I'm really a 1 issue guy; Iraq.

Betray me on that and it's on.

I'm having a hard time finding Obama's agency in all of this - are you suggesting that there was something more than the noncommital statement that they put out a few weeks ago?

Obama is much cleverer than I am.  He may be bringing his enemies close to him.  Also, he may have the confidence to keep the long view rather than get tripped up with problems like Lieberman.  It may be that he will just let the citizens of CT make the decision about him.  Lieberman is a total scumbag, however.  I hope he can't sleep at night.

So why are the senators implying that through their aides or even surrogates like Lanny Davis on talk shows? They are the ones framing it as left vs right. I am no way a leftwinger (anyone sampling my diaries can attest to that). But I am for quality senators - character or production  - or both.

Hell, I supported Rahm Emanuel's appointment based on his ability despite my dislike of his personality. I hated the way Obama and others acted during the Lamont-lieberman election. But we put it aside as we were not some nutbags unable to put imperfections behind us. But there is a point at which one has to draw the line. These kind of moves ignores the last 8 years. If Al Franken loses by a few votes and Lieberman's campaigning somehow affected those few votes by giving fake bipartisan credibility to Coleman, will Democratic bigwigs treat Lieberman with the same venom they reserve for Nader?

Not by saving Lieberman, but by not handing Obama a defeat before he even takes office. Obama's going to need all the honeymoon period he can get if he's going to deliver on peoples' expectations.

Thank you Senate. I'm sure there are many senators who would have loved to give Lieberman stiffer punishment, but recognized that the cost would have been too high.

Well, take a look at my diary, just posted here...talk about being on the same wavelength today! Sheesh!

So far, all his appointments have been the same old suspects.

Now lieberman gets his chairmanship despite a bad track record in this position? Who the fuck is Obama trying to fool here? I thought Obama followed Lieberman with his mouth shut becuase he was a junior senator at the time when lieberman ignored calls to make the Bushies accountable. So obama is saying it is OK to ignore accountability? When you ignore accountability, mistakes will be made in the future.

Where is the change in keeping a moron like Lieberman with fringe ideas(well, not fringe in 2002, but the fringe of 2002 is now the mainstream of 2008 regarding the war). What is Obama's plan in having that committee run well. Did they at least get Lieberman to promise to make the Bushies accountable for their mistakes in the closing months of the bush presidency?

Why is it that moderates are all for being tough on crime, but when we let politicians get away with their outright negligence and corruption during Katrina and Iraq, it is OK. A black person wading in water with a TV is somehow much worse than a politician giving his buddies rich contracts to not do their job properly in disaster areas?

That's just it, if they try to remove him later on it will look like a Partisan Witch Hunt. He has free reign and 42 allies. Besides he already knows his Senate allies won't turn on him no matter what. He can do fuck all.

Obama isn't interested in posturing, he's interesting in being the absolute best president he can be.  And he, correctly, sees nothing to be gained from sending a signal that the Democrat party is triumphalist and vengeful.  He would rather send a signal that he is a big tent democrat and inclusionary president who wants to build the widest possible coalition for his policies.

Good for him.  I agree.

Yet Lieberman could make Obama's life more difficult as an angry gadfly (a Tom Coburn, as it were) than he would as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee -- particularly if he owed his chairmanship to Obama, which he does.

didn't lieberman already owe obama his senate seat after begging him to stump for joe in 2006?

i just can't see what lieberman has to offer that doesn't require trusting him.

Obama in his campaign of change and unity said nothing about retribution and punishment.  His only chance to accomplish his ambitious agenda is to line up all the allies he can.  Although it may frustrate those of us who can't stomach Lieberman and his shenanigans, I suspect the public view will be positive.  

well said!

It's not just the restoration of the chairmanship. But the way they went about it. Denigrating the left through very blunt statements by aides or whoever is the surrogate. But Harry Reid went  beyond the line of proprietary by calling Joe a Democrat. I have news for you. He broke the rules by refusing to accept the results of a Democratic Primary that had the largest turnout of any primary in CT history. He campaigned as an indepdent. So if you must kiss Lieberman's ass, Harry should have the decency not to address him as a democrat because he is not.  Even Bernie Sanders whose values are closer to the Democrats isnt called a Democrat by Harry because he is not.

The party elite has just told Democratic PArty voters of CT "FUCK YOU, SUCKERS". We do not respect your primary process because all that counts is what we think, not you. It's one thing for us to grit our teeth while the spineless Democrats let him chair an important committee. But to call him a Democrat invalidates our right to vote. Democrats did not vote him senator. REpublicans did. Call him a senator, but not a Democrat.

Yet Lieberman could make Obama's life more difficult as an angry gadfly (a Tom Coburn, as it were) than he would as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee -- particularly if he owed his chairmanship to Obama, which he does.

You're assuming that Joe Lieberman has the capacity to feel gratitude, that he has a sense of honor and integrity.  He doesn't.

Lieberman will continue doing what Lieberman does: Undercut Democrats.  Obama's full pardon will mean absolutely nothing to him whatsoever.

et Lieberman could make Obama's life more difficult as an angry gadfly (a Tom Coburn, as it were) than he would as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee -- particularly if he owed his chairmanship to Obama, which he does.

This Obama apologetics is such utter bull-crap its way, way beyond pathetic. The support of LIEberman sucks on every level imaginable. It just reinforces everything bad about Democrats, particularly that they stand for nothing, that they're a bunch of conniving milquetoast that would sell their grandmother if they thought it would benefit them. Hell, on the same day, republicans have the votes to throw out Stevens - they at least look like something matters to them. Democrats just look like sniveling drool that are either afraid of LIEberman mouthing off against them some more or are delusionally demented in thinking LIEberman now owes them something and that he would support the party and Obama.

Maybe Democrats are right: the sanctimonious, egomaniacal, malignant cancer that is LIEberman appears to truly belong a Democrat and they really can't afford to lose someone who so thoroughly represents Democrat values.

That's it for me, the last straw, I'm out. A 35 year Democrat - I'll be changing my registration to Independent.

Perhaps anger managment and xanax should be mandatory for anyone posting on a blog.  It would seem to be necessary.

I wanted Joe's head as much as anybody but hey, can we at least wait until the day after he's sworn in before we write Obama off as a weakling failure.  Should't he at least be in the job before we start bitching about job performance?

Flame on.