Although some of the senior Dems' positive welcome to Lieberman can be ascribed to old personal friendships, I believe that as a whole the Senate Democrats are afraid of Lieberman. They don't want to give up what they just won before they even have it, and they will give Lieberman whatever they need to in order to keep him happy.

It's a pretty precarious position, because the Democrats really will have no power over what Joe says or does, because he always holds the trump card of switching (assuming that Republicans will be willing to honor his seniority, which they probably would to gain back the Senate).

After 2008, in which the Democrats will surely solidify their control of the Senate (the numbers strongly favor Senate Dems in 08), expect to see Lieberman marginalized. Right now, they need him and they don't want him to go.

On the other hand, the Dems could call his bluff. If he joins the Republican caucus, switching control to the Rs for two years, 2008 will see him stuck in the minority for 4 years, after which he will surely not be re-elected. It will all be a personal political calculation for Joe. It seems like his best bet for political power is to cow the Senate Dems into giving him what he wants, rather than actually switching.

I'd say that it is Lieberman who has "hand" right now, not Senate Dems. Too bad...

But it is important to note that a large number of CT Dems voted to reelect him. Maybe anti-Lieberman is exaggerated in the liberal blogosphere.

Personally, I think there is broad enough consensus on enough important issues for Dems to push legislation with Lieberman as a minor player. I think in 6 months the dynamic may be different. I'm happy to watch it pan out.

Lieberman is perhaps the most self serving person in the Senate, this showed in the 2000 race when he refused to resign his Senate seat and risked having a Republican appointed to his Senate seat if Gore won, which might have given the Republicans the Senate (my memory isn't exact on this latter point). He has the Sword of Damoclese hanging over the Dem's head. He knows it, the Dems know it. I think Lieberman will play this for all its worth.

The Republicans screwed him once, so if Trent Lott loses his bid for minority leader, Dems should try to draft him into the party. Stranger things have happened

There's nothing that has been said or written about Joe lieberman that is negative that is not also true. In the present context Holy Joe must be tolerated, but I would hope that after the 08 election wherein the Democrats increase their majority, that Lieberman will be appropriately isolated and shunned for the self serving swine he is. He's a Democrat and I'm Harry Houdini! Bah! He will go down as the most pompous, self absorbed creep ever to stain the reputation of the US Senate. What a scumbag! And what wooses the other Dems are by their treatment of him now. Luckily, the party is changing and much for the better. With any luck in 10 years the current crop of toadying, self promoters amongst the DC Dems will have been driven out of the capitol just as the money changers were from the temple.

What do I make of Democratic Senators giving Lieberman a standing ovation?

I feel the same way when someone cuts me off on the highway and then has the nerve to turn around and give me the finger.

First of all, because it bears repeating: yay we won!!

Second of all, after we noticed we won, the two sides of the Democratic party tried to claim the credit. The two sides don't really agree that much and given a chance would destroy the other.

This Democratic party civil war can be seen in three examples:
1. Rahm vs. Netroots
2. Dean vs. Ford
3. Lieberman vs. Lamont

1. Rahm vs. Netroots - who gets credit? The answer is both, but the partisans on either side (Right Wing Democrats, RWD, say Rahm, Left Wing Democrats, LWD, say the Netroots) try to exclude the other as a matter of rheroric and positioning.

2. Dean vs. Ford - who should be the head of the DNC? When replacing Dean with Harold Ford Jr. was brought up on the New Republic blog I saw some vicious comments about Ford from, what I assume are, LWD who know that attacking Dean is attacking them.

3. Lieberman vs. Lamont. The biggie. Lieberman has been demonized to a level that I've only seen applied to the State of Israel. He's accused of being a closet Republican and in favor of rape, among other things. To RWD, he's a hero. To LWD he's the devil.

To many of the congressional leaders, the Lamont/Lieberman battle was the civil war of the Democratic party writ large and they were quite worried about the outcome. I would assume that if Lamont had won he too would have received a standing-O because he emobodies the LWD. Either way, the senators would be clapping for the wing of the Democratic party that became ascendant.

I'm not sure what to do about the civil war in the Democratic party. I don't see it going away and I hope we can attack the real enemies (Bush, Cheney) and not our own party-members… then again, I think the Lamont-Democrats, in their demonizing of Lieberman, don't think that the Right Wing Democrats really *are* in the party, so that allows the LWD to attack attack attack. Sigh.

And you can bet 100 dinars that Republican Senators will give Trent Lott a standing ovation if he wins the Minority Whip post.

Ah, the Senate...

FUCK 'EM ALL!

It's pretty clear that most of the Democratic Caucus likes Joey L. no matter what many of us think of him. They really didn't want to support Lamont, but rightly believed that they had no choice after the primary.

We can only hope that the Dems are shown the same degree of comity from him. I doubt that they will.

Not apologizing for any Senator here, because Lieberman's positions bother me a lot...

*however*

the expression that comes to mind is that the US Senate is "the world's most exclusive club". In other words, these people have to work together a lot more closely than House members do, and Lieberman will have more opportunity than a Rep to act as a bottleneck. Senate Democrats probably figure that while he isn't a particularly reliable ally, there's no advantage in spurning him at this point.

I don't see this as a big deal. OTOH if they offer him a Committee Chair...

-Dave Adams-

the calculus for 08 makes it very unlikely that the Dems will lose their majority. He's got a chair now. He's substantially to the left of most of the Republican caucus. He won't switch. But he will undermine Dem messages.

Frankly, Lieberman has a good democratic voting record, with only a few exceptions. What I take from the Lieberman hater responses is that they aren't interested in the wider democratic issues.. the ones that affect the lives of real people. They lack any credibility on the issues.. they slander Lieberman and throw their support to a candidate like Ned Lamont, a guy who didn't meet a Bush tax cut he didn't love, who voted with his republican pals in Greenwich every chance he got, an outsourcer of jobs, the man owns oodles of stock in the Walmart he claimed he would take a stand against. Are the Lieberman haters just patently idiotic or just lousy liars.. ? I know I've decided.

I can't be bothered by the single issue crowd. They're parasites who are in actuality little different than their neo-con peers.

The party supported the winner of the CT primary leading up to the election, as it is supposed to do.. but there was never any doubt that they would support Lieberman when he won the election.

If you can't handle that, too bad.

I think the problem the "one issue" folks have with Lieberman is that the war:
1) Consumes the body parts and lives of some of the best in US society.
2) Devours a significant part of the US budget.
3) May actually be increasing the number of Islamic terrorists globally.
4) Has US troops trapped in an Iraqi civil war with no end in sight.
5) Has diverted resources from Afghanistan which is seeing a rise in it's insurgency.
6) Has diverted attention from border security and decreasing nuclear proliferation
7) Makes Iran and Syria the new Middle East power brokers since Iraq has been destroyed
8) Hanging Saddam may even cause a worsening of anti-US feelings in the Muslim world since the trial could not have been conducted without US security forces.
9) There were no WMD
10) Osama remains at large

Thus. many feel the "single" issue is the most important issue. Conn voters voiced their opinion on Nov 7 and Lieberman was their choice. Most voters in other states would likely have selected a different Senator. These voters have a right to voice their displeasure with Lieberman since he represents the entire country.
Lieberman can consider Democrats "cut and run" politicians and that Maxine Waters is not his kind of Democrat. He voices his opinion. Other's are free to respond. Democrats will reach across the isle to gain votes. They will do this on minimum wage increases, immigration, etc. Reaching out to Lieberman (I-CT) is no different.

CT Democrats voted for Lamont 2:1.

Just to explain my rating...

I don't see your post as a troll, but you do end on an inflammatory note. Sort of like a "sore winner". Rather than whine about how Lamont supporters "slandered" Liebermann, why not talk more about how Joe really does vote Democrat? Right now the other side is constantly offering examples of how he doesn't, and this would be a good place to explain.

So I'm giving you a 2 because your post isn't entirely worthless, but it does seem to have a chip on its shoulder that sets a confrontational tone.

We armed Osama and years later got the blowback. We dumped a liberal Republican in CT and years later we're getting the Joeback.

He only came back via the fortuitous circumstance of an incredibly lame GOP candidate, which gave him the GOP - not Dem - vote. He dodged the bullet, and having done his share of constituent support, retained enough Dem support to win.

The Millionaire's Club responded as one would expect from a group whose own initial support for the war made them all feel nervous watching the primary result. More than a few back then were thinking "There but for the grace of God...."

He's the reality for 6 more years, and their first bipartisanship is in mending the rift within.

The pressure's on Joe to stay in line, despite his egotistical realization that he could play monkeywrencher if he wants to. But Reid will be under the gun to enforce Joe's loyalty if he undermines a team vote with any solo grandstanding, by stripping his committee assignments.

So it's far safer now, to grant him this ego-stroke, in hopes of fending off the potential for such a showdown.

In other words, it's showtime and they put on a show. Which always includes a clown-filled funny car.

Kevin Hayden