Re: Lieberman
By Jamelle Bouie - Nov 18th, 2008 at 5:44 pmLike Ned, I’m definitely not pleased with the decision to let Joe Lieberman keep his chairmanships, and I’m disappointed that Obama supported–and from some reports, even pushed–that decision. Nonetheless, I can definitely see the reasoning behind it; if his peaceful overtures to Hillary Clinton and John McCain are any indication, he’s more interested in the business of governing than he is in settling scores.
To Obama, an additional vote in the Senate is worth a hell of a lot more than a Lieberman-less Democratic caucus, and he’s willing to sacrifice a little popularity amongst the left to keep that vote. Furthermore, a rogue Lieberman–untethered by party affiliation, however strained–might be more dangerous than a Lieberman who–although still unreliable–is now indebted to Obama. My guess is that Obama is counting on that to keep Lieberman in line; Obama is betting that Lieberman will stay loyal for purely opportunistic reasons, since if he doesn’t, he could easily lose his position within the Senate (Senate Democrats don’t seem too keen on forgiveness).
Obama has been protecting Lieberman ever since he campaigned for him in 2006 versus Lamont. Personally if the Democrats can’t get rid of an ultrahawk from a committee chairmanship he totally failed, I hope CT voters do in 2012.
November 19th, 2008 at 3:56 pm