November 19th, 2008 By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Connecticut Independent Senator Joe Lieberman, who escaped being stripped by Democrats of a major committee chairmanship due to President-Elect Barack Obama’s behind the scenes reconciliatory intervention, used an exclusive interview with CBS’ Katie Couric to make it clear he’s trying to mend fences with Democrats.
His basic argument is — what was he said in the past about Obama in his aggressive support of defeated Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is in the past. Now it’s a brand new day and maybe he shouldn’t have said some things he said…so let’s move on.
One problem with this argument that he makes here and McCain made in McCain’s 2008 presidential election concession speech: campaign rhetoric has grown increasingly demonizing, making supporters feel that unless they get to the polls the Republic’s very future could be at stake. And then — like magic — after the elections it boils down to a big, fat “Never mind! We didn’t really mean what we said!”
Will a new generation of voters follow in their gullible elders’ footsteps and bite the artificially baited polarization hook political party candidates traditionally dangle during election campaigns to motivate partisans — or will they see the artificially baited hook and the bait for what it is… and start swimming away on future election days?
Today’s escape from losing his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee caps Joe Lieberman’s career of having it both ways in two decades of sanctimonious posturing and backroom politicking.
With a novelist’s eye for the absurd, Joan Didion nailed him in her reporting of the 2000 election campaign:
“Senator Lieberman, who had come to the nation’s attention as the hedge player who had previously seized center stage by managing both to denounce the president [Bill Clinton] for “disgraceful” and “immoral” behavior and to vote against his conviction (similarly, he had in 1991 both voiced support for and voted against the confirmation of Clarence Thomas) was not, except to the press, an immediately engaging personality…
“His speech patterns, grounded in the burdens he bore for the rest of us and the personal rewards he had received from God for bearing it, tended to self-congratulation.”
Lieberman called today’s verdict “fair and forward-looking” and one of “reconciliation and not retribution” but…
He did so with a little help from a (perhaps former) friend: President Elect Barack Obama, who went to the mat for Lieberman, making it clear behind the scenes that he didn’t want to start off his White House term with Democrats stripping Lieberman of his committee chairmanship or making Lieberman so upset that he’d bolt to caucus with the Republicans.
Progressive Democrats will be and are livid. But Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid argues that Lieberman is there when it counted on Democratic issues, and Lieberman vows its “the beginning of a new chapter.” Watch their comments after the meeting and make your own judgment:
FOOTNOTE: Obama met McCain yesterday and it would have obliterated that meeting and its symbolism if Lieberman was to have been politically disciplined. There are good arguments on both sides for what should have been done — but the one certainty is: this defuses Lieberman, what he said about Obama during the campaign and his fate as a news story…so Obama can move on. If he indeed plans to reach out to rivals and foes, Lieberman’s campaign behavior would put him in that category.
November 18th, 2008 By JAZZ SHAW, Assistant Editor
Let’s take a quick poll here and have a show of hands if you didn’t see this one coming. CNN is reporting that Joe Lieberman looks to be a “shoe-in” to keep his chairman’s seat on Homeland Security and stay in the Democratic Caucus, while being “punished” by losing some less prestigious position. Predictably, his opponents in the Democratic base who are still boiling mad over his endorsement of John McCain and attacks on Barack Obama, are up in arms.
Um, what idiot would think that taking away a subcommittee from Lieberman would be seen as a “stinging rebuke”? In whose DC-Beltway-addled mind is that even remotely punishment?
Let Lieberman keep that subcommittee. No one gives a shit about it. The only thing that matters, the only thing that Lieberman wants, and the only thing we don’t want him to have — is the chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee.
If this is the “starting point”, and given the Senate Democrats’ history of capitulations, expect Lieberman to come out of that meeting as majority leader.
KOS is hardly the only one. Of course, the main point which made this so predictable is that the majority of these critics are bloggers, pundits and talking heads who are partisan, ideological purists. Harry Reid, on the other hand, has a job which makes him a pragmatist by definition. If you select a majority leader who is a purist, he’s very likely to be a minority leader within an election cycle or two. The Senate races are still playing out, but it looks like the Democrats will seize Ted Stevens’ seat in Alaska and Al Franken may still find a path to victory if he can pry open the trunks of a few more Chevy Impalas. The Georgia seat, however, is a pipe dream and the Dems will come up at least one seat short of a bullet proof majority. He can get by with the support of a few hungry RINOs (which assumes the loss of a couple blue dogs here and there) but it will still be razor thin. He needs Lieberman more than Lieberman needs him.
So Joe will give the appearance of eating a small portion of crow (”whew! That was close. They almost kicked me out!”) but he’ll go back to business as usual. Lieberman will wander off the ranch at times, particularly on foreign policy issues where he wants to play the hawk. But on the critical domestic issues - particularly SCOTUS appointments - he’ll toe the company line. There’s high drama playing out in the blogosphere and the media, but it’s looking like nothing more than business as usual on the Hill.
November 17th, 2008 By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
President Elect Barack Obama has signaled that his desire for an olive branch to be extended to onetime Democratic and present Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman as Lieberman faces a vote tomorrow by Senate Democrats to decide his partisan political fate. Will he continue to caucus with the Democrats or not — and will he continue to hold an important chairmanship or be stripped of it?
At issue is his conduct during Campaign 2008 when he not only campaigned for his close friend Republican Sen. John McCain in McCain’s losing bid for President but went along with and in some cases repeated Republican suggestions that Obama was soft on terrorism, didn’t really care if the troops lost in Iraq — and a host of other allegations.
Dick Polman recaps the controversy swirling around Lieberman here and concludes:
Actually, he did more than cross the line. He stayed silent as the Republican running mates recited lies virtually every day about Obama’s proposals (notably on taxes), and sometimes he personally fanned the flames. When asked last April 14 whether Obama is “a Marxist, as (conservative commentator) Bill Kristol says might be the case,” Lieberman replied: “Well, you know, I must say that’s a good question.” On Oct. 23, Lieberman said that Obama wants to practice “what used to be known as socialist theory.” At another point in the campaign, Lieberman declared that, while McCain always put “country first,” Obama did not.
And, during his GOP convention speech, Lieberman recited the standard GOP line about how the Democratic candidate is a military wimp who doesn’t care about the troops. The key passage: “When others wanted to retreat in defeat from the field of battle, which would’ve been a disaster for the U.S.A. — when colleagues like Barack Obama were voting to cut off funding for our American troops on the battlefield — John McCain had the courage to stand against the tide of public opinion…”
….The bottom line: Lieberman is a special case. He has set himself up to be seriously disciplined by the Democrats, just as three southern House Democrats were stripped of their seniority during the ’60s when they actively worked against the party’s presidential nominees. Precedent, in other words, dictates that the Senate Democrats take some kind of action, if only to demonstrate to their grassroots supporters that the party stands for something, that multiple acts of betrayal should not be countenanced.
But isn’t Lieberman being supported by centrist Democrats including some who pushed for him for President in 2004, before he left the Demmie party?
Actually, Lieberman goes to tomorrow’s vote facing an ominous sign — THIS ONE…that indicates some votes he thought he might have…he might not have.
Most likely outcome: Lieberman will probably be allowed to continue caucusing with the Democrats (as per Obama’s wishes) but will lose his chairmanship as a consequence. He could be allowed to retain it, but there will be backlash from the party base if he does. If he loses the chairmanship he will then have to decide whether he wants to move closer to the Republicans — not a popular party in Connecticut right now. And Lieberman enemy site Daily Kos has a poll indicating Lieberman’s numbers are falling in Connecticut.
November 13th, 2008 By MICHAEL STICKINGS, Assistant Editor
Well, it now seems that both Obama and Durbin want Lieberman to remain as chair of the Homeland Security Committee, at least according to Newsweek’s Howard Fineman.
It has been reported that Obama wants Lieberman to remain in the Democratic caucus, but it hasn’t been clear whether or not he wants him to keep his chairmanship. It has also been reported that Durbin wanted him to be stripped of his chairmanship.
Meanwhile, the Politico is reporting that some Democratic senators — including Dodd, Salazar, Carper, and Nelson — “have launched a behind-the-scenes effort to save… Lieberman’s chairmanship.”
As I have written before, I trust Obama’s judgment and am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. And I have a great deal of respect for Durbin and Dodd.
The thing it, while Obama and Lieberman’s backers may not hold grudges, many of us do. And rightly so. He’s proven time and again over the past several years that he isn’t much of a Democrat, if one at all. And after all he did to attack Obama and the Democrats during the recent campaign, why should he be forgiven and allowed to remain as if nothing happened? Read the rest of this entry »
November 10th, 2008 By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
The Huffington Post reports that President Elect Barack Obama has made it known that he wants to continue to let Connecticut Independent Senator Joe Lieberman caucus with the Democrats, despite a clamor from some progressive to have Lieberman stripped of his committee chairmanship and basically shunned due to his active and vocal support of losing presidential candidate Republican Sen. John McCain:
President-elect Barack Obama has informed party officials that he wants Joe Lieberman to continue caucusing with the Democrats in the 111th Congress, Senate aides tell the Huffington Post.
Obama’s decision could tie the hands of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has been negotiating to remove Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security and Government Reform committee while keeping him within the caucus. Lieberman has insisted that he will split from the Democrats if his homeland security position is stripped.
Aides to the president-elect did not return requests for comment. Senate officials were unclear whether Obama would be comfortable with Lieberman maintaining his current committee post.
Obama will get a lot of criticism for this from progressives, since Lieberman didn’t only support McCain but joined in the GOP’s medley of insinuations that Obama wasn’t really totally patriotic, didn’t really want to see American troops win in Iraq, was a risk in terms of terrorism and if he wasn’t actually a socialist, then he acted like one.
As noted here earlier, Obama had several choices.
By not going to the mat on the Lieberman controversy, he can wipe the slate clean and begin with a new tone and show that he is forgiving. On the other hand, he runs the risk that his foes (inside and outside of his party) could think that he’s easily pushed around and that there are no political consequences. The latter is apparently a risk Obama is willing to take. The Huffington Post again:
A Democrat close to Lieberman, meanwhile, said he thought that keeping Lieberman in the fold “would be a good move for Obama as a way to make real his promise of new politics, a less partisan Washington and more unity. He would do so at some risk. Obviously there is a liberal wing of the party that wants Joe punished…
And could there also be here an element of deferred consequences? Connecticut went overwhelmingly for Obama. Lieberman’s approval ratings in his state are not what they used to be. Could part of this also be a decision to not fight this battle now, but to hang in there until Lieberman is up for re-election and let Connecticut voters do the rest on a future election day?
November 8th, 2008 By JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Will he or won’t he? Will independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman — admired by some for his courage and reviled by others who see him as a turncoat — turn down what seems to be an offer he can’t refuse and refuse to caucus with the Democrats and go with the Republicans rather than face consequences for his campaign 2008 behavior?
Will he or won’t he? Will President Elect Barack Obama, who clearly was irked by Lieberman’s support for Republican candidate Sen. John McCain during the campaign (Lieberman joined in and/or did not dispute GOP suggestions that a vote for Obama might welcome another terrorist attack, that Obama might welcome defeat in Iraq and that Obama was essentially a socialist), opt to play Chicago style hardball against Lieberman through a surrogate such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, or will Obama opt to play post partisan live and let live?
This is one of the key dramas now unfolding in Congress as some angry Democrats want payback for what they see as Lieberman’s constant and strong support of McCain, which could have hurt some Democrats’ election if McCain had won big. McCain had considered naming Lieberman his Vice President but the Arizona Senator’s advisers had warned that the pro-choice, non-Republican Lieberman’s candidacy could spark a floor fight at the GOP convention.
The news stories are murky but you can tell something is afoot.
U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd said Friday that President-elect Obama would not want one of his party’s first major post-election issues to be a messy fight over Joseph Lieberman’s status as a Democrat.
Lieberman’s political future is uncertain because some Democrats want to punish him for supporting Republican John McCain in the race against Obama. But Lieberman and Obama have been Democratic colleagues in the U.S. Senate for four years, Dodd noted, and Obama generally resists confrontations if a compromise can be reached.
“What does Barack Obama want?” Dodd rhetorically asked reporters Friday in Hartford. “He’s talked about reconciliation, healing, bringing people together. I don’t think he’d necessarily want to spend the first month of this president-elect period, this transition period, talking about a Senate seat, particularly if someone is willing to come forward and is willing to be a member of your family in the caucus in that sense.”
But it may not be that simple.
Lieberman met with Reid last week, and emerged to say he’s pondering his options. Does that mean caucusing with the Republicans? Or joining the Republican party?
Either way, some Democrats, such as The American Prospect’s Ezra Klein, believe this is the last straw and that Lieberman should not be allowed keep his seat as chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Klein writes:
Lieberman wants to keep his committee as a hedge against retribution. So long as he controls Governmental Affairs, he’s not the sort of guy Democrats want on a warpath against them. Elsewhere, they can take him seriously, or screw him over, largely as they please, which most would probably find a preferable alternative. But I basically side with the “kick him out” folks. Unlike Arlen Specter, whose minor heterodoxies ended with a pathetic show of groveling and a solemn promise to never, ever, in a million years, ever say an unkind word about one of Bush’s judicial nominees, Lieberman’s major betrayal of the Democratic Party has been accompanied by a promise to bolt to the Republicans Party if he’s not sufficiently stroked. That’s not the sort of guy you want in a position of oversight.
Obama passed on her as vice president but can still put Hillary Clinton on the team by backing her for Senate Majority Leader.
In that role, Harry Reid has been ineffectual in rallying Democrats to curtail Bush’s excesses or even effectively articulate an opposition view. Now, with a Senate reshuffling that includes the stepping-down of Robert Byrd and the throwing-out of Joe Lieberman, “change” could be served by bringing Clinton to the forefront.
With a clear electoral mandate and wide margin in Congress, before reaching out to Republicans as he has promised to do, the President-Elect can solidify his own ranks by recruiting the faction of his own party he narrowly defeated to win the nomination.
By naming Rahm Emanuel chief of staff, Obama has shown he was no qualms about relying on former Clinton loyalists. Choosing the former First Lady as a legislative partner would be a logical next step.
During the primaries, there were insistent rumors that Reid himself was offering his position to Sen. Clinton as an inducement to concede the nomination.
On our Thursday radio show, we took a look at some of the speculation around President Elect Obama’s appointments for his cabinet and staff. I’d like to summarize some of our discussion and add to it with some suggestions and analysis of where we stand so far. The first choice, of course, was Barack’s selection of Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff. He’s certainly qualified, but he represents the sharp elbows of partisan division which have characterized Congress for far too long and stands in denial of Obama’s goals of a post-partisan administration. Someone with a greater history of reaching across the aisle would have been better, so we gave a partial thumbs-down to Rahm for this post.
The second, and much larger focus of our discussion was on the position of Secretary of State. There has been far too much discussion of John Kerry for that position. Mind you, this comes from somebody who was never one of the 2004 “John Kerry Hates America” contingent. Hell, as an opponent of the Iraq war, I actually voted for the guy, though I held my nose and thought he was a flawed candidate. But the fact is that Kerry’s military service, while admirable, did not rise the the expansive, diplomatic levels of people such as Colin Powell who commanded an entire theater, along with being head of the Joint Chiefs and a number of other positions of international responsibility. Nor does his domestic experience rise to the levels of Condi Rice or Madeline Allbright, with their backgrounds in international affairs. He has the same junkets that most Senators take, but that’s hardly a formula for a Secretary of State.
We had a radical and more mending suggestion, though I’m not sure if Obama would consider it. How about David Petraeus? He has not only a military record in warfare, but in managing a coalition of leaders from various countries and experience in dealing with problems specific to the Middle East. He is also wildly popular with the opposition party and would serve as a silent mea culpa regarding his success in Iraq, which only the most hard core partisans would deny. Petraeus was a success and likely deserves a career in the civilian sector. This would be a good start and would set your bona fides in terms of a post-partisan administration.
You have many other posts to fill, but here is one name to consider who might be good for any of several of them… Joe Lieberman. This could be an appointment where you reap multiple benefits. You have claimed to be someone who also crosses party lines and stands up to the party machine while you were out on the campaign trail. Right now the wolves are at the door and your party is getting ready to send Lieberman to the curb. But he is an experienced member of the party and quite popular with the opposition. Rather than allow him to be stripped of his party chairmanship and power positions, driving him into the arms of the Republicans, you could give him a prestigious position in the cabinet. Not only do you further your claim to leaving partisan bickering behind, but your party is mollified when a new Democrat takes his Senate seat. It’s something to think about.
If you go through and stock your appointments with nothing but Clinton-era leftovers and hard core Democratic Party warriors, one of the basic pillars of your campaign dissolves. Obviously you will need to name some trusted insiders who have worked hard for you and proven themselves over time, so I’m not saying you need an entire cabinet full of enemies. But if you take a few chances and really reach across the aisle, and you may find your road far easier in the years to come.
Let’s take a quick poll here and have a show of hands if you didn’t see this one coming. 
