Nov 19, 2008 13:00
The point of getting rid of Lieberman was not revenge; it was to remove someone unqualified from a post where he can and will do everything in his power to obstruct Obama's agenda. I don't understand the people who think Obama has some kind of leverage over Lieberman now. He's shown repeatedly that he can't be trusted, and it's next to impossible to strip him of his chairmanship during the Congress. What can be done to him? He's untouchable. And he's shown that he can spit in the Dems eye and suffer no consequences, which makes the party look weak.
I don't think avoiding controversy is worth the price of keeping Lieberman for two years. It would have lasted a news cycle or two and then blown over the next time Obama announced a Cabinet appointment. By Inauguration Day, it would have been long forgotten. All Obama has shown, if he is behind this, is that he can be bucked and insulted with absolute impunity. Believe me, the Republicans have noticed.
Nor is Lieberman committed to support cloture just because he's in our caucus. Cloture votes rarely follow party line, so keeping him around just to reach 60 is largely meaningless.
I'm very worried that this vote is a sign that all the change talk is just talk, and that when push comes to shove, Obama and the Dems will stand up for the status quo just like they stood up for Lieberman.