Unbelievable. God, Dems are pussies.

Honestly, I could care less that he campaigned against Obama (and, really, for a VP slot with McCain) - that just makes me think he's a scumbag, especially after some of the comments that he made.

For me, this is really about what a piss-poor job he did as the Committee chair. Compare him to Waxman - except that you can't since Waxman worked and Lieberman didn't.

Perhaps the payback is some sort of agreement that he won't go after Obama. But you know what, I don't want that either. I want whoever's in there to honestly and fairly review our Homeland Security, not someone with an agenda.

Lieberman clearly has an agenda. Get him outta there.

You said that right Steve. Keeping him in the caucus, ok yeah, maybe I can see that. But allowing him to continue his plum appointment after a basically lapdog performance for the other team is some seriously weak tea.

Bipartisanship be damned. I want Traitor Joe OUT of my caucus!

BfD

Why are they caving to Lieberman? I haven't seen any analysis that makes sense to me. Is he extorting them? What possible use is his promise not to launch investigations of Obama via his committee? He's a known liar and is playing for the other team.

Anyone got any idea?

No consequences. Nice. Dems -- unwilling to play hardball. Fuck.

Only thing I can think of that would be supporting this guy is AIPAC.
[Israeli Lobby aka THE Lobby].

Reckon some phone calls have been made.

No other rational explanation comes to mind.

I wonder.

If I went on the local news and said that the President of companies competing with mine put customers first, but the President of my company, well. . .

And then went on to say that the bosses at my company are naive and inexperienced, and I spoke at the annual meeting of our biggest competitor, cheering them on to take business from my company. . .

Does anyone think I'd still have a job at all, much less with no punishment?

Can we get D.C. out of its artifical reality and bring it back to the reality the rest of us live in?

We're talking about a group of people who didn't want to hold Bush accountable for lying the country into a disastrous war. I guess if you're not willing to hold a criminal accountable for his crimes, we shouldn't expect you to hold a party member accountable for something scummy yet perfectly legal.

Do they even realize how bad this makes them look? To everyone, really. They look like a sack of rubes, just waiting for the next con artist to come around and take advantage of them. I feel like sending a Nigerian phishing e-mail to each and every one of them and see how many bank accounts I could round up.

Considering that Lieberman fears for the safety of the country if Democrats get 60 seats, lets all hope he refuses their advances and kicks himself out of the caucus for the good of us all.

Make us proud Joe.

i'm so disappointed in chris dodd.

NonyNony, you'd be better off to customize it slightly:

"Dear Congressperson:

Allow me to introduce myself. I am Finance Chair of the recently created NonyNony PAC. In anticipation of the change in Washington, we have been researching Congresspersons we'd like to support in the coming session. To be considered for financial contributions (to your own campaign fund up to the maximum amount and additional amounts to any policy or leadership PAC you sponsor) and to be listed in our voter information, please click on the link below and verify the important identifying and account information now!"

Your take rate would probably be around 100% :)

If this is an indicator of the kind of wishy-washy (in)action we can expect from the Dem's in this Congress, they're burning their credibility at the stake before they even get started. You don't "play nice" with a rattlesnake, you decapitate the beast. Past time for LIEberman to go!

Mind-boggling. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer? That's all I can think of, but I'm doubtful.

I'm wondering how much of this nicey-nicey is because we still have a shot at reaching the magical 60 in the Senate with Lieberman on board, and how much will disappear if that possibility fails to materialize.

Not saying I like it, but this is how politicians think most of the time so it's not totally out of the question.

Get. Him. Out.

If they can't even do something this simple, we're doomed.

WTF!!!

Are there NO consequences for anyone's actions?

Let's review a brief list:
- Campaigned for McCain
- Campaigned for rethugnican down-ticket asshats
- Lied about Obama
- Slimed Obama
- Chaired a committee that should have provided oversight of the Bush Criminal Enterprise and did NOTHING

Are all the dumbocraps so afraid of the israeli/likud (AIPAC) lobby that they cannot even remove joe LIEberman from the chairmanship of a committe that could potentially cause major problems for Obama? Or is this just a continuation of the abject spinelessness shown over the last 8 years by the so-called leadership of the senate dumbocraps?

I find it distasteful that they are not kicking him out of the dumbocrap caucus. If they let him keep chairmanship of a committee that did ZERO oversight of Bush and could do great damage to Obama, F*CK all of the so-called senate dumbocrap leadership & F*CK Schuemer & F*CK DODD & F*CK Bayh & F*CK all of the blue-dog republicrats - before they completely f*ck over our country!

Of course, these are the same dipsh*ts who will not expel Stevens from the senate! We need wholesale turnover of senators of both rethugnican and dumbocrap persuasions. Keep Feingold & keep Boxer & dump 90% of the rest of them!

After two years of caving to Republicans, the Senate majority steps it up a notch by caving to a (purported) Democrat. Heck of a job, guys.

I guess we haven't learned from the last 8 years that accountability is important.

This is unacceptable. Somehow, some way, the names of all senators voting to allow him to keep chairmanships, must be revealed.

The swiftness with which the Democrats have disappointed us following the election is astounding.

It's downright Democratic of them.

I guess we should wait to see the results of the vote, but this is maddening. They'd be better off letting a moderate Republican chair that committee. There are several who didn't actually compaign as actively against Obama and the Democrats.
That would actually show real bipartisanship, not backing down from an unrepentant backstabber.

Would someone explain to me what damage he could do to Obama? I read this in a few comments and would like to know in what way (or ways) he could do this....

I have heard LIEberman himself call the Democratic party, "the democRAT party." He has displayed utter contempt for them and their ideals. At the very least he should lose his chairmanship, especially after having the nerve to say such a thing was "unacceptble."

Start calling Dodd's office people:
(202) 224-2823

If the Democrats had spine they would remove Leiberman as he so deserves and send him to the Republicans in a Bipartisan way.
Steve is right-the democrats will be sorry Leiberman the liar was kept on in the democratic caucus and able to chair DHS. He Aided and abetted the spending of too much money in DHS and intolerable treatment of Americans and yet the Democrats persist on allowing him to be in the party.Leiberman has the ears of the NEOCONS and has done much work for the NEOCONS, even attended the meeting in Prague. why do the Democrat leadership allow this fox in the henhouse? Because the Democrats have no back bone...

So place your bets on McCain and if you lose we will stay payout. Let the guy stick around, but strip him of the the chairmanship he hasn't used.

And for the love of god, quite giving him the media attention he craves. You can keep around, but you don't have to fawn over him. His only other option is joining the party that thinks Palin is the future. He is acting like that is leverage, it isn't.

I am going to miss Senators Obama & Biden in the Senate.

I like all of you would love to see Joe kicked out of his chairmanship but then I thought about it and that's exactly what the far right would do. They eat there own when they don't tow the party line. Let's not be like them and take the high road and concentrate on the bigger picture which is the mess Bush is leaving us and our children. Now that would be a Change we can beleive in........

The only explanation I can come up with is the dems may reach a 60 vote majority, so they're holding on to him just in case.
But seriously, given the fact that he was standing next to McCAIN at his concession speech and not at Obama's acceptance speech, why on God's green earth would dems expect him to suddenly become a stalwart democrat again?

Mind boggling.

I think you have to look at Democratic Senators dealing with Lieberman like a family dealing with someone who has an addiction or mental illness. What would you do if your brother or sister suddenly threw away everything else that was ever important to them in favor of an irrational fixation or obsession?

Mike

The attitude seems to be he's an ass....., but he's our ass....... So much for accountability in the new administration.

Would someone explain to me what damage he could do to Obama? I read this in a few comments and would like to know in what way (or ways) he could do this....

After two years of doing absolutely nothing as chair of the Homeland Security committee, now it's important to him. He clearly intends to use it now to undermine Obama any way he can. A committee chairman can make things very difficult for an administration with endless investigations, whether or not they have any merit.

There is a chance to have some fun here. Lieberman could be part of Hogans heroes. McCain’s in side knowledge that secret pipeline the portly inept political activist and of course Major McClink.

So as a voter, how do I convey to washington that this kind of action disappoints me? It's not like I'm going to vote Republican...

This is why I would say I'm dissatisfied with Congress, even when voting for the majority party. Perhaps the Democrats know that they have people like me over a barrel, so there's no reason to do otherwise. Where are disaffected lefties gonna go? It's like the way the religion-right Republican party treats libertarians. Where else are they going to go?

Thanks a lot, Connecticut. Can't you guys recall the S.O.B.?

Absoultely this is a big mistake. Does anyone not suspect Holy Joe will sudddenly start doing his job in holding investigations once Obama is in power? At which point to fire him will be awkward to put it mildly? I hate to read too much into this but reminds me of how Clinton dropped the ball when he came to power on all the scandals surrounding the Bush administration (BCCI etc.) in the spirit of bipartisanship. The Repubs just saw it as weakness.

Thank you Allan for the explanation. Why in the world would Obama want him to retain the chairmanship of this committee - it really doesn't make any sense at all....There simply has to be more to this than meets the eye.

I like all of you would love to see Joe kicked out of his chairmanship but then I thought about it and that's exactly what the far right would do. They eat there own when they don't tow the party line.

Yes. But in the situation we face today as a nation, we need as many team players as possible to help fix 8 years of complete mismanagement. Lieberman was supporting the candidate who, if he'd won, would most likely have done nothing to fix any of this.

Let's not be like them and take the high road and concentrate on the bigger picture . . . Posted by: John

Okay. The high road, in this case, is we don't strip the useless old fucker naked, smear with him with peanut butter, and then turn him loose in Yellowstone or Glacier in April. We merely strip him of his power. He's been nothing but a problem to the party and, more important, the country for about three years now.

And, as someone up thread mentioned, let's not talk about the AIPAC-Lieberman axis, please? I hate those people. Country first? Which country would that be? They are about as unAmerican as can be. We can have any ME policy we like, as long as writing Israel a blank check and turning a blind eye to it's policies is at its center.

Lieberman must have some real dirt on Dodd and others. Can we really be so stupid as to leave this demonstrated traitor holding a loaded gun? If he wants to stay in the caucas, I can live with that, but CT voters now regret voting for him and Democrats will regret allowing him to retain his plum chairmanship. When it happens, I will feel no joy in my "I told you so" moment.

There is no reason to remove him from the caucus - he shouold remain and his punishment should be removal from committee chairmanship. PERIOD. This is still in the spirit of the Obama campaign - there needs to be some good punishment for the crap Joey spewed for months. He is out only for himself not the Dems party or McCain but himself that is the problem.....lose him.

Well, Obama hasn't specifically said that he should retain the committee chair, only that he shouldn't be expelled from the caucus. A lot of reporters are misinterpreting that(no surprise).
There have to be consequences for his actions, both his active campaigning against Obama and his failure to conduct oversight of the Bush administration. Anything less than removing him from the HS chair is a clear signal that Democrats welcome saboteurs and backstabbers, and will be ineffective at passing their agenda even with a clear mandate.

If Lieberman stays I predict Obama will be a one term president. Not because of that issue alone, but because of what it will show of the Democrats, their mindset and how they intend to govern for the next four years.
How are they still so freaking afraid of the Lieberman and the other Republicans? Are there republican dossier files full of bad stuff to release? Blackmail? What?

How much does the man have to betray his party before they stop acting like battered spouses?

Honestly, the sooner every existing Democratic Senator is replaced by someone with a spine and a conscience, the better.

This is an embarrassment.

All these jackasses can do is bail out the powerful after they do everything they possibly can to screw things up.

Chris Dodd you loser.

I'm still waiting for a politician to actually do something that indicates the presence of a backbone. Can't remember the last time that happened.

Lieberman's whip team just made my enemies list. Their primary opponents will be getting my money. Hope you boys enjoy ulcerated backstab wounds.

"Dear Congressperson:

Allow me to introduce myself. I am Finance Chair of the recently created NonyNony PAC....

Oh gods, I love it. I'll bet I could even make the scam complete by filing for PAC status.

I like all of you would love to see Joe kicked out of his chairmanship but then I thought about it and that's exactly what the far right would do.

I could give a rat's ass if Joe gets kicked out of the Democratic caucus. But losing the gavel of the Homeland Security Committee (or whatever it's actually called - Senate Committee names are odd) and being move to a committee where he might do some good is not too much to ask.

Remember - Joe votes with the Democrats "90% of the time on non-military and non-security issues". So why should he be in charge of a committee involved in national security issues under a Democratic government? It sounds like an opportunity to sink the Democratic government before they even get started. Better to move him off to Transportation, or Veteran's Affairs, or any number of other committees where his voting record is more in line with the agenda.

"... so afraid of the israeli/likud (AIPAC) lobby that they cannot even remove joe"

Short answer: YES.

Our representatives may be elected by the people but they ultimately answer to a different master.

We may have Obama as president, but the underlying power structure has not changed. I see no indications that he [Barak] is willing or able to challenge this.

Back from 'down the memory hole'...

Remember when Bush came out with a mideast peace plan early in his first term... that might have given the Palestinians a slightly better shake?

Remember how it lasted 1 exactly (one) day and was retracted the very next morning?

Now doubt Bush got 'the phone call'. I imagine it was probably was quite a burr under his blanket... but he knew he had to obey.

The saga of the fighting 110th continues. After all this they're still just fucking Democrats. When your cavalry is this Dem congress, you might as well not call them in.

I like all of you would love to see Joe kicked out of his chairmanship but then I thought about it and that's exactly what the far right would do. They eat there own when they don't tow the party line.

There's a big difference between "not towing the party line" and "campaigning for the other side for a full 12 months."

Joe decided he'd rather have a Republican president than one from his own party, and he worked hard to try and get one. As zeitgeist said, if he did this in the private sector, he'd be toast, so why is it different because he did it in the public sector?

This is a weakness on the part of the Democrats - a longstanding aversion to punishment for even the grossest sins. Some people understand nothing but retribution, and I believe Joe Lieberman to be one of them; rather than being grateful for a second chance and putting his shoulder to the wheel, he will interpret this as a signal that the Democrats are somehow afraid to remove him. This will increase his arrogance and his you-need-me-more-than-I-need-you posturing. If it were my decision, I would boot him out of politics altogether - he could sell shoes or something.

So next time around we have to donate not only to Lieberman's opponent but also to Chris Dodd's.
Suits me. It looks like they both need to go. And to think, I donated to Chris Dodd's presidential campaign last year - along with Obama's and Edwards'. Wow - I really missed on two out of three!

Obama seems to have opened the door for Lieberman's rehabilitation as a Democrat.

The argument against Lieberman seems to center on the wrongs he did to Obama and could do to Obama.

Obama knows how to play hardball, so I expect Obama knows he's getting something good for helping Lieberman.

My two cents is to make Lieberman ambassador to Canada.

But if Obama succeeds in bringing Lieberman into the fold as a Dem it's a good thing for the Democrats.

Can the Democrats strip Lieberman of his chairmanship in the middle of the session? Lieberman may have no fangs.

We need better Democrats in Congressional leadership positions. It's way past time to push these weaklings aside.

Can you imagine what the GOP would do to a member who campaigned for the Democratic presidential candidate?

There is no reason to tolerate Liebermans continued presence in the Democratic caucus. None.

Sure, give Lieberman a chance, a chance to sit quietly on the back bench and try to re-establish his credibility as a member of the caucus. If he supports the Democratic agenda and Barack in 2012, then he can have a committee chair. Until then, he should put a sock in it. Preferably one of John McCain's old and stinky socks.

Not surprised, Democrats are masters at "compromises" where their opponents get everything they want. Lieberman is going to keep his chairmanship, so I guess we might as well get used to endless Senate investigations into the Obama administration. As someone who believes in open government, that isn't necessarily a bad thing even though Lieberman not being punished at all is bad for party discipline long-term. Reid is a lousy leader with poor control of his caucus, but we mostly already knew that.

I don't see the Israel Lobby going to bat for Lieberman.

Lieberman was unable to deliver the Jewish vote for McCain and Democrats now think of Lieberman as someone not to be trusted.

Lieberman has little value to the Israel Lobby b/c he can't carry water as effectively anymore. Any issue associated with Lieberman brings anti-Lieberman enemies to the table.

The Israel Lobby would rather have someone credible making their case. Lieberman is a self-serving buffoon.

I just e-mailed both of my Democratic senators asking them to vote to strip Joe of his committee chairmanship. (I'm with the group that sees no reason to expel him entirely, and a lot of good reasons not to.) Feinstein is a DLC ultra-wuss, so it was probably futile, but at least I tried.

MUTUAL PROTECTION RACKET

Political spectators: Chill. They got this. They also got the money and the power and you don't. Democracy? Forget about it.

To those who think this is about securing Lieberman's cloture vote:

What happens if the Republicans try to filibuster a get-out-of-Iraq vote? Will Lieberman vote for cloture on this? Of course not!

What if Republicans try to stonewall investigations into Bush administrations crimes? Will Lieberman get in the way of their efforts? Of course not!

and for that matter,

What if Republicans try to filibuster a pro-choice bill? Will Lieberman, regardless of his caucus and chairmanships, suddenly switch and vote pro-life? Of course not!

I dont see what the point is in even keeping Lieberman in the caucus, beyond the basic "let's make a good show of unity" thing. But allowing him to keep the chairmanship is just nutty. I cant see any logical case for it, either as a matter of politics or policy.

A lot of these guys seem pretty smart, but then I hear stuff like this and I wondering how they manage to feed themselves.

This is just bizarre. I don't get it. Could you imagine if a Republican did this? He'd be run out of town. Republicans will use this to paint Democrats as wimps. Which they should, because its true.

I doubt that many Senators would publicly knife Joe Lieberman, no matter what they thought of him privately.

But since he is taking up space that he hasn't earned, so to speak, I'm sure that plenty of his colleagues will have an idea who should be taking up his committee assignments.

I wish Joe best of luck getting a chairmanship as a member of the GOP.

Let him keep his Chair and his ability to caucus with the Dems. But on Inauguration Day, slap him in the stocks, have anyone who feels like participating pelt him with offal, and arrange to air it all live on TV. Seriously, Obama is a better person than I. I hope he has compromising pictures of Joe with a farm animal and has made it clear that he knows how to use them, or else Holy Joe will be sticking it to him every chance her gets.

I hope he has compromising pictures of Joe with a farm animal and has made it clear that he knows how to use them, or else Holy Joe will be sticking it to him every chance her gets. Posted by: Jersey Tomato

Well, he is a Chicago politician.

W. T. F.

This is a Senator Bailout -- removing the moral hazard from turncoat slander.

Two possible reasons: a) Dems have no spine b) Israel. Both could be true.

I've heard it said, but have not been able to confirm it, that Holy Joe's brother is some big-shot in Israel developing the settlements on Palestinian land. Again, that's only at the level of rumor - anyone heard anything about that?

I do guess that the "get to 60" issue could be a factor - Franken is gaining here in MN.

Lieberman is a sniveling, whiney voiced, back-stabbing SOB who wants to commit other peoples' children to death for his sponsors in Tel Aviv. Full stop.

Jeebus, they haven't even voted yet. Maybe they formed a whip team because they don't have the votes at the moment? Maybe no one has confirmed they are voting against Lieberman because he might stay in the caucus and it would be better to have as little tension as possible there? There are obviously some Dems who are going to vote against Lieberman, and the fact that none have said so on the record speaks more to message discipline than the actual status of the vote. I also would read more into Durbin's initial anger than his walk back; his "kind words" sound more like overcompensation for his previous attack than any concrete support for Lieberman. And I certainly don't expect Obama, of all people, to start off his presidency by provoking a public intraparty battle. This is Obama's party now, no drama, just results.

I don't know where this battle stands any more than most of the commenters here, but I do know that Obama is perfectly capable of lobbying against Lieberman without broadcasting it to the world, and while keeping his supporters in line and on message. And I certainly don't put much stock in the speculations of Howard Fineman and Politico, which seems to be the only "evidence" that Lieberman will keep his chairmanship beyond counting up the number of on-the-record votes to this point. Yeah, Obama is cool, but he's also proud and definitely unhappy with Lieberman. Remember the talking to he gave him on the Senate floor in June? He warned him about his attacks in that exchange, and Leiberman obviously didn't take it to heart. And Obama isn't the type to make empty threats. The votes may end up going Lieberman's way, but I don't think for a second that Obama's going to remain passive while the Dems reward Lieberman for attacking him. There are lots of Dems angry at Lieberman, and the only way they would switch to his side en masse is by following Obama's lead, and I just don't see Obama forgiving him.

And for those who see this as protecting their own, Lieberman was actually working against them by supporting Republican candidates and failing to hold Bush accountable. For them to be protecting themselves from the same sort of punishment, they would have to see themselves committing a similar crime, and politicians don't usually campaign for one side and expect to be rewarded by the other. If there is a cynical argument to be made, it seems it would be that the younger members would help themselves by knocking down one of the more senior members. For those that are supporting him, I think it is more out of personal loyalty than self-protection.

By all means, make your arguments and call your Senator, and Dodd, Nelson, Salazar, and Carper deserve the scorn, but can we wait and see what actually happens before labeling the entire Dem party as weak?

Lieberman is an Israeli agent first and foremost, so with his loyal sidekick, the warmongering pro-Israel anti-Iran nutcase McCain, out of the picture, he can go back to being a Democrat.

Karen: Why are they caving to Lieberman? I haven't seen any analysis that makes sense to me. Is he extorting them? What possible use is his promise not to launch investigations of Obama via his committee? He's a known liar and is playing for the other team.

Anyone got any idea?

Same reason as always: they are spineless pussies, and don't want to look like they are being mean to their old friend Joe.

Uh oh, this is getting to be genuinely funny. No good, not good. The Senate Dems are inviting laughter at them and their ideals.

If Joe Lieberman had any sense at all, he'd personally apologize to President-Elect Barack Obama for the despicable statements he made about him during the campaign.

And while Lieberman deserves some serious party discipline for his actions, the Democratic Party would be extremely prudent and savvy to keep him in the fold. They are so close to achieving numbers that would enable them to invoke cloture when the Republicans conduct their inevitable filibusters to thwart President Obama's judicial appointments. Lieberman will be a vital cog in achieving those 60 votes.

So much as I would love to see him tarred and feathered, a more strategic approach will better serve the nation.

Over the last several days, I haven't found any Senate Democrats -- literally, not one -- who has argued that Joe Lieberman should lose his committee chairmanship.

The public posturing before (and after) a secret ballot where action might be seen as, or provoke (or both) political payback may not always be consistent with the actual results of that ballot.

I find it very interesting that the anti-Lieberman group in the Senate is keeping very quiet. It's almost as if they are planning something...

I doubt that many Senators would publicly knife Joe Lieberman, no matter what they thought of him privately.

cm got there before me, but Reid called for a secret ballot on the issue and not a voice vote for a good reason. It would suck to have to tell a guy you've worked with for 10 or 15 years that you want him to go, but it's not nearly as hard when you can just put your mark on an anonymous piece of paper.

Though I wish they would set up a camera for the vote like on "Survivor." That would be cool.

Tomorrow I am mailing this to every Democratic Senator. It may do nothing, but at least my conscience will be clean. Well, and the first time Unholy Joe stabs the Democrats in teh back, I'm sending it along with another letter pointing out I warned their sorry asses - and pointing out I'm gonna contribute to any primary challenger they get in the future.:

It has come to my attention that the Democratic Caucus is to decide the fate of Joseph Lieberman. I am writing to urge you to vote against retaining him as Chair of Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and preferably any other Chairmanship in the Senate (to be honest, I would prefer he be ejected from the Democratic Caucus, but as that seems, bizarrely, off the table, I see the loss of any Chairmanship as the only semi-viable position). Joseph Lieberman has repeatedly attacked the Democratic Party and its nominee for President, Barack Obama. He has stood with the Republicans against a fellow Democrat, even to the point of participating in the Republican Convention. Such actions do not present Lieberman as a stalwart of the Party, but as a backstabber, putting his own self-aggrandizement above the needs of the Party. To reward such behavior is to sanction it, and condone it. It is to say that Joseph Lieberman is to be applauded for supporting the failed policies of George W Bush through his “third term� proxy, John McCain. It is to say that you support Republican rule through your support of Joseph Lieberman and his trashing of the Democratic Party and our next President, Barack Obama by allowing him to retain control of Senate business while other, worthier, more loyal Democrats are passed over.
Such rewards for betrayal are not in keeping with the history of this great nation. Despite Benedict Arnold’s admirable service at the Battle of Saratoga, Washington did not welcome him back into the nation after the Revolution; likewise, Lieberman’s past actions cannot be allowed to sway you from dealing with his present betrayal of the Democratic Party. Benjamin Franklin disinherited his son because the son betrayed familial loyalty and sided with the British in the Revolution. Can you place the “collegiality of the Senate� so highly that you are willing to reward one who has strayed from his Party and actively assisted the Republicans in trying to ram John McCain down the throats of the American people and thus continue the failed policies of George W Bush (I would point out the King of England during the Revolution was also named George – support of a George seems to go with an assault upon the liberty of America, whatever the century, it seems)? Does familiarity with a man trump your responsibility to your nation and its citizens? Franklin’s relationship would be considered much closer than that of any Senator and Joseph Lieberman, yet Franklin was able to put aside personal feelings for the good of the United States of America. Can you?
Lieberman seems determined to hold onto the Chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs despite never once using its oversight to stop the unconstitutional tyranny of George W Bush. The only logical conclusion one can draw from Lieberman’s coddling of George W Bush and his assault on Barack Obama is that he plans to create an unending Whitewater-esque witch-hunt on our new President, so as to politically lynch him and destroy any Democratic attempts to repair the damage the Republicans have done to this country – as Booth did to Lincoln with a bullet, Lieberman wishes to do to Obama with a gavel. Will you stand with Washington and Lincoln and punish betrayal, or will you stand with Arnold and Booth, and seek to reward the turncoat and assassin?
Voting to keep Lieberman in his present position is taking the serpent to your bosom – it is on your conscience when it inevitably bites you - and through you the people of this nation who are yours to protect from harm, not expose to it. Cast it into the wilderness where it can no longer spread its poison and lies. Will you stand with the people of this nation who quite clearly called for Democrats to fix the mess Republicans have made of this nation? Or will you stand with a man who is quite literally the standard-bearer for the Republicans and their attempts to turn our nation from Liberty and Freedom and Righteousness to Tyranny and Despotism and Unrighteousness? Your country and its citizens, or a betrayer and the failed cohort that have assaulted and robbed this nation for eight years - who do you side with? Are you patriot or quisling? I pray the former for the sake of our Party and our United States of America.

Let's not be like them and take the high road and concentrate on the bigger picture which is the mess Bush is leaving us and our children. Now that would be a Change we can beleive in........

The change I can believe in, John, starts with taking responsibility and accountability. That means that no one, especially Joe Lieberman, gets to work against the Democratic/progressive agenda for a year and a half and maintain leadership within its caucus. Simple. If Lieberman wants to work with Democrats negotiating legislation from the progressive position, he will have plenty of opportunity to do so and no one will be stopping him. None of that requires anyone to simply forget that as of a little over a week ago, Lieberman was working as hard as he could to undermine the entire progressive agenda by trying to get a Republican President elected.

How is keeping an old, white, Benedict Arnold an expression of change and moving forward?

Two scenarios come to mind: Joe gets his and no one can pin it on Obama since prominent Dems voiced support for Lieberman or they made a deal with Lieberman that he investigates the Bush team and takes the heat in order to keep the post. I don't know if that last is even possible but one can always hope!

- Retroactive immunity for telecoms for illegal wiretapping was virtually non-negotiable for Republicans
- Numerous sources cannot wait to talk to Sy Hersh after January 20th, allegedly as wiretap whistleblowers
- Joe Lieberman and refused to call any Republican in the administration to testify about anything, including Katrina
- Joe Lieberman has almost a Stockholm Syndrome in defending Republicans

My theory is that the Gore/Lieberman campaign was spied upon, and they found something really embarassing about Lieberman. And Lieberman is being blackmailed to protect Republicans at all costs.