Devil of your own making... Obama backed Lieberman

"I know that my colleagues in the Senate Democratic caucus were moved not only that Sen. Reid said about my longtime record, but by the appeal from President-elect Obama himself that the nation unite now to confront our very serious problems," Lieberman said in the Capitol as those colleagues nodded in agreement behind him.

Democrats were angered by Lieberman's speech to the Republican National Convention, where he praised his longtime friend McCain and criticized Obama for not reaching across the aisle to work with Republicans during his time in the Senate.

Reid, the Senate majority leader, said Lieberman's criticism of the Democratic nominee had angered him.

"I would defy anyone to be more angry than I was," he said Tuesday. "But I also believe that if you look at the problems we face as a nation, is this a time we walk out of here saying, 'Boy did we get even'?"

Obama urged Reid privately to let bygones be bygones, sources said.

Reid dismissed vehement criticism of the decision from elements of the party's more liberal base, which insisted Lieberman be punished.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/18/lieberman.senate/


Obama Supports Keeping Lieberman in Democratic Caucus

President-elect Barack Obama has endorsed keeping Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) in the Democratic caucus, suggesting to leadership that the two sides reach a compromise in the conflict over the former Democratic vice presidential nominee's future, sources said today.

In a phone conversation last week with Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), Obama said that expulsion of Lieberman for his support of the Republican presidential ticket would send the wrong signal after Obama's promises to set partisanship aside, according to a Senate Democratic aide familiar with the conversation.

Obama "didn't get into the minutiae. It was more along the lines of, 'let's find a way to put the campaign behind us'," the aide said.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/11/11/obama_supports_keeping_lieberm.html

Those who are up in arms over Sen. Joe Lieberman’s "veto" of the extension of Medicare should remember this. When Sen. Barack Obama arrived in Washington, D.C. in 2005, he selected as his mentor none other than: Joe Lieberman.

Here’s David Sirota writing about this, after discussing Obama’s stab in the back of the progressive Lamont in Connecticut and his stab in the back of the progressive Christine Cegelis (Obama backed Duckworth) way back in 2006:

Although Obama said such high-profile primary endorsements were rare, a similar controversy arose a few weeks later. Just as Ned Lamont’s antiwar primary campaign against prowar Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman was gaining momentum, Obama traveled to the state to endorse Lieberman. Like the Duckworth endorsement, Obama’s move was timed to derail an insurgent, grassroots candidate. To progressives this may seem surprising, given Obama’s progressive image. But remember, according to the New York Times it is Lieberman–one of the most conservative, prowar Democrats in Washington–who is “Obama’s mentor in the Senate as part of a program in which freshman senators are paired with incumbents.”

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/18929

Yeah, I apologize to all you folks who claimed Obama's chess game was 2 steps ahead, I guess you were right. Obama and his mentor Joe Lieberman have us all check mated...

Scuba

how much worse things would be if we only had 59 or 58? I know Joe has pissed us all off...ME TOO! But he did vote for the stimulus bill, the SCHIP, and all other Dem votes except related to HC. He's very supportive of the cap & trade. Can you really blame Obama? Wouldn't you do the same if you were in his position?

I would pal up with the best.

And your choice would be?

Scuba

period.

Obama supported the incumbent in the Primaries,
and then support Lamont against Lieberman in the GE.

Don't try to rewrite history....
we've got enough fools trying to do that as it is.

Too bad for Obama. Bad luck...

Scuba

And if Obama had kicked Lieberman out of the caucus, we'd have the satisfaction of having him out, but we'd definitely have a filibuster on our hands still.

n/t

n/t

It's mostly the elected "leaders" who are afraid to call their bluff on that one. Or, they simply agree with the GOP as to having no PO, and are using the "filibuster" threat as a god-cop bad cop fake out.

Frankly, I've heard DEM leaders threatening the base with "the GOP will filibuster unless you support everything us centrists want" a hell of a lot more than I've heard Republicans actually threaten it.

Obama & Reid should have stripped him down or turned him out- assuming that they even oppose him, that is.

Despite the fact they've voted against every other piece of legislation in one massive bloc?

Well, at least they *could* wind up with egg on their face- assuming DEMS had the guts to throw the damn eggs at them.

Also, I shouldnt assume that DEMS would actually get out there, fire people up and educate people about a strong PO. After all they oppose a strong PO, so why should they do that?

I'm just saying that if they DID support a strong PO, and they did do this, they could make the GOP look like idiots & certainly obstructionists.

You are right- we should be very frightened of the Republican filibuster.

Hold me.

I think I get it now- What's the point in forcing a filibuster with the GOP, when both parties already oppose a strong public option?

Yeah--I keep thinking that there are these imaginary DEMS who actaully agree with me more than they agree with Republcians- I need to snap out of that.

You no longer have to stand up there and actually do it--you just have to say that you are filibustering and it counts. This does not make the Republicans look like obstructionists because for the most part nobody pays attention to it. If the Republicans were actually forced to stand up there and filibuster, I think they would be less inclined to filibuster everything.

DEMS certainly could go on TV and repeat, repeat, repeat, the fact that Republcians are using procedural filibusters, and also continue to stump for the PO. I know, sounds like work, Icky!

Is the GOP really going to shut down the Senate all the way up to the midterms, for instance? They would have to let up some time. You guys talk like we are a minortiy party here.

Oh shit, I forgot- the DEM leaders dont actually support a PO- they agree with the would-be filbusters on that much-they even say so. And that is why there is no need to force a filibuster.

LOL! You almost had me there! ;)

I do think that some of them *do* support a Public Option, but not enough to stick their necks out.

I know and you know that DEM Leadership have no will, interest, or need to force the GOP to filibuster.

There is not even going to be one- it's just a threat everyone is using.

In that case, we are back to square one, wherever that was...

On EDIT: Oh, I remember- we were saying that we had to let Lieberman back in so that conservatives couldnt stall reform.

Well, that seems to be working out pretty well!

Has he said that he opposes Lieberman's HC input? He demanded Joes' input if I'm not mistaken.

I have yet to hear Obama say that the Blue Dogs are getting it wrong and that he opposes them either.

Judging by his actions and the outcomes to date, I think Obama essentially agrees with the Blue Dog/Lieberman approach.

(privately) for pledging to support the bill as long as the Medicare expansion and public option were taken out. At least that's what Lieberman is claiming happened.

I never thought Obama was the best choice, especially on the health care issue. But I am surprised at just how badly it's going.

...I maintained throughout the entire primary that he was the only one who could win it- and I still believe that.

I expected him to be a centrist, but as a pro-reform moderate type, I really did expect be be thrown more bones than this.

Hopefully he can get some jobs kicking, then none of my bitching will even matter.

and Hillary was president, he would be the one blocking the public option and Medicare buy-in.

We'd only have a caucus with 59 votes, and Lieberman would still be against us.