Fineman: Obama And Durbin Want Lieberman To Stay As Homeland Security Chair
On Keith Olbermann's show last night, Howard Fineman dropped a bit of a bomb, reporting that Senator Dick Durbin is now moving towards keeping Joe Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security Committee -- because he has now heard what Obama had to say about it. Worse, Fineman claimed that Obama has "signaled" that he, too, wants Lieberman to stay.
Here's a transcript:
FINEMAN: Senator Dick Durbin is a key factor there and I think he`s moving toward allowing Lieberman to stay. Dick Durbin was somebody who was extremely angry at Lieberman for campaigning for John McCain.But I`m now told after having gone through a horrible week or so, where he was mourning the death of his 40-year-old daughter to congenital heart disease, he`s come out of that and looked around and, also, heard what Barack Obama has had to say, and Durbin is now saying he`s willing to give Lieberman a chance.
I think that`s going to go to a vote next week but I bet that Lieberman gets to keep his committee chairmanship because Obama has signaled that he wants him to.
Did Obama really "signal" that he wants Lieberman to stay? The Obama team merely said that they wouldn't referee any committee chairmanship decisions. But they also added that they hold "no grudges" against Lieberman. As I argued here yesterday, this risks giving cover to Senators who want to do nothing about Lieberman.
If Fineman is right, Durbin, clearly, is taking it this way, only a day after he was said to be actively opposed to Lieberman staying. Seems like it's fair to ask Durbin's office for clarification as to what exactly he thinks and why he may be interpreting Obama's remarks as active support for Lieberman keeping the chairmanship.
Does Durbin really support Lieberman keeping his chairmanship after he insinuated that the first African American Dem nominee for president is pro-terrorist, suggested that he endangered our troops, and said he doesn't always put the country first? And that's not even getting into the awful job Lieberman did on the committee, either.
Late Update: Some of you are arguing that Fineman may have been referring only to the question of whether Durbin and Obama support Lieberman staying in the caucus. But I don't believe that to be the case. First of all, Durbin yesterday was said to be specifically opposed to Lieberman keeping his chairmanship, so Fineman's claims of a possible change of heart clearly refer to that. What's more, in the last paragraph of Fineman's quotes above, he's clearly saying Obama signaled support for Lieberman keeping the chairmanship.
Okaaaaaaaay...didn't Durbin just yesterday claim he wanted Lieberman out on his ass???
No time to flip-flop, guys, and give the GOP ammunition! Let's get things going as one!
November 12, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I admit I was harsh above - I didn't mean to be. Durbin has every right to change his mind, especially for the reasons he did, but I hope not too many Dems do so as well.
The GOP is desperately looking for anything to make Dems look bad and they love to whip out the flip-floppin' card!
November 12, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't a mere "flip-flop". This is PRESSURE from... ???.. to keep Joe in a position to throw monkey wrenches into the works, as he sees fit, tfn.
It comes from the same authority that urged no less than the President-Elect to keep a traitorous pol who shat all over him incessantly, snugly in such a position of power.
Our mission... should we decide to accept it... is to deduce WHAT entity has such clout, that it can move not only congresscritters to do its bidding, but can additionally bust the balls of the President Of The United States, to keep Holy Joe in a position to make policy, make things stop, and make general Not Nice?
November 12, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't a mere "flip-flop". This is PRESSURE from... ???.. to keep Joe in a position to throw monkey wrenches into the works, as he sees fit, tfn.
It comes from the same authority that urged no less than the President-Elect to keep a traitorous pol who shat all over him incessantly, snugly in such a position of power.
Our mission... should we decide to accept it... is to deduce WHAT entity has such clout, that it can move not only congresscritters to do its bidding, but can additionally bust the balls of the President Of The United States, to keep Holy Joe in a position to make policy, make things stop, and make general Not Nice?
November 12, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fineman has a 50% chance of being correct and 50% chance of being wrong. I like his odds.
November 12, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's like watching a dog chase its tail....
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/obama_transition_clarifies_nun.php
November 12, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing in what Fineman said sounded like Durbin or Obama specially said Lieberman should stay in his Homeland Security position, which is different than kicking him out of the caucus.
Fineman is just guessing - mixing up the two - which is what I think Lieberman has been trying to do by conflating the two choices dems have.
November 12, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. There seems to be a lot of confusion between Lieberman's committee and keeping him in the caucus. My money is on Lieberman losing his committee but remaining in the caucus. But if anyone can screw this up it's Dem leadership; or lacktherof.
November 12, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't agree more.
Can we have some perspective here, please? We've just gone through an election in which political pundits were repeatedly and egregiously wrong on multiple fronts.
Finemans thinks something based on that tired old insider Washington mindset. And I think Greg is overinterpreting things right now.
November 12, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Fineman is right, this horrible news. Bygones is one thing, being a pushover is another.
November 12, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
No kidding! I was all excited about the fact that Obama is moving fast to close Gitmo, reversing other terrible Bush policies, pushing hard for a middle class economic stimulus, but then I read this about Lieberman and my day is just ruined.
Does Obama have any idea what he is doing?!? He is such a WIMP!
November 12, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, Obama will have to make some decisions that will not be popular with his core base of supporters (just like Clinton did in the 90s). However, I would much rather have Obama letting Joe "Droopy Dog" Lieberman off of the proverbial hook -- than have John McCain be our next president.
*shudder*
http://thepajamapundit.com/
November 12, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe my comment wasn't quite snarky enough.
This obsession with vengeance for Lieberman here at TPM makes me think that nobody has been listening to a word Obama has said over the past 2 years.
A new tone in politics? Post-partisanship? Team of rivals? Well, it cuts both ways and we are seeing it now with Lieberman. Obama is giving him a lifeline. This is not a sign of weakness, it is a sign of strength. Lieberman knows full well that one word from Obama would have him out on his ass.
Obama is signaling that "what happens on the campaign trail, stays on the campaign trail." Campaigns are tough and often divisive, but that should end when the election is over. And that means not taking revenge on your opponents if you win.
November 12, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cautious co-sign. Just worried about Lieberman's substantive failure as Chairman. We need some hearings, investigations, etc., so we can learn from our mistakes. I don't want him out for purely partisan reasons (though vengeance would be sweet), I'm just not sure Joe's up to the job.
November 12, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree but that's a different matter. If he's not doing his job, fine. Boot his ass. But don't do it as a political vendetta. That's all I'm saying (and what I think Obama is saying).
November 12, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, yeah, but this is Lieberman we're talking about, here. He is 100% certain to interpret mercy as vindication and approval.
November 12, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps, but we can't worry about that. You can only extend a hand, you can't force the other side to do so as well.
November 12, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't about "tone", nor is it about "bipartisnaship". Which is interesting... somebody please explain how it's being "bipartisan" to the Republicans, to keep a man who got re-elected by telling his state's voters that although he was rejected by the Democratic Party in his own state, he promised to continue to help "elect Democrats". HOW DOES KEEPING THIS GUY AS A NOMINAL "DEMOCRAT" RESPECT REPUBLICANS, UNLESS THEY'VE ALL KNOWN HE IS A REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE, ALL THIS TIME? Duh?
This is about keeping a guy in a position of power, where anyone who has been paying attention knows for a fact that it's only a matter of (a short) time, before he does something treacerous to stymie the Democratic agenda?
And what Democrat, in his or her right mind, would want or tolerate that? Unless he or she had no choice.
November 12, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh for f*cks sake.
this looks so spineless.
November 12, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fineman clearly was confused and didn't know what he was talking about, and the reason I think that is that in the same piece he clearly mischaracterized Obama’s position on the matter as supporting Lieberman for remaining as chair of that committee.
November 12, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Fineman is talkin' out his arse.
November 12, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
My thoughts exactly. Fineman is highly prone to run data through a Broder Filter before he spouts it out.
November 12, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Giggle.
Typical Obama. Limited fingerprints and consistent with Obama's history with Lieberman. Obama refuses to condemn anyone's actions because everybody (except a current political opponent) is action from the best possible motives which Obama shares. If you view Lieberman as the left most reThuglican what better place to demonstrate your bipartisan nature? Does kinda ignore the turncoat issue though, doesn't it?
I'm not saying that Obama is necessarily wrong in this instance: 60 votes is a lot easier to reach with a happy Joe than with an unhappy one.
November 12, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh... a bad thing to wake up to. Hopefully this won't set the tone of today...
I don't believe Obama WANTS Liebersuck to stay as HS chair. I'm just hoping we'll soon hear clarification from the Obama camp....
November 12, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly, this is what kills me about cable "news" - it's all speculation without fact, assumption without verification, and usually most of it is wrong.
Cable News - too many Talking Heads, not enough actual (Huey Lewis & The) News!
November 12, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seems Fineman is guessing. Surprised that Olberman didn't catch it though.
November 12, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
all, see the update I added...
November 12, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Fineman clearly is refering to the chairmanship when talking about both Durbin and Obama, and since the Obama camp has publically issued a statement which is clearly at odds with what Fineman said you have to believe one of two things: 1) the Obama camp privately said something differant to Fineman or 2) Fineman is making it up/confused/speculating.
Since the Obama camp all along has been extremely resistant to leaks why would anyone assume it is number 1) and not 2)?
November 12, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS - since Fineman seems to me to be clearly "making it up" when it comes to Obama I would naturally assume he is doing the same thing for Durbin.
November 12, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I heard it the same way. I was surprised Fineman said it so matter-of-factly. I suppose that's where the idea comes from that there's some truth behind his wild-ass guess that Obama is signaling anything in particular. He's usually much more equivocal.
It's still speculation and even if it's very emphatically stated, it's simply speculation.
November 12, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm assuming you've got a call into Durbin's office?
November 12, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. He never indicates who provided him this tip. It could have come from someone in the Lieberman camp. Case in point, the apparently false rumor that the Big Dawg was calling Senators on behalf of Lieberman.
2. ". . . but I bet . . ." sure sounds like a guesstimate.
3. His conclusion that Obama has signaled that he wants Lieberman to retain his chairmanship is nothing but speculation.
November 12, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that's what I thought. "I was told," by whom? "I heard," from whom? "I think," "I bet"?
Sounds to me he's just talking. No?
November 12, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
YES. He's just talking. Think about it. He doesn't know anymore than the next political pundit what's going on, but this gives him, momentarily, a great deal of attention.
Fineman thinks something. That's it. And since the political media on cable was so smack dabbity dab AWESOME at telling us how many problems the Obama campaign faced, with women, Latinos, white working men, the Clintons, on and on and on, we should really really give this a boatload of credence.
NOT.
November 12, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah. But nobody "just talks", when you're a TV Gasbag.
They are sent there, with a little McNugget of propaganda, to insert into the bloodstream and start a 24-hour news cycle "controversy".
Sometimes they know they're being sent (Novak), sometimes they're just useful idiots (Drudge).
November 12, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
He was stating his opinion. On an opinion show. As far as I know he was not acting as an Obama surrogate nor is he a designated or authorized spokesman for the transition.
My point is since when does what Howard Fineman says on KO translate to Obama policy?
November 12, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fineman is wrong. Period. IMHO he is an asshole. I know he has been around, blah blah blah, but I Ddon't trust a word he says. Don't know why olbermann has him on so much. Must be that msnbc/newsweek thingy.
November 12, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is ALL just speculation. They'll vote next week and then we'll know Liebermann's fate. Until then, this is a waste of time.
November 12, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
November 12, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. In the meantime, let's keep writing/calling our Senators...
November 12, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is an isn't a waste of time. The more pressure the base puts on Dems - which is what leadership both expects and wants - the easier it is for them to justify stripping Lieberman of his committee chair. It goes something like this: Joe we'd consider doing it but our base just won't allow it. So meet us half-way. You can stay in the caucus but have to leave your committee post.
Dem leadership needs the base to provide a reason to toss Lieberman out. It's a game of theatrics. But if nobody seems to care about Lieberman staying at the head of his committee then it becomes a lot tougher to push him out.
http://pufferfish.typepad.com/
November 12, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, I despise Lieberman as much as the next guy, but I can't blame Obama for taking this position. He's got a lot of things he wants to accomplish; why wade into the morass of this infighting? It can't help him, and there is a risk it hurts him, by making him look petty and vengeful. This way, he shows he doesn't hold grudges (which, actually, he doesn't). More importantly, a chastened Lieberman who holds onto his committee chairmanship thanks to Obama's intervention is going to be more helpful than a (more) bitter Lieberman who bolts to the minority party and starts trying to undermine the Democratic agenda just out of spite.
As they say in the Corleone family: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
Besides, it's not Obama's job to decide who holds what position in the Senate. That's Harry Reid's job. And so far, Reid is trying to pass the buck to make someone else take responsibility. That's who we should criticize.
November 12, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the idea here is that Fineman is reading Obama's statement as support for Lieberman, and claiming that other Senators are inclined to do so too, which is a real danger
November 12, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
But without ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CONCLUSION. It's pure speculation on his part....
November 12, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The evidence is in the zillion other occasions politicians have avoided hard decisions, and taken political cover.
November 12, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
How could it be a real danger other than Fineman's apparently poor reading comprehension? He's not Obama's surrogate.
November 12, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think what we're getting at is one of the drawbacks of the "no-drama Obama" no leaks policy. It's perfect when you can play it off against the psychodrama of the Clinton and McCain campaigns, but when you're suddenly the only game in town (because everyone is hard at work ignoring Bush), no leaks means endless speculation.
So what ends up happening is that if there's room for a misinterpretation, it'll happen as a matter of principle. If there's no information available, put something out there, and see what sticks. If you're a reporter with a question, but no inside sources, run something and make somebody deny it on or off the record.
I think that's what's happened here. I don't know that for sure, and I worry about that, and this is exactly what Howard Fineman intended. It'll be almost more interesting to see how an Obama administration deals with people like Fineman than it is to see what happens to Lieberman.
November 12, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is really getting to be funny! Like a game of "telephone" - someone on the Obama team made a statement (of how Obama feels) - and that was somehow received by Durbin (via whom or what and how they interpreted what the source interpreted we don't know). And now Durbin has interpreted the interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation. And Fineman has interpreted that interpretation.... etc. etc.
So what are we to make of this? Kids learn from the game that telling something over and over, based on what you thought you heard and they heard... leads to nonsense. And interpreting nonsense is funny!
Where are the adults? Durbin, you should make up your own mind. And so should everybody else! Be grown-ups for gods sake!
November 12, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
This just in: Obama will appoint Harry Shearer as Secretary of the Absurd.
Really! It's true!
Come on! Take a step back and imagine how silly we all look leaping at any shadow or dancing light like under-medicated Republicans.
Can we at least wait until we get something more solid than "some guy on some talk show said..." before we conclude that Obama has lost his mind/spine/way/mandate/advantage/whatever?
November 12, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Secretary of the Absurd! I'm going to apply... We can all apply! Likely Palin will apply... and she'll get it too!
November 12, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I absolutely despise Lieberman and think that he should be thrown out of the caucus and given an office with no windows in some subbasement.
On the other hand there is that thing about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer . . . .
November 12, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh for love of leapin' lemurs! I am oh so sick of hearing this piece of crappy advice. Can we have a permanent moratorium on it? When it comes to dealing with enemies both, Jesus Christ and Ghengis Khan had it right: join up or die.
"Keep your enemies close enough to stab efficiently" is the way it should go.
November 12, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a supporter of Senator Lieberman I am offended by the threats from Senator Harry Reid and many of his Democratic colleagues to strip Senator Lieberman of his Chairmanships simply because he chose his friendship with John McCain over party politics. In repose to these threats, I have set up the a blog, Let Joe Stay (http://letjoestay.blogspot.com/) with the hope of mobilizing like minded people to contact their Senators as well as Senator Reid and inform them not to put their pettiness ahead of what’s right. Senator Lieberman is the best man for these Chairmanships and to remove him would be foolish. If this is truly the time for hope and change, then Sen. Reid should forgive and forget and allow Joseph Lieberman to keep his Chairmanship.
November 12, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you want pettiness look at Holy Joe. They should kick him out of that chairmanship stat.
November 12, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you cereal?
You're at the wrong place dude. You should try posting that to www.redstate.com. You'll find a few more like-minded folks over there.
November 12, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is there any chance the Lieberman would be elected if he was running in the next cycle? Somehow I think not.
November 12, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I would've thought the same thing about Stevens' re-election, but yet....
November 12, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is this snark? Cuz I'm laughing!
November 12, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh bullshit.
Joe was incompetent as chair. Kick his butt out. It's not about vengeance. It's about moving forward. Were Joe to stay as chair, he'd run that committee based on taking revenge at the Obama Administration.
November 12, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
If it's morning on TPM we must be talking about Lieberman....
November 12, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
...unlike the vast majority of the American populace who have no interest this show-down, and will not be aware of the outcome (or if they do, it will be forgotten about in a few days). This is an issue for the inside-the-beltway, the media, and all the political junkies out there. This is an important issue, but the outcome, whatever it is, is not really go to impact how most citizens will view Obama and the Dems.
November 12, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Homeland Security was being run by Bushies congressional oversight was essential and Lieberman was willfully blind.
With a competent Obama administration oversight while still necessary isn't as vital.
On principle Joe should go, but if he stays? Meh.
(I would prefer Al Franken named to to the position...) :)
November 12, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh really?
If Joe keeps his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Oversight Committee, and decides to do some very public and extensive "oversight" of the Obama Administration, with lots and lots of excessive coverage in the media, you don't think that will change the public's opinion?
I couldn't disagree more, I'm afraid. This may seem, right now, like insider baseball, but the repercussions of Joe remaining might linger for months on end next year, and into the next election cycle.
November 12, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
This one's legit. I saw Fineman say that last night, and I've got to admit, it didn't sit well with me at all.
In the end, I can't imagine a scenario where Joe survives to keep his Chair, if for no other reason than all hell would break loose on the left. The only reason I'm not completely freaking out right now is that I'm fairly sure most of what's coming out is pure speculation from outsiders looking to stir up the process and see what sticks.
However, if Lieberman got through this with his leadership position intact, it would be a huge stick in the eye of all the people that gave time and money to get as many Democrats as possible into Washington and local offices.
It would be disappointing to me to say the least, and I'll just leave it at that.
November 12, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you're a commenter on this site then I would expect that you at least have looked at some of the clips of Lieberman's statements. Yeesh.
November 12, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Crap. Meant as a reply to the LetJoeStay character above.
November 12, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to see Lieberman's ass shipped out of our caucus yesterday, but on the plus side, at least this makes Obama look magnanimous, and makes Lieberman look like the petty, small man that he is.
Lieberman = Scabbers the Rat. He owes Obama a life debt now.
November 12, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
And remember how Scabbers repaid that debt? By crawling back to Voldemort at the first possible opportunity and luring Harry and Ron into his trap.
November 12, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
But in the end, he dies to save Harry, Ron, and Hermione by not raising the alarm in the Malfoy mansion. Even a rat can be redeemed.
November 12, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
True. I hadn't really thought about what happens to him, I just wanted the opportunity to tag Joe with the nickname "Scabbers."
Personally, I think Lieberman is the biggest piece of shit in Washington, and I hope they strip him of his chair AND send him crying to the GOP. But I also don't think it hurts Obama to be seen as being above that sort of thing.
I do agree that allowing him to keep the Oversight chair will result in the kind of sanctimonious grandstanding we haven't seen since Bill Clinton's wang was threatening to crack the foundation of democracy.
November 12, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
For Obama, the issue is purely political, not personal. He can't "punish" Lieberman the way we would like him to. But, at the same, he cannot reward him either or, for that matter, go against Reid.
Obama has him by the short and curlies (forgive the imagery) and Lieberman knows that his fate is not his own to decide.
As for Fineman, he's just a a little guy trying to shine a light on his imagined importance.
November 12, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
As for Fineman, he's just a a little guy trying to shine a light on his imagined importance.
Indeed.
We're so quick to believe what any political pundit says at this point, completely forgetting that they were wrong wrong wrong about many many many facets of this election (remember Obama's problems with women, Latinos, Catholics, union members, white working males, etc, etc, etc?)...
November 12, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dollars to doughnuts Greg posted this simply to stir up shit! I bet he and Josh are laughing their asses off watching us twirl our undies into a Gordian knot over a dumbass comment by a dumbass commentator about a dumbass (that last dumbass would be Lieberman. Can't get through an entire post without at least a _little_ snark).
Is it Friday yet?
November 12, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The nice thing about Obama is that he's more Obaman than his supporters. He knows that while we all want to give Lieberman the boot, it's really not a useful maneuver. He knows that letting a groveling Lieberman plod back to the Democratic caucus is the right thing to do in the long term.
November 12, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely right. Our instincts are usually less "Obaman" than the man himself...
This is a way to consolidate power subtly and effectively in the Senate by giving a pass to Lieberman, and offering the Senate D's cover, not forcing their hands or making them do the unsavory work of demoting a colleague. On the military he's doing the same thing, comforting the establishment by keeping Gates, while trying to deliver one his most symbolic campaign promises of "change" by closing Gitmo.
If a President O can get the far left and the far right in a froth (and these are exactly the kind of things that will do that), he just might be on to something.
November 12, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with this post except that I do not think Obama is looking at closing Gitmo as a exercise in symbolism. I think the reason that he is making it a priority is that he understands that it is unconstitutional and the number 1 blight on American credibility worldwide. As long as it is open, our words don't matter.
November 12, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, it is a huge deal that has substance to close Gitmo, I should have made that more clear. I just meant it has enormous symbolism as well.
November 12, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to admit, if I have the choice between affordable health care for the country and Lieberman being put in his place, I'll choose the health care. I can wait for Lieberman's re-election for him to get what he deserves. He lied to the people in Connecticut, and I don't think they'll forgive it.
November 12, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who was the biggest victim of Lieberman's Zelling? I would say Barack Obama. Consequently, I also think Obama has earned first dibs on Lieberman's future in the Democratic caucus.
Slime has its uses. After all, life probably started in, and human intelligence probably evolved from primordial slime.
November 12, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just remember that human stupidity also evolved from slime. ;)
November 12, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fineman: struggling to remain relevant in a post-Bush era.
Consider the source. Ask yourself how accurate his 'reporting' and conjecture have been for the last few years…
November 12, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
No matter who he caucuses with or what he calls himself, Lieberman is out in 2012, if he even decides to run again. The only chance he has is if he pulls of a full redemption, becoming the Dem's best friend...or maybe even re-joining the party. I doubt that will happen so we'll be saying goodbye to him in 2012, even if he keeps his chair.
As for keeping his chair, I really don't care. Personally, I'd love to see him thrown out on his arse, sent to wallow in obscurity in the GOP. But that's not the message Obama ran on. If he stays, he will know that he owes his chair to Obama...and I'm sure Obama will let him know that, indirectly. And Obama can use that, often and wisely.
The greatest revenge we have on the GOP and traitors like Joe is that we won the election - big time - and that the American people said and are saying "yes" to progressive policies and proposals. Joe's dream was to be a cabinet secretary in a McCain administration. That's never going to happen now, thanks to Obama's victory. Revenge achieved. Let's move on. Joe will chair the committee very carefully - to do anything to try to hurt Obama from his position on Homeland Security will be done at his own peril...and he knows that now.
My bet - and it's a risky one - that two of Obama's best non-Dem friends in the Senate in the next 4 years are going to be John McCain and Joe Lieberman. (both for different reasons)
November 12, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
He does?
Here's an alternative interpretation: Joe behaves as if chastened by his experience, and then goes on to conduct zealous "oversight" of the Obama Administration, anyway.
What's Obama going to do then? Try and remove him? How's that going to play in the press? "Obama seeks removal of Senator investigating Obama Administration". Big trouble for Obama.
Let's move on, yes. Joe can remain in the caucus. Not as chair of Homeland Security and Government Oversight.
November 12, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Procedural question: if Traitor Joe stays as chairman and goes rogue on the Democrats and Obama, how quickly can he be ridden out on a rail? Wouldn't he have until the next Congress in 2011 before his term ends?
November 12, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good question and one I don't have an answer for.
I just don't see the guy going rogue. Also, let's say he does go rogue. Let's also assume that the Obama administration is as clean and ethical and we hope it will be. Joe will turn out looking like the a bitter, immature, McCarthy-like character. Few will take him seriously.
Plus, it's a committee. As chair he does have a bit more power than it's members but it's still a committee. Currently, the ranking GOP member of the committee is Susan Collins. Say she remains on the committee..as she likely will. Given the way the political winds are blowing, could you see her signing on for a Joe-led witch hunt of the Obama legislation? If Joe goes rogue and the Dems on the committee stay unified in their support of the administration, all they'd need to do is flip Collins in order to put Joe and his GOP buds in the minority on the committee.
If Obama isn't sweating this, neither am I. If it's just about revenge, then he's not going to push for him to be removed. As much as I'd like to see him removed, I don't want to see Obama involved in that fight. In fact, I'm even OK with him hinting that he wouldn't mind if he kept the chair - a great example of Obama keeping his campaign promise of changing the tone in DC.
I'm not too worried about this. For my own personal gratification, I'd like to see Joe run crying and whining to his BFFs on the other side of the aisle. But this is low on my list of concerns and low on the list of the things I'd like to see the Dems and the Obama administration achieve the next 1-2 years.
And nobody other than political junkies like us will see Joe staying in his chair as a case of the Dems yet again being weak. Voters don't care - they just want government to work and to get us out of this mess. They don't want members of the Senate spending any more time worrying about the status of Joe Lieberman. And I'm sure the Dems in the Senate will figure out how to handle Joe. Again, the dude is a short-timer no matter what happens. In four years, he's history.
November 12, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to share your optimism, but I am unable to. Perhaps it's because I'm a resident of Connecticut, and watched Lieberman do a 180 when his political ass was on the line, only to return to his warmongering stance once he was re-elected.
Perhaps I'm still scarred by his ridiculous behavior during the Lewinsky debacle, and all the attention it got, and all the strength it provided to Republicans.
It's better for Obama to remain aloof from all of this. But it's better for everyone for Joe to step aside from the Homeland Security and Oversight chair.
November 12, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Perhaps I'm still scarred by his ridiculous behavior during the Lewinsky debacle, and all the attention it got, and all the strength it provided to Republicans."
A valid concern but I think we're at a different place today. If Obama - whether directly or indirectly - communicates that he wants Joe to retain his chair, and if Joe then goes on an unwarranted witch hunt of the Obama administration, Lieberman will be the one who will get skewered by the press. The infants in the media were appalled by Clinton's behavior and that's why they gave Joe so much attention when he became Mr. Morals during that debacle. Won't happen this time around, especially if Obama is magnanimous and remains above the fray regarding this. That is unless, of course, the Obama administration is doing something wrong and the oversight/investigation is warranted, but I have faith that won't happen.
November 12, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman is so distraught he turned to an ape for therapy.
STAMFORD, CT – In the midst of helping John McCain grieve, PhD Ape took a red-eye flight Monday night to be with Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman.
November 12, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I want that fucker gone.
November 12, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was a bit annoying to hear McCain speak of Lieberman's vast knowledge of foreign affairs last night on Leno. Well Lieberman does know the difference between the Sunnis and Shiites.
Since D.C. seems to be all about backroom deals, what deal is McCain making with Reid to keep Lieberman in his chairmanship? I'm sure McCain is fighting for his bff.
November 12, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
As much as I hate Lieberman, I'm not going to fret too much about what they decide to do with him. The fact is, his fate is in their hands, and the decision they make is going to be based on what's best for the dems, not what's best for Lieberman.
November 12, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is getting increasingly ridiculous. Bipartisanship only makes sense when it means you set aside partisan interests in the broader interests of the country. I can see how keeping Bob Gates or appointing Chuck Hagel, both capable folks, as Secretary of Defense may serve the broader interests of the country. What interests does keeping Lieberman as the Homeland Committee Chair serve? It's fine to work with him as long as he has good ideas but to keep him as the Committee Chair is an act of cowardice, not of bipartisanship.
November 12, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Joe Lieberman should not chair the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. Joe did a poor job of chairing the committee the last two years. The required political views of this committee differ from what independent Joe believes in. Joe thinks occupying Iraq is the cornerstone to our homeland security. He didn't want to officially inquire about governments/affairs relating to Katrina, publicly outing of a CIA agent or just about anything that would have upset a GOP colleague.
What a conflict of interests!
November 12, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is old politics, people! Obama said he would work with everyone and he's proving it. Focus on the issues.
November 12, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fineman is wrong ,He ,Fineman is running with BS from Lieberman's aides.Durbin wants Lieberman out.Obama's position is keep Lieberman in the DEM CAUCUS not chair of committe.All this mis-info is coming from Lieberman including the fear mongering.
November 12, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leaving Leiberman in the chairmanship is an ignorant idea. He has demnostrated such immaturity and poor leadership skills that it is ridiculous that the US Senate would leave him in a ledersrhip role. I just don't believe that this is what President Elect Obama wants. I really don't believe it.
November 12, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't either, but I think he is just picking his battles.
November 12, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
People need to be specifically and concretely reminded that Lieberman did much more than help McCain and bash Obama. He reiterated over and over the key Republican attacks on Democrats, i.e., can't be trusted on national security, want America to lose, tax-a-holics, socialists, etc. Someone needs to put together the actual quotes and actions taken by Lieberman against Democrats. Most of that isn't know to Dem Senators who have been doing other things for the last couple of months. Once they see that, Lieberman will lose his chairmanship. If it's just generalizations about helping McCain, Senators won't care as much.
November 12, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to add: acted as ennabler for the Bush Administration by conducting zero oversight while chair of the Homeland Security and Government Oversight Committee.
November 12, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'd like to add: acted as ennabler for the Bush Administration by conducting zero oversight while chair of the Homeland Security and Government Oversight Committee."
Actually, that's probably the best argument for kicking him out of his chair. And that enabling/lack of oversight pre-dated the presidential campaign. But if they go balls out to try to dump him now on those grounds, the media will still say that it's really just a case of the Dems exacting revenge and how those actions are in direct conflict with what Obama talked about during the campaign and how if Obama doesn't step in to stop it, he'll be a hypocrite. They'll be full of shit, of course, but that's what they'll write in the papers and say on the teevee.
Lieberman just isn't worth the time or the energy.
November 12, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman refused to hold hearings or investigate the Bush administration. How surprised will Democrats be when Lieberman decides to investigate the Obama administration?
November 12, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
What he said was disgusting and reprehensible. The best part, though, is that none of it worked. None of it. Let's just not waste any more time on this guy. His approval ratings are in the tank in CT (except with Republicans, and that's only because he pisses us off) and, likely, nationwide as well. Nobody cares what he says anymore. No need to waste any, in Bush's words, "political capital" on punishing this jerk. He's gone in 2012 and I just don't think he can do any serious damage between now and then. In fact, make him feel indebted to Obama - as he should if what we're hearing is true - and he may actually deliver a few needed votes to the Dems. But Obama and the Dems should just brush his antics off. They'll look better for it and he'll look like the small man he is. No better way to shame the guy than to say, "Yeah, you were an ass during the campaign but nobody cared what you said so we'll just leave you alone because you aren't worth our time and energy."
November 12, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
please tell me it aint so......prez elect obama, you can't possibly be that wimpy!!! dems were always rumored to be a wimpy lot, so i guess this act of cowardice, if it proves to be true, is fitting!!
perhaps joe has some dirt on these dems......i find it impossible that this idiot refuse to fade away...he is like a cat with nine lives....
November 12, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry Greg, you and Fineman have been so
very wrong on so many things, I won't believe it
until I see it.
LIEberman has lost his right to hold any
chairmanship on the Democratic side.
He can caucus where ever his slimy self
wants to, but I say good riddance to the
troll.
November 12, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is PRESSURE from... ???..
AIPAC?
Think about it.
November 12, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This is PRESSURE from... ???.. AIPAC? Think about it." -Posted by Bluecrab
Another "blame AIPAC" rant? Come on. Maybe you should point out why you believe AIPAC cares what happens to Lieberman and then tell us how AIPAC is putting preasure on Obama. Besides, how is Senator Lieberman more pro-Israel than any of his Senate colleagues? Martin Luther King Jr. once said that: “You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely ‘anti-Zionist.’ And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God’s green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews–this is God’s own truth.”
Bluecrab, keep your biggoted statements for your KKK ralies.
November 12, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're all mad, but Obama has a strategy that he never allows his ego to interfere with. He has a lot of things to pass and he'll have a hard time if the republicans can fillibuster. There is still a reasonable chance, according to 538's Nate Silver, of getting 60 Senate seats. I think we should back off and let Obama decide what strategies will work best for his agenda. If he thinks that extra vote is that important, then my guess is that he knows what he's talking about. If he thought that the chairmanship of the committee could do him more harm than the loss of the vote, don't you think he'd signal that? We'd better let our new President run things the best way he can if we want him to be able to get us the results we need, don't you think? I don't know all the Senate rules, but if Lieberman does cause a bunch of trouble, can't they revisit this later?
November 12, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman not being punished will be sickening, and will bring cynicism back, about Dems this time, just when they shed that label.
Especially seeing as how Obama ran on a ticket of hope, an act of political cynicism like this will reflect badly on Obama and will give RepuKKKes the ammo to paint the picture of "Obama the sleazy politician-as-usual."
Consider this a warning.
November 13, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink