Liberals/Progressives must also be careful to not go too far left however.  Also there are already several primary instances occuring or being rumored.  In safe liberal/progressive distrcits this is fine but in swing districts by nominating the more liberal/progressive a seat may switch.  This is what caused the Republicans to lose the state senate.

 

Except that KCinDC's line of reasoning is actually mostly logical, and based in reality.

The conservative Republicans' lines of reasoning, although also partisan like progressive Democrats may be as well, are NOT based in logic or reality, most of the time.

Take for instance, the "threat" to traditional marriage by opening it up to all couples, regardless of their gender make-up.  There is absolutely ZERO evidence that there is any threat to anyone on this issue, other than the civil rights of those disenfranchised GLBT couples.  Yet, this is about all we hear from them---that and how churches will be forced to marry GLBT people (FALSE) and how children will be indoctrinated that GLBT people are normal and acceptable (although this may be the case, again FALSE as parents are and would be free to teach their children as the see fit).

There are PLENTY of instances in which, in reality (ironically) the "conservative Republican" ideology as a line of thinking is illogical, false, and absolutely petty.  There may be examples on the left as well, but I would argue they are not even close in comparison for the levels of absurdity.

That's because, in truth, as you might understand, most of the "progressive" agenda is actually moderate.  Most Americans support it.

....does my comment here deserve an "unproductive" rating!?

I am speechless....

First, thank you for a very thoughtful post.  
I would agree that Obama's actions are "walking the walk" as far as ending the distasteful overly partisan atmosphere.  Also, it is tempting to let things go as far as attaining the 60 vote threshold.

However, I can certainly understand the venom on the part of people who saw Lieberman trash Howard Dean, Ned Lamont, and now Barack Obama and pay virtually no price.  I despise Lieberman for helping Bush on Iraq.

That is why I am so disappointed in Harry Reid.  
Just think back, if you're old enough.  Can you imagine a Senator taking the course Lieberman adopted this year if he were subject to Lyndon Johnson or Sam Rayburn as Majority Leader?  No.  It never would have happened in the first place.

If Reid had ever shown any political courage, had ever forced the Republicans to actually stage a filibuster and then chopped them to pieces in a campaign for holding up the government, people would take him more seriously as a leader.  If he had ever stood up to the Bush agenda in a meaningful way, or had ever enforced party discipline, Lieberman would have been afraid to cross him.  With Reid in charge, Lieberman knew the odds were better than even that nothing would happen to him.

OBAMA acted out of magnanimity, and that we can admire.  He is dealing from a position of strength now.  His action also got Reid off the hook by persuading many Dems to relinquish their desire for punishment.

REID was acting out of weakness, as always, and if we are truly to advance a progressive agenda, we need a leader in the Senate who accumulates power and wields it well.  Harry Reid has got to go as Majority Leader.

Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.  --Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

I'm relatively sure that Rahm Emanuel has read The Prince.  If Reid has, he missed the point.  Barack made a wise choice for Chief of Staff.

I'm not sure what we need is a bully as Majority Leader though, if that's what you mean.  Strong Leader, yes.  Spiteful bully, no.

I agree with you about Harry Reid.  We need better from the majority leader.  

I disagree though that Lieberman is getting off the hook completely.  His reputation has been totally destroyed.  If Obama is successful, he'll look like an even bigger loser than he is now.  Who is going to listen to him any more?  Who is going to re-elect him again?  

If the Dems had decided to punish him, he might have been better off.  Maybe he could have parlayed his martyrdom into some credibility with the GOP or something.

He should be shunned, derided and marginalized for the next four years, and crushed if he decides to run again.

if Lieberman starts to play a constructive role, and the Democrats are able to advance a progressive agenda by avoiding these kind of internal battles -- then the move will be judged as a wise one.

If Lieberman free-lances and works against the Democratic agenda, then the move will be judged as naive.

At least over the short-term, the move goes a long way towards securing Lieberman's re-election in 2012.  If he had lost a high profile post, and decided to caucus with the GOP, he would have lost a great deal of his fundraising clout -- and he would be in less of a position to benefit his home state over the next 4 years.  He'll still be vulnerable to a challenge -- especially if one of the Connecticut House members decides to run, but on balance the move is great news for Lieberman.  

but if I were Joe, I would be careful not to cross Obama too seriously.  

You know the Senate is a fraternity of sorts (not a slap to the women there) .... and Lieberman behaved badly as a former Democrat. But I believe that during this last  Presidential campaign, as an Independent .... he was working with Chuck Schuemer and giving the DNSC money for candidate races. Go Figure.

In effect he was literally Paying Dues per his actions with McCain (and perhaps previously). He's paid a public price to a degree .... a lesser degree then what most people wanted .... but a humiliation or sorts, all the same.

I'm quite Happy with what Obama is doing ... and how he's doing it. Across the board and people of all parties should give him great credit for politicking so graciously.

I'm a UNITER .... not a DIVIDER!!