That’s all I had to say. I just thought I’d offer the alternative interpretation to the standard headline, such as this one on the NYT site, which was "Democrats Let Lieberman Keep Senate Chairmanship."
I wonder if this development had anything to do with the president-elect’s meeting yesterday with the other two of the Three Amigos? I don’t know, but it’s another positive development. I always like to see Joe get what he wants; he deserves it.
Related Posts
Brad, Obama’s wishes on this were clear before the meeting with McCain and Graham.
If you’re looking for an alternative headline, how about “Obama Signals Senate Dems to Let Lieberman Keep Senate Chairmanship”, then in the subheadline, “2000 VP Nominee Realizes He Misjudged Obama.”
Three Amigos? Three Stooges is more like it. Or perhaps given the election results – Three Losers.
bud, are deliberately contending for some sort of prize for who can be LEAST gracious about the electoral results? And why is it so important for you not only for your guy to win, but to denigrate anyone who might have stood in opposition to him?
In a year such as this, when I liked both candidates (but McCain more), this phenomenon actually seems MORE pronounced to me than after previous elections.
There are millions of people in this country, people of good will, who are simply happy that Obama won the election. But there are others, including some on this blog, who remind me of the Gingrich Republicans of 1994 — one must not only win, but crush one’s enemies, hear the lamentations of their women, etc.
The word is “triumphalism.”
bud distracted me there. I meant to respond to Phillip. (So it is that we are so easily distracted from positive engagement by the slightest negativity; I am hardly immune.)
Phillip, I acknowledged the president-elect’s helpful words on that point in my Sunday column.
But as I recall, while he said he would welcome Joe as a member of the caucus, he sort of stayed neutral (publicly) on the chairmanship thing. You might say a nod’s as good as a wink, but Sen. Reid is not of the subtlety school. If Obama was involved, there must have been some more specific discussions behind the curtain.
I think bud is treating Lieberman sorta like you treat Sanford.
Thanks, Brad. This relentless chant — “We won, so y’all are worthless” — is way too irritating to tone down the shouting.
Rubbing it in has a way of coming back to haunt.
Actually, Doug, he’s not. I’ve said some very critical things about the governor — after years of close observation — but I don’t think any language I’ve ever used about Sanford approaches the way bud talks about W., or the Republicans, or in this case three of the finest elected officials in Washington.
You want to hear somebody talk mean about Sanford, sit down with some of the Republicans in the Legislature. I can’t hold a candle to them.
p.m., the tone that matters is the one that is set at the top. Four years ago, Cheney termed a 36-electoral-vote, one-state-electoral-margin, 51-48 popular vote, a “mandate.” The rest is history…the lowest approval ratings for a President in recorded history.
But, regardless of what some overly enthusiastic Obama supporters might crow and even given a much wider margin than the 2004 result, you don’t see Obama or his inner circle touting any kind of “we won so y’all are worthless” argument. The meeting Monday is just the first sign of that, the Lieberman move another (and Brad I’m sure that there were clear communications behind the scene from Obama’s people to Reid on this). If there’s one thing we know about Obama, it’s that he is a diligent student of history. He knows that basking too long in the glow of victory promises disaster in the quest to govern effectively.
Brad, I’m just having a bit of fun. Is that so bad? I do have some serious bones to pick with Larry, Moe and Curly, mostly about the Iraq debacle, but for now I see it as a good thing if they work with Obama on economic matters. As for Iraq, I see no compromise position. Either we stay or leave. That’s where a tough, non-compromise position needs to be strictly adhered to.
As for Iraq, I see no compromise position. Either we stay or leave. That’s where a tough, non-compromise position needs to be strictly adhered to.
That is the question, isn’t it? If we stay there will be trouble. But if we leave, it will be double.
Tough call.
As much as I disapprove of this war and fear others like it (mainly with Iran), I think we owe it to the Iraqis to tell us when and whether to leave. In my opinion, that has to be bottom line. If they want us to stay, then it is our obligation because we were the ones who destabilized their country. And of course if they want us to leave, we should because they are a sovereign country and thus should be in control of their own national security.
Brad,
I would like to see you state what Obama would have to do for you to admit he is a bum president. You weren’t able to articulate any standards or core philosophy before the election. Let’s see if you can do it now.
Or will you just continue to trust your feelings, and make excuses for Obama when he blunders or does something outright unAmerican?
The Iraqi parliament just voted for the US military to stay 4 more years.
It will be interesting to see if Lieberman can help move the Democratic domestic agenda forward. He obviously will do nothing to help Obama change course in the Middle East so the Dems embrace of the Senator from Connecticut can only be viewed as a tradeoff. Since domestic policy trumps foreign, at least for now, this strategy should be considered pragmatic. The dems will need every vote to push their domestic agenda so no need to upset a potential vote. In addition, his flirtation with the oppositition party, visa a vis the other 2 stooges, McCain and Graham, may help bridge the gap between the Dems and the GOP. Perhaps the 60 vote thresshold can be achieved with only 58 Democrats. (The Dems have apparently won in Alaska). If, on the other hand, Lieberman fails to deliver in the domestic arena then Reid and company will look like fools. Only time will tell.
Harry Reid is a fool.
There is no money for the spending spree planned by Obama.
Get ready for the largest deficits in history.
Pelosi and Reid just gave us a $1.0 TRILLION deficit for 2008.
Democrats didn’t have the guts to vote out loud. They voted by secret ballot on the blackballing of Lieberman.
But they want workers to have to vote, one at a time, in front of union leadership and enforcers who will intimidate them.