Damn. Steve Benen beat me to it. That was my first thought as well-time for another talky talk with Mr. Obama. He's a real piece of work, this Senator Palpatine guy. Oh, sorry, got my evil Sith Lords mixed up. Senator Lieberman.

My slant on this is that Reid ought to go ahead and deal with Lieberman and remove him from his various jobs within the Senate. Harry will still be in charge and go ahead and let the GOP continue to block bills like they have been doing. Ried should set the aganda for key bills to prime the pump for the fall election and allow the GOP to be put in the spotlight for what they are; PUNKS and THUGS! It's not like the democrats have been able to obtain a huge legislative track record of success. Set the GOP up and keep the pressure on them. We need to play a better and smarter game than we have been doing. Everytime Lieberman rubs the democrats faces in the dirt; we look weak and impotent.

Lieberman has lost his mind. I really believe he has. Would that the good people of Connecticut had read the writing on the wall. As soon as the November election is over, Lieberman should be stripped of every Dem perk he enjoys. Consign him to "Lieberman, Part of One" oblivion so that he can crawl across the aisle to the Republicans, thus squandering any valuable legacy he ever had.

Liberman forgot to mention the sweat glistening off McCain's man boobs . . .

Poor grammar and lack of logic. Call it what it is!

We need a word here. Destruction of English! Destruction of logic!

Is there a way to kick someone out of a party? Can the people of Connecticut impeach the guy? Or recall him?

Or, maybe, you know, perhaps the fellow who is the head of the Senate Dems and who is responsible for maintaining Lieberman's plum committee slots might consider dealing with this one day? Naah.

Harry Reid, get rid of this cancer, NOW.

As soon as this session is adjourned, he needs to be told that he will no longer be the Chair Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. He is a Republican and let him go caucus with them. In four years he can explain to his constituents why he's no longer caucusing with the Democrats, even though he got re-elected because he promised that he would.

It's time to remove Lieberman from his committee leadership roles. If he defects to the GOP, so be it. He's basically daring them at this point and I think Lieberman does more damage to Obama and the party as someone still refers to himself as an Independent "Democrat" than if he was jsut a Republican.

I don't care if the GOP will control the Senate for the remainder of this year. Nothing of substance is going to happen there with the camber so evenly divided anyways.

Lieberman must be punished.

If we strip Holy Joe of his committee plums, he'll just go join the Republican caucus. There is supposed to be some agreement that keeps the Dems in the majority organizationally, even if they technically lose it due to, say, Senator's recuperating from brain surgery.

But does anyone really think Mitch McConnell would honor that agreement if Joe traipsed over to formally join his caucus? We're stuck with him, and the oozing little pustule knows it.

That said,its not about whether we pick up ten or eleven extra seats in the next Congress anymore. In the next Congress, I hope/expect to see his smug, smarmy, ass booted out of the Democratic caucus even if costs us a filibuster-proof majority. 'Cause its not like he'd stick with us on those votes anyway, now, is it?

Reid can deal with him any time. Once the Senate Session has been formed and the initial organizing resolutions adopted, we no longer need him to control the Senate. The Chairmanships and Leadership are all in place.

But why be as pettily partisan as he is? Connecticut is a potentially vulnerable state, and I'd rather see Lieberman's supporters there disarmed and in disarray rather than riled up. And I think Joe is doing a good job of alienating some of his own base.

The man's only hope for a political future is now a McCain victory. Otherwise, he won't see a chairmanship again and will likely lose his next election.

And to think how close this moron came to becoming the DemocratIC Vice President!

Scary, man...scary!

A) I must ask if there is anyone who is a bigger horses ass, more dishonest, self-absorbed, hypocrite, and embarassment than Joe Lieberman in American politics?

B) It's obvious this "letter" was one written by a Republican for Lieberman's signature confirming his status as a Democrat literally in name only.

Given his improper use of the name of the Democraticy Party, I think it only right and just for Democrats nationwide to immediately cease ever again referring to him as Senator Lieberman and instead borrow the name Republicans gave to him in 2000 Senator "Sore Loserman."

I think it would be most fitting if the major blogs initiated an effort to return to the literal DINO (Democrat in name only) Senator in the way the Republicans refer to our party and refer to this loser at all times as "Senator Loserman." It could/would then begin to catch on at other sites and with the grass roots forever dissing this creep as he so richly deserves.

I think the moniker most apt because honestly, is their anyone on earth who has been more of a sore loser than Senator Loserman since he was rejected by his own party in the 06 CT primary and then had to (in finest Republican fashion) lie his way back into office as an alleged Democrat in November?

Senator Loserman. I feel better already.

AFAIC, it hurts the Democratic Party to continually have Droopy act against us.

Enough - he's speaking at the Repug Convention - this is ridiculous.

Petty partisanship? Really?

I don't think so - I think it means we stand up for the Democratic Party and its principles.

I'm sure that this will get me into trouble, but whatever. I don't like Lieberman. Never have. I wish that he'd lost to Lamont, and I hope that he loses his next election.

But all this righteous fulmination is too much. If Lieberman weren't a former Dem and VP candidate, no one would pay him any attention. The rage seems to be due not to his policies, which would be conservative for a Democrat but moderate for a Republican, but to the fact that he is regarded as a traitor to the party. I just don't put great stock in the moral imperative of party loyalty. It sucks that he supports McCain, but it's not immoral.

Lieberman's committee assignments are a matter of practicality. The Senate leadership feels that they need Lieberman's vote. If Dems want to lose key Senate votes this year, then sure, they should strip him of everything push him to change his affiliation from Independent to Republican. I'd rather win the votes and put up with Lieberman's misspelling of the name of his former party.

To those saying we need ten pickups to replace Lieberman: the "60" number matters for filibusters, but Lieberman already votes against the Democrats on cloture votes, so dumping him has no effect.

If (rather, when) the Democrats have a majority next term without him (because they pick up one or more seats), they need to dump him. And they shouldn't wait. Toss him out of the caucus now. He can retain his chairmanship for this term, but after that, he'll have to compete with the Republicans for ranking member slots.

Well, it seems pretty clear now that Lieberman is intentionally and deliberately trying to provoke the Democratic Party into stripping him of his chairmanships and kicking him out. There can be no other rational explanation of his use of the term "Democrat Party", which he obviously knows is an irritating Republican taunt that only Republicans use. He wants to leave the party, but wants the leadership of the party to be the ones who pull the trigger, so he doesn't have to do it himself. Then he can say, "the party left me; I didn't leave the party."

So far I've seen multiple use of the word "traitor." Ya'll sound like a bunch of Republicans.

YES!! THE party has left him and should leave him. Fuck him and his talking points and McBush's as well that they are the champions of bipartisan politics.

Let's follow Joe's cue and call him and his ilk Independs.

"Independs" = fakely bipartisan warmonger hawks over the age of 65, of dubious continence.

Obama should leave Lieberman alone.

Why cause a fight - it is so unwise, even though it has all these partisan bloggers cheering without regard to how cheap it looks.

Lieberman is in a bad place right now, caught between two worlds, and the poor bitter man doesn't fit into either one, but people back into corners with no way out come out bitter and fighting mad. I just don't see the gain in it now that Obama won the nomination and should be moving to the center.

So this is not something good that Obama did - and I wish lefty bloggers would stop acting like it is.

Obama can lose this election by getting cocky, so it's not wise, and it's so partisan, nasty and little that it sucks. Independent voters don't tolerate this kind of crap. Lieberman probably won’t win his re-election so why not just leave him alone and let him stew in his own bitter juices. Lieberman really is irrelevant. Obama wasn't doing himself any favors by lossing his cool.

I'd love to see a McCain/Lieberman ticket. I'd love to see Joe lose his second bid for second place.

If Hagel were as serious a contender for Obama's VP as people make him out to be, he'd be out making his own appeal to Independents. Just sayin'.

Lieberman's only in year 2 of a 6-year term. If he's flipped the Senate flips. If Mr. Bush goes on the attack against Iran, which he will try to do before he leaves office, and which he may try to use to institute martial law and make all our months of blogging mind-blowingly irrelevant, the Congress has got to be able to overthrow him, basically.

Barack may feel he doesn't have much time to bring some more Bush dog Dems more firmly on to the Democrat's side, and he's got to do that by wooing the people who voted those Dems in, because they are the ones who can tell their representatives and state parties just what they think of them. And we all know how the map of the appalachians went last month.

I think we're in a very dangerous period now, and it's not going to end until Mr. Obama is inaugurated. Mr. Bush can do just about any crazy thing between now and then and declare martial law. The entire election period is basically running at the will of this jerk in the White House as I see it.

Please bring a new way of doing politics...

Talk about disrespect.The only exceutive decision a nominee gets to make befor elected is his vp choice.Now they want him to lose that right?

She can never be on his ticket,she doesn't play by the rules comes with all he is aganist,and will usurp his position of authority ever chance she gets.

Barack, went up aganist one if the most corrupt,powerful,dirty,amoral,political machines in politics,and not only beat them but bankrupted the beast,and Now, that he slayed the dragon,it raises its ugly head and wants a piece of the

spoils. I DON"T THINK SO!

Loserman

Remember that one Joe?
That's who you're in bed with.

Tena is completely right, and I'm absolutely down with the plan that these bastards need to go. My only problem - fine tuning - is referring to them as "fascists." Same problem I have with referring to them as "bullies." In their childish world, those are badges of honor. In fact, they're assholes; spineless, juvenile wannabes who lack the spine to be actual fascists, just as they lack the physical courage (military records, anyone?) to be bullies.

Everybody went to grade school with at least one dipshit like GWB.

Lieberman is just an idiot and has hitched his wagon to the wrong horse.

I don't have objections to him supporting McCain on the war or even for pres, I don't agree but free country and all. However, if he is part of the Dem caucus he should refrain from actively attacking Obama/Dems - or leave the caucus and give up his posts. Of course that assumes he isn't a spineless weasel.

Either way, his days are numbered both in his posts and in the senate. I am sure he is hoping for a cabinet position in a McCain admin but not. going. to. happen. Had he been an active supporter of Obama - he'd have stood a chance of keeping his seat.

Feingold.

I am new here, but here is my perspective from CT. I am registered as a Republican, but voted for Lamont because of my opposition to the war. You would likely call me a RINO.

Joe has otherwise been a good senator, but frankly, I think that he is getting a little flaky in his old age. (Old enough for social security). I am frustrated with the politics of deception practiced by Bushco, and will vote for Obama.

Henceforth I will refer to them as the Republic Party.

Easy. How about if every time they leave a syllable out, we leave a syllable out? The Publican party, as in Publicans and Sinners...

My question is, who is the bigger fool, lieberman or mccain. Talk about the odd couple and yet they somehow deserve each other.

Lieberman isn't an independent. He belongs to the Connecticut for Lieberman party. I wish people would use the right designation. Or did he get kicked out of the CFL? I forget. At the very least, though, he shouldn't be invited to any Democratic meetings. He's an embarrassment.

Liberman seems to put Israel's interests before America's. I don't think he cares about democrats or republicans, and in this sense he is independent. But except big and influential West Hartford Jewish community, there are not many Jews in CT. Being myself half-Jew, I don't mean anything negative.

This has nothing to do with Republicans and Democrats. There is just something inherently indecent about Lieberman. It goes beyond politics. He has no ethical center. No loyalty to anyone, except, perhaps Israel. I have long believed he is loyal to Israel over the U.S.

I loved Joe Lieberman as Willie Tanner in "Alf"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VCsKn-lLY7Y

But he needs to go gently into the dark night...

Among some of the earliest signs of Alzheimer's are a growing lack of judgement and impulsiveness.

I would think that months of being without him is worth throwing him out, ungracefully, and with no notice. Throw him out of the Party - why wait for the election?

Doesn't common sense demand that we boot from committees someone who is campaigning FOR THE OTHER PARTY?

Harry Reid, do something, or is the fact he'll vote on Democratic legislation and won't vote for a Democratic candidate not a problem? Let us know.

fair enough

I call him "joezoe tortureman, party of one"

and I dedicated a request to him

One is the loneliest number that you'll ever do ....

I am absolutely sickened by the amount of vitriol that the people of this thread have spewed over Lieberman and his use of "democrat" party.

Am I the only one to admire Lieberman for his independence even as I disagree with his views? If Obama truly heralds a new age of politics breaking through the "old politics" of partisanship, then surely this includes the ability to disagree with one's party and their choice of Presidential nominee.

In ridiculing Lieberman for being a "traitor" to the democrats, I feel that you've shown the worst of partisanship: a blind loyalty to party irrespective of the issues, along with a hate of the opponent out of proportion to their positions. Please, let sanity restore itself: we have a Republic so that people like Sen. Lieberman can use their best judgement in service to the people, not so two artificial constructs can wage an unending battle over policy constructs.

And as for his use of "democrat party?" If people here at TPM can get away with calling the Republicans "fascists," then I think that we can be a bit more forgiving towards this so-called insult.

(as an aside, I would like to praise Ghengis for being a voice of sanity and reason)

I guess everyone beat me to it saying (and it's been said before) that Lieberman clearly needs to go, but I did think of a rejoinder to those Republicans (including Lieberman) who insist on using "democrat" instead of "democratic." It's this: every time one of them uses "democrat," respond by calling the GOP "the GOP" (rhymes with "sop" or "mop" or "drop"). The word is sufficiently icky-sounding that I predict it would either catch on - to their detriment - or stop them from using "democrat" inappropriately. :D