You misread. Lieberman is guilty of multiple transgressions. But wanting to get rid of Reid, Pelosi, or whomever the Netroots Reign of Terror designates as a target if they don't get their way is just plain Palinesquely stuuuuupid.
Hillary would be nuts to to take SecState. The odds of her serving eight years are vanishingly small. Meanwhile, she can be racking up seniority in the Senate and be a major force on legislation, even without a committee chair.
I want Lieberman gone from the Chairmanship but this diary is, ah, Palinesque in two regards.
First off, it's a decision for a secret vote of the Democratic caucus to make, not Reid's. I think that vote is going to happen. How that vote is going to go I can't say.
Secondly, some Democrats have a positively Maoist attitude about wanting to purge their own for one transgression (in their view) or another. In the Senate, pretty soon we'd be left with...Barbara Boxer?
Everyone needs to suck it up and accept the fact that people whom we support and love or like will often vote the other way on something. Life in the big city...move on. (Staffers learn to deal with disappointments like this all the time...you have to look at the big picture, not agonize over some of the details.)
The California Democratic party has nobody but themselves to blame for Prop 11. They've had the opportunity to design a redistricting system for years. A previous statewide effort was derailed in part because Democrats in the legislature promised that they would address it after the election...at which point the promise was dropped into the well of lost promises.
Meanwhile, the last redistricting was a gutless display by the Democrats, a mutual backscratching with the Republicans to create safe seats for virtually everyone except one Republican sacrificial lamb. If the Democrats had guts, in years like this one they would have a supermajority and could get the necessary tax and budget work done without being held hostage to the Republican wingnut minority.
As it is, with the politicians choosing their voters instead of vice-versa, we have virtually all very safe Democratic or very safe Republican districts. The result is the evaporation of moderates in the legislature, a polarization that sees very liberal Democrats facing off against very conservative Republicans, each more vulnerable to being primaried from the flanks than losing an election in the center. The ideologues of both parties are doubtlessly happy with this but it sucks. And it's gutless.
If Prop 11 doesn't work out, then we can reform it. Personally, I'd like to see something like Iowa's system, which has worked pretty well. And I'd like to see Congressional seats included as well. I'd prefer to see a fair system no matter what but if not, then at least have the guts to gerrymander in your favor instead of engaging in backscratching with the opposition.
I'll be an optimist and say that I don't think Democratic House gains have maxed out yet.
It would be good to make even modest gains in 2010 to set up for a strong position after the redistricting after the 2010 census.
The 2010 gubernatorial and state legislative races are of prime importance as well.
Finally, my early look at the US Senate says, barring retirements, the Democrats have 2-3 potentially vulnerable seats to the Republicans 7. It would be great if we could go three cycles in a row with no Senate turnovers.