Yep.

Sucks, doesn't it? I wish it didn't bug me so much. The press conference afterward was pretty bad.

DOES LIEBERMAN OWE OBAMA?

Doesn't that kind of depend on whether one votes based on principle? I doubt Lieberman has any principle stronger than self-survival, but if there are political debts in play, he owed the Republicans for getting him re-elected in '06. Now the Dems are his johns.

Either Holy Joe has pics of the Dem Sens in embarrassing intimate situations or they all got played. Personally I think this is all one big set up allowing Holy Joe to go on Fox and criticize Obama at some point at which time we'll have the Dem senators whine about how they need more money from us stupid saps in the Dem base to elect more real Dems. Listen, Sen. Schumer/Reid/Menendez/Durbin - there is going to be a hell of a lot of progressive legislation passed in order for me ply open my wallet for you again. Period. This really was the last straw for me.

I know how angry/furious/wrathful the netroots (and I) are about this, but I don't know how widely this pathetic display will resonate across the democratic party. A lot depends on how the media plays it.

When (not if) Joe goes off the reservation I suspect the msm will have a field day.

Revenge is a dish best served cold?

We can only hope.

There's a longer history of disloyalty/no consequences than you mentioned. He knifed Clinton in the back; then he got chosen to be VP candidate by Gore.

I think there is another way to read it, which is Lieberman has been allowed to keep something he dearly wants and which can be removed. He is disloyal, but is also narcissistic. Obama can give Reid a call and ask him to remove Lieberman.

Lieberman does owe Obama; more important, Obama has a meaningful threat to make to Lieberman. He can try the loyalty test first, but when a big ticket item happens, the threat is there.

They should have cut his balls off. The fact of the matter is that he has no allegiance but to himself. He's proved it time and again. Obama's willingness to play nice with thieves reminds me of a saying my granddad used often:

"When a thief kisses you , count your teeth"

Buckle up you whussy Dems. LIEberman is laughing all the way to the dental supply house with a bag full of teeth..

Joe kept his position due in part to government muddling. I am about to lose my livelihood due in part to government muddling. That's about all I got to say about that.

Lieberman has been allowed to keep something he dearly wants and which can be removed. - Some Guy

Actually to remove Lieberman from his chairmanship in midterm would require a 51 Sen vote, and would be subject ot filibuster. So essentially 60 votes would be required to remove him.

Whew, being able to keep his sword and mule for spring plantin' back home. And, his Grey uniform, as well.

Over this electing, I've learned that Obama's instincts are pretty good in the political arena and if he left Lieberman, he's got a pretty good reason. If Lieberman screws up, Obama is going to Chicago on his traitorous behind.

I can wait for that -- the show should be worth it.

In 2 years the voters in Conn will decide. Right now his approval rate is sliding and it would be sweet justice if he didn't get elected.

I think we should reserve judgment until we see how Joe acts. I can't stand the man, but there's nothing we can do about the situation right now.

For those who want to help Franken and Martin get elected, we can give money directly to their efforts. We don't have to donate another dime to the DSCC.

So, what, the narrative amongst the Villagers will be that Lieberman -- for whom Obama campaigned in his Democratic primary -- didn't betray Obama by speaking at the Republican convention, but that crossing Obama now will be a betrayal?

I won't argue that the Villagers won't adopt that narrative, but it makes no sense at all. That dog won't hunt.

"Over this electing, I've learned that Obama's instincts are pretty good in the political arena and if he left Lieberman, he's got a pretty good reason."

I believe you have the right of it, yam. The campaign gave me new respect for Obama's instincts, intelligence, and, yes, toughness. He doesn't want Lieberman beholden to him because we all know how that works with a slimy weasel like Lieberman. No, he wants to OWN Lieberman, and now I think he does.

Lieberman expected to get away with it, and he did.

Actually, I think Lieberman's comments in the last days of the campaign (especially agreeing with Beck that 60 votes for the Dems would be a disaster for the country) suggest that he thought his days in the majority were over and he was resigned to that fact. I don't think he expected to get away with it, at least not towards the end. His unexpected reprieve doesn't mean he will be loyal in the future though. Once a narcissistic backstabber, always a narcissistic backstabber.

Obama and his people have proven to be way smarter than us. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

Personally, I'd rather work with someone I could trust rather than someone I'd blackmailed. But of course, this is politics...

It's not just the Lieberwhiner's campaign rhetoric that can be trusted -- it's everything about the weasel.

Does Lieberman want to get reelected? That's the real question. Right now there is an angry mob of rank and file Democrats so really the only path he has to get reelected is to stay on good terms with Obama and the Senate Democrats. If they don't help him he stands no chance. There's actually something of a good cop bad cop dynamic here with the Senate Democrats playing good cop and the daily kos community playing bad cop.

Maybe Obama's even more subtle than we think. Maybe, in exchange for allowing him to keep his chairmanship of DHS, Obama's quid pro quo was that Lieberman now investigate the abuses he's shined on during the Bush years. Any charges or punishments resulting will have more credibility and appear far less partisan if a Republican BFF is in charge, no?

Don't forget how much hard feelings have played into all of this for Holy Joe. Go back to interviews with him before he endorsed McCain. On at least one occasion, he said that one reason was no Dem called for his endorsement. Also, don't forget how pissed off he was because the Dems "abandoned" him to back to Democratic candidate against him in 2006. Joe is a sanctimonious dick, but it stands to reason that this gesture from Obama may play a big role in his outlook. Joe is like a spoiled child. Show him some "love" and suddenly he becomes much more agreeable.

And another thing: If the Dems threw Lieberman out, he would've been the go-to guy for all DC media anytime they were looking for an anti-Obama quote. Holy Joe is a product of the media, and by making him just another senator, sans controversy, the Democrats might just have de-fanged him a bit.

I'm thinking that Lieberman will be kept on a very short leash. Depending on what happens with Alaska and Minnesota, we may need Lieberman to trump the GOP dinosaurs. As another wily politician once said, "I'd rather have him inside the tent and pissing out than outside the tent pissing in."

"Obama and his people have proven to be way smarter than us." hornblow

I'll agree that Obama is very intelligent. But from our perspective in Illinois, we observed that Obama had a great deal of luck in the opponents that the Republicans in IL were able to put up against him, especially in his run for the US Senate. The Republican party in IL imploded with scandal and the rise of the far right and the diminished power of moderates. It was a harbinger of what helped him advance to the presidency, four years later. Obama's timing could not have been more advantageous.

I don't see any evidence of a leash, short or otherwise.
And I can't stand his sh@#$t eating grin. He should not be a chairperson of an important committee.
Further evidence that politics is just politics and the improvement one gets when the "proper party" is in power is miniscule.

Like most posters I was very angry about the caucus vote, “angry unto death� as the prophet Jonah said. But upon reflection, I realized this is not only smart pragmatic politics, but, might I dare say, even the morally right thing to do. As a devout Jewish secularist I’m not exactly a WWJD type of person, but Matthew 5:43-44 is not an inappropriate text for this case:
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."
People talk about wanting to change politics. Well, isn’t this a change from the spiteful, vitriolic destructive personality centered diatribes of the past decade? As another preacher once remarked, in a world ruled by an eye for eye and tooth for tooth, everyone will end up blind and toothless.
So if this helps change the political culture it’s a major plus. There’s really not much of risk to it. Lieberman is basically a very weak character with a powerful need for approval. If he really was a principled son of a bitch he would have jumped to the GOP caucus last year, which would have given the Republicans control of the Senate via Cheney’s tie breaking vote. Anyway, he’s really in no position to cause much trouble. If he jumps to the GOP now, or even supports them overly much, he’s boarding the Titanic after it hit the iceberg.

I had a miserable day of retching and puking when word got out that the Senator from Jerusalem got away with yet another betrayal. The Democrats never fail to disappoint and capitulate.

Although I haven't seen any reporting along these lines, one has to wonder how much AIPAC had to do with this move. It's AIPAC that has the fillibuster proof majority not the Dems, and if it spread the word that punishing Lieberman would be seen as a vote against Israel I'm surprised it wasn't a unanimous vote to keep him. Perhaps Steve you could look into that aspect of this miserable affair.

I also will have no money to reelect Democrats when they come whining that they don't have enough of a majority to do anything. The dim-Dems could have a 99-1 majority, and it wouldn't make any difference. Like the auto industry looking for a handout to perpetuate their entrenched stupidity, the Dems have only themselves to blame for their fecklessness.

Excuse me. I feel another wave nausea coming on.

"Actually to remove Lieberman from his chairmanship in midterm would require a 51 Sen vote, and would be subject ot filibuster. So essentially 60 votes would be required to remove him."

I don't believe this is true. Such a decision would still lie within the Democratic caucus, not the entire Senate. In which case, it would take a majority vote of the Democrats to remove him.

Can we forget about JL for a while? This has gotten obsessive.

Sure, Obama supported Lieberman earlier, but then supported Lamont. I think this shows that he's not all about loyalty as our previous president, but doesn't do anything to shoot himself in the foot. I think Lieberman will tow the line, and when tough measures (on int'l affairs) that may upset Lieberman take place, Obama will be able to move a Snowe or Collins over for a cloture vote.

I don't believe this is true. Such a decision would still lie within the Democratic caucus, not the entire Senate. In which case, it would take a majority vote of the Democrats to remove him.

I have sen some dispute over that but the situation does seem to be that it would require a vote of the full Senate. But its really all moot. He won't be removed from the seat. The political costs of doing so after he starts screwing with Dems will be far, far steeper later than now. This was their chance. They decided to pass on it. It pisses me off but I have resolved my self to just try and live with it. But the idea that they have some sort of leverage over Lieberman now that they didn't have before is pretty plainly incorrect. What's more, Lieberman knows it.

There's one more aspect of this whole thing that nobody has talked about: Letting Joe keep his gavel prevents him from going on all the networks for the next two weeks and whine about it. As we all know, the Sunday shows especially book right-wing guests at about an 8:1 ration to left-wing guests.

They all would have booked Joe for a sit-down talk about how mean the Democrats are and how can they talk about change after they've done this to you. Now, they can book John Ashcroft to talk about what a bad AG Eric Holder will be.

Obama has shown he doesn't hold grudges, is willing to work with others who disagree with him, and genuinely wants to make the minority feel they have a voice. Many people here are whining about how weak that is. I say fuck them.
If I wanted the opposite of what Obama is doing, I would have penciled Bush in the ballot for a third term.
Too many people here are acting and complaining like Republicans. Dems have the Presidency and big majorities in both houses. Therefore, keeping Lieberman isn't about Lieberman. Democrats could pull a power trip like Bush/Repubs, but instead have decided to send a message to those few moderate (not wingnut wackos) Republicans left. We need you to put aside your partisan politics and help solve the problems of this country.

I think what pisses me off most is how this continues to piss me off so much. This sanctimonious prick isn't worth wasting my time thinking about, but I can't help it. Finally, though, it's the Dems themselves who really irk me. They're the Ned Flanders/Charlie Brown of politics--perpetual patsies. I really don't see what they gain by this. It's long been obvious that Lieberman's only loyalty is to himself. When the DSCC comes calling for money, they can go screw themselves. I will be giving money to whoever runs against Lieberman in 2010, though.

I would just add that outing Lieberman would feel REALLY good, but that's nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction. Obama isn't about knee-jerk reactions. I suspect he's thought this through weighing both the positives and negatives.

The only explanation for Lieberman's survival is AIPAC, and every senator who votes to keep him is in AIPAC's pocket. Just remember that before you give money/time/support to those people again.

DOES LIEBERMAN OWE OBAMA?

Yes. Next question, please.

This wasn't about Obama building bridges with Lyingman -- although ifLyingman decides to help Obama later that would be a nice side effect.

It was about building bridges with Senate moderate Republicans and blue dog Democrats. McCain, Specter, Collins, Lugar, Graham, Nelson, Landrieu, etc. Those are the people Obama will need to be part of the Senate coalitions that pass his various initiatives. By treating Lyingman with more respect than he deserves and with no sign of payback or backstabbing, Obama is opening the door for those other Senators to join Obama coalitions.

My initial anger yesterday has given way to more understanding and acceptance today, after considering the possible benefits. The whole episode seems more Machiavellian now--Lieberman pretty clearly said that he owes Obama for his continued relevance, and although he's proven to be a petty narcissistic backstabber in the past, this time it's bigger than just campaigning a little for the guy.
Lieberman has been rewarded for his backstabbing, but Obama has a big ass chip to cash in, and if Joe thinks he can continue to be a backstabber, Obama can cut his legs off by simply refusing to offer any more words of support--which would then signal to Senate Dems that they can give him the boot, despite their useless and spineless majority leader.
Am I being naive? Maybe, but Obama's long-term instincts have yet to be proven wrong, so I'm willing to see how it all plays out until next year--which is how long Senate Dems will have to wait before they ever receive money or support from me.

I will be giving money to whoever runs against Lieberman in 2010, though.

Lieberman isn't up again until 2012.

Democrats could pull a power trip like Bush/Repubs, but instead have decided to send a message to those few moderate (not wingnut wackos) Republicans left. We need you to put aside your partisan politics and help solve the problems of this country.

There was no need to "pull a power trip" at all. Punishing Lieberman for his betrayal didn't need to be anything other than the routine business of a coalition that has an interest in discouraging disloyalty. In that they would not be like Bush/Cheney but like every other organization on the entire Earth except for the Dem Senate Caucus. In what other group could one even contemplate getting away with what Lieberman did here. I can't think of a single one. Not even church-based groups.

Moreover, this notion that partisan politics is behind us is nice political rhetoric, but it has very little to do with reality. We have partisan politics because people disagree on stuff. People still disagree on stuff. Parties exist to negotiate those disagreements. That, in essence, is the definition of partisanship and there is nothing especially wrong with it. More importantly, we are not doing away with the party system anytime soon and we have no viable alternative to it even if we wanted to do so.

When you have a member on your side who is deliberately undermining your party's goals, that weakens your ability to negotiate the strongest possible solution from your party's point of view. That matters. In many cases, its literally a matter of life and death. And that is precisely why it should have been made clear to Lieberman that his behavior was unacceptable. There is no contradiction between sending a message of accountability and sending one of reconciliation. It is only Lieberman and his supporters that have any interest in selling the idea that there is.

After this, is it too hard to conceive that Zell Miller could be given chairmanship of the DNC? Hey, no hard feelings guys.

Eights years of Bush has given this nation a real appetite for justice. We just won't get it in this case. As we wind down our Iraq occupation, I can only imagine the mischief Joe could be up to to stymie those efforts. God help us.

Well put! Well said!

Thank you!

Lieberman is, in fact, an aggressively, viciously partisan Republican who can be counted on to use his important committee chairmanship to undermine the Obama administration and the Senate Democrats at every turn. And the Obama administration and the Senate Democrats are stupid for allowing him to keep that chairmanship or even to remain "in" the Democratic caucus. As they will learn to their regret.

Yes Joe Lieberman does have loyalty to someone... Bibi Netanyahu, the Israeli Likud Party, and all the obnoxious New York settlers who have moved to the West Bank to kick Arabs off their land. That is why he is such a fervant supporter of the war in Iraq. He helped manipulate the United States into this war in Iraq to benefit the religeous right wing in Israel. Now I'm not saying that Israel herself wanted Saddam Hussein gone. There are many players in Israel who want peace with her Arab neighbors. However, Likud and the settler advocates are troublemakers and they are who Joe Lieberman represents. His actions leading up to the war in Iraq were nothing short of treason. He should be tried for treason, and if convicted thrown a necktie party.

I had the more hopeful thought last night that maybe Obama really might just know what he is doing. Perhaps at this juncture he's just wanting to really pick his battles, wants to say yes as much as possible and reserve the no's for when he gets in. Obama is a very calculating man, so I'm sure he thought about this and consulted others. Perhaps his thinking also includes that by letting this one pass, it will feel like an open door to more consensus over-all--Dems and Republicans alike.

I did think that press conference was interesting, where-in Reid really acknowledged he had been angry and that there was a time of Joe Lieberman's career that I will never understand or approve of" (as though it happened many moons ago)."But", he quickly added..."he's also been a member for X amount of years...". That seemed just B.S. posturing to me, a real cop-out statement. And Lieberman only briefly said that something to the effect that in the heat of campaigns you say things, and that he regrets some of it--but we have entered a new chapter...blah, blah".

Hey, didn't this stuff just happen? And didn't he for all intents and purposes call Obama a Marxist?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

But that said, I guess I'm trying hard now to give this decision the benefit of the doubt. Maybe there are benefits that are yet unforseen that those who have a better grasp of the larger picture can more clearly envision than I can.
Maybe there really is some sort of method to this madness.

Maybe by saying yes now, and if Lieberman continues to do bizzare things, they can as was indicated boot him out (although this would be difficult). Or maybe as someone mentioned, they'll re-define the whole Homeland Security Role (I always hated the "Homeland" word--sounds so Nazi-like, so Ethnocentric).
==========================================
Sigh..in any case, looks like we got McCain's best buddy Joe for now--the one who's been 'All war all the time for the last six years' (as Ned Lamont soaptly put it).

Hard to spin it other than a flop for Obama and a flop for the Dems. I don't buy the arguments above, and I think it is a flop. It is small, sure, but it does not inspire confidence.

I don't see the upside of letting Joe L. keep his committee gavel. Carl Levin (if I'm reading committee membership list correctly) could be the chairman.

Reality based question: How much damage can Joe really do as chairman of that committee? There is talk about subpoena power, but he would need to get a majority of the committee to agree to ever using that, right? So he gets the republicans to vote with him--would that still be enough? Are the democrats going to have a 2 vote majority on the committee because of their new numbers? And if he were to try something like that, to depend on the republicans to achieve whatever he wanted, how long would he last?

In his first real test as head of the Democratic Party, Obama showed that he is too cool to fight. This was a slap in the face to everyone who supported him. The Republicans will see this a sign of weakness -- and they will be right! Truly, a profile in gutlessness.

Dorothy, I'm afraid he won't come up for re-election until 2012. That means FOUR more years of the little snake, unless the good people of Connecticut locate their spine and RECALL THE JERK!

I do see this as a difficult to reconcile and it could be a mis-step that Obama and the Dems will come to regret.

But I'm certainly not ready to stretch this choice to conclude: "It doesn't inspire confidence".

Because what 'inspires confidence' in me alone right now may truly not be in the best interest of the country as a whole.

Lots of things initially make me uncomfortable and end up being not such a big deal--or even turn out to be a good thing.

Just because from my small world, the decision seems counter-intuitive right now, it's also clear I know little of what Obama is planning or thinking, and so far from what I see--he is NOBODY'S FOOL. He has inspired loads of confidence by using an uncanny foresight I can only dream of having one day.

So I will defer judgment for now, and give benefit of the doubt. That doesn't mean of course I don't take notice.

Does Congress usually figure out all of their committee assignments during the lame duck session, or is that something they do when the next Congress goes into session? I still haven't seen a straight aanswer, so I'm still not getting why this decision would be irreversible. If committee assignments get reshuffled at the beginning of Congress, can't someone challenge Lieberman for his chairmanship, which would be different than being forced out?

Many people here are whining about how weak that is. -Palinoscopy

That is a strawman argument because no one here is making that argument. And I read every comment on every Lieberman article until 2:30 AM Central time this morning and every comment on this article preceding yours.

You're making up that phony position to argue against that same way Reid and Dean made up the 'revenge' argument in a pathetic attempt to undermine legitimate discussion about good governing. It's so very Bush-like of all of you to use the strawman so readily.

No one addresses the actual complaint us reality dwellers have: how do they justify allowing Joe Lieberman to retain an oversight position on a powerful committee which he actively refused to use to hold the Bush administration accountable? He didn't do his job, he should lose it. Same goes for Reid.

It's very clear to me that Reid and the rest of the Senate Democrats are complicit and have no desire to hold Bush and his criminal government accountable, and that's pathetic. That's one of the things they were elected to do. The rule of law is not a bygone to let be bygone.

Too many people here are acting and complaining like Republicans. -Palinoscopy

I agree too many people here are acting like Republicans, but it isn't the people who are complaining. It's all of the people who are making excuses for Reid and telling us to have blind faith in Obama. It's all of the people who are using strawman arguments about perceptions of weakness and angry retribution instead of addressing the real issue.

I refuse to succumb to an unyielding faith in a politician or party, no matter how much I like them. That's the first ingredient in tyranny. I will not roll over on accountability, ever. I'm held accountable in my life, Bush and Lieberman should be no different. It's too bad the senate Democrats and their petty enablers don't agree.

I don't think Lieberman (as well as any other congressperson) owes anyone anything other than to act in the best interests of their constituency and the nation as a whole. This whole discussion of the partisanship "who owes what" to someone else is the primary cause behind the degradation of our political system to what it is today. Lieberman was elected as an Independent. He chose to caucus with the Democrats. If they strip him of his chairmanship, he goes and caucuses with the Republicans, making the magic number of 60 impossible to reach. To me, this is nothing more than putting up with Lieberman in order to keep his vote.

Lieberman may "owe" Obama and the rest of them but I'd bet -- and I'm not, in general, a gambler -- that he's gonna welsh on that debt and sooner rather than later.

Vis that meme which had been making rounds as the excuse "but, he votes with the Dems 90% of the time"... Has there been an independent (like: not Harry Reid) count of his votes, *since '06*? How he voted before then is one thing, but I have an impression (which I'm too 'puter-illiterate to either refute or confirm) that his record since '06 -- when he went into his "my party left me" funk -- has been less than stellar.

Maybe Obama's even more subtle than we think. Maybe, in exchange for allowing him to keep his chairmanship of DHS, Obama's quid pro quo was that Lieberman now investigate the abuses he's shined on during the Bush years. Any charges or punishments resulting will have more credibility and appear far less partisan if a Republican BFF is in charge, no?

Posted by: dalloway on November 19, 2008 at 9:02 AM

Thank you, dalloway. That is the first logical reason I've heard for keeping Lieberman in his position. It actually gives me a glimmer of hope that the Dems know what they're doing.

We only know what that the Lieberman's history shows very clearly that he will do whatever he feels is in his own interest at that moment. "Beholden" appears to have no meaning to him and he doesn't plan more than one move ahead, nor has he shown any loyalty to anything or anyone else besides himself, so why does anyone think that will change now?
Perhaps this is his plan, that he is completely unpredictable so therefore he gets to have it anyway he wants it and everyone knows his name?

Playing field probably near even now. Recall all the dem's who stabbed Lieberman in the back when he was running for the senate seat..and, when he had to run as an Independant, he won, despite their (Clinton and Obama et al)efforts to stop him.

This whole discussion of the partisanship "who owes what" to someone else is the primary cause behind the degradation of our political system to what it is today.

As opposed to what Mike? What you are describing is the way parties achieve their goals. They form voting blocks and agree to vote with each other so that they can best negotiate for their positions on the areas of broadest disagreement with their rivals. That is exactly what they owe each other. If they don't owe each other that than I can't see how they can define themselves as a caucus. How much do you think would get done without parties and caucuses?

There are different kinds of leaders. One type leads through fear and debt (favors). That certainly is how Republicans have ruled at least since Nixon.

Another type of leader, is much more effective I think. He or she is a leader who is effective just because people want to follow them... people want to do what the leader wants.

This kind of leader doesn't demand loyalty... he or she just gets it. It is not self-conscious... it is not high stress... it is something you either have or don't, and President Obama has it.

We've become so accustomed to leadership by fear, we've forgotten what the good kind looks like.

Some Guy posted on NOV19, 2008 at 8:27 AM:

"I think there is another way to read it, which is Lieberman has been allowed to keep something he dearly wants and which can be removed."

Nope, removing him will require considerably more effort than just "calling Reid" to take his gavel and it will involve the Republican Senators as well. I would imagine that would change your calculus, no?

"Lieberman does owe Obama; more important, Obama has a meaningful threat to make to Lieberman. He can try the loyalty test first, but when a big ticket item happens, the threat is there."

Double no squared. Eliminating a "big ticket item" which Lieberman wants will likely hurt some of the junior Democratic Congressmen who were elected in either 2006 or this year. Are you going to tell Chris Murphy, Joe Courtney, or Jim Himes that you just jeopardized their continued careers in the House because you killed a program which Lieberman happened to support after he just knifed you? Worse, the programs which each of those districts needs vary slightly, so you will need to identify just which Representative you're willing to throw overboard. Who gets sacrificed, just to make a point by "dissing" Lieberman? Any effort to use this approach to discipline Lieberman hurts allies far, far worse. It is a non-starter.

There are different kinds of leaders. One type leads through fear and debt (favors). -Jim G

Another type of leader, is much more effective I think. He or she is a leader who is effective just because people want to follow them... -Jim G

By all accounts this was a backroom deal with lots of promises being made, which indicates it is more in line with the fear and debt type of leadership.

Just listen to Evan Bayh's appearance on Rachel Maddow last week to witness what it is to lead from a position of fear.

Jim G,

I completely disagree. I don't think that there are two types of leaders. I think any good leader uses both qualities you outline. They inspire loyalty when they can and demand loyalty when its necessary. I think we have already seen both approaches from Obama himself. And although I very much disagree with his handling of Lieberman, I think he will be a good leader and I expect to see him use both both his natural charisma and the bully pulpit when necessary to achieve his goals.

I am in complete agreement with the thrust of this article. When I read the quoted paragraphs, the exact same thoughts occurred to me as Steve mentioned later. I, too, am very skeptical of Lieberman paying off his debts.

The point is not retribution and revenge. The point is that this man is a weasel (sorry, weasels, nothing personal) and will continue to do what he has been doing for the last many years, sucking up to the neocons. A person like that has no business in a position of power and there is no way that he will be removed no matter what he does. I want the senators who voted to keep him to take a bet that in the next four years, Lieberman will make them sorry. If they accept that bet, then I can guarantee that in four years I will be in thornless roses.

I've been trying to decide why this Lieberman decision bothers me so much. Not because he's a proven traitor...that's not it.

What bothers me is the sort of cynicism implied in his pardon by Democrats. It's the cynicism that tells us what politicians say on the campaign trail doesn't matter, that it's all political theater, and in the end shouldn't be taken seriously. Really? If we can't take the harmful things said at face value, how can we trust the hopeful messages? If the vile is not condemned and brought to justice, how can the hopeful be judged good?

That is what bothers me the most.

I'm with in vino veritas - Forget JoeLIE. Yes, I'm pissed too, and I don't think JoeLie feels he "owes" anybody anything. I fully expect him to go rogue early and often. He got away with it this time, and judging by the results of the Dem Caucus vote, he'll continue to get away with it. That pisses me off even more.

But, it's over. Now, we've got a country to save, and things are getting worse by the day. It's time to spit out the broken teeth and get to work.

I expect the first cloture vote that depends upon Lierberman will tell his future. If he votes with the Republicans, he's gone.

I haven't read the comments but Steve Benen's post perfectly describes why I think letting Leiberman keep a post that can be used to attack Obama was such a mistake.

Obama and Senate Democrats did NOT betray the base with this decision, what they did do was make a serious tactical mistake that is likely to come back to haunt them when they had both his political betrayals and his performance as Chairman to justify take that chairmanship away from Lieberman.

Steve -- you continue to show why you are such a reasoned and prescient observer of politics. Everybody talks about the precedent for future traitors. No, the point is for this traitor (to the party). And, it's not just this year -- he's done everything he could to denigrated Dems for years now. And, remember that he said that a 60 seat majority in the Senate would be dangerous. Why do we think he'll vote with Dems to stop a filibuster, in light of that comment?

JWK nailed it on the head for me. If it's all showmanship - and "forgiving" Lieberman indicates that it is, why believe anything told to us? The only thing I KNOW about Obama is that he wisely opposed the Iraq war, he said he was going to filibuster FISA but voted for it, he won an election by being a nice guy and he forgave Lieberman. Not enough info to trust or distrust him actively at this point.

You nailed it, Steve. Lieberman is a well-known untrustworthy snake. Obama is far too shrewd to have as a motive for lightening up on him the thought that he now has an IOU. Lieberman deserved many prophylactic kicks in the pantaloons.

For some reason, this line from one of Obama's favorite movies has been going through my head today:

"Someday, and that day may never come, I'll call upon you to do a service for me. But, until that day, accept this justice as a gift on my daughter's wedding day."