Comments on: Lieberman Likely To Keep Chairmanships, But At What Cost?

By: rwahrens

rwahrens — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:38:48 +0000

Well, the last I looked, the guy in town that is talking the MOST about change is the guy that called Reid and told him to make sure that Lieberman DIDN’T get tossed under the bus.

And Obama is the guy that counts the most here, precisely BECAUSE he is crying “change” the most. He is the head of the Democratic party, and he is the one that should set the tone and the agenda.

It looks to me like he did just that.

By: tisglorious

tisglorious — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:37:50 +0000

Oh no, I completely agree - he definitely ticked the Dems off. He knew he was up against a party he still works with, but backed the guy he felt would be better for the job. I’m just surprised that the same people who keep chanting change, post-partisanshap and bi-partisanship, were circling the waters for blood in such a conspicuous manner. But definitely, he did tic the Dems off, but I do feel that they went too far in trying to censure his remarks… last time I checked, representatives who have said MUCH worse aren’t getting their chairmanships voted on, or aren’t the subject of drafts condemning their (much worse) actions. It’s the hypocrisy I can’t stand… if everyone was treated the same for their actions in the Senate, it would be entirely different.

By: rwahrens

rwahrens — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:42:15 +0000

Well, looks like they did compromise, and he lost that subcommittee chairmanship, but kept the big one.

Come, on, Susie, you gotta admit that Lieberman DID do something to tick the Dems off. He wasn’t exactly skating on thick ice here. He HAD to know that he’d pay a price, however willing he may have been to pay it.

By: politicalanimal

politicalanimal — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 05:29:44 +0000

Blue Dogs rock!
I agree that Lieberman should not be kicked out. How interesting that you and i both did an article on him today.