Obama's A Bigger Person Than Lieberman...And, Apparently, Many DUers As Well

Yes, I can understand the anger and the fever for revenge, but once again, Obama has shown himself to be a better person than many - smarter, more magnanimous and more strategic.

Recall the wedding scene in "The Godfather" where Vito Corleone hands out favors to one and all, but with the admonition that, "someday, I may ask you to return the favor."

Bingo - Obama shoots and scores. He has Lieberman in a box where he can control him while all the time looking like Mr Niceguy.

Some of you just don't get it. Yes, the Old Politics is a politics of revenge and score settling, but that ain't Obama politics. He's laying the groundwork for 2010 & 2012. He is neutering not only his harshest critics from this election cycle (Hillary, McCain, Joe) but the Rs in general. How in the hell are the Rs going to run against Ds the next two cycles when a good chunk of them are busy working WITH Obama and the Ds? What R will run against Obama in 2012 when Obama will have miles of B-reel ready to go that features Rs singing his praises?

Go ahead and feel hurt and betrayed, just as you felt hurt and betrayed when Obama was too "wimpy" to sling mud back at the Rove machine running McCain's campaign.

You want results? Trust Obama. You want gridlock and same old/same old? Keep on bitchin'.

In fact, he expressly left it in the Senate's hands, which is where it belongs.

What was his preference? That Joe not be expelled from the caucus? That's the same position that most Democrats had (and have). Very few bloggers and progressive Dems were asking for his head. They were asking for his chairmanship while advocating for the same thing that Obama "signaled"... that he continue to caucus with the Dems.

I dont believe this was the exact outcome that Obama prefered either.

The only thing he signaled was that Joe should contimue to caucus with DEMS.

I think Senate DEMS could have kept Obama happy w/o letting him retain his chair...

Obama stated that he wanted Lieberman to stay in the caucus.

It doesn't take an aerospace engineer to put two and two together.

I think not.

I'm not sure Joe had the option to strut around like an Obama obstructionist in front of True Blue New England and expect to be re-elected...

Perhaps Senate DEMS could have kept Obama happy w/o caving to such an incompetent, dishonest choice for chairman...

motion over the last couple days are the same geniuses that criticized the handling of his campaign for the last year......i would bet on it.....

I haven't read the latest hate posts RE: lieberclown cause I could give a shit about him....he is PWNED by O and the staff now.....and he'll jump when told to jump.

Lieberman knows who's buttering his bread for the next 4 years. He's gonna be a good boy from here on out.

you will probably say, "No one could have predicted that Lieberman would turn on the Democrats!" Fish - barrel...

you can predict what Lieberclown can do, me, not so much.


If you are smarter than Obama, why the fuck aren't you working for him??

Obama has a reason for doing EVERYTHING, in case you haven't noticed....

whether they're the right reasons or not is often not immediately clear.

mostly alone....


if Obama had wanted to, I would guess he could have said banish him and it would have been done./

for what he does. And, as he is human, I doubt he is infallible as so many here seem to think.

to jump on and remind all through the primaries how "infalible" he is in your view.

HAHA Obama WON.

defense of Obama and his positions by mocking anyone who disagrees with you.

I hate to burst your bubble, but I did vote for him - I just don't think he is the messiah and I don't expect much of anything to change. Given the number of Clinton people he's appointing I'm beginning to wonder why he didn't drop out during the primaries and let Hillary have the nomination. It would be nice if he got a few actual Democrats involved in this administration rather than this tired old crowd of DINOs.

and his enemies (Lieberman) closer.

n/t

of years and steamroll the Democrats because the Democrats are playing tea-party and the Republicans are out for blood, we'll all remember that even though the Republicans are in power again, at least Obama was a "bigger" person. If you think that the "Old Politics" are over you are crazy. The "Old Politics" have held sway in this benighted country since its inception and will continue for as long as the country is here. McCain/Palin got almost half the votes in the election, using the ugliest, vilest, "old politics" I've ever seen. It looks like the Democrats are going to a gun fight with a knife - again...

And - in case you forgot - the American people overwhelmingly REJECTED "the ugliest, vilest, "old politics" I've ever seen."

Obama's fighting and WINNING (again, perhaps you forgot) in a different way.

Stay tuned.

was not "overwhelming" in the popular vote. It was a really big EC victory, but not in votes cast. That is what everyone seems to overlook. I know that Obama is trying to win people over by his magnanimous actions and his "non-partisanship". I am afraid everyone is suffering from a very short memory. And you don't "keep your enemies closer", you garrote them in the car...

Repubs are gleefully rubbing their hands together because they've got Dems thinking they buried the hatchet. 12 Dem Senators knew the score.

rubberband slingshot. Or sometimes with a cap gun, if they're feeling really, REALLY brave.

in some part, for letting him keep his chairmanship of Homeland Security and of the Airland Subcommittee of Armed Services

I want to know,

What is good for the American people?

clearly not Lieberman!

They deserve the blame for this.

a loyal Democrat instead of a traitorous Independent is not "mudslinging" - it's justice and safer than depending on Lieberman for a vote when needed. He betrayed Dems before and he will do so again. Reid and the Dems who voted to keep him are cowards. There were 12 courageous Dems who stood up for principle.

Since the 80's this has been the party of "Let's get over it. Let's move on."

And since the 1980's we've won 3 Presidential elections to the republikkans 5. We only recently recaptured control of both houses.

Lieberman supported mcbush, susan collins, has appeared with sean hannity on his tour, hangs out with ann coulter, has attacked the Democratic Party, it's motive and the Patriotism of its members.

At some point you kick people to the curb.

Lieberman needs to go.

The Ds could still reach 60 Senators. It's looking good. Without Joe, they can't reach 60.

And, there could be a rear guard action under way as well. Perhaps Obama is looking to flip McCain to the D column? McCain thought about it back in 2000. His party hates him while Obama is nice to him. Perhaps the Ds will approach a few moderate Rs like Susan Collins and seek to flip them as well. That will be easier to do after letting Joe stay on.

ALL politicians want power. All politicians want to be seen as getting things done. The Rs know that they are looking to be in the wilderness for a long, long time. Some of the moderates will be open to dropping the R next to their name if it means a powerful committee chair.

There's more at work here than people know, and open, hostile revenge doesn't help, even if many of us (including me) would have liked to see a shit like Joe kicked out of the caucus a long time ago.

We're more likely to get Collins, Snowe, and Specter to vote with us on things that REALLY MATTER than to get Lieberman to.

Actions have consequences.

ON EDIT: When exactly would be the time to dump Lieberman? After he actually stabs Obama in the back with a real knife? Or would you still be worried about having 60 wobbly Senate seats? Or making silly comparisons to Obama's brilliant Godfather movie strategy?

I disagree with you about as much as I can disagree with anyone about an issue (at least someone I share similar political philosophy with).

This issue irritates me way too much.
I called my Senators office (Durbin) and told his office what I thought of his decision.
I made several very angry comments and informed his office that I will NEVER vote for him EVER!!!!
I know they don't care because his seat his safe.

his vote could swing things in the Democrats' favor? Of course he won't. He'll be on board for lots of bipartisan legislation, and he'll vote with the Dems when they're going to win by several votes anyway-- but if he can swing something to the Republicans, he'll suddenly find a need to "break with his party" on "principal".

There is zero point in pandering to this man. His "support" is worth exactly nothing.

n/t

He broke with his party and supported the very old cancer patient who chose a rapture-ready nincompoop as his #2. He continued to attack the nominee of his supposed party as a traitor and continued to call his party's nominee's supporters traitors. He knew the consequences of his actions, yet somehow Reid caved to his idle threats.

Lieberman should not only have been stripped of his chairmanship, he should have been stripped of any committee assignments.

He doesn't deserve to be in the Senate.

Fucking traitor.

YOU might want COMPROMISE AND AQUIESANCE...but you ignore the efforts of others in your CLAN who want "FOLKS in GOVERNMENT" to be HELD ACCOUNTABLE!

You ignore the Passion...for Compromise. And, after what many Americans have been through...you ignore that DIVIDE at your peril. Just saying......for those of us who take the politics of the last 25 years VERY SERIOUSLY!

Sorry for "Full Caps" but unless one shouts these days, one just isn't heard above the din. :shrug:

It has nothing to do with revenge.. It has to do with an incompetent person that has been wrong for many years now on foreign policy and the Bush* doctrine. Does that reflect well on Obama's judgement? We know beyond a shadow of a doubt Lieberman's judgement is flawed yet we keep him in a position of importance on National Security> I don't find that "Big" of Obama at all..I find that disturbing..

whatever... If one of us stated on this message board that they campaigned for McCain, that person would be banned from this website, and you'd be cheering.

Also, "bitching" on DemocraticUnderground will cause "gridlock"? Come again?

I don't trust most politicans. Obama hasn't proven anything to me yet for me to trust him. So far his decisions have done the opposite for me, but here's to "Hope"!

Also: the fact you think it's about revenge (which is a slick talking point BTW) is just mind-blowing.

We couldn't ever mention McKinney or Sheehan because they were "No Longer Democrats" ...yet that POS Lieberman has had much "air time here" when the guy FUCKED US OVER! :puke:

great point!

I've come around to your way of thinking. Maybe it's as simple as: Barack doesn't want to start off his presidency serving up a very public retribution.

People forget we always have the option of cutting Holy Joe loose in the future at the Dems' discretion. He's not guaranteed anything. In the meantime, we keep him on a short leash and have some control over him. Dumping him now would burn a bridge that might come in handy someday. We just might need him on a close vote on an issue we care deeply about, such as health care.

I've stopped second-guessing Barack. The man is anything but naive. He has proven to me that he is more brilliant a political strategist than I ever imagined. Of course he doesn't show all his cards up front, and I wouldn't even want him to. All I care about is that things work out in the end. And Barack knows how to maneuver and accomplish his goals, it sure seems to me.

Thanks for your o/p.

In fact, he's no longer a member of the legislative branch and it would be best if he would not meddle in the business of the Senate.

I'd like to make the following point very clear, Democratic activists were NOT asking to cut Joe loose but to remove him from a very powerful chairmanship that he no longer deserved. Obama never stated a desire that Joe retain his chairmanships only that he continue to caucus with the Dems. Thus,this is not a win or lose for Obama.

That's what I meant. You are misreading me.

Obama may have never stated he wanted Lieberman to retain his chairmanships, but then he never stated the opposite either. And he did say he hoped Lieberman would remain in the caucus. He 'won' that because that's what happened. The Dems are not defying Obama, nor should they at this early point.

Not sure why you're arguing with me. I just think we're gonna get more of what Obama wants out of Lieberman with this move. But I don't know for sure and neither do you. Time alone will tell. And Lieberman is not guaranteed to keep this chairmanship or any damn thing. He an be removed at any time.

You and the OP make assumptions not in evidence... That Obama had anything to do with this vote. And secondly, you both declare that there was a serious push to remove Lieberman from the caucus. There wasn't so there was nothing for Obama to win because there was no possibility of Lieberman being kicked out of the caucus. And that both you and the OP think that is a GOOD thing for Obama to meddle with the business of the Senate. Haven't we been decrying the notion of the Unitary Executive for the past 8 years?

By the way, Lieberman cannot be removed from his chairmanship at any time without a prolonged procedure. Appointments (and thus non-appointments) are routine with the "changing of the guard". Procedural removal is far more difficult.

the entire senate to remove him as chair. Think that will ever happen?

I can forgive him McCain, but working to put Palin within a heartbeat of the presidency? Never.

rewarding bad behavior. That's what happened today. And it'll bite the Senate Dems in the ass.

His response?- Godfather I and II. Don't think he didn't learn from watching those films.

You're spot on. I voted for Obama because he is smarter than I am. No way I'm going to second guess him now. He knows what he's doing.

I have made my prediction

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/93

and you have made yours. Post a reply to my journal entry including a link to this thread. It should take less than six months and one of us will be eating crow. It will not bother me to be wrong, because that would imply a good outcome.

He put together one of the greatest campaigns ever. He knows what he's doing IMHO and I plan to let him do so without any coaching or suggestions.

I will be watching how things play out though.

Jeesh. Read the constitution. It is called separation of powers. Obama did not advocate for this outcome, nor should he have. In fact, he stated that it was Senate business. He did express the desire that Joe continue to caucus with the Democrats but nobody else was advocating otherwise.

Lieberman will betray again.

I only hope Obama knows what he's doing and will make it either a) impossible for him to do so, or b) so that he will definitely be punished if he does.

People keep saying this over and over again with zero evidence to the contrary.

But look at what there is. Obama DID NOT denounce, berate, chastise, or even so much as tsk at Lieberman. In the context of Lieberman's actions, that says more than if Obama had come out and said he supported him.

You can bet everybody in the party sought Obama's opinions on the issue, and he probably made them known one way or the other, aside from the fact that he gave Lieberman a pass on the public record.

And again, with the assumptions.

I see this less as an unsubstantiated victory for Obama but rather an attempt by Obama supporters to turn a sows ear into a silk purse. It goes like this:

1. Damn, I do not want Lieberman to retain his chairmanship. There should be consequences for his abandonment of the Democratic Party.

2. Damn, our Senators did absolutely nothing, zero, nada, to give this supporter of FISA, the IRAQ war, Bush's war strategies, and McCain supporter.

3. Oh wait! I bet it was Obama's idea! Wow and he's so super duper smart (why he just won the presidency) so it must be a good thing!

It would be nice if he had such clear boundaries. He is a politician though, so I would be a little surprised if that were indeed the case.

I'm not an over-the-top, enthusiastic Obama supporter, if that's what you're suspecting. It felt good when he won and all that, but so far he hasn't had a chance to break one way or the other. The Emmanuel thing irked me. The rumored Holder appointment looks good. I don't know what to make of Hillary and SoS. Overall, it adds up to a very muddled picture.

I make a lot of assumptions because the real workings in DC are so opaque, they require loads of interpretation.

Plus, I like to jump to conclusions.

The issue at hand is that of the 100 folks in the Senate, there's probably somebody better suited to lead the Senate committee on anti-terrorism than a guy who supports Bush's anti-terrorism strategy. Of course we need to have a lot of different voices and perspectives involved in governance, but we need to be sensible about it.

Lieberman, despite being a douchebag, does have a lot to offer. However anything related to national security is probably the last place he can make a positive contribution. Why not keep him on the Environment and Public Works committee? This is not only somewhere where he could truly be of help, but is also going to be a committee with drastically growing importance.

...and marginalize good DEMS who are not happy with this outcome.

I agree with you- and I would add that this is about competence and honesty.

No one can tell me that Obama really thinks Joe is the best man for the job, or that Obama was really hot to have Lieberman in a top position.

It's just old fashioned, back room, arm-twisting, politics.

The democrats never seem to notice that when they reach out across the aisle, they get a knife stabbed into their hands.

Oh, the irony!

Sorry to repeat this point, but since this is a fact, it means some of your post may be operating under a false premise.

Obama never said that allowing Joe to retain his chair was the exact outcome he wanted- all he said is that Lieberman should caucus with the DEMS.

I maintain that the Senate could have kept Obama happy w/o letting the oppostion keep all their chairs. Since when is switching up chairmenships to the winners a form of "punishment" or "revenge?"

Did the GOP successfully frame their loss of chairmenships in '06 as "punishmnent"- or was it just a no hard feelings change of the guard?

I reject the notion that opposing this move is anti-change or anti-Obama.

I doubt very seriously that Obama really thinks Lieberman is the best for the job, or that this was the exact ooutcome that he prefered.

This wasn't about "revenge" for me-I think that is a strawman- it was about Joes' lack of competence & honesty...Senate DEMS with spine could have easily framed it that way as well...

He is an American politician. He is very smart and very skilled and seems to be very competent, but he isn't something new - he is just so much better than anything we have seen in a long while, that's all...

He isn't smarter, and he isn't more magnanimous.

He's a politician. He is NOT your personal savior and you need to quit idolizing him.

That part of the OP is operating under a false premise.

All pro-Lieberman spin aside, who out there actually thinks he has done a good job or will do so?

I'm sure Obama feels the same way.

to come up with this scenario is almost as good as Poppa Bush claiming stem cell research would encourage women to have abortions. :crazy:

Yes, Sparky. We get it. With eyes wide open and no refractive mirrors necessary, the sheen on President Change is already beginning to tarnish.

justice and apologizes for the dereliction of sworn oaths by using that as an excuse, are called ditto-heads.

:P