Did Obama ever say that Lieberman should retain his chair?

[Dr Fate]

If not, can we stop saying that this is the exact outcome that Obama engineered, demanded or wanted?

All I could find was Obama saying that he wanted Joe to caucus with DEMS- hell, even his CT constituents expect that out of him, no matter what his chairmanship standing was.

I see a vague effort to paint anti-Lieberman Duers an being anti-Obama or Anti-change...

Having said that, I'm sure Obama will SAY that he is fine with whatever the Senate decides between themselves- but that is different from claiming that this outcome was engineered by Obama- I'm not sure it was and no one has shown me that it was.

As it is, I'm blaming the usual "spineless dems" in the Senate for this one.

[dipsydoodle]

1. Dunno

Is it an electric one ?

[rpannier]

2. It's an interesting point

I'm not sure.
I think he did say that we needed the put the eolection behind us...

If I'm correct, I don't remember what it was in context with.

[Dr Fate]

6. "putting the election behind us" doesn't mean he wanted the Senate to appoint incompetent people.

I doubt very seriously that was what Obama meant by his statement.

[lunatica]

14. He deliberately didn't say anything about Lieberman's Chairmanship

And he resigned on Sunday so he didn't vote. That's probably why he resigned on Sunday. So there would be no connection between him and what the Senate voted for.

[Windy]

3. He left it up to the Senate to make the decision nt

[Dr Fate]

5. As I indicated in my OP.

I even admitted that he would say he was fine with whatever they came up with.

[lunatica]

12. He can't 'let' the Senate do anything

It's a whole other branch of the government and is supposed to be more powerful than the President. Checks and Balances in action....

[Ediacara]

4. Absolutely not

He said he should still caucus with the Democrats. Full stop.

[Dr Fate]

8. And his CT constituents expected that , chair or no chair.

So I never even saw that as a trump card- Joe's constituents wouldn't have allowed him to be an Obama obstructionist- chair or no chair.

I smell spineless Senate DEMS, once again.

[Ediacara]

My Republican mother thinks Harry Reid is some mean bully

I think she's talking about some other Harry Reid because all I ever see is a pushover...

[DevonRex]

7. I have some of the same questions. We don't know for sure who

did what and wanted what. It looks like Obama might have wanted it since Kerry apparently was one of the ones urging Senators to allow Lieberman to retain his chair.

On the other hand, Obama only said he wanted Lieberman to caucus with us. If he had wanted to be more specific he could have been. Or he might have thought it was a given that if Lieberman was stripped of his chair then he would leave the caucus. So I just don't know.

[Dr Fate]

9. Could be- But I prefer to stick with what Obama said...

...as opposed to what he may or may not have said.

Kerry could have been acting independently for the good old boys Senate club for all I know...

[DevonRex]

22. I agree completely. nt

[nomaco-10]

10. NO he did not. He's only ever said he would like lieberman to...

to CAUCUS with the dems. He stated clearly, committee chair appointments are the business of the senate majority. Reid is the one that got cold feet.

Now it's being memed that only the "far left" wanted lieberliar gone on the news channels tonight.

edited to add: I'm still looking for the statement that Obama's people put out about seven or eight days ago stating exactly what I posted above. I followed it carefully and I remember the wording of the statement very well.

[Dr Fate]

11. Pass it on. Dont let them paint us as "Anti-Change" or "Anti-Obama"

n/t

[nomaco-10]

17. Although Obama never stated publicly he wanted lieberman to keep...

his chairs, it's clear to me he sent word to the dems, especially Dodd, to do whatever it takes to keep him on the dem side. So lieberman called their bluff and dems caved.

[Dr Fate]

19. I think so too- what is frustrating is that Joe had no cards to bluff them with.

He had to caucus with DEMS, chairmanship or not, or his constituents would have given him the boot.

It's not like being an Obama obstructionist was even an option for him.

DEMS had to realize this, but still needed to kiss his ass for some other reason that we are "not allowed" to know about...

[elocs]

13. You know DU is back to normal when it is trashing "spineless dems".

It's the one constant here.

[Dr Fate]

15. "Trashing"- so my accusation has no merit? They did this out of bravery of some kind?

Or b/c they really think Joe is the best man for the job?

Do tell.

Otherwise, you have only accused me of "trashing"- but have not refuted my points or countered them.

[elocs]

18. Nothing to do with Lieberman, so chill. "Trashing" is where it will routinely and eventually

become. Count on it. We will be hearing more and more and more about the spineless dems. The election season was just a time-out.

[Dr Fate]

20. Spineless is as spinless does.

If they stop agreeing with conservatives like Liberman on things that hurt the country, you wont hear about spineless DEMS as much.

I'm all for working with the other side when they are willing, but that doesnt mean we have to cave when it's something that is not good for the country.

[elocs]

23. To many here at DU "working with" Republicans is the same thing as "caving"

and many will be very disappointed and unhappy when Obama works with the Republicans because he will be viewed a spineless.

[Dr Fate]

25. To many here at DU "working with" Republicans means giving incompetent liars top chairmenships.

Let's not confuse "working with" Republicans where there is common ground- with Liberman and other conservatives making Harry give them whatever they want.

Working with Republicans means that we will need their votes for certain things-and that we hope to create a "win win" situation on certain issues where we agree- "Working with" does not mean that we give conservatives whatever they ask for, whenever they ask for it...

In any event, Reid is either spineless or dishonest when it comes to Lieberman.

[elocs]

26. It's done. I am not sure what constantly complaining about it will accomplish.

Maybe makes you feel better, but people will have to get over it sometime--doesn't mean you have to like it.

[Dr Fate]

33. Then tell all the other DUers to stop defending Lieberman as well.

And while you are at it, tell them to stop repeating the suggestion that opposing this is "anti change" or somehow opposing Obama.

Constantly defending that bastard isnt going to change anything either- if they wont shut up, why should I?

If you think I'll get over it, you are wrong- Joe will be up for re-election soon enough.

[elocs]

43. I guess I have not noticed a lot of people who actually defend Lieberman,

but more saying we need him for cloture, which I do not necessarily believe.

So you allow what other people post to dictate what you post? That must keep you busy, plus easily manipulated. Lieberman is up for re-election in 2012 so I suppose Obama is up for re-election soon enough as well.

Good luck with your not getting over it. Sarah Palin still needs attention too. There must be others as well.

[mtnsnake]

16. I think what has everyone upset is that Reid moved to strip Lieberman of his chair and

then he changed his tune after Obama supported keeping Lieberman on. You can't really blame anyone for being incredibly let down after hearing all the rhetoric how Lieberman was going to get what he had coming to him...and then he got rewarded instead.

Bernie Sanders has also been very vocal about wanting Lieberman stripped of everything, alhough Bernie's an Independent now.

As it is, I'm blaming the usual "spineless dems" in the Senate for this one.

Same here.

[Dr Fate]

21. If this was the FIRST time Harry pussed out to a conservative, we might forgive him.

But this is literally what- the 78th time?

Is anyone keeping count anymore?

When does it end????

[mtnsnake]

24. Agreed

Reid caved. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Afterall, he's the head of the spineless club. Enough is enough.

[Dr Fate]

27. Considering that you and I have had some HARSH disagreements in the past...

...I think the fact that we agree for once shows that we might be on to something!!!

[mtnsnake]

28. We had one hell of a go one night, didn't we

That was one night I'd like to forget. Before that...and after that...I think I agreed with you more than I disagreed, even if I didn't mention it after that time. ;)

Yes, we might be on to something! LOL

[Dr Fate]

29. LOL! Frankly, I dont even remember the issue or subject.

All I remember is saying to myself: "I'm going to get that mtsnake bastard someday!!! ;)

LOL! Forgive & forget, as they say!!!

[mtnsnake]

30. LOL! Same here!

Anyway, here's a toast:

:toast:

[BeFree]

35. Say what?

"...after Obama supported keeping Lieberman on."

I guess the next thing you'll say is that Obama really wants holy joe to be his VP in 4 years? 'Cuz that's where you are headed with those baseless words.

[Clio the Leo]

31. Here is the article...

(folks can knit-pick all they want, but the phrase "we dont hold any grudges" is abundantly clear. Whether or not he said it publicly, if Obama wanted Lieberman to lose his chairmanship, he would have lost his chairmanship, pure and simple)

Obama wants Lieberman to stay with Dem caucus
By ANDREW MIGA – Nov 11, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Obama says he'd be happy to have Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman continue to caucus with Democrats.

But Obama adds that he won't get involved in the fight on Capitol Hill over whether Democrats should take away Democrat-turned-independent Lieberman's chairmanship of a key committee to punish him for supporting Republican John McCain for president.

"We aren't going to referee decisions about who should or should not be a committee chair," Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said in a statement Tuesday. "President-elect Obama looks forward to working with anyone to move the country forward. We'd be happy to have Sen. Lieberman caucus with the Democrats. We don't hold any grudges."

Lieberman's affiliation with Democrats is in question after his high-profile support of his pal McCain.

Although he caucuses with Senate Democrats, Lieberman angered many Democrats by criticizing Obama during the presidential race. Lieberman spoke at the Republican National Convention and accompanied McCain on the presidential campaign trail.

Lieberman has met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, but there has been no word on whether Reid intends to try to oust Lieberman as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Last week, Lieberman pledged to put partisan considerations aside and work with Obama. Lieberman, who was Democrat Al Gore's running mate in 2000, was re-elected to the Senate from Connecticut in 2006 as an independent after losing his state's Democratic primary. He remains a registered Democrat and aligns himself with Senate Democrats.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky spoke to Lieberman last week about the possibility of Lieberman's caucusing with the GOP.

In the past, Democrats tolerated Lieberman's political straddling because he held their slim political majority in his hands. Now that Democrats have strengthened their hold on the Senate, there could be added pressure to punish Lieberman.


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gIsxExJS1XuUynamClFmv1JGWu6AD94CS6OG0

[Dr Fate]

32. Not wanting to hold a grudge doesnt mean you want an incompetent , dishonest chairmen.

And you are speculating when you say that if Obama wanted Joe to lose his chair, that would have happened.

Fact is, the Senate voted in private, and is separate from the the executive branch. Those are the facts.

We will agree that Obama will say he agrees with whatever solution the Senate felt was needed.

We may disagree if we say that allowing Joe to retain his chair was the ONLY option DEMS had to keep Obama happy and to keep Joe in the caucus-and the ONLY option & result that Obama wanted...

Fact is, all Obama said is that Joe should caucus with DEMS- something I think Joe could have been forced to do regardless of his chair...

Until I see facts that say otherwise, opposing Lieberman does not make one anti-Obama or anti-change.

[Clio the Leo]

36. I hate to break it to you but....

..... Obama is gonna say and do a LOT of things that we dont hear about directly. As much as we would love it, it's not gonna be "make a phone call ... issue press statement ... record Youtube ... make another phone call ... issue press statement ... record Youtube."

He is the most powerful man in the world. On top of that, he's got more mojo than any leader in modern history. Folks are lined up just waiting for him to tell them what to do. The overwhelming mantra of his political beliefs is that we are stronger when we work together than when we work against each other.

It's not hard to do the math.

Now, where is the naughty chair where the speculators sit? :)

[Dr Fate]

38. Much to agree with there!

But until I get more facts, this smells like the usual Harry Reid caving--while no hard facts say this was engineered by Obama.

I'll give it to you that it is vaugley plausible to speculate that Obama wanted this exact outcome-but it's simply not what he said, and I'm not buying it...

[ProSense]

34. That is what Howard Dean said, and

there is this: Obama exerts his power

[Dr Fate]

37. I've read that. Where does Obama say that Joe MUST retain his chair?

All it says is that Obama didnt want Joe to be "punished"- which coincides with Obama's statement that Joe should remain in the caucus.

Since when did removing the opposition from chairmanships become a form of "punishment"- I though it was a no hard feelings tradition. Were we "punishing" the GOP when we removed their chairs in '06?

I dont think so.

"punishment" "partisanship" and "revenge" are negative buzzwords designed to marginalize DEMS who dont like this outcome- when the real concern is Joe's competence and honesty.

I think the Senate could have kept Obama happy and kept Joe in line w/o letting him retain his chair- and I've seen no hard facts that doing so was the outcome that Obama insisted upon...


Here is where we will agree- Obama, Dean, etc will SAY that Obama is fine with this outcome-but we might disagree on whether Obama engineered this exact outcome.

[Dr Fate]

42. Can you link us to Howard's quote that Obama wanted Joe to have his chair?.

Not Dean saying that Obama is okay with this outcome, but that this was what Obama really wanted all along.

It's not in the link you provided...

[BeFree]

39. I got it!

Obviously Obama wants joe to be his VP in 4 years and that's why he's letting joe stay on.

Gawd, I am so pissed at Obama now. All those people saying it's Obama's fault that joe is where he is were right!

[Dr Fate]

40. Exactly- the idea that Lieberman is Obama's top choice, and that he really wanted this is absurd.

It really comes out when you ask the DUers defending this to tell you if they think Joe has done a good job...

I cant find any DEMS-even the ones defending this move- who think Lieberman has done a good job, and I highly doubt a smart guy like Obama thinks Joe has done a good job either.

[BeFree]

41. Its obvious

Obama just loves joe, or he would have carved him up and served him to us. Since he didn't feed us joe's head, it means he wants joe to hang around. Why didn't I get this before now?

<end sarcasm tag here for all the idiots who ARE actually pissed at Obama>