Media reports about Dems' position on Lieberman are misleading

[ProSense]

SETTING A PRECEDENT....

As far as I can tell, there isn't a single Democratic senator or member of Barack Obama's team who has even hinted that Joe Lieberman should be kicked out of the Democratic caucus altogether.

And yet, media coverage seems confused about this point.

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

In a phone conversation last week with Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), Obama said that expelling 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.

Look, the proposal that's on the table is a "compromise." In fact, for Lieberman, it's a generous compromise. In one side, we have the possibility of kicking Lieberman out of the caucus. On the other side, we have the possibility of doing nothing, effectively rewarding Lieberman's betrayals. In the middle, we have Harry Reid's offer: Lieberman stays with the caucus, keeps his seniority, but gets a different committee to lead. This really isn't complicated.

<…>

In other words, what Lieberman is asking for here is special treatment. Worse, he's asking for special treatment he hasn't earned, as evidenced by his awful two-year tenure as the chairman of the committee he wants to keep.

Greg Sargent reported yesterday that the full Senate Democratic caucus will vote on Lieberman's fate next week. Lieberman will, as I understand it, have a chance to plead his case before the vote.

[ProSense]

1. Maybe it's about what the media want.

Fineman: Obama And Durbin Want Lieberman To Stay As Homeland Security Chair

By Greg Sargent - November 12, 2008, 9:28AM

On Keith Olbermann's show last night, Howard Fineman dropped a bit of a bomb, reporting that Senator Dick Durbin is now moving towards keeping Joe Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security Committee -- because he has now heard what Obama had to say about it. Worse, Fineman claimed that Obama has "signaled" that he, too, wants Lieberman to stay.

<...>

Did Obama really "signal" that he wants Lieberman to stay? The Obama team merely said that they wouldn't referee any committee chairmanship decisions. But they also added that they hold "no grudges" against Lieberman. As I argued here yesterday, this risks giving cover to Senators who want to do nothing about Lieberman.

If Fineman is right, Durbin, clearly, is taking it this way, only a day after he was said to be actively opposed to Lieberman staying. Seems like it's fair to ask Durbin's office for clarification as to what exactly he thinks and why he may be interpreting Obama's remarks as active support for Lieberman keeping the chairmanship.

Does Durbin really support Lieberman keeping his chairmanship after he insinuated that the first African American Dem nominee for president is pro-terrorist, suggested that he endangered our troops, and said he doesn't always put the country first? And that's not even getting into the awful job Lieberman did on the committee, either.

Late Update: Some of you are arguing that Fineman may have been referring only to the question of whether Durbin and Obama support Lieberman staying in the caucus. But I don't believe that to be the case. First of all, Durbin yesterday was said to be specifically opposed to Lieberman keeping his chairmanship, so Fineman's claims of a possible change of heart clearly refer to that. What's more, in the last paragraph of Fineman's quotes above, he's clearly saying Obama signaled support for Lieberman keeping the chairmanship.

McCain on whether Lieberman will lose his Homeland Security gavel: ‘I hope not.’

Who the hell cares what McCain thinks?

[ProSense]

2. The fascinating thing about the current Lieberman debate is

that this is round two. Remember the shit he pulled running against Ned Lamont? He was given the benefit of doubt by Democrats (undoubtedly having him caucus with Dems was crucial given their slim majority) in the Senate. Why should he continue to be given a pass, especially for joining in a despicable campaign against the Democratic candidate for Presidient?