In the name of putting the past behind us and moving on, I am asking that the first Presidential act be a blanket pardon in America. Release everyone in prisons. Nothing they have done has been as destructive or vicious as the Bush administration's acts.

her bizarre comment about the Obamas' "terrorist fist-bump."

Jab. It was a "terrorist fist jab," according to Ms. Hill.

TFJ for short.

Begich up over 2,000 in recount so far.

To hell with Trek. The Tron 2.0 trailer has leaked!

If Clinton stays in the Senate, Ted Kennedy has a project for her.

I honestly believe Clinton should stay in the Senate. She has the capability to become the new lion of the Senate with Kennedy leaves us. She could a leading role in crafting a health care plen for next generation.

Howard Dean may be OK with keeping Joe the Traitor on the Committee, but I am not, and neither I expect are most of us. What a pathetic, spineless indulgence in smarmy feel-good appeasement and over-forgiveness. That's one thing conservatives are right about when they criticize liberals.

I suggest a write-in/call-in etc. campaign to force their hand.

Begich ahead by 2,374. This isn't a recount, by the way -- it's part of the first count. In fact, if it keeps trending this way, with Begich now ahead by 0.77% of the vote, there won't be a recount.

Howard Dean, in the HuffPo article linked, says:

"[Lieberman] will be a good vote on climate change -- and this matters. He may be a good vote on election reform, which I hope we will get to."

So wait, if the Dems had taken away his chairmanship, Lieberman would have suddenly started voting badly on climate change and election reform?

There's obviously more going on behind the scenes, and the Dem leadership isnt willing to be honest with their voters about the reasons for keeping Lieberman in his spot. Clearly the reasons they are giving publicly are bunk. I'm disappointed that they are being so opaque with us.

Howard Dean's all right with the Senate Democrats' decision on Lieberman.

Good for him. He can donate what I would have to the DSCC then. I'd also suggest he donate to Harry Reid to offset the money I will be giving to whomever Reid finds himself opposed to.

Sad to see Dean of all people giving the nod of approval to this after all the 'netroots' and base bashing that was done today.

"In the latest round of rumors, Hillary Clinton isn't sure if she wants the Secretary of State job."

I think there's only one reason that Hillary wouldn't want the SOS job - the deep vetting that would occur regarding Bill. Too much baggage to sort through. I actually think she'd be a good choice for Secretary of Health & Human Services, considering her "passion" for health care reform. I would think Bill's present activities wouldn't be an issue there. It would also serve to remove her from being obstructionist in the Senate, in some wierd power-play bullshit.

I think the Democrats put pragmatism over honor in the handling of Lieberman. They didn't want to endanger the chance of having 60 "Democrats" in the Senate so they are keeping Lieberman happy in case all three Senate toss-ups go their way -? As tempting as that prospect is, it was not the truly right thing to do

Great for Howard Dean. But I agree with the commenters above--he can donate to the DSCC and any one of the Dem Senators who voted the wrong way on Lieberman to offset the money I would have sent in otherwise.

If this truly is Obama's decision, then Obama should be man enough to state it publicly (which he may yet), and this is now the second decision Obama has made that gives me pause about him and his character.

"For the first time in a long while, Texas finds itself left out of the leadership in D.C."

wow, that's a huge relief. america will be better off because of it.

orange

Well, there may be something good to say about Texas after all:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6119394.html

Vice president, former AG, state senator indicted
© 2008 The Associated Press
Nov. 18, 2008, 4:17PM

McALLEN, Texas — A South Texas grand jury has indicted Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on charges related to the alleged abuse of prisoners in Willacy County's federal detention centers.

The indictment criticizes Cheney's investment in the Vanguard Group, which holds interests in the private prison companies running the federal detention centers. It accuses Cheney of a conflict of interest and "at least misdemeanor assaults" on detainees by working through the prison companies.

Gonzales is accused of using his position while in office to stop an investigation into abuses at the federal detention centers.

Another indictment charges state Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr. with profiting from his public office by accepting honoraria from prison management companies.

The indictments were first reported by KRGV-TV.

I'm uncomfortable making people violate their conscience if they want to practice medicine.
I support Bible thumpers' wishes to abstain from immoral medical care.

That said, a notice needs to be plastered to their door listing specific services that are not offered under any circumstances, regardless of medical prudence, due to moral objections.

People need to know when their professionals are motivated by something other than optimal results and satisfaction of the customer.

Defense lawyers need not defend people they don't like... No lawyer can do a good job delivering a defense they themselves don't believe in. I'm not sure you'd WANT a pro-life doctor in charge of your birth control. I want to KNOW, and they won't tell me if they'll lose their job.

I could be wrong, but I haven't heard a good argument that isn't based on people's rejection of religious fervor. I don't care for it either, but there's this little thing called the 1st amendment and just as conservatives say gay people can marry if they just pick someone they don't find physically attractive, I'm not keen on telling doctors they have to switch careers because they don't want to subject themselves to Hell if they don't.

Both are coercive imposition of morals.

Just require disclosure. People can be as moral as they like, but their patients/clients need to know when they can't expect an honest effort.

Yeah, Steve...but I want to know what you and the Mrs. think of Primeval! :-)

Bubba --

Well that was quick if after a week after the election and two decisions that you did not agree with that you actually question Obama's character - not his decisions -- his character.

Well, not much leeway there.

Good luck with what's ahead -- huge government bail out decisions, dicey foreign policy situation and let us not forget the economy where all the decisions are real clear, easy to determine and certainly without any controversy or tough cost benefit. I guess your trust or support is doled out only one decision at a time and it had better be the "right" one, eh?

Elie,

Piss off. You are entitled to your opinion, and I mine. Obama was entitled to my vote, which he got, but he has yet to do anything. And based upon issues important to me (warantless wiretapping expansion (especially as he is a proclaimed con law professor and 'expert') and the Lieberman issue) I do think there is reason to question his proclaimed 'character' especially as being someone to push 'change'. You might have gone all-in with him regardless of the decisions he chooses to make and that is fine. I will judge him by my own standards. he has plenty of time to make great decisions and I am sure he will. However, the decision, if it truly is his as is being reported, is one big stinker and is a big, possibly unintended, but still big FU to those of us who have worked very hard to increase majorities in the House and Senate and get him elected. For change.

This 11th hour push to further blur the separation of church and state and play God with a woman's right to choose is such a horrible but sobering reminder that we've just endured the worst president of our life-time and we may possibly just be lucky enough to now have the best of our life-time.

(Hopefully it won't pass).

wow! bubba sure has a short fuse......and a very limited narrow perspective on the presidency.

guess i'm glad i'm willing to give obama a bit of leeway and see how he does overall.

go ahead, bubba. you might as well tell me to piss off too.

orange

So, did Senate Democrats decide about what to do with Sen. Lieberman, or did they simply ratify President-elect Obama's wishes?

I have no dog in this fight, as to the substance; it doesn't matter to me who chairs the Homeland Security Committee in the Senate (I should note that if the caucus had removed Lieberman his replacement would have been Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, a man well into his 80s). I would observe, however, that a salient characteristic of the Bush years' doormat Congress has been the eagerness of members of the President's party to do whatever the President wanted them to do, even if it involved strictly Senate business.

I didn't expect the majority Democrats now to be substantially different in this regard. The only point I'd make is that a doormat Congress is not a good thing. Our system was not designed to work with everyone deferring to the President on everything. Again, I don't care about what committees Sen. Lieberman sits on, but the right thing for the Senate Democrats to have told President-elect Obama was that this affair was none of his business.

FWIW, Dean's been consistently one of the good guys in the Dems. If he's in support of what happened, then I'm willing to go along with the good doctor on this. I'm not happy about it, but I don't think we should so blithely discard Howard Dean's advice or instincts. He has credibility.

Bubba
Yikes!
Not much room to disagree with you, is there?

Of course you are entitled to your opinion -- we all are.

Why is someone asking you about the severity of your judgement the occasion to let loose with incivility?

We DO have some tough time ahead with many tough decisions that need to be made and sometimes winners/losers will not always be clear. The one thing that I saw Obama advocating was a better way to discuss our differences and to build a more civil and less contentious environment than we have had over the last 8 years.

Dont you think that is important too? How far do we get in resolving these issues if we are at each other's throats when we are just communicating and trying to understand the thinking of the other person?

Zathras, one of the problems with Lieberman in the HSC Committe was his poor performance, especially re (not surprising) not investigating wrongdoing in the vigorous manner of his House counterpart the basically fabulous Henry Waxman. So it's not just a matter of "punishment."

Actually, isn't it clear that the deep reason for keeping Lieberman happy was in the hope of having 60 "Democrats" in the Senate? I mean, is there really that much to wonder about? It was a creepy indulgence in pragmatism and Kum-Oba-Ma softie drek, not the most honorable, but I figure it was hardly mysterious.

The media, always searching for the story that will attract viewers, instead of presenting news and issues, seems to have adopted the contrived controversy over how-can-this-be-an-administration-of-change-when-they-hire-Clinton-operatives? Then we go through the senseless prattle from all the pundits, who can't seem to understand that Obama is like the CEO, he hires his top management to carry out HIS policies, NOT theirs, and their job is to implement the changes he has in mind and that we hired him to make. We are the board of directors.
And if he doesn't do the job, we fire him. And if his managers don't do their jobs, he fires them.

Is that so freaking hard to understand? It's what's done in every corporation in America. Is it really that hard to understand that he hires operatives who know how to get things done, not to run amok implementing Clinton's policies, but to get our work done?

Can't we have a grown up media for chris sakes? I was so relieved that the two year horse race coverage was finally over. Now we can talk about where the country is going, what we'll do about energy, global warming etc., I thought. Silly me. Might as well talk about the first puppy. At least it's not a phony made up issue. It's a real cliffhanger, whether he goes to the pound or buys pedigree. At least it's honest.

"Vice president, former AG, state senator indicted"

This is a ploy to allow Bush to be able to pardon them to avoid real punishment for all their misdeeds and illegal activities.

In a friendly court they can be charged with relatively minor crimes, found guilty and then pardoned for everything they did above and beyond the indictments.

Once the pardon is issued, they cannot be tried for anything they have done - double jeopardy will be attached.

For anyone who still cares:

http://www.palindeception.com/blog/2008/11/biology-lesson.html

wbn, that is a fascinating theory. I hope some savvy bloggers will get on that and check things out. However, I doubt the originators intended for this to be a fake to help VP-AG-SS later. BTW has such a trick been done before?

"grant sweeping new protections to health care providers who oppose abortion and other procedures on religious or moral grounds has provoked a torrent of objections."
Fuck freedom of religion and speech.
You democrats are such hypocritical pieces of shit. You stink.

I could be wrong, but I haven't heard a good argument that isn't based on people's rejection of religious fervor.

Two arguments:

1) Sometimes the care that people "object" to is emergency care that could endanger the patient's life or permanently injure her if she does not receive it. Is someone's freedom of religion more important than their patient's life? The morning-after pill must be given within 72 hours to successfully suppress ovulation and prevent a pregnancy -- should a rape victim have to drive or be driven to an emergency room 20 or 50 miles away to find an emergency room that will help her prevent that pregnancy?

2) Having people publicly post what care they will provide could easily backfire, as "pro-life" protesters could station themselves outside the doors of doctors who don't specifically say they will refuse to provide birth control or abortion services. It wouldn't be a big problem in a heavily populated urban area, but if it happens in a small town that only has a few providers, it can cause a huge problem for patients.

I'm all for freedom of religion, but just as a parent can't refuse medical care for his/her child based on religion, strangers should not be allowed to choose what medical care I receive based on their religion. It's the imposing of your personal religious beliefs on someone who doesn't share them that's the problem.

FWIW, Dean's been consistently one of the good guys in the Dems. If he's in support of what happened, then I'm willing to go along with the good doctor on this. I'm not happy about it, but I don't think we should so blithely discard Howard Dean's advice or instincts.

That is really not how I read Dean in this. It seems to me that his response was more to defer to the Senate and, in all honesty, he couldn't really publicly say anything else. He quite conspicuously didn't really argue as to what he would have done in his position or whether it was the ideal resolution of the matter. Just that, this is what they decided and so no point in hashing it out any further.

It's good there is a site where folks can post their concerns re: what they are witnessing when bigotry goes awry and even rises to indirect or direct threats. It would be better if they educated on the site as well--what to do when you hear intolerance or hate-mongering statements, who to call when you hear direct threats against someone's life...how to make sure they have witnesses and so forth...what their legal rights are--so they feel empowered to not just vent but know what they can and can't do and what they might encourage their peers to do.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a good site for education in this regard. I'm hoping there are others..but this site is a good place to start with, as I imagine sadly this could potentially get a good deal worse after Obama assumes office.
I hope I'm wrong.
=====================================
About Wasilla--

I've heard more than once now that Wasilla (and actually a good deal of Alaska) is particularly bigoted--and I think by now we've all heard at least one account about Palin who blurted out racist comments (not to mention her whole campaign) here and there during the primaries and even prior.

Is it really that hard to understand that he hires operatives who know how to get things done, not to run amok implementing Clinton's policies, but to get our work done?

This oversimplifies things a bit I think. I don't think anyone is questioning that Obama will be the one in charge but these positions also carry influence and they also perhaps send a message about the kind of policies he might support. The criticisms may or may not be correct but the basic policy and influence questions seem fair to me.

Fuck freedom of religion and speech.
You democrats are such hypocritical pieces of shit. You stink.

Terry, you can believe anything you want. The problem is when you decide that your personal religious beliefs take precedence over my health or my life.

Please explain why you should be allowed to make my medical decisions for me based on your personal religious beliefs.

On E.D.Hill:
Take a look at Fox's on air personalities. I doubt E.D.'s problems were about her comments so much as her age in relation to her gender.

Dear Steve,
Please stop riling everyone up over Joe Dumbass LIEberman. The trollers are getting out of hand and Obama is very wise to do what he is doing.

1. He's sending a clear message that change has come to politics. Getting shit done, not partisanship is now the order of business.

2. He's putting the onus of working to accomplish goals onto Republicans. By showing he's willing to extend a hand across the aisle, even with such a large majority, it will look bad on Republicans if they start subversively filibustering at every turn.

3. He's appealing to the center, which is not only where the majority of Americans are, it's where legislation gets made. Remember when REAL legislation got made? I can't. Partisanship has deadlocked this country for decades.

"grant sweeping new protections to health care providers who oppose abortion and other procedures on religious or moral grounds has provoked a torrent of objections."
Fuck freedom of religion and speech.

Oh spare us the histrionics. This has nothing to do with freedom of religion or speech. Here is a little lesson for you. Even with the Consitutional protections, an employer normally cannot discriminate against an employee based on religion but they can if the religion prevents the employee from meeting the criteria for the job. If I have a store that is only open on Saturday and you are a Seventh Day Adventist, you cannot claim I am discriminating when I don't hire you.

No one makes a person choose to be a doctor or a pharmacist. you have no Constitutional right to do either. but once you make that choice, you have an obligation to provide for key components of womens' health. and that includes healthful control of her reproductive system. you cannot make those decisions for her anymore than you can decide for her to cut off her arm. the public needs to know that in a stressful (or worse yet, emergency) medical situation they don't have to call a dozen practitioners to see what menu of lawful health options they withhold for personal reasons.

religion has not a damned thing to do with it. if your job is to dispense medicine or medical procedures, do it. dont like it? pick another profession. preaching seems appropriate.

The Lieberman thing is bothering me more than I'd like, but after adjusting my tin foil hat I've started to wonder: If he's left in place as chairman of the DHS Committee and then the entity formerly known as DHS is revamped/renamed/restaffed, wouldn't he be out in the cold anyway? Is this feasible to anyone else, or is my hat on too tight?

I would like to hear more about this notion of hiring your enemies, or former adversaries.

I hear conflicting things--that Lincoln did this, but I'm also reading accounts that this really didn't pan out too well--so is this approach largely myth?

What are the pros and cons of Obama turning the other way and giving someone like Lieberman the green light (aside from hoping for the magic 60?).
==============================================
And did anyone hear what Reid said? That there's a lot Lieberman did he doesn't understand, but..."Oh well?" And that's that? It sounded weird to me to have him admit that but with the same breath dismiss it so cooly...wow, what the mind will do to rationalize a decision, huh?

Time has an interesting take on the Lieberman decision. It sounds like it's going to be popular with the Villagers.

My question is this:

Is the economic crisis, the credit crunch, the recession, as bad as we're being led to believe? Or is it the Iraq threat all over again? Are we being manipulated into accepting huge transfers of wealth in a last, desperate grab from the Bush administration?

I only ask the question. I have no opinion now, but I'm suspicious. What evidence do we have that an economic apocalypse, far beyond the normal ups and downs of the business cycle, is upon us? That the bursting of free market speculative bubbles that always occur is about to bring the entire economy down?

I hear nobody can buy anything because no credit is available. Well they forgot to tell the financial institutions that I deal with, because every single day, I receive the same number of credit card offers, bank loan offers, balance transfer offers, special purchase offers, like 0% for 12 months, or 3.99% until I pay off the entire amount, up to the limit of my credit card(s), that I always did.

Today I received a letter from one credit card company increasing my limit by 20%. That's a crunch?

So what's going on? If I lived in a bubble, didn't read newspapers, surf the web, watch television or listen to the radio, and didn't talk to anyone, I wouldn't notice any change at all. Except the supermarkets have jacked up the prices of their goods, because of the "energy crisis" while I'm buying gasoline for less than it's been for years.

I'm no conspiracy freak, believe me. I still think Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin. But something doesn't smell right about all this hype, and I had the same feeling in the run up to the invasion of Iraq.

I just ask that you think about it, the possibility that we are being had. And if we do have a serious, prolonged recession, 13% unemployment, a couple of years of negative growth, job losses in the millions over that period, I'll admit I got it wrong. But so far, it hasn't happened. Just a lot of paper billionaires lost their derivative/swap fortunes in the world's largest gambling casino - Wall Street. And some banks, that failed to do due diligence, holding a lot of worthless paper assets from those transactions and subprime mortgages, who want us to bail them out.

Obama can afford to be and look magnanimous. The Senate Democrats are idiots to be. That's the difference.

I do appreciate though how once again, disagreeing with a Republican's religious point of view is attacking his freedom to hold it. They really are the dumbest fucking people on Earth.

Killer paragraph of the month

Via Sullivan (Let Exxon Save GM) via Margaret and Helen:

So the oil companies are once again boasting record profits and yet the auto makers are asking for some government cheese. Does anyone else see the irony here? So I’ve got a little trickle down theory of my own. As long as Detroit continues to make cars for the Gas-Capades let the oil companies bail them out.

1. He's sending a clear message that change has come to politics. Getting shit done, not partisanship is now the order of business.

Quite aside from the question of whether punishing Lieberman would have somehow prevented us from, or even has anything to do with, "getting shit done," anyone who thinks they are going to achieve anything in Washington without partisanship is going to be sorely disappointed.

People disagree on things. They form coalitions that mainly coincide with party affiliation and they negotiate a solution to their disagreements. The weaker your coalition's discipline and loyalty, the weaker your negotiating position will be and the less likely whatever achievement comes out will be influenced by your coalition's principles and values. However pleasant we decide to be with each other now, that dynamic, commonly referred to as partisanship, is not going to go away.

The argument for penalizing Lieberman is to discourage him from attempting to weaken his coalition's negotiating position. The argument against penalizing him was that it would encourage him to weaken the coalition by further acts of betrayal. The Senate Dems argued for the latter but I find it to be a thoroughly unpersuasive case.

Damn it!

Think about the post right above this one...

Re: Star Trek.
I can go geekier.

Bill Simmons makes a major point about building the Enterprise dirtside. Using high school physics, it works out that it would take about 3 TRILLION HP of energy or around 2000 Megatons of TNT per hour to heave the completed Enterprise into orbit.

That's the pretty much the energy equivalent of the entire US Nuclear Arsenal being released every hour (for about 8 hours).

These are the moments when I wish that guys like JJ Abrams would read a damn science text book once in a while and realize that even filmmakers have to deal with reality once in a while.

Yeah, I know. NERD!

Its official, Stevens is out.

AP declares Begich the winner in Alaska. Ted Stevens gets retirement as his birthday present (he's 85 today).

We're up to 56 Dems in the Senate. Plus Bernie Sanders.

Your guess is as good as mine...

Anybody have any news if Lieberman is going to campaign for Republican Saxby Chambliss or Democratic challenger Jim Martin?

E.D. Hill nee Edith Ann Tarbox.

OK, 'Edith' is bad enough, but 'Tarbox'? Seriously...'Tarbox'?

I'm guessing the first of her 3 marriages was just for the name change.

Triple carom into the side pocket...

Mark Ambinder on Hillary as SoS:

On the other hand, it is conceivable that President Obama would hand Sen. Clinton a ticket with the words "Middle East Peace" printed on it, and say: "Go," giving Clinton the flexibility and transitive authority to secure her place in history.

If I had Obama's turn at the table, that is precisely the sort of creative shot-making I'd cue up...
In other words: Rack it up Dano.

* Even now, the Bush gang is pushing an 11th-hour plan to "grant sweeping new protections to health care providers who oppose abortion and other procedures on religious or moral grounds has provoked a torrent of objections." -- Steve Benen

Everything else (the "I can, *too*, force my religious beliefs on you! And if you try to stop me, you're trampling on *my* rights. Which are more important than yours, because my god is better than yours. So *there*! " argument among them) aside... It appears that this particular rule is legally dubious (not that it's ever stopped the Bush/Cheney malefactors, but...).

Any such rules have to be tossed in for discussion by the end of June. The WH omitted that part. Any such rules have to be put in place *before Nov 1*. Guess what? That one wasn't. And the WH is unable, at the moment, to say why missing the deadline should merit the waiver (obvious answers: "1)we didn't think anyone would notice" and "2) our guy lost and your guy can't be trusted to implement same" aren't, quite, good enough).

All in all, even if it does go through, it ought to be relatively easy to roll back on Jan 21, even before it's enforced.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* E&P has been chronicling local anti-Obama incidents, "usually involving racist attacks of a verbal, physical or even criminal nature." Some truly chilling reports. -- Steve Benen

Interesting that most of those reports do not come from the states you'd have expected to get bent on the subject (well, with the exception of Alaska. But we now know that Alaska is totally unpredictable. It's that long winter...). And surprising that they missed this one, from Springfield, Massachusetts (perhaps because it was reported by NYT, not some little, local, weekly):

http://tinyurl.com/6mo57b

Granted, the "event" may not have been, overtly, "anti Obama". But, how else to explain the timing? A black church is burnt -- and arson seems to be evident -- within hours of Obama's win...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vis Lieberman: Irrespective of what Neil B (@18:03)says, I don't see today's decision as being a choice between honorable and pragmatic, with pragmatic coming out on top. It *would have* been "pragmatic", had LIEberman been someone the Dems could count on as the 60th vote. But they can't. All they can count on, is for the weasel (may he pop, having pooped already) to bite them in the butt (can't bite off the nuts they don't have), when they're not looking.

So, the "pragmatic" thing to do would have been to wrest the Homeland Security gavel away from him and let him decide whether he wanted to pout in the Repub or the Dem corner. What the Dem Senators have done is "Christian", as in: "turn the other cheek". Fine. They can turn out their own pockets too, the next time they ask me for a donation. Since I don't know who voted how - due to the secret ballot -- I'll have to turn off the spigot for all of them.

I liked what Ned Lamont had to say today on Maddow about the decision to keep Lieberman: He essentially thinks the decision was a really poor one, and made the careful point to say it wasn't an issue of vindictiveness, but rather of whether to reward someone who attacked Obama so thoroughly on both domestic and international security issues...I completely agree it was framed wrong from the start...

(Not to mention that Lieberman also agreed pondering if Obama is a Marxist might be a good question...)

Sigh, I'm trying to let go of this one, but it's rough...

Cheney is charged with engaging in an organized criminal activity related to the vice president's investment in the Vanguard Group, which holds financial interests in the private prison companies running the federal detention centers. It accuses Cheney of a conflict of interest and "at least misdemeanor assaults" on detainees because of his link to the prison companies. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081119/ap_on_re_us/cheney_indicted
*******************

Let the prosecutions start! May you eat the fruit of your deeds, 5 Deferment DICK.

I was ranting at my computer earlier today when I saw that the Dems had let ole cowardly lion Lieberman up -- but then I thought about it some more (I had to to try to make sense of it and reconcile it with my respect for Obama)

I hope that I am not being overly convoluted -- but think of the shame and cowardice that is being displayed by Lieberman...If he had been a real mensch, and believed what he said he believed, he would not have begged for his position back, he would not have slinked back to the caucus with his tail between his legs.

Instead, he is a sorry sight. Collared and brought to heel, mouthing platitudes as the boys know they have him cowed and defeated. There is no glory for him in this "victory". This is defeat in the most insidious and powerful form. We OWN you, and you don't have the gumption to stand up for your own beliefs to be a man. You are just a little whimpering dog, wanting to come in out of the cold after all.

Think about it..how much could he have REALLY believed in McCain or what the bull the Repubs were selling only to run like a weak coward back to the Dems. Honor -- he has none and looks weak and low.

On deeper thought, this is a particular kind of revenge being extracted on this guy -- one that is subtle but no less powerful than being stripped naked and being asked to beg for your supper.

What do you all think?

so, what exactly is the downside of removing Sen. Joseph Lieberman (Connecticut for Lieberman Party-CT) from his chairmanship of the homeland security and government affairs committee?

the case against lieberman has been widely discussed, but one thing that i don't hear mentioned much is how the entire essence of Lieberman's national recognition is based on his position as a (formerly) Democratic Senator who scolds and attacks democrats. the main reason lieberman was selected vp by gore was because lieberman was one of the first (if not the first) democrats to call out clinton on monica and blowing (errr, hehe) that into an impeachable offense.

in the bush years, he has been among the most aggessive spokespeople for the entire bush agenda. he also is a regular on talk shows where he positions himself as the holy grail of bipartisanship, while ripping democrats and the democratic agenda in explicit and direct terms. his very essence is to give right-wing frames and right-wing orthodoxy a "democratic" face.

he campaigned for john mccain and very aggressively against barack obama after explictly promised he wouldn't, in terms that seriously should no longer be acceptable as political dialogue. and that after obama worked to help him defeat a democrat to keep his seat in the first place.

i mean seriously, lieberman SAID that a filibuster-proof Democratic majority would be DANGEROUS TO THE COUNTRY. so why the %&^$!! would you expect him to join said filibuster-proof majority in pursuing the agenda the people mandated? and to make him the most powerful man in the united states senate after spanking the neocons and theocons in consecutive elections?

i respect that obama is way smarter than me, but i don't see how this doesn't come back to bite him in the ass. you give this proven traitor subpoena power over your administration? and harry reid is the most flaccid and pathetic majority leader ever. sea slugs think this coward has no spine.

this isn't the apocalypse, but it stinks to holy hell.

2 possibilities:

Joe Lieberman has forensic evidence of some sort of utterly hideous and catastrophic misdeeds by a handful of powerful democrats (is that an oxymoron??), particularly harry reid, chris dodd and howard dean.

Or maybe the plan is to stick Lieberman with responsibility for any act of terrorism that, if history is a guide, is likely to occur within the first of half of the next presidential term. don't think it would work, but at least its something to explain this travesty... right??

Gib, I think the hat is on too tight. I don't know of any reason to believe the committee will be thoroughly reorganized as you envision in the coming term.

hark, I sincerely hope you're right. the looting of the treasury wouldn't be as bad if this recession is like the others of recent times.

On deeper thought, this is a particular kind of revenge being extracted on this guy -- one that is subtle but no less powerful than being stripped naked and being asked to beg for your supper.

Sorry elle. Whole thing comes off quite differently to me. As far as I can tell, Lieberman gives up nothing in this whole scenario. He spent a year or so ripping Dems and trying to subvert their agenda. When he fails, he tells them his conditions for his continued participation in their caucus and amazingly, they completely cave to his demands. I don't see anything but complete victory in this for Lieberman. He wins the day and teaches us all the very important lesson that there is no penalty for betrayal in the Dem caucus.

Brent --

I hear what you are saying -- but think of it -- he slinked back -- not a mensch but looking for his place back --- he is not a victor -- he is a low slink back who isnt man enough to stand up for what he so called believes.

He is a supplicant -- a beggar for favors and the pack let him come into the fold to feed. But he begged his way back -- a position of weakness.

Well -- I understand how you feel but how does he behave? With bravado? No way. He looks sidelong at the Democrats as they lurk making sure he says all the right things -- that is -- when he talks. Can he look the republicans in the eye after this? No way -- he is the Democrats' b---- having begged his way back and having others grease his way back. He is without honor and in complete subservience...the republicans will never take him now and be is a beggar to the democrats. Lowest of the low

Letting Lieberman retain his position is akin to Grant allowing Rebels to keep their weapons and horses for spring planting.

Knowing Lieberman, believe he will return to planting more Hemlock.