« It's Official: Lieberman Keeps Homeland Security Chairmanship | Home | Howard Dean Is Fine With Senate's Lieberman Decision, Suggests It Was What Obama Wanted »

Source: Kerry, Durbin Supported Lieberman Keeping Chairmanship

John Kerry and Obama-ally Dick Durbin were among four Democratic Senators in today's closed-door Dem caucus meeting who supported for keeping Joe Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security committee, a Democratic aide who was briefed on the meeting by a Senator who was there tells us.

The aide also offered these details from the meeting: Thirteen Senators voted against a resolution to condemn Lieberman but to allow him to keep the chairmanship. We don't know the full list yet, and will update when we know more.

Two Senators spoke out in favor of removing him: Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders.

Among the Senators who supported Lieberman keeping the chairmanship, according to the source: Kerry, Durbin, Ben Cardin, and Tom Udall.

We couldn't verify that on the record, and we're contacting their offices for confirmation and comment. We'll keep you posted.

Late Update: Senator Cardin's office confirmed that he voted to support the resolution to condemn Lieberman but to allow him to remain as Homeland Security chair. And Dick Durbin's office declined to comment.

Late Late Update: Just to clarify, the 13 Senators who opposed keeping Lieberman as chair voted against the resolution to condemn him but allow him to remain as chair. We've edited the above to reflect that.

Late Late Update: The Associated Press reports that Jeff Merkley, the new Senator-elect from Oregon, was among the 13 Democrats who opposed Lieberman keeping the chairmanship, and spoke out during the meeting.

Late Late Update: The AP has issued a correction -- Merkley apparently didn't oppose Lieberman, after all.


75 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Lieberman has won todayand not just because he gets to keep his chairmanship.

user-pic

In 1996 Willie Brown called his Board of Supervisors a "collection of pantywaists" and proceeded


"I'm telling you, I can produce six votes on that board any day of the week. For anything. . . . But I have to do it when I think it's wise to do it.

"I have to do it when I can do it a second time. This is not a gas station in the desert. This is not Dick Morris dealing with a $200 hooker. These are long-term relationships. These are mistresses that you have to service."

The US Senate..a whore by any other name

user-pic

It might be interesting to mention what happened to ol' Willie later on - SF citizens voted out every single one of Willie's hand-picked supervisors - sending a clear message against his sort of politics. Which is really all we can do, if this decision (and others to come) turn out to be disasterous. Stop allowing the DSCC to choose candidates where we can, and pick ones ourselves that more accurately reflect our beliefs.

user-pic

Jebus. And here I've admired Dick Durbin all these years...

There are days when I really can understand third-party voters. Today is one of those days.

user-pic

Yep. I just became one. SOCIALISTS unite!

user-pic

Durbin wouldn't have stepped forward without signaling Obama first. As much as I hate to say it, it looks like when Lieberman and Reid hide behind Obama to justify this nonsense, they're not just BS'ing us.

Well, it's been a fun ride folks.

user-pic

I've never had any illusions about Obama not being a centrist, but I would not have expected Durbin to be willing to be the point man for this atrocity even if asked to by Obama. That's the real disappointment.

user-pic

Yet again, Democrats reward those who betrayed them, and betray those who support them. Maybe they can ask Rumsfield to be Attorney General next, just to show how post-partisan they are. I think this kind of signal is a great one to send, but they picked the wrong messenger. To me the lesson is that Republicans only held Democrats accountable for anything, and Democrats aren't going to hold anyone accountable. What an improvement.

If he'd done a real mea culpa, then a message of forgiveness might be merited. But Lieberman isn't sorry and doesn't pretend to be. Making Obama and the Dem caucus a bunch of stooges. And I'm being kind.

user-pic

'sok. now that the DSCC has co-opted the enormous resources and vast, motivated volunteer base of the Lieberman Party, they won't need schmoes like us anymore in upcoming elections. thanks for the free time/money, guys!

user-pic

now all we need is to placate hillary with a big, DRAMATIC job she's not qualified for, and i can get back to reading fiction.

user-pic

I think this is more evidence Obama owns Lieberman now. The same way he kept the chair he can lose it if he starts doing anything that Obama doesn't like.

user-pic

nope. it's a goverment oversight committee. any attempt to remove droopy dog from the helm will be seen as evidenence of the obama administration preventing investigation of itself.

user-pic

Exactly right. For everyone talking about the "big picture", this is the goddamn problem with Joe as chair of that committee.

user-pic

ITA. It's not that I don't give the theory that Lieberman is on a shorter leash any credence, but when he acts up again--and we all know he will, sooner rather than later-any moves to get rid of him make it seem like they're covering up for him.

Besides, when President Obama makes his moves to end torture and end the war in Iraq, exactly how do they THINK Holy Joe will vote? So you don't have the vaunted 60 votes.

We have bigger fish to fry, I agree. But as any two-year-old knows, the tantrums will continue without consequences.

My note to these gutless wonders: Don't expect anyone to feel sorry for you when the scorpion stings you.

user-pic

How many other Democrats are on the Homeland Security Committee? One would think it would require more than Lieberman's vote plus Republicans to make life difficult for Obama. But I could be mistaken about the powers of a committee chairmen.

user-pic

There will now be more Democrats than for the past two years, because of the gains in the Senate.

But here's the problem: Joe wants to launch an investigation into the Obama's Christmas card list. Republicans gleefully join in. Democrats balk. What's the media going to say about this? What's going to be the theme? Righteous Joe will be on Fox 24/7 lamenting the lack of bipartisanship on the part of Democrats on the committee, and wondering why they no longer want to exercise oversight over the Administration.

It'll be a media circus, and will suck the attention away from things that actually need doing.

user-pic

There will now be more Democrats than for the past two years, because of the gains in the Senate.

is that true? i thought committees were divided with the majority party having a bare majority of the committee regardless of the actual proportions of the senate

user-pic

I don't know for certain, but that's my understanding, but I'll try to find out.

If committees have nearly equal numbers on them right now, it may be because of how close the numbers are in the Senate as a whole.

user-pic

No. It's not true. The Republicans have already been put on notice that Reid's planning on rejiggering committee membership ratios along the same lines as the last time we had this kind of majority which was, I think, sometime back in the 50s. They're going to lose a couple of seats on every committee.

And its not like they have any room to complain where the alternative is giving some of them more committee assignments than they could cover because the result would be functionally the same.

user-pic

If Kerry Durbin Reid and others have issues with Lieberman not being allied with dem values the wounded GOP will somehow turn it into Obama but this isnt somehow viewed as Obama allowing him to stay?

If Obama wanted him gone he'd make it happen I think - and he didnt. Durbin had to know what Obama's personal feelings on Traitor Joe are.

I know its weak but it isn't possible?

user-pic

No, he can't. 1) It's a lot harder than you think procedurally, and 2) politically impossible if Lieberman is using his committee gavel to investigate Obama's administration. This has already been discussed on the other thread.

People, please stop spouting this nonsense. In reality this is an unconditional, humiliating capitulation by the Dems and a kick in the teeth to a large segment of their electorate and small-donor base.

user-pic

I wish. But I won't believe it until I see it.

user-pic
I think this is more evidence Obama owns Lieberman now. The same way he kept the chair he can lose it if he starts doing anything that Obama doesn't like.

I don't follow, how so? What did Obama have to do with this, other than to say he didn't hold a grudge? Seems like this was a Democratic caucus action (inaction). A President doesn't get much of a say, that I can see.

I don't see how anyone "owns" Lieberman, who seems to be free to do and say as he pleases with no consequences.

user-pic

Hey Im grasping at straws here admittedly.


the only other option for me is to burst a fuckin blood vessel screaming at whoever answers Reid, Kerry, Durbin and Dodd's phones
Im trying to prevent a stroke here

user-pic

Well, that might be the healthy choice. And Obama, et al. may well be more emotionally mature than I am. I have to admit, though, I friggin' hate joe lieberman.

user-pic

It doesn't work like that. Once a committee chair, the only way to remove him is by a full vote in the Senate, and by 2/3rds.

What that means is that Republicans own Lieberman now, and they stand between him and expulsion, both as the committee chair and from the Senate itself.

This was the loudest and clearest message to the left to buzz off.

user-pic

It doesn't work like that. Once a committee chair, the only way to remove him is by a full vote in the Senate, and by 2/3rds.

What that means is that Republicans own Lieberman now, and they stand between him and expulsion, both as the committee chair and from the Senate itself.

This was the loudest and clearest message to the left to buzz off.

user-pic

Obama used the netroots - How does it feel? Now it's all about placating the center-right to come on board. He knew he could use the progressives because they "learned their lesson" with Bush/Gore in 2000 and the Nader vote.

user-pic

...and a big SUCK MY BALLS to Kerry, Udall, Durbin, and Cardin.

user-pic

You know, I don't want to say I'm beginning to believe any of that Swift Boat stuff.

But...

user-pic

fucking pussies.

user-pic

Breaking:Lieberman expelled from Pilates class in Senate gym.

Josh,

You're the wittiest editor in the blogosphere.

LOL

user-pic

Another red letter day for Milquetoast Harry.

Reid must have really inspired some fear in the boxing ring.

"Punch me again, buster, and I'm warnin' ya... I'll suck your dick off!"

user-pic

ROTFLMAO!

Dead-on.

user-pic

The Senate is an old boys network, and politics is a game to them.

user-pic

Yep, and here's the evidence there will be NO change.

user-pic

An old white boys network.

user-pic

Feeling scammed?
Victim of bait and switch?

A pragmatic centrist government is what we need right now.

user-pic

We need a government. All we have is an Executive and a Supreme Court...The Congress might as well not exist

user-pic

Look everybody a troll e-diddling themselves...

user-pic

all, see the updates, more info

user-pic

I've already called Durbin's office to complain, he is my Senator, after all.

I cannot believe this shit- this is spit in the eye of Obama's most fervent supporters.

I sincerely hope that Lieberman is stripped of any real power behind the scenes.

What I will NOT forgive is a statement by Obama himself saying that waht Joe did is ok. I fully expect Obama to treat Lieberman like the traitor he is for the next four years.

user-pic

I'm looking forward to the next time Lieberman stabs the Dems in the back and the first time Lieberman opens an investigation on Obama. They'll both deserve it.

user-pic

Hilarious! I just got a fundraising appeal from the DSCC. By Max Cleland for Jim Martin.

Fuck you, DSCC. You should contact Joe Lieberman's supporters: he appears to have quite a few in the Senate.

user-pic

A GREAT question for Jim Martin would be how he would have voted today. I'd love to see how he'd answer that one.

user-pic

Man, I fuckin' quit! What a bunch of panty waisted chickenshits!

The Dem party has seen the inside of my wallet for the LAST FUCKIN TIME!

user-pic

I'm with ya all the way, kitty-cat.

user-pic

I'd tell 'em to blow me but they're not fit to suck my dick!

Believe me that's a pretty low bar they've managed not to get over too!

HA!

user-pic

I had my problems with HRC as a candidate, but does anyone seriously think that Clinton would have let bygones by bygones? I seriously don't understand the upside of this. Lieberman will be a pain in the ass on every piece of economic legislation that Obama wants to enact. It will prove to be a tactical mistake for Obama to have taken any position on this. (Hope triumphs over experience).

In the entire period of the Bush presidency, Lieberman conducted NO oversight of how money was spent in Iraq. Here is the hard-hitting panel from 1/1/07, just after the D's took over the Congress.

Stuart W. Bowen [View PDF] , Jr. , Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction
Major General Ronald L. Johnson [View PDF] , Deputy Commander , U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The Honorable David M. Satterfield [View PDF] , Senior Advisor to the Secretary and Coordinator for Iraq , U.S. Department of State
Mark S. Ward [View PDF] , Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator , Bureau of Asia and the Near East, U.S. Agency for International Development

Anyone see any problems with this? I'm just asking.

What galls me even more is the extent to which the Democrats have just lowered the bar for acceptable behavior during an election. Lieberman's a viper. First Holy Joe helps throw the 2000 election. Then he gets into bed with BushCo. to win his reelection, and the Dems let him slide. Then he got on the air peddling all manner of slime against Obama. And they let it slide.

I'm especially disgusted with Kerry--but if he had any stones at all he'd be president right now.

user-pic

Lieberman is a war hawk and agreed with the war, he'll fight Obama every step of the way.

That's it! I've just figured it out - Obama wants Lieberman to fight him because then that will give him cover to go back on his campaign promises he has no real intention of ever keeping!

user-pic

Wow, Jonze. That's a conspiratorial point of Fogu2 quality. Gives me shivers....

user-pic

I wouldn't mind this so much if it were just an indication that the new administration was going to kiss ass for the "centrist", DLC types; anybody who was listening should have known Obama was going to break our hearts in any number of ways. This isn't just wrong, though -- it's politically stupid. It's sending a message that congressional Democrats are the same wobbly, weak-kneed crybabies they've always been. It's an open invitation to push them down and take their lunch money.

user-pic

I hold Joe Lieberman in very low esteem. VERY low.

But the commentary here and esp on Daily Kos seems to me rather unhinged.

Obama plainly calculated that it was better to have Lieberman on the inside of the tent droning outward, than on the outside droning in -- or that banner headlines about Ds' vindictiveness and eschewing of bipartisanship, at the dawn of his Presidency, were highly undesirable.

I have considerably higher faith in his political judgment than mine or those of the DKos community. It's worth being angry about -- and the expressed anger on liberal blogs is itself helpful as proof of Obama's having been willing to "stand up" to his core supporters -- but this little brouhaha needs to be kept in perspective. We want to win on policy, most of which has to go through Congress. That's what matters, and I defer to O's judgment that this annoyance is the better political move. (Nnd Obama, not we bloggers, was the actual target of Lieberman's calumnies).

user-pic

I agree with this.

user-pic

OT, but how did you enjoy your time while you were at Fort Lee during the elections? It's near where I grew up. I wanted to let you know of some places to go to celebrate (as you probably guessed, only enough to count on one hand) but I never had the opportunity. Hope everything went well.

user-pic

Second. And I said as much -- at greater length -- in a post below (which I was writing while your post was put up - I really wasn't copying).

user-pic

"Among the Senators who spoke out in support of Lieberman keeping the chairmanship, according to the source: Kerry, Durbin, Ben Cardin, and Tom Udall."

Udall hasn't been sworn in -- who the f__ asked him?

user-pic

Joe Lieberman is nothing - he doesn't matter. He won't be around after 2010 because the voters of Connecticut will see to it that he's retired and in the meantime he'll owe his position to Obama and Obama's supporters in the Senate. (I'm also sure there are personal friendship losses that he will have to deal with for the rest of his life, as well as his conscience.) So, personally, I don't care one bit whether or not he is censured or stripped of the committee or given a gold star in the middle of his forehead. He's simply a tool at this point and should be used in whatever manner most benefits the new administration and what they want to accomplish.

I have every confidence that Obama assessed the situation and decided he had more to gain by dealing with Lieberman this way than by encouraging the censure or letting it happen, and whatever his reasoning was convinced Dubin and Kerry as well. No one here is privy to the inner workings of the Senate, and we can't know what Obama is planning precisely, what votes or good will or leverage he may need and how Lieberman (or some of his supporters or some of his detractors) might fit into that. Heck, maybe it's as simple as wanting Evan Bayh in some position in the Senate other than head of the Homeland Security Committee.... but he (Bayh) would have to take over if Lieberman were removed. It could be any of 100 things. There is no pressing need I can see for him to show that he has the power to "chastize" a Senator who misbehaved -- if he needed to do that, I'm sure he would have ... thoroughly. (And, honestly, how often is someone going to act like Lieberman did so that he had to be made an example to deter them?)

In other words, I see no reason to second-guess Obama and experienced politicians - I would call them statesmen - like Kerry and Durbin on a matter like this. Do you really think that the people who stood up to the Clintons and took on the whole Rep. party are too "timid" or weak-willed to cross Joe Lieberman?? Get real. There was a situation that had to be addressed, and they took a position. I'm sure the position was the one that they believed was most beneficial to them and their goals, and that's good enough for me.

I'm sorry so many people here, many of whom I've come to respect, are so absolutely certain about what *should* have been done by Obama and his allies. It sort of reminds me of the old saw about it being a shame that everyone who has the knowledge to solve all the world's problems and achieve everlasting peace is too busy driving a cab or cutting hair.

user-pic

Joe doesn't go up for re-election until 2012, not 2010.

Do you really think that the people who stood up to the Clintons and took on the whole Rep. party are too "timid" or weak-willed to cross Joe Lieberman??

Um, which people would those be? Who stood up to the Clintons? Obama, certainly, but my anger isn't directed at him, it's directed at Democrats. I don't recall Kerry standing up to the Clintons or the Bush Administration. Durbin? Possibly.

This isn't about "trusting Obama" to do the right thing. This is about allowing a self-centered hack who purposefully went out of his way to damage the incoming Administration, and is even now deceitfully complaining that he's been misrepresented. This is about there being consequences for past behavior.

We're just surviving an Administration that made it painfully obvious that there are absolutely no consequences for incompetent and illegal behavior. This decision is more of the same.

user-pic

Sorry - I swore he had only two more years. Too bad. And I consider Kerry and Durbin to have "stood up" to the Clintons simply by being early, and ardent, supporters of Obama during the primaries. It wasn't without some peril at the time they stepped up - every reason then to think that Clinton would win and that she wouldn't be particularly forgiving when that happened.

As to "allowing a self-centered hack who purposefully went out of his way to damage the incoming Administration, and is even now deceitfully complaining that he's been misrepresented" (which I think is a VERY good description, BTW) --- well, maybe it's my age showing but compared to torture, and GITMO, and the economic crisis, and all manner of other problems in the world, that just ranks pretty low with me. The fact that most everyone now sees him as a self-centered hack who is whining and deceitful is a significant sort of punishment no one has to lift a finger to bring about ....... and some people just "aren't worth the fuss." When you have limited time and energy and important problems to tackle, working for some petty revenge on a petty self-centered hack just, frankly, doesn't seem very important. Over the years, my rule of thumb has become that you have to *respect* someone to get really angry at them - the others aren't worth my attention. And I suspect Obama has very little respect for Lieberman.

Whatever happens to Joe L, or doesn't happen, is simply not important enough, I don't think, for people to act like Obama and all his supporters have just shown themselves to be traitors to the cause, not worthy of support, revealed as cowards, sell-outs and such like. What? You wish you had John McCain and Sarah Palin now? Those were the choices, the only choices.

And (to respond to a poster below) I'm sorry if I came across as "shut up and let the professionals handle it" --- I don't have any trouble with people saying how they feel or what *they* would like to have happened to Joe (my version is unprintable!). But I do think there should be recognition that these folks *are* professionals and probably *do* know more than we do about the need for something more and effect that something more might have on important matters. Wholesale condemnation of the only team that's going to be in power over the next four years because of something this unimportant just doesn't make sense.

I also worry about the effect repeated and wholesale condemnation of that sort is going to have on the people, many of them young idealists, who read on this site -- perhaps never posting but learning from the people who do, people who at least sound like they know what they are talking about. So I thought the other point of view should be expressed ... forcefully. (Maybe too forcefully.) But honest, folks, this really isn't the end of the world. Did I want a public flogging and a couple of pounds of flesh from Lieberman? Absolutely! (more than anything, I hate what he did to Al Gore) Do I think Obama and Kerry and Durbin should be disowned for not insisting on what I would have liked to see? Obviously not.

Maybe it's all in expectations. All I ask of Obama is that he act in such a way that I can hold my head up and not feel the horror and outrage I've felt for the last 8 years .... or, frankly, the shame and disgust I felt when Clinton was in the White House after the Monica thing became public. I'm old enough to remember when most people at least respected the president because he was president and because he was an admirable person that you recognized was trying to do his best. I don't expect perfection - decency and at least some intelligence will be just fine and anything beyond that will be marvelous.

It just saddened me to see so many ready to throw their hands in the air and run away, become disengaged (or at least threaten to) because they don't like what happened on one minor matter about which we don't really know very much. I know it's going to happen -- but that doesn't mean I don't hate to see it. So futile and, in my view, unnecessary and unproductive.

user-pic

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

I disagree with condemnation of Obama in this instance--I'm angry over this decision (as must be apparent) but I don't hold Obama responsible for it. Seems to me he pretty much said to the Dems in the Senate: this is your issue, and I'm not getting involved.

And I also think righteous indignation can be, well, overused, if you will, and maybe I'm guilty of it in this instance. I don't know.

I'm not throwing my hands up and not supporting Obama. I'm also not supporting the DSCC, however.

user-pic

I'm sorry, Elizabeth, but you're wrong.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/18/bipartisanship/index.html


And Lieberman isn't up for re-election until 2012.

user-pic

I totally disagree! Just kidding.

But I would cast a vote for reconsidering the entire seniority and committee assignment process, and making the whole thing more democratic and less gerontocratic. It would be nice, for example, to take away the arguments that voters should re-elect Congressman or Senator X, crappy though he be, because otherwise their state or district will lose seniority-based power in Congress.

user-pic

I donated a substantial amount of my very hard-earned money, and spent many hours of my valuable time and energy working to elect Barack Obama, while that prick Lieberman was out working to elect John McCain, and running down Obama in the process, insinuating that he might be a Marxist, a secret Muslim, etc.

And Lieberman is rewarded with a committee chairmainship!

Fuck you all, Democratic Party! Find money somewhere else. I'm through with you groveling pussies.

user-pic

Well, now we know who to target during their next Primaries. Their support for this piece of garbage over the base who volunteered our time and donated money to Obama has shown us there is not Change we can believe in.

It's politics as usual. They didn't even make Droopy Dog apologize.

And the Dems wonder why they lose majorities. They are weak.

Back to a registered Independent for me.

user-pic

Wait ... I thought the Democrats just substantially increased their majorities in both houses, and won the Presidency (big) to boot!

user-pic

Elizabeth2, with all due respect, your position amounts to "Shut up and let the professionals handle it." Sorry; not willing to do that.

I do agree with you, though, that the people saying they've lost all faith in Obama and will never support a democrat again are overreacting. I think I can see why the leadership are letting Lieberman slide -- they want to project an air of bipartisan goodwill, build up political capital, yadda yadda. I can even see the value in that; I just think said value is outweighed by, a) reinforcement of notion that democrats can be pushed about at will and, b) the fact that a very important committee is under the control of a Senator who doesn't agree with the stated positions of the new administration on matters under that committee's purview.

I admit that this could be a master stroke in Obama's grand scheme. I hope it is. It looks like a misstep from here, though.

user-pic

Why "project an air of goodwill" when it's obvious that the overwhelming number of people who supported you are outraged? Whose good will are they trying to attract? And is it prudent to extend this much forgiveness when the down side--that the Snake Face Lieberman will sabotage the programs you have pledged to enact? He already returned Obama's politicking for him in the Conn. primary with a stab in the back. Lieberman can't help it: it's who he is.

user-pic

This incident just goes to show that the most powerful US Senator is Joe Lieberman. Reid can't touch him. The public can't touch him.

A sizeable portion of the federal budget goes into Dept of Homeland Security, the work of which is done by private contractors. Essentially, it operates as a clearinghouse for awarding federal money to private interests. Those interests are Lieberman's constituents.

user-pic

Call weak kneed Reid at his DC Phone: 202-224-3542 and let him know how you feel.

Call Joe's office at 202) 224-4041 and demand an apology from him for knocking Obama and campaigning for Republican senators

user-pic

Go Jeff Merkley!

I was lukewarm on him as a candidate, but if this is a sign of things to come, we picked a winner here.

user-pic

The sad thing is that if this was done as a nod toward "bipartisanship," it won't work. The Republicans look at Lieberman and see a loser who couldn't deliver for their candidates. They look at the Dems and see a bunch of weaklings who won't stand up for what they believe in.

Is there anyone in this who wins besides Lieberman?

user-pic

Yes, others may well have gained something. Obama and the other progressives - and maybe all of us - will benefit if they wind up getting Lieberman's vote on something close and important (say, health care) when they wouldn't have if he'd been ousted and caucused with the Reps. Health care and things like that are, in my eyes, a lot more important than how badly Joe L. gets spanked. We can only guess, Obama could only guess, whether that would happen -- that's why I supported someone with, I believe, good judgment.

But I should apologize for my outburst yesterday. I'll admit that I was very upset and discouraged by some of the extreme comments and positions taken, in my opinion, for so little cause. After getting away from it all and a good night's sleep I realize that it's inevitable. Some of the "I support Obama people" (or supporters of any candidate) on this board were actually supporters and will be reasonable about what he does, and doesn't do, that pleases or vexes them. But others are more focused on being against someone, or angry about something. So, perhaps they didn't support Obama as much as they were *against* and *angry* at Clinton or McCain or whoever.

Now, of course, there's only one player left on the stage, so of course they are going to focus on what is angering or deficient about him. I don't doubt their conviction, or even their belief that this is the principled approach to take. But I've learned, and need to remember, that there is simply nothing in that approach to which I can can connect or communicate.

I ran into the same thing (tho with a lot more cause, I'll admit) with the FISA kerfluffle. How people could abandon and turn their back on Obama because they disapproved of that vote when the logical result, if they persuaded others to do the same, was to win the "prize" of John McCain?? It just boggled my mind. I felt the same way about folks in Florida who cast "principled" votes for Ralph Nader in 2000. I'm sure their votes were, in fact, very principled .... but I'll never stop resenting their bringing GWB into my life. Just a blind spot I have. ---------- So I will try to resolve that when I see it happening, I'll just shut up or make a brief, for the record note my disagreement with the level of indignation and *then* shut up. I'll try to remember.

One last thought. When you support, donate to, work for candidates for office - any office - you are doing your best to get them into a position of power to exercise **their** best judgment, not to act as **you** believe they should on all matters (or even any matter). You can safely assume that they had equally hard-working supporters who want them to do the opposite of whatever you want, so saying "you should do what I think you should" is simply meaningless to the person who got elected (unless, of course, they've let themselves be bought by some special interest).

user-pic

I agree with what Elizabeth2 just said, in all particulars.

user-pic

Thank you, m'am. (But I guess that means beninn above thinks we are *both* wrong.... Ah, well...)

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address