Joe Lieberman’s chairmanship was always going to represent an interesting litmus test for how Obama and the Democrats would govern. In the end, with a filibuster-proof majority close, Democrats need every Senate vote they can get. On the other hand, Lieberman was an active partisan for the McCain campaign, and did everything he could to ensure that McCain and not Obama was the 44th president.
Score one for building a larger, and not necessarily consistently liberal coalition; score it as a loss for vengeance.
The latest from Kos:
Asked what it would mean if Lieberman kept his chairmanship, one Senate Democratic aide said bluntly: “The left has been foiled again. They can rant and rage but they still do not put the fear into folks to actually change their votes. Their influence would be in question.”
I hope this puts to rest the notion that this is all some master stroke of kumbayah, of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.
This is about telling you that you mean nothing. That democracy is a nice word, but it should never threaten the entitlement of the most exclusive club in the world.
No matter what Joe Lieberman does, the people who are protecting him hate you much more than they hate him.
There’s that. But there’s also disdain for the American electorate that voted in overwhelming numbers for change from the discredited Bush/McCain/Lieberman policies. But in a city known for tone-deafness, there clearly isn’t a more tone-deaf group than the Senate Dems.
I’m done with Reid as Senate leader.
Doesn’t 2009 look a little better already?
Anybody want to celebrate their bitter frustration?
UPDATE: What will really drive them bonkers — well, more bonkers — is that the vote within the caucus was apparently 43-12 in favor of keeping Lieberman as chairman.