Skip to main content

Let me make one thing clear: I hate Joe Lieberman as much as, if not more, than the next guy. I hate his fake sanctimonious, concern-troll tone as he went against everything he stood for his whole life and campaigned against Barack Obama.

And while I understand why Obama sent the lifeline he did to Lieberman, I don’t like that Joe made it out of yesterday with a slap on the wrist. I also don’t like that he was removed from the environmental committee - the one issue he was pretty good at - but retained the Homeland Security committee, the one he was terrible at (of course, my solution to this is to get rid of the Homeland Security department all together).

Having said all that, and understanding and being a part of the anger so many of us shared, yesterday was perhaps the most embarrassing day to be a member of the liberal blogosphere that I can remember. It was the Great Lieberman Temper Tantrum of 2008.

I know I'm going to get flamed for this.  But understand I'm writing this because I care about DKos and I care about the liberal blogosphere.   I'm sure many of you disagree with me, but I believe that the way so many of us reacted yesterday played right into the hands of those who would marginalize us.   I believe that our anger was completely justified, but there was a way to deal with it rationally and intelligently - and many people here did (more on that soon).

But in general, I’ve never seen so many ostensibly educated, reality-based, and “mature” people behave like petulant babies en masse like I did yesterday.  From threats to run primary challenges against all of the 40-something Senators who voted to protect Lieberman, to accusations of treason against Harry Reid and Howard Dean (wait, aren’t we supposed to love Howard?), the reaction fulfilled every stereotype of “wild-eyed liberal” that the pundit-world could have hoped for and then some.

Perhaps most disheartening was Kos writing snarky lectures to Barack Obama on what it takes to govern, drawing a false equivalency between what he did for Lieberman to what he should do to former Bush aides. Markos Moulitsas, a guy who has been on Meet The Press, written two books, and expects us to take him seriously as an analyst, wrote the following passage about Obama:

Since he doesn’t want “purges” to be the order of the day, perhaps he’ll make sure to keep the thousands of Bush appointees in their respective offices, from Cabinet secretaries on down? That would only be consistent with his meddling in the Senate.

I half-expected his next sentence to be, “And I’m going to hold my breath and stomp my feet until I get what I want!”   While at first I wrote this off as anger speaking on Markos' part, his follow-up was equally childish.

Once again, let me reiterate, while I understand why Lieberman was given a reprieve yesterday, I don’t like it at all and strenuously disagree with it.  And I believe there was a way to be angry and strenuously disagree that would have bolstered our case much more (and in no way am I suggesting that we shouldn't be pissed).

But the juvenile, petulant manner in which many here and on other liberal blogs had a mass freak-out yesterday, led by the very people like Markos who have argued (I felt, as a blogger for 6 years now, rightfully) that bloggers should be taken seriously, was an embarrassment.

To be fair, there were many who behaved much more maturely, on all sides of this issue, from Hunter's great post on "Why It Matters," to Argyios' passionate diary defending the decision of the Senate Dems.

But if we're meant to be taken seriously as a player, analyst, and force in politics, it's time we react to difficulties by behaving like serious players, and not be just blurting out the first angry thing on the tip of our tongues.

Much love,
-Dansac

Cross-posted at Strategy '08

UPDATE: Many commenters are scanning my diary and leaping to "I disagree!  The Senate Dems were wrong to do what they did!"  Clearly many people aren't reading my diary.  I happen to agree that the Senate Dems were wrong.  

My diary is NOT about Lieberman.  It's about us and the way we react to these things.    Not about the rights and wrongs of yesterday's actions.

Originally posted to dansac on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 06:43 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I understand if there are no tips (560+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MoDem, JWC, Tuffie, ljb, SpyralPegacyon, chuck utzman, Chris Andersen, TMO78759, keirdubois, raboof, Sean Robertson, Chi, Upper West, decembersue, slinkerwink, kate mckinnon, leftcoast, askew, Dounia, AaronInSanDiego, Ivan, Christin, Turtle Bay, Superribbie, marcvstraianvs, mndan, alkatt, kainah, Robespierrette, cici414, Yoshimi, cinnamondog, scrutinizer, Coldblue Steele, Hummingbird, Sherri in TX, leberquesgue, kpardue, baffled, fugitive, tully monster, Attorney at Arms, ablington, waytac, John Campanelli, ThirstyGator, cmkinchi, Eustace Tilley, zenbowl, sobermom, AustinCynic, SallyCat, bethcf4p, object16, bumblebums, Poika, Thelesis, TexasDemocrat, perro amarillo, geordie, dpc, Addison, Polarmaker, eyeswideopen, housesella, Gustogirl, joynow, susans, magurakurin, Shadan7, sxp151, sarahnity, understandinglife, DAVE DIAL, Time Waits for no Woman, Bardy, Liz P, weirdscenes, SlowNomad, CalvinV, wanderindiana, Hprof, Dont Just Stand There, scamp, mkfarkus, SingularExistence, otto, michelle, peraspera, skertso, L0kI, lanellici, carolkay, az, juslikagrzly, luku, ClickerMel, Alvin K, dmsilev, heiderose1, CocoaLove, Boris Godunov, NotFuzzy, cappy, lulusbackintown, bigmama, SneakySnu, mayan, Dube, MrSandman, MadLibrarian, Eddie in ME, Mindmouth, ksquire, casperr, thesunshinestateisdark, grannyhelen, Fyodor, SamCDC, exiledfromTN, wmtriallawyer, wdrath, GN1927, Penny Century, cph, umasslefty, kaekee, lawstudent922, papercut, beachmom, kalmoth, BWasikIUgrad, jj32, airshipjones, Luftmensch, kfred, tomjones, kmbo, Twilight Jack, ganymeade, The Gryffin, furi kuri, Irish Patti, Marc in KS, Timroff, wolverinethad, Gowrie Gal, vcmvo2, Into The Woods, mrmango, radarlady, slw0606, JanetT in MD, CTPatriot, rweba, sangemon, mjd in florida, JTPiano23, potter, PBen, georg, UndercoverRxer, cova1, Omir the Storyteller, Tod, krsbar, devadatta, lennysfo, FrostyKotex, dansk47, teknofyl, Pam from Calif, Frank Palmer, Buffalo Girl, LABobsterofAnaheim, jannakc, Acacia951, paulhina, blue jersey mom, babatunde, Rex Freedom, demmefatale, Yamara, Marcus Junius Brutus, noemie maxwell, el zilcho, sundancekid11, leftynyc, Seeds, dave3172, roubs, jbfunk, noweasels, begone, redneonexpress, Island, curiousted, DisNoir36, mselite, aimzzz, trashablanca, BachFan, BobzCat, LeighAnn, Do Tell, Debbie in ME, Fasaha, ravenwind, Mr Bojangles, plum, garykephart, vernon nackulus, CommiePinkoScum, InsultComicDog, ccmask, deha, jmfl, True Centrist, Partially Impartial, Lefty Coaster, JCWilmore, cmrizcha, agnostic, uniqity, Libby Shaw, Crashing Vor, Bob Sackamento, Chairman Bob, real world chick, mhw, hlsmlane, Turbonerd, profh, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Jbearlaw, philimus, RantNRaven, MadMs, lynneinfla, Exile, sgbean, etrangere, phidda, Katanas, christomento, blueintheface, AllanTBG, Thinking Fella, Red Sox, pcoleman, mswan, timewarp, littleHalo, dotsright, Cronesense, Loudoun County Dem, randorider, dmh44, LV Pol Girl, mamabigdog, rccats3, larmos, jds1978, karmsy, DrWolfy, Duccio, SJLeonidas, drchelo, Sean in Motion, gph11, Flaw, manwithnoname, misreal, geejay, AznInCali, Titans, jnhobbs, Alter Ego Manifesto, bigbenr, Rumarhazzit, Bridoc10, word player, exreaganite, UneasyOne, The Red Pen, Puffin, Empower Ink, rmonroe, buckeye voter, kafkananda, JoeW, Dem in the heart of Texas, Spruce, First Amendment, KingGeorgetheTurd, windje, Argyrios, Tybalt, ynp junkie, abeincicero, njdaly, nycwahoodem, calibpatriot, LI Mike, elwior, Ectoras, Mannabass, lineatus, Mother of Zeus, beltane, baudelairien, Greasy Grant, fnord warrior, LarsThorwald, joeyk22, pamelabrown, DailyKingFish, Jeff Y, TheLoneliestMonk, ankey, WoodlandsPerson, bflaff, mofembot, Taget, jalenth, winterbanyan, luckylizard, cheforacle, joy sinha, a night owl, TreeFrog, msdrown, binkycat, dont think, magicsister, Radical Moderate, Simply Agrestic, shortgirl, scrubjay, al75, JCAinCLE, Johnny Venom, JBL55, Old Woman, 1BQ, artmartin, ksduck, Texanomaly, rsmpdx, james1108, aufklaerer, eyry, Discipline28, neonineten, Baldur, DemocraticOz, Methinks They Lie, ScientistSteve, smash artist, ephbruno, LeftyEngineer, OR indie, mrchumchum, BlueInRedCincy, MingPicket, Parallax857, beegee kochav, VT ConQuest, obiterdictum, sab39, AlphaWolf, hyper, ninshubur, paintitblue, Shelley99, kl5, synductive99, zealotus, bbagley1, desnyder, RadioGirl, PhotogHog, hippodad, notksanymore, 57andFemale, Yougottahavehope, louisev, fitz2, Nonconformist, Sleepwalkr, TM, Oldengrey, Econaut, pinguin, loveendures, TenthMuse, Leftcandid, Super Grover, cityvitalsigns, catilinus, sophistry makes me tired, Colorado Billy, ljfxiki, RinaX, capasb, RickinStLouis, stanjz, kfd313, Julia C, NCrissieB, bohemian darling, Apocalypse Please, brooklyns finest, marybluesky, draba, rosecar, coppercelt, political junquie, danbury6112, commutergirl, awcomeon, ldvisavis, Uncertain Physicist, KroneckerD, trustno1, drache, sovery, wordnerd, flitedocnm, SanAntonioKrusty, ArtSchmart, stegro, Shannon S, Vacationland, RethinkEverything, Gangster Octopus, skeezixwolfnagle, My mom is my hero, dochp, autolycus, Susan from 29, MadNiagaraFallsNY, blueyescryinintherain, leftywright, amk for obama, Green Bean, OldPhart, MarkMarvin, Indie Tarheel, bottl4, TheWesternSun, fleisch, El Ochito, waker, That Anonymous Guy, klompendanser, LeanneB, skyfox, jjmn, Mara Jade, filegirl, freeport beach PA, ronin122, fortuna, Dave1955, coelomate, legalchic, ATFILLINOIS, Faith in Tomorrow, Eddie L, Roberlin, creamer, eden4barack08, chile con pablo, batchick, mdarling66, dustb, I Lurked For Years, sullivanst, Lady Libertine, juturna, apip0115, DrFitz, fl1972, xcave, Grumpy Young Man, aggie98, Lolo08, pateTX, boomonkey, abrauer, The Sand People, Floande, bottles, kathleen518, Ilikepie, Anne was here, nosleep4u, tommybones, Anderson Scooper, therehastobeaway, Blackmamba1973, Its a New Day, Joe Neri, aldrak, pinkbunny, Saryko, NellaSelim, firendezyre4change, alighierispal, sickofcynicism, Onomastic, Relevant Rhino, PaDemTerry, atoilune, Front Toward Enemy, qinkilla, Mad Cat Democrat, Beach Girl Judi, I love OCD, DParker, Oldowan, msazdem, Rebecca74, lostinamerica2711, Chris Coleridge, grannyboots, sowsearsoup, greenmama, arrows theorem, Brunick, Amayi, ravedave, jajabee, ardyess, richdpa, island in alabama, NoconiNC, BlueTexan2008, Mistral Wind, BerlinBear, itzik shpitzik, Chuck Cook, Blue VA, inexplore, Coilette, Stonegate, relayerbob, Tom Borthwick, princesspat, two moms in Az, The Creator, ILikeWine, molunkusmol, MissMimi, Kristopher, drtinycat, the ghost of bad dad, PooNani, Dog Chains

    Most will disagree and be pissed at me.   But hopefully you all know me well enough by now to know that I care about being a part of this community and how its viewed by others.

    •  Here's the thing (253+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharoney, chase, johnny rotten, Ed in Montana, tmo, keirdubois, jimsaco, Chi, mtnbkreric, decembersue, dansac, Sparhawk, AaronInSanDiego, digno dave, Superribbie, mndan, alkatt, kainah, Robespierrette, cici414, Yoshimi, Hummingbird, Sherri in TX, baffled, Attorney at Arms, ablington, dirtyhippie, ThirstyGator, PhillyGal, sobermom, bethcf4p, Poika, Polarmaker, eyeswideopen, housesella, Gustogirl, Shadan7, understandinglife, wanderindiana, Hprof, scamp, michelle, peraspera, skertso, L0kI, lanellici, carolkay, juslikagrzly, Torta, ClickerMel, thingamabob, CocoaLove, Boris Godunov, SneakySnu, Dube, MrSandman, MadLibrarian, ksquire, grannyhelen, GN1927, Scarce, kaekee, papercut, beachmom, BWasikIUgrad, kfred, tomjones, ganymeade, wolverinethad, Gowrie Gal, JanetT in MD, rweba, PBen, Omir the Storyteller, Tod, devadatta, lennysfo, Bill White, FrostyKotex, Heartcutter, Pam from Calif, Buffalo Girl, jannakc, Yamara, Marcus Junius Brutus, sundancekid11, LithiumCola, Ekaterin, ZinZen, dave3172, roubs, curiousted, mselite, aimzzz, trashablanca, dsteele2, BachFan, BobzCat, LeighAnn, Do Tell, Fasaha, plum, Pupwood, mr crabby, deha, ginja, Crashing Vor, Boulderinionian, NearlyNormal, think blue, Turbonerd, profh, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, va dare, philimus, kurious, etrangere, anabelle, coolsub, blueintheface, AllanTBG, Evil Betty, timewarp, dotsright, dmh44, LV Pol Girl, rccats3, larmos, jds1978, karmsy, FishOutofWater, Nespolo, SJLeonidas, jnhobbs, Rumarhazzit, The Red Pen, cloudbustingkid, roguetrader2000, TomP, Empower Ink, cville townie, JoeW, lump1, Dem in the heart of Texas, Spruce, Tybalt, ShadowSD, ynp junkie, RickMassimo, njdaly, brklyngrl, puffy66, lineatus, Mother of Zeus, Greasy Grant, fnord warrior, LarsThorwald, DailyKingFish, Missys Brother, Jeff Y, WoodlandsPerson, bflaff, winterbanyan, o the umanity, xysea, Bartimaeus Blue, TreeFrog, dont think, magicsister, Radical Moderate, Simply Agrestic, shortgirl, humanunit, Rhysling, artmartin, Texanomaly, rsmpdx, Discipline28, lilsky, neonineten, velvet blasphemy, smash artist, LeftyEngineer, OR indie, BDsTrinity, Angry Mouse, sab39, AlphaWolf, paintitblue, RadioGirl, PhotogHog, mdmslle, Sleepwalkr, Oldengrey, pinguin, TenthMuse, physic, kfd313, Julia C, NCrissieB, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, political junquie, awcomeon, Uncertain Physicist, KroneckerD, Obamican08, zeiben, My mom is my hero, dochp, BP in NJ, leftywright, vixenflem, amk for obama, TheWesternSun, fleisch, Mara Jade, freeport beach PA, ronin122, Dave1955, Eddie L, Roberlin, creamer, mdarling66, sullivanst, Lady Libertine, ItsSimpleSimon, apip0115, DrFitz, fl1972, Lolo08, pateTX, boomonkey, sluggahjells, The Sand People, Casual Wednesday, kissmygrits, Otteray Scribe, Floande, bottles, aldrak, NellaSelim, Onomastic, PaDemTerry, DParker, Chris Coleridge, greenmama, msmacgyver, arrows theorem, island in alabama, Nicci August, sweeneymcbean, ILikeWine, drtinycat

      and I addressed this in a comment I posted in another diary just minutes ago.

      Daily Kos, and the netroots in general, were created in response to the Bush Administration.

      That administration is now over.

      So the question, I think, going forward, is what role do the netroots play post-Bush?

      And what happened yesterday, I think, had a lot to do with the netroots figuring that question out.

      And the answers aren't readily forthcoming.

      Sarah Heath Palin, Will You Please Go Now?

      by wmtriallawyer on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 06:49:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Really interesting point (42+ / 0-)

        Totally true - I think there is some figuring out to do.   Are we going to be a partisan community to help Obama or more a conglomeration of liberal voices now, some of which are partisan and some of which will be more "principled" (for lack of a better word)?  

        Really interesting.

        Strategy '08: Obama vs. the other guy

        by dansac on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 06:51:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Totally agree (10+ / 0-)

        I think were in for a few more weeks of flailing of sorts as we desperately search for solid ground to stand on.

        Things should turn better I assume when a policy proposal is actually out there or there are appointment hearings.

        I agreed with someone else that said that new ideas/plans for the liberal blogosphere may have to come from outside-in to dkos from state progressive pages or smaller forums.

        This beast is hard to steer without a compass.

      •  Agreed...the frustration is that we have become (25+ / 0-)

        on more source for funding candidates (not a bad thing) but then we feel like they turn their backs on us.

        So.............

        I think we have to define policy positions that are "make or break" for us, and ones that we can compromise on or let slide a little bit. For instance, personality conflicts like the Joementum thing I'm willing to let slide. But ending torture, closing Gitmo, getting universal health care at the top of the agenda are all things I'm not willing to compromise on.

        This may be hard to articulate in a community of bloggers, but I think it's something that is good for us to talk about. The more we can communicate what is really important to us, the more I think we'll head off any attempts to marginalize us.

        "The revolution's just an ethical haircut away..." Billy Bragg

        by grannyhelen on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 06:55:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  so true, wmtriallawyer. (11+ / 0-)

        But I didn't expect the spasm of grief and buyer's remorse to happen so damn quick.

        I just saw a post referring to the Obama Administration in the past tense.

        •  Really? I predicted it from the FISA episode (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zeke L, JoeW, Oldengrey

          Although I wasn't expecting to things being this bad over what's honestly comparatively little things including what is so far only SPECULATION (e.g. Clinton for SoS)

          First person to tell me why Joe Scarborough is such a pissy man who needs baby shampoo gets a cookie (whatever the cafeteria has).

          by ronin122 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:10:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  yeah, having been around a long LONG while (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Oldengrey

            I expected it to go sour pretty fast, and it did, i.e. RAHM FREAK-OUTS

            •  Would you have been happy with CoS Reid? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              zett

              No significant difference in terms of results. It's all capitulation and triangulation, leading to right-center dominance in any environment.

              It's almost as if Rahm is really a Republican. He scores low on the National Journal's Liberal Composite Score. Wonder how many of his "liberal" votes were actually cast on winning votes?

              If your actions speak louder than your words, you're not yelling loud enough. - Stephen Colbert

              by Words In Action on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:23:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree. (18+ / 0-)

        We've known our role would shift somewhat and we are going to become more of the bad guys because we are going to demand accountability.

        Yesterday was rage.  And it was justified. What Reid and others did yesterday is simply unforgivable to me. I think he has been a terrible Senate Majority Leader and would very much like to see him replaced. I felt that way before yesterday and even more so now.

        Yesterday felt like a slap in the face. It was a slap in the face. For all of us who have fought to reject the policies of Bush and Lieberman. For all of us who worked to vote Liberman out ---- and did.  For all of us who had to sit back and take it while he voted with Republicans again and again and stabbed Democrats in the back at every single opportunity.

        It was disgraceful. It was outrageous.  It has completely sucked the will out of me to be a part of any of this. I'm starting to regret how much time I put in electing these people.

        And not one true progressive being mentioned for any Obama position. Yea -- that's really reaching out alright.

        •  Well, I disagree with you. (26+ / 0-)

          We've known our role would shift somewhat and we are going to become more of the bad guys because we are going to demand accountability.

          Have "we" known that?

          Have "we" agreed on that being our role?

          I would agree to a certain extent, yes, demanding accountability should be in order.

          But I would also argue that before Obama has even taken the oath, some of "us" are undercutting him.

          And I would argue going forward that "we" have another, equally important role, going forward than simply demanding accountability.

          And that would be to support this administration when it gets it right.  That should be the lesson of 1992, in particular with health care.  We had a Democratic President and Congress, and couldn't get it passed, and then 1994 rolled along...and guess what? We had the Gingrich revolution.

          I don't see the Liberman issue as a slap in the face because I don't take it personally.  I see it for what it probably is: friendship trumped principle. The collegiality of the Senate trumped what was the right thing to do.  Sucks, but it wasn't a personal affront.

          Sarah Heath Palin, Will You Please Go Now?

          by wmtriallawyer on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:07:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I Pray You Are Right, WM... (9+ / 0-)

            Because I read it differently. I read it as "we can't punish him, because we will be seen as partisan and liberal and vindictive and...."

            And I just worry very deeply that the Democrats, now that they have the whole enchilada, will not act on principle because the criticism will be too great, or the pressure too high.

            They have shown me NO EVIDENCE over the last three years that they will stand on principle in the face of a withering attack. Because, in the next two years, rest assured that withering attacks will come.

            I really hope I am wrong. I would LOVE to be made a fool of in the next six months, as this Congress and this President get serious about the economy, and the war, and energy...but I tremble at the thought that they will fold the winning hand at the first sign that the other side throws in a raise.

            "You share your young with the wolves of the nation...
            Theres nothing left til you pray for salvation"
            Black Rebel Motorcycle Club "American X"

            by Steve Singiser on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:13:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You know why? (4+ / 0-)

              Because they are probably getting a piece of the pot. Makes it a lot easier to throw a fight if you benefiting from it.

            •  Does anybody remember (4+ / 0-)

              that passing progressive legislation in the last 2 years was a fool's errand?  Bush threatened to veto everything.  With a Dem in the WH things can be very different, but the Dem is not in the WH yet.  

              I understand "rage" about Prop 8, and Lieberman, but I associate rage with the right, justifiably IMHO.  I second the above post referencing Obama and poker.  I loved watching him sit back, waiting until his opponent had hung himself.  Do you really think he's changed in 2 weeks?  Do you really believe he's so incompetent to make big decisions and big choices after watching him for 20 months of campaigning?  If he'd been swayed enough to use 5% of the suggestions that flooded DK and other sites during tough points in the campaign he'd have lost the election.  

              I'd like to see us quit sounding as though:
                            1.  Joe Lieberman is so powerful he can destroy Obama (he's a fucking wimp, not the devil incarnate)
                            2.  Prop 8 is the last opportunity for equality for the GLBT community
                            3.  Democrats/liberals/progressives can't stop eating their own.  I never want to see us in the lockstep the Republicans have perfected, but could we maybe give Obama a chance to be sworn in and take the reins?

              •  Yes and No, OCD.... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                zett

                Of course, we have a different occupant in the WH.

                But how many progressive initiatives were stopped by the force of the Bush veto pen?

                Answer: damned few.

                To paraphrase "The West Wing", I am not distressed by the fights that we lose, I am angered by the fights were don't even bother to suit up for.

                "You share your young with the wolves of the nation...
                Theres nothing left til you pray for salvation"
                Black Rebel Motorcycle Club "American X"

                by Steve Singiser on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 02:21:17 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Health care was not defeated (3+ / 0-)

            because of too much activism from the left.  Quite the contrary.

            •  Yeah. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Yoshimi, geejay

              That's my point.

              Sarah Heath Palin, Will You Please Go Now?

              by wmtriallawyer on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:36:41 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  ??? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sparhawk, James Kresnik

                And I would argue going forward that "we" have another, equally important role, going forward than simply demanding accountability.

                And that would be to support this administration when it gets it right.  That should be the lesson of 1992, in particular with health care.  We had a Democratic President and Congress, and couldn't get it passed, and then 1994 rolled along...and guess what? We had the Gingrich revolution.

                Healthcare reform failed because of industry lobbying, not because a bunch of bloggers criticized the Clinton administration from the left.

                Our leaders didn't "get it right" yesterday, so I'm mystified as to what point you are trying to make.

                •  You are illustrating my point. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Yoshimi, dmh44, Lady Libertine

                  The point is that this time around, in 2008, if we have a universal health care bill up, we have a tool that can compete with the lobbying efforts on the other side.

                  Hence support when they get it right.

                  Obviously, we don't know yet what the contours of that legislation, or any legislation, would be, but getting behind it would be critical.

                  That's what I'm talking about vis a vis the role of the netroots.  Can be more than one thing.

                  Sarah Heath Palin, Will You Please Go Now?

                  by wmtriallawyer on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:11:01 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  OK (3+ / 0-)

                    Because that point followed your statement that some of us are "undercutting" the administration, I thought you intended to link the two concepts.

                    I fall into the camp of those who thought Obama was overly centrist with a fetish for empty bipartisanship, but the most liberal candidate who could be elected, and someone who could possibly be forced to back policies more liberal than he might have supported initially.

                    It's now clear that, at least in the Senate, the conservatives are firmly in charge, due in part to the efforts of Lieberman to reelect Coleman.  It's not the result that was so dismaying.  It's the margin and the condescending rhetoric used to frame opposition to Lieberman.  And it's the realization that if they can't stand up to a lame duck senator from a liberal state, there's no way they'll stand up to Mitch McConnell.

          •  gosh, I don't see it that way at all either (4+ / 0-)

            I don't see it as a slap in the face or personal but friendship over principle? not at all. I just think it's a different principle than the one we've been focusing on around here.

            Anyway, I do agree that this place will be going through a shift. It will lose people, it will gain people, depending on how the people here choose to respond to this new era.

            I for one after yesterday am leaning towards not sticking around....but we'll see....

            I'm hoping to see some insight into the legislative battles that will follow that will really focus on the players and the ins and outs of what it's going to take to succeed (i.e. healthcare) without resorting to rabid calls for PRIMARY CHALLENGES every time we don't get exactly what we want all along the way.  I may have to look somewhere else...

          •  "We" is anybody that has been paying attention. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Words In Action

            Do you think that people waited until Nov 5th to recognize that the role of the netroots was changing?

            •  I don't think YOU guys have changed at all. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ChurchofBruce, wmtriallawyer, fleisch

              You are simply going to continue to oppose.  I have watched this site through three cycles now.  It always goes the same way.  You vigorously work to get Democrats elected.  Then once they are elected and inevitably disappoint you (because the views of this site represent at best 30% of Americans), you turn on them.  And it is like the boy who cried wolf.  Sometimes they deserve to be admonished; other times not.  But there is no difference being made between Democrats trying to do the right thing and failing as opposed to Democrats trying to do the wrong thing from the start.

              •  Really.....we are crying wolf right now? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sparhawk, Words In Action

                They just let the wolf into the hen house. Shit, they gave him his own personal set of keys to the hen house.

                Listen folks...I'm pissed. I was too busy yesterday to absorb all that happened and I woke up this morning pissed off. It'll probably fade and I'm not by any means writing off the Obama admin before they even get out of the gate.....but I am not happy about this and I'm not going to pretend everything is A-OK.

                When is the reaching out going to include progressives?

                •  When it is on something that really matters and (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  AaronInSanDiego, vcmvo2

                  represents common ground.  Before you scoff at my saying this matter is not particularly important.  I told my husband yesterday what happened with Lieberman.  Now he voted Obama, stays up on the news, but isn't all that into politics.  So I finish my story and he responds, "Who cares".  I think we have to sometimes get a wider lens to determine what matters to the American people, and what matters more just to us.  And if we think it is important, yet is not on the radar for Americans, then step one is to try to change the minds of them, before the politicians.  FISA is a good example.  It was just an issue not big for a lot of people.  I think it will become big once somebody famous is wiretapped and the news comes out.  Before that, it will be tough.

                  I also am really worried about us becoming too much like the other side.  They were really the worst of both worlds for Bush.  They covered up and "carried water" for Bush, then when they finally decided to turn on him, it was on immigration.  So the first mistake caused a collapse in Independent and swing voter support for Republicans, and their second mistake caused a collapse in Hispanic support for Republicans.  They screwed their party both by being too acquiescent and too critical, all on the wrong issues.

                  In short, we need to choose our battles.

                  •  I agree to some extent. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    justmy2, James Kresnik

                    But just because the average American doesn't understand what a schmuck and a traitor Joe Lieberman is, doesn't mean that we have to turn the other cheek. After all, a significant portion of the American population still believes Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11.

                    Aside from all of that, Joe has proven he is not capable of doing the job. He used that position to stonewall any investigations into Bush, Katrina, Iraq, Haliburton, and more. Have you ever had a job where you failed miserably and were still rewarded?

                    So, no...I'm not swayed because the average voter doesn't know what a scumbag Joe is -- we do know better.

                    I'm not one that likes conflict. I'm a Libra and seek balance and justice as part of my nature.  It's part of my core being. The decision to keep Lieberman in that position is neither balance nor justice --- it's politics -- and more of the same.

                  •  Great, so people who have no understanding (0+ / 0-)

                    of the implications of Joe Lieberman and the Democratic Party don't care. That's really useful. Because regardless of whether they care or not it matters. It shows where this party is headed. It's headed back to the future, with the DLC. We may as well have hired Hillary. She's perfect at capitulating and triangulating.

                    We can't get where we need to go with incrementalism and faux change.

                    End of story.

                    If your actions speak louder than your words, you're not yelling loud enough. - Stephen Colbert

                    by Words In Action on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:26:46 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Listen.... (0+ / 0-)

                I'm tired. And frankly, I'm am really bummed about what went down yesterday. I haven't had a chance to vent about it and it seems to be coming out this morning.

                If you've met me or talked to me, you'd know that I'm not one to walk around with grudges -- except in extreme cases.  Joe is one of those cases and this is all very hard to accept. It isn't about his actions during this election, it is about his actions as a whole over the last 8 years. He really disgusts me and I can't believe he has been rewarded for those actions.

                We've got a long way to go. I'm still hopeful for the next 4 years. I'm still going to DC for the inauguration. But, I have to say -- I'm feeling really deflated.

                •  Don't be bummed (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  digno dave, Yoshimi, fleisch

                  Obama has marginalized Lieberman and, as someone noted above, has made Lieberman his "bitch."

                  Lieberman has to be on his best behavior for the next four years because Lieberman knows we hate him and will do everything we can to defeat him.  And, he knows the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party will try to defeat him.

                  Our anger has given Obama the power to do all of this.

                  Let's get bummed over the crucial issues: closing Gitmo, getting the troops out of Iraq, getting a national health care plan, naming real liberals to the Supreme Court, moving on a real energy program.

                  Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren. Bertolt Brecht

                  by MoDem on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:11:35 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Huge, unsubstantiated assumptions. (0+ / 0-)

                    Lieberman has played the Dem like a Stradivarius and he will continue to do so.

                    He doesn't owe anybody anything and he will continue to get more than he gives and help the other side along the way.

                    On this one: Lieberman is Obama's daddy.

                    So far the transition score:

                    Obama is DLC: 48
                    Obama is change-agent: 0

                    If your actions speak louder than your words, you're not yelling loud enough. - Stephen Colbert

                    by Words In Action on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:29:10 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Obama looks like a very good winner (0+ / 0-)

                      Read Nate Silver today. Punishing Lieberman now expends capital and energy needed elsewhere and Obama gets good press for it.  

                      It is clear Obama signaled to the caucus not to remove Lieberman from the Chair position.

                      What happens now if Lieberman attacks ANY substantive program Obama proposes?

                      In the meantime, Lieberman knows we are waiting to end his career in 2012.

                      Lieberman doesn't dare repeat anything he said before November 4th and he knows it.

                      Lieberman has just been neutered.  Our anger helped and Lieberman knows he can never get us to forgive him.

                      Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren. Bertolt Brecht

                      by MoDem on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:34:57 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Punishing Lieberman would take NO (0+ / 0-)

                        capital or energy from a man with the mandate Obama has. That's the whole problem with this response. He's behaving like he one on a gimme.

                        WHO in their right minds would have begrudged the party of stripping Lieberman of his chairs, let alone shitcanning him to the backside of Pluto?

                        If your actions speak louder than your words, you're not yelling loud enough. - Stephen Colbert

                        by Words In Action on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 01:05:36 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Lieberman has been neutered? HA! (0+ / 0-)

                          Lieberman has played the DLC like a Stradovarius for years. He gotten them to give him a group blowjob at least twice now. He will use the leverage of his vote for many, many more.

                          At the moment: Lieberman is Obama's daddy.

                          If your actions speak louder than your words, you're not yelling loud enough. - Stephen Colbert

                          by Words In Action on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 01:07:36 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  this has been painfully personal to Kos (0+ / 0-)

                    because of what's his face...the cable guy that he/we supported in '06. Yeah, Lieberman is a turd and so is Reid, but anyone who thinks kicking him out of the Chairmanship was good in the long run i think is mistaken.

                •  You are not the only one... (0+ / 0-)

                  I have been standing up for Obama around here the last two weeks, and this just completely knocked the wind out my sails.  It really makes me question what this movement is all about.  Was it just slogans?  Joe remaining in power literally could be a demonstration that we are in for more of the same.  Politicians working us, instead of working for us.

                  Rosa sat...so Martin could march...so Jesse could run...so Barack could win...so our children can fly...Yes We Can!!!

                  by justmy2 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:58:46 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Well, maybe you were thinking about that. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DelRPCV

              Me, and whole hell of a lot of people in the Netroots were concentrating on winning elections pre-November 5th.

              Not worrying about the future role of the Netroots if we won.

              Sarah Heath Palin, Will You Please Go Now?

              by wmtriallawyer on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:14:29 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you (6+ / 0-)

          I feel you Scout. I worked hard for this, and I'm not too happy right now about where it looks to be going.

          You want to work across the aisles? Fine - but I'm part of that too. Those of us who worked hard knowing there would be compromises are part of that. Obama has to work with us too.

          I hope that moving forward dkos has a few roles.

          1. accountability
          1. Better dems moreso than more dems
          1. A steady, issue based, leftward pressure on the dems and obama - and that will mean being on their bad side often. Great.
        •  I despise Lieberman... (18+ / 0-)

          but do you really believe that Obama sought election solely to throw off the mask and reveal himself as a DLC crony.

          I don't buy that.  I think he sees himself confronted with a number of catastrophes...each and every one daunting in its enormity...and trying to figure out he can muster the coalition that will allow the ship to remain upright.  If that means the real politik of keeping Lieberman on...so be it (particularly if the agreement to keep Lieberman on came at a price...i.e. his support on certain votes.

          And here's the problem...the "netroots" don't have a single voice and a single interest.  While I understand our shared revulsion of Lieberman, I credit Obama with having a very clear sense of how to proceed in the matter and by voting for him, I have delegated - at least to some degree - my faith that he will generally make the right choice.  At the least, I'm willing to let him first obtain office before crying "betrayal."

          "We're all working for the Pharaoh" - Richard Thompson

          by mayan on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:12:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  These choices (5+ / 0-)

            Who he supports and appoints, will have a profound impact on how he governs. These are really his first meaningful decisions.

            I'm waiting for someone truly progressive to get a high profile meaningful role in this administration. So far I don't like what I see. I didn't expect every post to be someone I love - but if those of us to the left of Obama who still supported him don't get a significant seat at the table then I will behave as if I am not part of this coalition, because that will be the case.

            So far I see a lot of reaching out to opponents and a lot of stepping on very liberal primary supporters.

            •  I did not like... (6+ / 0-)

              many things about the Clinton administration.  I felt like he moved the political "center" somewhere to the right of Nixon, actually.  That said, there was relative peace, prosperity and the government "worked" by in large for many more people than it did for Bush/Cheney - their "government" worked for about 2500 zillionaires.

              Obama did not promise a "progressive" revolution.  Those who think he did were projecting their own hopes and desires.  In fact, he promised the contrary...that many/most of us would disagree with him on many things.

              But the fact of the matter is, we don't KNOW how we will govern because he hasn't started yet.  I argue that these appointments do not yet give us a clear picture of what will happen going forward.  I tend to believe that Obama is a strong leader who will be putting his stamp on his delegatees rather than the other way around.   At the same time, I think he sees the various crises as being dire and wants experienced voices.  After eight plague years, I would like a revolution but I have a feeling that even Clinton's relative peace/prosperity will feel like one after what we've collectively gone through.

              "We're all working for the Pharaoh" - Richard Thompson

              by mayan on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:29:18 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I understand that he isn't a total progressive (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sparhawk, irmaly, mayan, Scout Finch

                I've understood that since I first donated for Iowa.

                But I want a significant seat at the table, and I want real accountability for the last 8 years. If I don't get it, don't expect me to continue to support what is happening. I think both are fair demands, and I consider them an absolute bare minimum for me personally.

                •  I understand... (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  geejay, fleisch, Roberlin, boomonkey

                  but I'm not sure how a seat at the table is to be determined.

                  In other words...I'm sure that I would like you alot if I were to meet you.  I have certainly enjoyed many of your posts.  But let's say, for the sake of argument, that despite our mutual revulsion for Lieberschmutz you and I, both doughty netizens, have different approaches to what to do with Lieberman tactically.  You think he should be consigned to sweeping the halls of Congress and I think that he should be kept on because his vote may be needed in the case of filibuster (and suffer a huge punishment karmically in the afterlife).  Who gets the seat at the table?  I'm most likely older, so I should win right?  (Just kidding. Nyuck nyuck). Who's voice should be heard.  One of us is bound to feel betrayed when the other's wishes are acceeded to.

                  "We're all working for the Pharaoh" - Richard Thompson

                  by mayan on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:40:46 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yep (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    irmaly, James Kresnik

                    That is going to be Obama's challenge.

                    I guess I'm so repulsed by this Lieberman fiasco because of my bare minimum demand #2 - accountability. Joe has done some truly awful things the last 8 years, and I see this as an awful sign of what's to come regarding accountability. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I am.

                    So far I don't see any signs at all that my views are being given a significant place in this administration. I see lots of "reaching out" to people like lieberman and clinton people at my expense. Then I see things like Obama aides leaking that there won't be torture prosecutions (which will lose even my VOTE in 2012 if they don't happen - anything less is TOTALLY unacceptable to me).

                    I'm starting to get a real sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. You are absolutely correct that I can't be sure yet, but I am becoming less happy with where things are headed by the day.

            •  That is exactly right. (5+ / 0-)

              So far, reaching out means reaching out to the right or "center right."

              The whole thing pisses me off. They don't give a shit about us.  They would rather insult and enrage hundreds of thousands or millions of netroots/grassroots supporters than fucking slap Joe Lieberman on the wrist. Nobody said they had to kick him out of the caucus -- but he certainly didn't deserve to be rewarded with one of the most powerful positions in DC. A job he has proven he's not even worthy of over the last 4 years. He's been in charge of investigating Bush.....hows that going for everyone? Joe really got to the bottom of the disaster response to Katrina, didn't he?

              Pretty much feels like getting slapped by your fiancee.  How do you get over that?

              Can't wait to see what the first investigation Joe will launch into Obama's office --- cause y'all know he'll have the power to do that, right?

              •  I wanted him out of the caucus (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Scout Finch, Words In Action

                but removing his HS gavel really was the no-brainer bare minimum. He should have lost that gavel for his katrina failings alone.

                Obama is already the center imo. I supported him (LOTS of money and hard work) in large part because even though he is (significantly) to the right of me - he promised to include me. So far I don't see how I'm being included. I see someone to the right of me reaching out to those even further to the right of me. There had better be a reach back to the left as well - and soon.

              •  Then why no Clinton temper tantrum? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                fleisch

                I mean, I am concerned about that possible appointment.  But near radio silence on the fp of DailyKos.  A progressive like John Kerry would have been our best bet.  It is now not going to happen, and not a peep from y'all.  (or Bill Richardson, if you prefer)

                •  Because I think Hillary would be a good SoS. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  vcmvo2

                  She's well-liked and well-respected internationally and we need to reignite that good will around the world. Electing Obama is one way to rally the world's support -- putting a Clinton in as SoS is another.

                  Sure, the primary battle between Hillary and Obama was brutal, but in the end, she rallied people to join the cause and actively campaigned for Obama.  Joe? Not so much.

                  If she doesn't become SoS, I really, really, really want to see her as Majority Leader.

                  •  I am not complaining about the primary. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    wmtriallawyer

                    I am just saying that this is not big Change.  Or particularly progressive.  And this is far more significant than Lieberman.  

                    •  Well, I completely disagree. (0+ / 0-)

                      But, that's OK.  We don't have to agree on everything.

                      Hillary makes much more sense than giving Joe a job where he is in a position to investigate the office of the president -- something he didn't do once with GWB when there were very clear reasons to do so.

                    •  Exactly. (0+ / 0-)

                      Frankly, the Hillary thing is, like Joe, just one more example of the fact that it appears Obama has been passing gas for the past year.

                      He's gone strict DLC and frankly the DLC has a shitty record and shown absolutely no ability to get anything big done, and we need big things done.

                      Axelrod and Rahm are BFFs.
                      Obama and Rahm are close and Obama owes Axelrod big time.
                      Rahm, the DLC capitulating-triangulator extraordinaire gets the nod for CoS.
                      Virtually every seat on every damn team or committee is filled with DLC types.
                      The short list of Treasury Sec candidates are all trickle-down, de-regulation, derivative-mongers.
                      Holder, the scribe of Bill's pardon list, gets AG.
                      Joe gets his group hug.
                      Hillary waits to take over implementation of foreign policy.

                      What a disappointment.

                      UPDATE: Oh, Daschle just got tapped for HHS. Maybe someone gave Obama a memo and suggested he fill at least one post with someone who recognized and appreciated his vision from the get-go.

                      Maybe he'll ask Reich a couple of questions on what to do about the economy.

                      If your actions speak louder than your words, you're not yelling loud enough. - Stephen Colbert

                      by Words In Action on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:43:12 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  not to mention his cabinet is reasonably (0+ / 0-)

                    his decision...getting into Senate business after he resigned is not...

                    that is another this that really upset me...

                    Rosa sat...so Martin could march...so Jesse could run...so Barack could win...so our children can fly...Yes We Can!!!

                    by justmy2 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:02:18 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Oh, there's been plenty of complaining about that (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sethyeah

                  it's just been drowned out by Joe for the moment.

                  Ken Silverstein's article over on HuffPo and many other arguments have been made here, and they all get the same response: "why are you hating on the Clinton's?"

                  You know, why do you hate the troops? Why do you hate America? Why do you need a pound of flesh from Lieberman?

                  It's all misdirection.

                  Hillary is a completely dysfunctional choice for this role and this administration. And it's just one more example that Obama actually believes he can achieve big things with incremental approaches.

                  If your actions speak louder than your words, you're not yelling loud enough. - Stephen Colbert

                  by Words In Action on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:35:46 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Oh, and the rebuff of Russ Feingold to be (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                zett

                Chairman of the SFRC.

                Part of why Kerry will not be Sec. of State is because THEY don't want Feingold to be chairman of the SFRC.  Again, not a peep from you guys.

                http://www.boston.com/...

                More than three decades after he first appeared before the panel as a 27-year-old Vietnam veteran-turned-antiwar protester, Senator John F. Kerry is widely expected to be named the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a position that will give him enormous influence over international relations.

                The pending announcement by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, which congressional aides said could come as early as today, would elevate Kerry to the top of the foreign policy establishment and give him a major role in shaping President-elect Barack Obama's foreign policy priorities.

                Kerry, 64, who was elected to a fifth term in the US Senate from Massachusetts earlier this month, will be officially handed the gavel when the new congressional session convenes in January, according to multiple Capitol Hill sources. He will replace the outgoing chairman, Vice President-elect Joe Biden.

                •  Actually, I missed that. Thanks, one more thing. (0+ / 0-)

                  This transition has been a freakin' nightmare for anyone who actually believed what Obama was saying, especially if you trudged around the country on your own nickel working to get him nominated and elected.

                  Aye-yi-yi.

                  If your actions speak louder than your words, you're not yelling loud enough. - Stephen Colbert

                  by Words In Action on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:45:51 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Not for me. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    vcmvo2

                    I did not work and donate for Obama to get retribution on Lieberman,or get Russ Feingold a chairmanship.
                    I did it because we have huge problems in healthcare,economy,foreign policy and my son is in Iraq on stop-loss for a 15 month deployment.

                    Everyone has their own reasons for being engaged in the campaign.
                    You can speak for yourself, as you clearly have other reasons for getting involved.

                    •  I didn't do it to get Lieberman either. But not (0+ / 0-)

                      getting Lieberman is a huge red flag that the things we really need to get done won't. It's a direct symptom of the same DLC methodology.

                      You can't build the solutions we need out of capitulation and triangulation, Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer, Rahm, Hillary and now, apparently, Obama.

                      Capitulation and triangulation AT BEST lead to incrementalism, poorly.

                      It doesn't scale to big solutions.

                      If your actions speak louder than your words, you're not yelling loud enough. - Stephen Colbert

                      by Words In Action on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 01:02:30 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  With all due respect... (0+ / 0-)

                        You are speculating but you do NOT know how Obama intends to govern and direct these individuals.  You can extrapolate for sure...you can say that past behavior is a predictor of the future...that's your prerogative.  I think, however, that Obama may govern VERY differently from Clinton...even with Clintonians occupying several roles.  

                        "We're all working for the Pharaoh" - Richard Thompson

                        by mayan on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 06:44:40 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

          •  What mask? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sparhawk, TomP, sethyeah

            He ran as a centrist.  It now behooves those of us who want The Change We Need to hold his feet to the fire on that slogan, rather than the one of empty bipartisanship, and force him to be more liberal than he wants to be.

        •  Fuck that BS (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DelRPCV, TX Unmuzzled, Uberbah, Oldengrey

           Embarassed my ass!we dont have a damned thing to be embarrassed about.Harry Reid,John Kerry and Barack Obama do.I dont agree with everything the members here write. even when its the majority view and i disagree ,Ive never been embarressed by these members.If I was ,even once,Id take my ass away from here.

        •  I voted for a return to a world where actions (7+ / 0-)

          have consequences.   After 8 years of Bush Co getting away with lying, cheating and all manner of murder, both figurative and literal, without any accounting, apology or reckoning, I wanted the Democrats to hold one of their own accountable.  Harry  Reid was quite clear that Leiberman was putting his chairmanships on the line when he campaigned (vigorously) for Republicans.  This was a gamble that Leiberman took and he should have been held to that simple standard.  This was the outrage for me.  This was the slap in the face.  As a parent I face this tough call all the time.  My teenager wants to go out with friends on a school night?  She has to have all her homework done before she leaves.  If she doesn't she can't go. Period.  That isn't "revenge" because she was bad.  It's just being consistent and meaning what you say.  It's demonstrating that what one does matters.  Joe Leiberman was just the stupid inconsequential straw (that looks like a worm) that broke this camel's back.

        •  That was always there (9+ / 0-)

          with Obama, the lack of progressives at the table.  He will govern center/left, in my view.  

          It's far, far better than Bush, but Obama is the change.  As usual, Obama will reach out to thr ight and triangulate against the left.

          But, he won't veto EFCA.  His policies will be much better.  

          It was worth it to me, but my expectations were different.  There were policy reasons I supported John Edwards in the primary.  As it turned out though, because of Edwards' personal issues, and Obama's charisma and appeal, he was the better nominee and the farthest left, electable Dem.  But he's not very far left.

          For example, in this team of rivals, where's Kucinich?  I know Edwards is out, because of his personal issue, but we get Biden and Clinton.

          I have not given up, but my expectations are not that high.  

          We get global warming addressed, EFCA, maybe.

          My hope is that Obama governs to the left of Bill Clinton.  The times demand it and he has Democratic majorities.  

          "What we've seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed." -- Barack Obama

          by TomP on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:40:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't see Kucinich as much of a progressive (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            askew, vcmvo2

            leader, honestly. Boxer, Feingold more so. And you know, it's still early days for cryin' out loud.

            •  I'm not crying. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Oldengrey

              I think Kucincih is and he was a rival, which waa one of my points.

              Sherrod Brown and other labor Dems would be good.

              Bonior is around, which is good.

              My point is that I'm not crying because my expectations are not so high.  I just took a survey with the campaign and said I would volunteer to help Obama on issues.  

              "What we've seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed." -- Barack Obama

              by TomP on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:48:40 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  With the DLC cloud hanging over his transition (0+ / 0-)

            team, it will be center-right, after the capitulation and triangulation.

            Oh, and incrementalism. Lots of creeping incrementalism.

            Not what we need to solve all the big problems we have, but, hey, it's better than "W". That should be enough, right?

            If your actions speak louder than your words, you're not yelling loud enough. - Stephen Colbert

            by Words In Action on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:48:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Do "we" seek to heighten the contradictions (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        magurakurin, JoanShearer, Uberbah

        and pursue Revolution as the solution to our problems?

        I've been telling people for almost two years that Barack Obama simply is a "small c" conservative who does not believe eschatology will solve our problems - be it the Christian-ist Rapture or the Marxian overthrow of our oppressors.

      •  I think we knew the next goal (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MoDem, wmtriallawyer, cybrestrike

        So the question, I think, going forward, is what role do the netroots play post-Bush?

        Mo' Better Democrats.

        We are all droogie6655321

        by Buckeye BattleCry on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:13:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  i agree 110% nt (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wmtriallawyer, freakofsociety

        it's raining mccain. hallelujah!

        by ksquire on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:18:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  umm ... clearly ... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DelRPCV, wmtriallawyer, boomonkey

        DailyKos is a recipe exchange.  

        And a clearing house to learn about/support "more and better Democrats" and a citizen-journalism outlet and a news aggregator.

        But mostly a recipe exchange.

        I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper. - President Elect Barack Obama

        by ThirstyGator on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:23:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  many of us may not find it a useful place to be (3+ / 0-)

        anymore.....

      •  forward (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DelRPCV, island in alabama

        "So the question, I think, going forward, is what role do the netroots play post-Bush?"

        election  of more and better democrats

        progressive thoughts for primaries

        Obama is not my hero,  but he can be encouraged
        Bill Clinton was the best Republican President in a generation
        Let's encourage Obama to be a better Democrat

      •  It is harder to build than oppose. (7+ / 0-)

        Just ask the Rush Limbaugh set.  And frankly, my fights with people here about Congress and the Iraq votes in '07 does not fill me with much hope.  There was basic math that prevented Democrats from getting a timetable for withdrawal into law.  The filibuster and the veto pen.  But nobody cared.  They just screamed about the "spineless" Democrats, who actually had moved leftward at a fairly fast clip between 2006 and 2007.  Since the blogs did not back Dems up, well, then, Dems started drifting and there were actually less votes for the timetable in the summer/fall of 2007 than in the spring of 2007.

        So lesson one to me, is that people need to understand that politics is the art of the possible.  And the only way to change dynamics is from the grassroots.  And to tell stories about real people and how they are affected by how the law is now.  But if it is accompanied by stomping feet, it is useless.  Sometimes it is best to let the stories tell themselves, and try to gently move public opinion.

        The most successful movements have been ones where the activists kept hitting the issues, and spoke eloquently about why things needed to change.  I think Andrew Sullivan has done more to advocate for gay marriage than the usual liberal blogs.  Why?  He was eloquent about it, and drew from his own personal life.  Something to think about.

        •  So true. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MoDem, JoanShearer, beachmom

          I've gone through this on a micro level.

          As some may recall, in 2006 I ran for a seat on my local Democratic Central Committee, and won.

          Seven new members out of 13 were elected.  And of the new members, there were calls for revolution, essentially, throw the bums out.

          I was one of the few new ones who urged caution, and restraint.  I was on the side that won out.

          Turned out to be the better move, because rather than butt heads, we started to show our worth and move things in a better, more active direction.

          Now, there are some who still harbor grudges about that, and still want to throw gasoline on the fire, to no understandable purpose or end.

          Me, I'm interested in continuing to build.  Even though the road is long and tough.

          Sarah Heath Palin, Will You Please Go Now?

          by wmtriallawyer on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:17:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The easiest thing is to let things stay the same. (0+ / 0-)
      •  this is so true (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wmtriallawyer, JBL55

        I mentioned somewhere else that we're like the spouse who just left an abusive relationship.  We're free but we don't know what to do next.  We'll have to learn how to behave in this new relationship. It's scary, we don't trust it yet, but the only way to figure it out is to do it.

        •  Great metaphor (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          juslikagrzly

          And as with leaving an abusive relationship, we must examine the coping mechanisms we learned and used in response to the abuse.

          If we continue to use those same coping mechanisms in peacetime as we did in wartime, we will not keep the peace, either within ourselves or with anyone with whom we are in conflict.

          There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who know binary and those who don't.

          by JBL55 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:55:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  We should be about results not people. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wmtriallawyer, freakofsociety, JBL55

        Some very good people said some disturbing things in the aftermath of 9/11 (including Eric Holden).  I think that it was a moment where peoples worst impulses held sway.  Likewise I think that the next couple of years are likely an opportunity for people who have grown accustomed to behaving badly to be influenced by their best impulses.  We should be watch dogs, but there is no sense in wearing out our bark before the new administration and congress even have a chance to address the difficult issues facing the nation and world.  That said, I'd still like to punch Holy Joe in the nose.

        The future will be better tomorrow. -D.Quayle

        by word player on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:08:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not a response to Bush (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sparhawk

        The netroots sprung up because of the Democrats failure to stand up to Bush. That's why the initial surge came with Dean and his "Democratic wing of the Democratic party". Kos, Billmon, Atrios filled the vaccum left by Democratic spinelessness. The response to Lieberman carries on that tradition.

        While I'm unhappy and disappointed so far I do see a strategy by Obama for getting things done that I'm intrigued by. I, like Scout Finch later down the thread, would feel a whole lot better if some bona fide progressives and voices of change were being included instead of seeing the Rahm Emmanuel game of trashing the left, sucking up to the right and calling it a good thing being played out.

        I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution. Barbara Jordan

        by Lcohen on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:11:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Speaking only for me (0+ / 0-)

        my mission didn't and doesn't change based on administration.

        The same bad strategies are going to be criticized, no matter who does them.

      •  Aren't the goals already established? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wmtriallawyer

        Aren't the goals already established?

        We are not even in control yet. Are the goals not to get progressive Bills passed? Elect more, and then better, Democrats?

        I think the goals are pretty much already established, and I was very much looking forward to getting the job started.

        I see what you mean, about there being no big enemy now, but we are bigger than that. Right?

        McCain: US economic woes 'psychological'

        by DAVE DIAL on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:33:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think we are in much the same position (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Kresnik

        that the christian right was in the bush admin.  The fellow that was the liason quit and said that they were just being used as shock troops and not really given anything they want.

        (-7.0, -6.4) "I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson

        by NearlyNormal on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:34:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  FWIW, I see the DKos and netroots' role ... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wmtriallawyer, creamer

        ... as an extension of what it was during the Bush years, albeit with a slightly different focus now. We ought to continue to challenge The Powers That Be to adopt progressive policies and criticize them when they don't.

        That will mean pushing President Obama to govern from the left and serve the needs of the many instead of the few, applying pressure to members of Congress when President Obama needs their support to do the right thing, and to keep on trying to make our voices heard as a means for making change happen from the bottom up rather than just expecting it to come from the top down.

        Working out the particular details of that role will no doubt be difficult. But Obama himself always said that his campaign was only the beginning of the search for a new approach to governing ourselves as citizens in a representative democracy. If DKos and the netroots can go on encouraging activism at the local level, and providing a means for all of us to communicate and share our efforts, experiences, and ideas to further change, I think our long-term influence is bound to grow in a positive way.

      •  There's never been a question in my mind... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Kresnik

        ...about what we do going forward. As exhausted in spirit and funds as many of us are, I don't think we should worry about having nothing to do except handle the rubber stamp. I think yesterday proved that there's plenty of work ahead.

        (¯`*._(¯`*._(-IMPEACH JAIL HAGUE-)_.*´¯)_.*´¯) It's not too late!

        by nehark on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:56:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  There is a clear role for us. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wmtriallawyer

        The netroots in general, and DKos in particular were created not only in response to the Bush administration, but also because there was a lack of perspective, information and discussion that had, at one time been provided by the fourth estate—our free press.

        Since they abdicated that role, there was a vacuum that needed to be filled. This is it. Sure, it's imperfect and we, as a community, can't fill all of the roles of a free press. But we do a damn fine job of creating discussion, fact checking, adding perspective and other parts of the role.

        There is, and will be, an especial need for this role into the foreseeable future (is that an oxymoron, or what?). Just because the Bush administration is coming to a close doesn't mean that everything is going to be sanity and roses. There is still a significant portion of the electors and the elected who would like to put all of us in Gitmo. There will always be those who prey on the weaker and more gullible for their own advantage.

        We're the firewall of a free and open society. No, we don't do it alone. But we've seen what happens if we don't do it all.

        I say we keep on doing what we've been doing, and do it more.

      •  Voices of comment work better in opposition (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wmtriallawyer

        It's much easier to rally people for a cause that is yet to be achieved than to implement a solution. If the cause you support is out of vogue, rallying the likeminded has no consequences when you have no power.  

        When the party you support takes power, you still don't have any power, just a lot of frustrated ambition. Netroots is just another interest group, but it's not actually running anything. And it's not supporting a single interest.

        The sausage-making of government is always distasteful even if you agree on the ends. And we don't even agree on the ends; what most of us have in common is what we despised.  

        It's much easier to snipe than to govern.  

        Obama is asking for his supporters' thoughts.  Why not start there?
        http://my.barackobama.com/...

        Weighing in on personnel issues will bring only angst -- it's not going to be something we will have any influence on. But we can move the needle on things like environmental regulation fairly easily if we organize.

        Focus on issues.

        Silence is not an effective reply to propaganda.

        by fleisch on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:14:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Future of netroots (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wmtriallawyer

        Depends on the expectations of the netroots. Seems like the netroots is impatient, expect what I call "a dollar for dollar" return in politics. Nobody gets that. You're lucky to get pennies on the dollar, so to speak.

        We moved the ball. We just need to keep it moving. Throwing hissy fits and dividing up the team will let the other side move the ball.  You can't just expect the ball to quantum leap 50 steps.

        Just have to fight on.

        Palin: I can see Russia from my house! Obama: I can see Lafayette Park from mine.

        by Attorney at Arms on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:32:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Learn, teach, criticize, praise (0+ / 0-)

        There's not really much a difference.  The Senate screwed up; Obama may or may not have screwed up as well; Howard Dean did not understand the stakes before weighing in.  We learn the facts, teach them to each other and even to high party officials, and dispense criticism and praise as appropriate.  That has always been our role.

        The netroots is what the Letters to the Editor page wanted to be when it grew up.

        by Seneca Doane on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:36:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I agree, wntriallawyer, that the answers aren't (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wmtriallawyer, vcmvo2
        readily forthcoming and I also agree with the diarist that the liberal blogosphere would be far more credible if we avoided premature emotional reactions to political events without examining what may be lying under the surface.

        Both the right and the left have been manipulated for too long by hot button, knee jerk, superficially defined "issues", distracting all of us from the real goal of crafting public policy that benefits everyone fairly. Instead while we fight our ideological wars, those at the top clean up at taxpayer expense.  

        In this particular example, I suspect that perhaps, if Obama is determined to move this country in a new direction (and I think he is) then he needs more people than the 52% who voted for him. He needs Lieberman supporters and Clinton supports and he doesn't need people throwing attacks from the sidelines. If Lieberman is on board with Obama policies then those who voted with him because they aligned with his foreign policy may well be less fearful of change.

        What's going on with Lieberman is not over yet. We do not have a 60% majority in the Senate yet.

        And I think we should not underestimate Barack Obama.

         

      •  sorry...I meant "those who voted (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wmtriallawyer
         for Lieberman" not "with" Lieberman.
      •  Counsel, I suggest the following: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wmtriallawyer, zett

        While it may amuse us on the left that the same people who held the house, the senate and the white house for 6 yrs running, (and destroyed much of the country in the process) now have the audacity to complain about the "D" party having the reins in all three.

        I have to suggest that there is some truth to the complaint. WHile in theory it is nice to have 60 senatwhores, and a 50-70 advantage in congresscritters, we ignore at our peril the impact that the DC culture has on previously nice people.

        When you are one of the 100, you feel pretty damned important.
        When your are on of the 435, your ego is even larger, because all bills with "$" have to start with you.

        When you have been catered to hand and foot, when your travel plans are special, when your schedule is set up for your convenience, when your job is easy as sin (except for the fundraising - just ask Dick Durbin), when you are rarely in session, and even then your ugly mug is on CSpin, when TV crews search you out regularly, it has an impact.

        Our job is not only to press forward our agendas on health care, war, peace, the ecology and the economy, but to keep our pols in office on the straight and narrow. If they start letting their offices get to their heads, off with them.

        If they start committing  crimes or self-dealing, jail time.

        If they lie, cheat, or have their own enrons and haliburtions, kick them out.

        What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

        by agnostic on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:44:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Pretty good summary of how I feel... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          agnostic

          is in this paragraph:

          Our job is not only to press forward our agendas on health care, war, peace, the ecology and the economy, but to keep our pols in office on the straight and narrow. If they start letting their offices get to their heads, off with them.

          That seems more than fair.

          Sarah Heath Palin, Will You Please Go Now?

          by wmtriallawyer on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:03:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Our role should turn to electing better Democrats (0+ / 0-)

        not just more Democrats and to moving policy decisions to the progressive solutions, not simply the so-called "centrist" or "moderate" solutions.  

        Don't be so afraid of dying that you forget to live.

        by LionelEHutz on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 01:05:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Revenge vs. Reconciliation and the netroots. (0+ / 0-)

        I can only speak for myself, but I'll pretend I AM the netroots. That's presumptious, I know, but ya gotta start somewhere.

        LIEberman's actions have been awful. Do I want revenge? You betcha. Is that revenge really very high on my priorities? No.

        Reconciliation is a much more complex subject from my (the netroots?) perspective. My issues with reconciliation as it relates to LIEberman are the following:

        1. We Democrats are battered spouses, politically. We have just gained the upper hand. We are under scrutiny regarding our reactions while still suffering from battered spouse syndrome.
        1. That scrutiny is irrelevant and we need to accept that. Our ACTIONS are what is important.
        1. What should motivate our actions? Realism and pragmatism should.
        1. Should we blindly follow the leader or should we accept the leader as an equal to confer with, as he publicly requests? Obviously, the latter.
        1. Assuming you accept point 4 above, then we need to consider what is important.
        1. What is important about the LIEberman (or any similar) situation? Honestly, the answer seems pretty obvious. What's important is doing what furthers our goals.
        1. Reconciliation is one of "our" (Obama's) goals. Does reconciliation mean we should turn the other cheek in ALL circumstances? I don't think so. We should turn the other cheek when it aids in furthering our goals, otherwise, a bit of retribution is likely in order.
        1. Reconciliation is very much about training the opposition in what is and is not acceptable. That training cannot work without some tough love.
        1. Ghandi-esque beliefs of all-peace-all-the-time are wonderful ... in theory. But this isn't theory, this is real life. Worse ... it's politics. Part of politics involves understanding that if ya screw up, ya get smacked down.
        1. Taking the high road is a great working strategy, but sometimes, to arrive at the high ground, we're going to have to use downhill grades to our best advantage.

        My personal feeling is that LIEberman should have lost (and maybe still should lose) is chairmanships, all of them. In addition, Hillary, IMHO, should not be named SOS, because of her harsh campaign, because of the open lies she told (Bosnia anyone?), because she really has fewer foreign policy credentials than a number of others.

        I'm not talking about revenge here ... just good common sense. I know I'll catch a bunch of crap for this, but it's the way I feel.

        In a nation that votes for leaders, a "silent majority" has "silently" voted for it's own destruction.

        by FeloniousMonk on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 03:13:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  bushCo is not over. not by a long shot. (0+ / 0-)

        it's not over in damages done. it's not over because no one yet has been held accountable for the devastation.

        over? this isn't something to move on from. this is time to make stands. choices. and moving on is just not possible.

        until accountability has been had. until people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are also held up to scrutiny... not for stupid joe lieberman. who fucking cares???

        but for keeping Kuchinich's impeachment articles off the table. for being asleep at the wheel while allowing BushCo to drag us into Iraq and collapse an entire financial market.

        over????? wOw. we can't be this blind. can we?

        "Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop" Gus McCrae

        by pfiore8 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 04:23:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  There is something some may have missed (32+ / 0-)

      about what happened yesterday behind closed doors - Lieberman pretty much admitted he was motivated to great degree by hurt feelings from his 2006 re-election:

      Lawmakers who attended the session said that Mr. Lieberman openly discussed the political and personal hurt he had experienced when many of his colleagues campaigned against him after he lost a Democratic Senate primary in 2006 before winning re-election as an independent. After the vote, he expressed some remorse for his campaign comments but noted that the resolution did not chastise him directly for backing Mr. McCain, who returned to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to resume life as a senator.

      Lieberman liked to justify his campaigning for John McCain as his putting country before party. I always felt that it was motivated more by his feeling slighted by fellow Democrats who switched from supporting him in the 2006 Democratic primary to supporting Ned Lamont in the general election. I never thought Lieberman would admit as much because doing so would show him to be small and motivated by revenge rather than principle. Well it seemed he admitted as much. Maybe we can hope he got that out of his system and now he will return to his Democratic roots. That would satisfy me.

      •  diary it? (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skertso, AllanTBG, dmh44, pamelabrown, Dave1955

        I mean I know people will just respond negatively and say "oh boo hoo, fuck you (Lieberman)", but this is a new detail to me and definitely worth analyzing. At least it points the discussion topic into a new direction for FSM's sake

        First person to tell me why Joe Scarborough is such a pissy man who needs baby shampoo gets a cookie (whatever the cafeteria has).

        by ronin122 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:14:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Call the Waaahmbulance (5+ / 0-)

        I will admit that I clicked on this diary thinking it was about Joe Liebermans ongoing temper tantrum, the one you speak of above.

        I don't know if he will get over his miff of having the great Joe Lieberman actually primaried and I don't know if it will actually do him any good by this point with the voters of Connecticut. We'll have to wait and see.

        "... the man who used to be John McCain..."-Brent Budowsky

        by dotsright on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:18:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is irritating. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Uberbah

        It's like he did all this b/c he really just needed a couples' counselor for him and the Democratic Party.

      •  Of course, that's totally irrational of him (4+ / 0-)

        since Barack Obama and many other Senate Dems worked their butts off campaigning for Joe in 2006 - some of them even after he'd lost the primary. So his petulance was aimed at the people who'd helped him more than those he has any reason, no matter how weak, to feel "slighted" by.

        But that's just what you'd expect from a petulant sanctimonious schmuck.

        I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong. - Bertrand Russell
        -5.38, -6.41

        by sullivanst on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:29:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Truth and Reconciliation (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rilkas, zett, Shiborg, Uberbah

        That's fine that Liberman admitted something in a private meeting to his fellow Democratic Senators, but Liberman also dissed the Democratic Party of Connecticut by running as a third party candidate AFTER he lost the Dem primary.

        I think one of the issues we are dealing with is - is the election about us or is it about the egos of our representatives in Washington? And is it personal or issue driven? How do we figure in? How do we have a say in our government? Is our vote our only say? If so, then issue driven politics does tend to become personal- as we attempt to replace certain congresscritters with more and
        better Dems.

        I have always been leery of "the more and better Dems" option. I have been disappointed so many times. What we need to do is find ways to hold their feet to the fire, make them fear us, and keep them showing their "better" side. And I admit there is a lot of frustration in accomplishing that. I think that is why it is so disappointing when a scumbag like Joe Lieberman, who isn't even a member of the Democratic party gets to keep a plum assignment that should be given to a Dem, and a better Dem at that.  

        I do not mean to endorse yesterday's temper tantrum, just to admit frustration at our not having enough clout in our own government.

        •  I agree completely (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          justmy2, fleisch

          After feeling empowered by our collective role in the election cycle (a terribly exciting time), we are now faced with the same-old same-old powerlessness we face when, in a republic, we cede decision-making powers to our representatives.

          I have not yet commented on the Lieberman fiasco. I've tried to remain as calm and rational as possible, since it was very clear that people's anger was overwhelming. As soon as it happened, I was enraged, and then realized, this rage is not going to work to my advantage: better to think.

          Last night I realized what the rage is about. Our senators do not tell us why they are doing what they are doing. We are all engaged in a maelstrom of speculation about the motivations and purpose of this vote to allow Lieberman to keep his "tawdry fiefdom" (as another commenter put it -- lovely).

          The frustration arises not only because we are not having our way in the end, and not only because we feel so disempowered to influence those to whom we have ceded our power, but also because the senators are not being up front with us. If someone could truthfully explain the reasons for their vote, I would be satisfied. Maybe I would disagree with their vote, but at least everything is on the table. But here again, what we see is that politicking demands secrecy as regards motivations.

          My support for Obama emerged when I saw the "race speech". Because I saw a man who seemed to "tell it like it is".

          All I want is the same from Obama, and the same from all our elected officials. The nauseating dissembling of the whole gang has alienated not only me, but I daresay a large portion of the electorate and my generation.

          ... salutiamo Barack Obama con un sospiro di sollievo che mai come questa volta attraversa gli oceani -- editorial, Il Manifesto, 6 Nov 2008

          by rilkas on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:43:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  "Joe Lieberman is a Democrat" -- (0+ / 0-)

          So said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid yesterday, so it must be true.  n/t

          Send a message: Unsubscribe from DSCC today.

          by flitedocnm on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 12:47:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  ugh... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vcmvo2
    •  I completely agree with you (26+ / 0-)

      I was tempted several times yesterday to post something on the many, many Lieberman diaries to the effect of "get a grip, people" but I gave up each time, knowing whatever I said would be at best ignored, at worst excoriated.

      But I stand with you on this one - and I'll go further.  I also hate Lieberman, and I hope a real Democrat can beat him in 2012.  What I don't get, however, is how people here - starting but not ending with kos - who've never won an election, never worked in a legislative setting, never lived the realities of trying every day to get legislation passed - seem to think they know so much more than the people who've been elected by their constituencies to do just that.  People here seem to think the election was about Lieberman - I'd venture to say 60% of the electorate either doesn't know about the Lieberman soap opera or doesn't care.  What they care about is getting us out of the deepening hole we're in as a country.

      Yes, I know, "he won't help that, he'll screw us and Obama!".  Pardon me, but I have some faith, at this point, in Obama's political judgment - I may yet be proved wrong, but I think he knows what he's doing in binding Lieberman to him, making his position dependent on the President-elect's good will, and keeping him close, in the Democratic caucus.

      More importantly, while we all have the right to express our outrage, and we should do so, what makes people here think that we know better than Howard Dean and Barack Obama about how they should conduct their business?  We have SO MUCH bigger fish to fry than this, people - get a grip.

      •  Well said. . . (7+ / 0-)

        What I don't get, however, is how people here - starting but not ending with kos - who've never won an election, never worked in a legislative setting, never lived the realities of trying every day to get legislation passed - seem to think they know so much more than the people who've been elected by their constituencies to do just that.

        Legislating and in particular legislating in the Senate is complicated.  Good legislators know how to work the system to their advantage even if they have to give up something in the short term or (gasp) make compromises.  

        Many of us here have an unyielding agenda we want passed, generally an ideologically pure agenda.  The Republican variety of governing by ideology is what got us into the mess we're in today!  I prefer pragmatists.  

      •  good job, taking your turd sandwich w/ a smile (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        James Kresnik, josephcast, nycjoc
      •  Um (6+ / 0-)

        the same thing that made me feel like I knew so much better then Bush & his crew? I hate this argument by authority shit: like I'm not allowed to have an opinion, or I can't be correct, because I'm not a professional politician.

        I call bullshit.

        The great thing about logic & reason is that anyone can have the correct argument, no matter what office they've been appointed to or won. By your arguement, we'd never question our teachers, doctors, judges, cop, or even Kos. You may, or may not, be correct that accepting the lieberman is the pragmatic thing to do: i doubt it, but I could be wrong.

        However, you're incorrect that we lack the moral or logical authority to question our 'leaders': find another argument, because this one is weak.

        *resist the urge to be popular.

        by coolhappyMax on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:46:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  exactly (0+ / 0-)
    •  I Do Disagree With You, But I Gotta Tell You... (35+ / 0-)

      What really pisses me off is NOT that some people think there are bigger fish to fry than Lieberman. And it does not piss me off that some people think that we are expending needless energy on this, and that we ought to move on.

      What PISSES ME OFF is the tone that both you (and, it must be said, Howard Dean) are taking with this.

      I won't presume your motives, so don't dare presume mine.

      This is not, whatever you may think, akin to the reaction of a 15 year-old girl whose prom date broke it off at the last minute. This is not personal pique...nor is it, in your words, "a temper tantrum."

      My anger over this episode stems from a deep and abiding concern that the Democratic Party (in particular, in the Senate) will shaft progressive principles in a New York minute if they think it will come with criticism that they are "too partisan" or "too liberal." As if their greatest concern was the disapproving words of Marc Ambinder, Mark Halperin, and David Broder.

      I have watched it for years. And I worry greatly that all of the changes that we here at D-Kos seek will be swiftly deferred at the first sign of organized and vociferous opposition.

      Will they go to the mattresses on the economy, or the war, at the first sign that the Republican Party and the punditocracy are displeased?

      I have seen no evidence of it, thus far. This was an easy one. The guy has left his duties in the Senate for a year to be the wingman for the candidate who would suppress any hope of a progressive agenda. Absolutely no "real voters" would have had a problem with him getting the axe.

      But the Beltway Media would have had a fit. The GOP would have crowed. The Sunday shows would have been all atwitter about it. And THAT is why they did not act. Not because of the principle of the matter, but because of the fallout.

      THAT is what concerns me. Because the gut-checks are going to be a lot harder when we get to the "stuff that matters."

      "You share your young with the wolves of the nation...
      Theres nothing left til you pray for salvation"
      Black Rebel Motorcycle Club "American X"

      by Steve Singiser on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:05:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I also agree with you (4+ / 0-)

      My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

      by buckeye voter on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:06:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sad day indeed for the reality-based community (7+ / 0-)

      Thanks for putting into words the unease I felt all day yesterday. The overwhelmingly negative response, IMHO, was motivated more by the community's visceral, personal dislike of Lieberman than anything else.

      Moreover, kos and others have been whipping this community into an anti-Lieberman frenzy for days now. Is it any wonder what happened?

      In the grand scheme of things, what happens to Lieberman will matter not one iota. But it consumed all the oxygen on a day that, as a result, saw countless overlooked stories.

      •  this sets a precedent for the (7+ / 0-)

        future and makes it harder for Reid and Obama to keep the Senate Dems in line.  Stupid move politically. The reasons for punishing Lieberman did not have only to do with retribution.

        Any of you defending the Senate Dems on this have any concrete suggestions for what the progressive blogosphere should do to influence events?

        Or are we simply to use moderate language to make statesmanlike critiques of those who stab us in the back and can't even defend their own party against traitors?

    •  Therein lies the problem (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Uberbah, James Kresnik, cybrestrike

      I care about being a part of this community and how its [sic] viewed by others.

      Caring about what the chattering classes think, wanting to emulate them, and even wanting to become them are not good things.

    •  Tipped for (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      perro amarillo, Exile, JBL55

      (re)acting like an adult.

      I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong. - Bertrand Russell
      -5.38, -6.41

      by sullivanst on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:29:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  looks like your exceptions backfired ;) (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2, Triscula, JBL55, kathleen518

      I agree with you.

      I'm plenty mad and more then looking forward to 2012, but we have other probelms.

      Liberiman screwed up and his karma will catch up to him sooner or later

      •  Completely agree. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        drache

        Sure, I loathe Lieberman and I would have taken great pleasure in seeing him publicly stripped of his Homeland Security chair. I would have chuckled and said, "serves ya right!".  I was very disappointed to learn that the caucus decided to let him keep it, however, I'm just too preoccupied with all the serious problems that this administration and congress will need to address that I really can't be bothered with dwelling on the revenge that didn't happen. Also, like most things that Obama has done that have brought criticism, he has his reasons (for whatever meddling he did in this decision)and I like and respect the guy enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.  I'm sure he knows that there was a STRONG desire among many liberals to see Lieberman go down in flames and that sparing him would result in a great howling and gnashing of teeth.  No doubt he had a strong reason for the decision to broadcast a tone of reconciliation.  Could it turn out that he was horribly wrong?  Possibly, but he's got a good track record so far.  I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and as I said earlier, we've really got more important things to focus our energy and fighting spirit at.

        "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Ghandi

        by Triscula on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 02:57:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  You hit the nail on the head, though. (6+ / 0-)

      It's not as if anyone liked Lieberman.  However, the level of unbridled hysteria and hyperbole over this issue was ridiculous.  One commenter even said they wouldn't help Jim Martin or Al Franken -- two people who didn't even have a say in this issue, considering they haven't even been elected yet!

      Markos totally came off as a petulant power-struggler in this issue.  We just won the Alaskan senate seat, the first time in God knows how long a Democrat has done so.  Yet there was maybe one or two posts about that, while there were God knows how many about Lieberman.  Is the progressive base about issues or about personalities?  After yesterday, I had to wonder.

      The Obama/Biden Inaugural -- the exact moment when the world goes from gray to colorful.

      by alkatt on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:49:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If I could shake hands with your comment, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        alkatt
        I would.  You said everything I've been thinking the past few days.  

        This isn't the first time Markos has seemed a bit petulant, and I'm sure it won't be the last - as we are all capable of from time to time.  Likewise with Obama (and even those evil Senate Dems), I like to think that they are making these decisions based on more info than we have and for better reasons than some of us have.  Of course, that trust is placed in some more than others.  

    •  Thank you! This is a parlor game issue. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hawkjt

      I am just turned off by the narcissism.  Like Jane Hamsher whining that Dems had said "screw you" to her.  Oh, it's all about ME.  I can't stand that.  It is unserious.

      •  It's called "metonymy" (0+ / 0-)

        She was not personalizing the insult; she was emblemizing it.  They said "screw you" to all of us and Dean tried to pat us on the head and quiet us down without realizing that we knew more about JoeLie's record than he did.

        It's not narcissism.  We're amateurs in the root sense of the word.  We learn about this stuff purely out of love and caring.  And what Chairman Dean seemed to think is that we were asking for respect rather than expressing heartfelt policy differences and a better, clearer-eyed analyisis of the situation than he's used to.

        He's a great man, but in reaching out his hand like that, he earned its being nipped.

        The netroots is what the Letters to the Editor page wanted to be when it grew up.

        by Seneca Doane on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:54:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I am with you on this (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      alkatt, Yoshimi, pinkbunny

      Tantrum is the right word.  It brings "puerile" to my mind.

    •  THANK YOU dansac! What a relief yesterday is now (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      alkatt, skertso, freakofsociety, kfd313

      yesterday!

    •  absolutely getting tips from me (5+ / 0-)

      I really don't know why many think we know better than Obama. We've been second-guessing him since he announced he was running for President.  Give the guy some room, let it play out.  

      I'm glad to see some rational thought on this.  We're not always going to agree or like his decisions; will we throw a temper tantrum every freakin' time?

    •  Wow (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      baudelairien, flitedocnm, pinkbunny

      I almost wrote a diary with these themes yesterday.  You speak for me in this case. Especially when you say:

      But if we're meant to be taken seriously as a player, analyst, and force in politics, it's time we react to difficulties by behaving like serious players

      We need to get that there's horse trading in politics, and we're not going to start "a new kind of politics" when all the old players are still involved.  It's a slow process and to get anything done we're going to have to make painful compromises.  That may not be true in the Fantasy Football version we've been playing online, but it definitely is in the real D.C.

    •  I agree 100%, but what do (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      clio009

      I agree 100%, but what do we do now? I am surprised that Markos hit the "Publish" button on those entries. They not only helped marginalize him as a serious analyst, but gave fodder to those who seek to divide us and disrupt the goals of getting progressive Legislation passed.

      So now what? First, I think all of us have wrote things we wish we could take back. Hopefully, that is how Markos(and some others) feels about what happened yesterday.

      I have non problem admitting how write Markos and others here were about Lieberman in the 2006 election. But I still did not like the way that was handled.

      I am appreciative and proud of what Markos and the editors here have accomplished. Very, very proud. And they should be too. But we have to stop these virtual temper tantrums and giving fodder to the media and right-wing as means to marginalize the movement. We have not even had the chance for a Democratic President yet. Obama is not even sworn in.

      Markos! We need you to rein in your frustrations and your personal vendetta against Lieberman. Let's just get him in 2012 or if he tries to block the major Bills that President Obama wants passed.

      Please?

      McCain: US economic woes 'psychological'

      by DAVE DIAL on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:30:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think the community has overtaken Markos (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hawkjt, kathleen518, pinkbunny

        He said it himself - he's a guy who built a site.  But lately his writings have reinforced that he's just a guy, and his analysis shouldn't be taken more seriously than any other diarist here.  

        In particular, I had major problems with his rantings on the bailout - in which he at no point explained the economics behind or talked about the financial implications, just reactively said, "it sounds like the runup to the iraq war, therefore we must oppose!!!"

        It's my own personal position, but I think Markos has built a fantastic, amazing community that I'm thrilled to be a part of.  But as a writer and blogger himself, I find him more miss than hit lately.

        Strategy '08: Obama vs. the other guy

        by dansac on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:35:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'll tip you anyway (0+ / 0-)

      although I don't agree with you.

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:39:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I happen to agree with you (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JBL55, creamer

      And I think we totally over-reacted on this.  (I didn't, but I mean the collective "we")  I totally expected the Senate to vote him in.

    •  I agree with you. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hawkjt, JBL55, flitedocnm

      A big part of the "Change We Can Believe In" was ending the inside-the-Beltway game of ideological, partisan trench warfare to the complete exclusion of public service.  And that's the "Change" that Obama delivered on - through the Senate Democratic Caucus - in yesterday's vote on Lieberman.

      Were there grounds for picking a partisan spite-fight over Lieberman's behavior?  Abso-frigging-lutely.

      Would that partisan spite-fight do anything at all to make things better for ordinary working Americans?  Not one bit.

      I'm a progressive because I believe progressive means can accomplish worthwhile societal ends.

      But it's those "worthwhile societal ends" that matter to me: more and better jobs, rebuilding and greening our crumbling infrastructure, renewing our sense of self-respect, renewing our respect in the world, ending two pointless for-profit wars, making sure our kids can get top-quality education, making sure everyone can get top-quality health care ... and a whole lot more.

      That's what I'm here for.

      If progressive means help get us there, wonderful.  More likely, though, some "progressive" means will work, and others won't.  That's inevitable.  Theory meets reality and we find out our Shiny New Idea doesn't quite work the way we'd hoped it would.  So we fix it, or find another means to the end.

      But the end is never and should never be merely to practice progressivism.  Progressive means must not become ends in themselves.

      So sometimes a "conservative" idea will work.  Or an idea from the bleachers that doesn't fit into a "progressive" or a "conservative" pigeonhole, but it does actually work to solve a real problem.

      That's the "Change We Can Believe In" that Barack Obama promised, and the promise that made him the standard-bearer for the Democratic Party and our first African-American President ... and also gave him a hefty mandate to shake things up.

      Part of "shaking things up" is not playing the same petty games the GOP have played for the past 30 years.

      No matter how good it would feel to play them.

      Because playing them is like nuclear war: the country and the world lose, no matter who wins.

      •  Amazingly, watching the TV news last night helped (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NCrissieB

        with sorting this out in my own head.

        I too spent yesterday being furious and disappointed. I posted lots of comments here. Heck, look at my sig -- I even unsubscribed from the DSCC, and sent them what I thought was a very constructive but critical letter explaining why.

        But then I watched CNN and MSNBC last night. What got to me more than anything were the comments on normally troglodyte-lite CNN, talking about how this really maybe signaled a new politics, that maybe Obama really will lead us into a new era.

        If CNN thinks this, then a lot of other people are thinking it, too.

        And I thought: wow. Maybe this matters more than anything, more than being concerned about whether Joe will be motivated by any sense of gratitude, more than whether Harry made it impossible to have any future party discipline, more than whether this gives Joe free reign to obstruct progressive efforts. Maybe the perception, and perhaps even the reality, of a new kind of politics and the credibility and good will that this will lend to Obama, and by extension to his party, will in the long run be much, much more important than any of the other concerns.

        Does that mean I'm ready to shake hands with Joe and pretend to like him? No, and I don't think Barack will pretend to like him either. But maybe this really will be a good start on more effective government. At least, it's nice to think. Time will tell.

        But today I do feel a little better about it all.

        Send a message: Unsubscribe from DSCC today.

        by flitedocnm on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 01:12:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And, the wonderfully funny and cathartic diary by (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NCrissieB

          Bob Johnson last night also helped a lot!

          Send a message: Unsubscribe from DSCC today.

          by flitedocnm on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 01:41:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's gotta be about something bigger. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          flitedocnm

          We need government that's about something bigger than spite-fights, no matter how justified the spite-fight may be.  And yes, it was more than justified with Joe the Turncoat.  I hope the Connecticut voters boot Joe the Turncoat out the very first chance they get.  He is not, from all that I've seen, a principled man.  I do not respect him one iota.

          But government isn't about him.  If the Obama administration and the Democratic Senate Caucus were about nothing bigger than Joe the Turncoat - and a spite-fight yesterday would have signaled exactly that - then I would have been sorely disappointed in "Change We Can Believe In."

          Simply ...

          ... Joe the Turncoat ain't worth the spit it'd take to spit on him.

    •  Pushing aside the patronizing insults, I reply: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dansac

      I know that you are smart and that you car about the netroots, dansac, and I am sure that there are some comments from yesterday that might warrant this sort of response -- no, we are not going to primary 40 Democratic Senators -- but you've given a hard push here so I am going to give an equally hard push back: you are writing out of ignorance.  Unlike some others on your side of the debate yesterday, you are not emitting howlers like "we can take him out of the Chair any time we want!", but still, you fundamentally seem to fail to understand what happened yesterday and what will happen in the future.  Outrage yesterday was not only proper, but necessary.

      I don't know why you would expect flames after seeing two top diaries yesterday arguing that being nice to JoeLie was the right move; you underestimate both the netroots taste for self-flagellation and the desire to be supportive of what is supposedly Official Obama Policy -- even though, if it is that, Obama took special pains not to leave fingerprints on this decision, including resigning before the vote.

      There's no really adequate response to being called "petulant babies" other than an obscene one, so let's stipulate to that and move on.  Aside from not understanding the situation -- you think that dismantling DHS (and good luck with that, by the way!) would solve the committee jurisdiction problem, you don't seem to understand the role of the netroots in the years ahead as regards the Democratic caucus: we are keeping an eye on them to ensure accountability.

      Last night, superscalar had what I thought was a very smart response to me when he suggested that the point of having Lieberman in this committee was that, when he becomes an impediment to progress, Senate Democrats will have someone to blame, now that they can't blame Republicans, when progressive initiatives are thwarted.  Our role is to make that sort of move impossible.  We are here to pee in advance on the "no one could ever have predicted Lieberman would do XYZ" campfire.  If prudence and a love for good policy is not enough to motivate them, we are here to goose them along with fear of electoral consequences.

      No, we're not going to primary them all; but we are going to promise not to forget, we are going to follow through on that promise, and we are going to make it harder for them to extricate themselves from Creeping Liebermanism when it becomes expedient.

      That's pretty much it -- and the louder the threat is made, the better, to have a deterrent effect for next time.  For you to call it a "tantrum" is demeaning and ought to be beneath you, unless you truly cannot conceive of such a thing as righteous indignation.

      By the way, let me touch on Howard Dean, since my anti-Lieberman diary yesterday followed on a "celebrating Howard Dean" diary the day before: he's a man, not a God.  An adult knows that.  He is capable of making mistakes, and he made one yesterday, as Jane Hamsher discovered.  He actually knows less about Lieberman than many of us here, has less of a sense of the dangers and less of a sense of his actual record.  To be fair, it has not been his job to know.  It does not make him no longer a good man; he's still a great man.  But the loud eruption yesterday, which you dismiss as a tantrum, is among other things a way of saying to Howard Dean and others like him that there is expertise here, expertise generally unsullied by personal ambition and elite clubbiness, and if he knew the netroots was going to explode and still did not come here in advance to find out why we were doing so -- instead of dismissing our rage in advance as, well, you invite him to think of us as petulant babies -- then he screwed up.

      Take issue with kos's analogy if you like; I like it more than you did and less than he did.  Take issue with some of the loosest talk, although I think those on our side had reason to scream yesterday.  But dismiss what happened yesterday as a tantrum, say that our role is not to hold even Barack Obama's feet to the fire if and when it becomes appropriate, and you are actually no friend to the netroots.  I'm sorry that we embarrassed you; we did not embarrass ourselves.

      Thank you, by the way, for your excellent work here during the election.  As I think you know, I made a lot more arguments yesterday on this point as well as the merits, which people are welcome to hunt down if they would like (and to feebly snark below about it not being worth the effort, if they really want to engage me that way.)

      The netroots is what the Letters to the Editor page wanted to be when it grew up.

      by Seneca Doane on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:34:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not only do I have no issue with what you wrote, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yoshimi, freakofsociety

      but now I have to delete my diary draft because you wrote it for me. And better I might add. Thank you.

    •  You have my support on this. (5+ / 0-)

      We're in the minority here, but we do exist.  

      The purity that we decried on the right is now being applied by the left.  To want the same litmus tests because we're righteous and they're evil -- well I'm just too old and have seen too many excesses to think that accomplishes anything other than acrimony.  

      I do believe that Obama has to deliver on his vision and his policies.  I hear nothing from him personally to lead me to believe he is betraying that.  We have 3-D chess going on here -- the moves today are to secure the policies and legislation we want in the new administration and the new Congress.  

      After being wrong a myriad of times during the campaign about what would secure Obama's success (and I'm as guilty as the next guy), it's amazing to me the rigidity of this site.  If anyone ever worked for the last Democratic administration, that makes them mired in 1992, as if they haven't adjusted their thinking and perceptions since that time.  And I am most disturbed by a willingness to crucify every choice based on some one-sentence statement.  The Bush Administration filled its employee rolls with young ideologues with no experience and frankly no interest in governance.  I can't believe we're advocating the same approach.  

      But we're righteous and they were evil.  If we operate from that perspective, we'll have gained nothing and learned nothing.  

      Obama ran the most brilliant campaign I've ever seen in my 58 years.  I see him choosing people who know how the various agencies work in order to root out career Bushies and/or stave off their potential damage.  I see experience people who can reach into the workings of Congress that will assure success on what matters.  

      It's been a childish tantrum.  I agree with you.  I'm looking forward to watching how Obama uses these  appointees to achieve his vision.  It will be bigger than my expectations.  Obama always is.  

      If the story doesn't become about us tearing him apart.  

    •  PRIMARY MCCASKILL (0+ / 0-)

      Based on this vote, her vote on FISA, and several others, I am looking to join with others in getting rid of McCaskill.  I have already e-mailed her to let her know, and I've started discussions with like-minded friends.  Any ideas on who her opponent should be?

      Omaha must now be referred to as Omama

      by GenXWho on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:04:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  VERY BAD IDEA. This is exactly what dansac is (0+ / 0-)

        writing about here.

        Clare McCaskill is a freshman senator. Yet, she worked tirelessly in helping to get Obama elected. She comes from a state where electing Democrats to the Senate is not at all easy. Her state in fact will probably end in the Red column when they finally decide who they voted for.

        And she is smart, articulate and has her heart in the right place. PLEASE, do not start threatening to primary her. You will get no help here. Her vote on FISA followed Obama's lead. We can disagree with it (and I do), but there were some legit reasons to have voted the way both of them did on this.

        This is NOT how we should be spending our energy or our time. We have huge challenges to deal with, and Obama needs our support. Going after Clare McCaskill is not supportive, it is exactly the opposite. Stop it please.

        Send a message: Unsubscribe from DSCC today.

        by flitedocnm on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 01:22:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I get it (0+ / 0-)

          I live in St. Louis and know all about her (and some about Obama--I lived in IL for a while, too).  The other MO Senator is Roy Blunt, so yeah, it's hard.  But this year we kicked Roy's son Matt out of the governor's office (and replaced him with a guy named Nixon--it's like a weird name year).

          I'm not really going to spend any time trying to oust her, but I'll go for a viable alternative in a primary, and then hold my nose if I have to vote for her.

          And since we've got a while until McCaskill is up for vote, certainly I'll have Barry's back in the meantime.

          Peace out.

          Omaha must now be referred to as Omama

          by GenXWho on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 04:26:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Childish tantrums in the blogosphere? (0+ / 0-)

      Say it ain't so!

      You are recc'd, dear author. I am with ya. I am also pissed to high heaven, but the most extreme of yesterday's reactions to the decision was ridiculous.

      President-elect Barack HUSSEIN Obama!!! Eat it, suckaz!

      by mselite on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:25:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Far from a temper tantrum (0+ / 0-)

      I voted for change. I did not vote for doing things the same old way with the same old faces. The Senate obviously has not gotten that message, and I'm not sure the president-elect has gotten it either.

      I'm a 48-year-old liberal West Texan who has heard these same things over and over for 30 years now. I understand the need to "reach across the aisle" when needed, but Democrats are the biggest pansy-asses on the planet. Does anyone seriously think that bending over to take another kick in the ass from Saint Joe elevated the party in any Republican senator's minds? There's nothing to respect and nothing to fear. There's no need for revenge for revenge's sake, but there is a BIG need for changing the corrupt culture of the senate. As Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, we've had eight years of "bipartisan" rule -- Bush decided what he wanted, and the Dems gave it to him.

      Democrats have no concept about how to use power for their constiuents. In this case, they came away with nothing and the GOOPers I know are laughing their butts off.

      Nice job, guys.

    •  Well said (0+ / 0-)

      As often seems to happen here, I started the proceedings sharing the majority view, but over the day found myself squeezed by a rabid and idiotic minority (kos included) into a more moderate position. Right now I am almost over the whole thing: I can live with Lieberman if the Democrats in D.C. can.

      The big guy in the commercials would not approve of my use of the High Life.

      by leberquesgue on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:59:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •   A . C A U T I O N A R Y . T A L E (0+ / 0-)
      ( i brought this up in kos's discussion but it bears repeating here )

      SCHILLS ON A BOAT (referring to the recent NRO cruise to discuss the direction of  conservatism)

      When NRO's fearless leader declares that his magazine was not a shill for Bush, he might want to inform some of his columnists on the cruise ship:  

          I think almost everyone sensed there is something liberating about being in a position of opposition; you no longer have to hold your tongue or take it easy on a figure like Bush, McCain, or congressional leaders because they're "your guys." On every bill, issue, and event that comes down the pike, you can call them as you see them. Third, echoing the earlier point a bit, conservatives have been spared the inevitable pain of living with the bad decisions of a President McCain. No more holding of the nose, no more looking the other way, no more   averting one's eyes from the embarrassing out of party or ideological loyalty.

      My italics. So National Review spent the last eight years holding their tongue, taking it easy on Bush, averting their eyes from failures, and deliberately backing power over truth. And they wonder why American conservatism has collapsed! How could it survive the rank dishonesty of Lowry and Kristol and Goldberg? By the way, if you missed the cruise, you missed this:

         

       Where else can you watch Jonah doing his impression of Sarah Palin as a naughty librarian?

      Almost worth the trip, no?
      - Andrew Sullivan

      This isn't about revenge. period. If you were a victim of this war or Katrina or any of the bush crimes regarding homeland security, would you feel a "slap on the wrist" is acceptable? I doubt more than half the people here realize this is about his lack of qualifications + vindictive behavior from what im reading in the comments. (none of his "maverick" votes against democrats were by conviction, but rather, fueled by a palinesque victim-mentality against the valid criticisms of democrats that caused him to vote against the party) There is no forgetting or forgiving. Lieberman must go in 2012. period.

    •  Yes, Yes (0+ / 0-)

      Our collective head exploded yesterday over the Liberman save. My point:  So the fuck what?

      It doesn't really matter what we do, how reasoned or measured we are in our responses to policy or poliltics. Those who hate us and seek to marginalize us will always accuse of us being wild-eyed crazies, DFH's.

      It doesn't matter how hard we work for our causes, how much we contribute to candidates, or how patriotic we are in our participation of the democratic process. We will always be seen by those who hate and fear us as "fringe." That includes Democrats.

      Maybe we should accept it rather than constantly trying to please the mainstream in hopes that they will see how great we are.

      Hello, Senator McCain: 1980 called. It wants its talking points back.

      by Humboldt Jodi on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 12:23:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's perfectly understandable (0+ / 0-)

      From a biological point of view (and the phenomenon of the cheater even exists in bacteria), cheaters are punished in order to advance the community. If they are not punished, studies (in which the natural punishment was hampered) show that the communities collapse; yet they are reborn later and the cycle starts all over. Evolution has by and large ensured that punishment is meted out so communities don't collapse -- punishment comes naturally. We are hard-wired to punish cheaters -- a source of our sense of justice, which other animals also share.

      Which is why I find Obama so extraordinary -- he does not operate instinctively, he operates thoughtfully. He is one advanced form of life and has repeated shown me that he is far more intelligent than I am with all my automatic reactions. His self-mastery is amazing. I suspect he has a plan that will unfold gracefully and we will all be scratching our heads saying "Damn! He's smart!"

      "The survival value of intelligence is that it allows us to extinct a bad idea, before the idea extincts us." -- Karl Popper

      by eyeswideopen on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 01:36:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  you are my new hero (0+ / 0-)

      Yes I am long past over Joe too... but perhaps one day people around here will reflect on the fact that their position didn't even command 25% of the caucus.  Didn't seem to matter to Barack either.

      Why when I think of Bush does the bumper sticker "Chaos Panic and Destruction -- My Work Here Is Done" come to mind?

      by jimsaco on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 01:41:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I LOL'd (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zett

      That is exactly what I thought yesterday.  Big ol temper tantrum. I thought that the retribution plans against supporting Jim Martin were particularly wrongheaded.  We don't need to encourage Democratic electoral failure because Joe got a pass.

      louise 'hussein' to you! proud donor to "White Dudes for Obama" Endorsed 11/1/07 and never looked back!

      by louisev on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 01:58:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I could not agree more (0+ / 0-)

      I don't like Lieberman, but people were being ridiculous yesterday!!! They were stomping their feet and saying they wouldn't vote for Democrats anymore. I understand being angry but acting like that is ridiculous! You would think Harry Reid had hung someone!

    •  I agree with you---and I think that the temper (0+ / 0-)

      tantrums we see here are the reason that people at dKos aren't taken seriously by, well, anyone outside this particular echo chamber.  I remember when Obama tried to open a serious dialog here a few years ago, and was roundly rejected.

      To take one example, the idea that we could originate serious primary challenges against even one of the Senators who voted to allow Lieberman to maintain his committee chairmanship is ludicrous in practical terms, particularly if the Party itself supported the incumbent.  Kos can write books and smarmy lectures to the contrary all day, it's not going to happen.

    •  Same stuff, different day. (0+ / 0-)

      Went through the same thing with FISA, the angry diaries and further diaries asking us to look at the bigger picture.

      eh.  This too shall pass.  There will always be something for us to go apeshit over.  Personally I like the apeshit.  I always learn something or appreciate an opposing POV.

      ~Another Bailout: Joe Lieberman. Who knew he was too big to fail?~

      by CWalter on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 03:54:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well piss on you too (0+ / 0-)

      "The people have only as much liberty as they have the intelligence to want & the courage to take." - Emma Goldman

      by gjohnsit on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 04:14:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I agree wholeheartedly (5+ / 0-)

    DKos was one of the best resources during the election and not just for left leaning views, but all election related content.

    I imagine the traffic to the site has grown exponentially over the last year and that's a good thing. With this new power, it is incumbent on the site admins to speak not just for themselves, but the whole community here.

    We don't need a unity of opinion-leave that to the GOP.  What we do need is a recognition that Kos & co. have earned a very hard fought respect for the netroots community and have a responsibility to fall into these sort of traps of petulence.

    •  DKos has been earning capital for years now (12+ / 0-)

      Not just this year, but it's been growing year after year - it's been a long hard fight to be taken seriously.

      Yesterday didn't help our cause.

      Strategy '08: Obama vs. the other guy

      by dansac on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 06:49:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No doubt. However, I'd imagine the last year (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dansac, Chris Coleridge

        has expanded the capital earned by this site tremendously.

        Kos was not just representative of progressive thought, but the general populace as well.  

      •  Too few good poker players here (8+ / 0-)

        Too many "heighten the contradictions" and play for The Revolution craps players.

        Obama truly is a "small c" conservative as he does not look to eschatology (whether the Christian-ist Rapture or the Marxian "final Revolution" of the oppressed) as a source of politicak salvation.

      •  we arent taken seriously and yesterdays comment (8+ / 0-)

        by BEN NELSON should have been the wake up call.  heck...the official rebuke of moveon over their Petraeous ad should have been a wake up but it wasn't.

        What happened with Lieberman will continue to happen for the next few years and it will be a hard decision to make for every progressive in America as to how much they are willing to forgo in  order to keep this 'unity' that has progressives pushed to the sidelines while center RIGHT democrats reap the benefits of a larger majority.

        This isnt going to ring true for many, at this point, BUT Beltway Democrats who are smug today should remember the lesson the gop had to learn in the last election cycle...   they kept holding out delicious carrots to their evangelical base during every election and pulling those carrots away once the election was over, thereby marginalizing the wants of the base that helped keep them  in power.

        how many carrots will be pulled back from progressives before the same thing happens to the n ewly 'unified' democrats....what will be the last straw for you?  no action on  FISA?  no pull out in IRAQ? no accountibilty for 8 years of crimes by bush and cheney et al?  how about putting universal healthcare on the back burner again? or maybe absolutely NO real progressives in any important job within the Obama white house? How many MORE 'angrily wored letters" are you willing to be placated with for the sake of UNITY?  How much are any of you willing to forgo to keep the dream of unity (that includes progressives) alive?

        for harry, there is no real unity if you keep telling the progressive wing to get lost after every election cycle.

        this is not a threat, this is not a warning, this is not petulant anger either...  this is what is going to happen to if congressional democrats keep telling the progressive base to SUCK IT UP for the sake of unity.

        HEY HARRY, has Lieberman recinded his support for Norm Coleman yet?

        by KnotIookin on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:25:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I wish (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zett

          i could rec this comment a hundred times.  but don't hold your breath.  Some people will always have an excuse no matter what happens.  I've been called everything under the sun, not necessarily on this blog for saying you have to have some damn principles, you can't keep giving passes for everything.  you can't keep making excuse for screwed up behavior and calling it pragmatic.  and more importantly, you can keep making excuses for two standards of rules, one for politicians in washington and one for the rest of us.  I have watch this kind of bullshit for too many years and frankly I'm tired. one guy said it best on another blog here:

          "never underestimate the extent 2 which some will delude themselves into righteous martydom, to explain a slap in the face"

          Progressives/liberals will always get screwed because we are always willing to perform like contortionist for democrats.  until we act like we got a pair we will get NOTHING.  they know we won't walk and that's why they did what they did for Lie-berman regardless of Obama.

          I don't do hero worship.  Obama was my line in the dirt candiate.  I am not convinced by arguements that I trust obama or the dems.  that's the problem with American, they trust and don't hold anyone accountable.  I am sick and tired of the suck it up crew because I've been told to suck it up for way too many damn years and watching what has been unfolding this election and after, I am not impressed.  Am I over Obama, no, he'll get his chance but I WILL not just sit silently when he or even democrats make decision that sell progressives up the river on a burning ship only to be rescue in the next election cycle in time to vote for them again.

          So fine we keep the back stabber.  I won't make an excuse for it.  it was wrong, period.  but in my mind, this action just reinforces my belief most dems are spineless weakneed jerks and i need to start looking elsewhere for real leadership.

  •  Nothing matters except Lieberman (19+ / 0-)

    War and peace, healthcare, clean air and water, workers' rights.. nothing, nothing, nothing... And I'm never, never never going to lift a finger or give a dime for a Democratic candidate. I'm going to hold my breath and be vewy, vewy angry......

    That's about 90% of the blogosphere...

  •  (rolls eyes) (8+ / 0-)

    Lieberman retaining his gavel is spit in my face.

  •   Obama, Lieberman & Well Played Poker (30+ / 0-)

    I cannot take credit for the following analogy having found it at Marc Ambinder's site but it is an interesting analogy nonetheless:

    One of the most important points about winning poker is counting your opponents' chips. Joe Lieberman is "small stacked" in chips and that's why Obama wants him at the table. How so? Because Obama will win those chips later on in the "game." Obama is a poker-player (and I'm sure that Lieberman is not). He knows "when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em." Trust me, he will call Lieberman's bluffing (actually, he'll have someone else call it) when it's time, when he needs the votes for important legislation, for example. And if Saint Joe starts to feel comfortable and begins to "bully the table" again, he'll get called and show his weak hand against, undoubtedly, Obama's winning hand. The President-elect hasn't missed a "read" yet; he knows he can play Lieberman for as long (or as short) as he wants to.

  •  I don't think Obama DID meddle in the Senate. (8+ / 0-)

    Nor do I think it's the most important matter on the government's plate.  It was just the most important matter on the senate dem caucus's plate, and it blew it.  

  •  yikes, it's a Strategy 08 attack! (5+ / 0-)

    you and Slink tag teaming?

    Actually, I think the Lieberman upset around here shows that we're focusing on a defeat rather than a victory, but you can't shut people up on it.

    As far as maturity goes, I think folks are entitled to be angry.

    I just hope we don't spend months on it. Nice to think that "joe user" is considered a "serious player"....but I don't think that's reality.

  •  Tipped, highly recced. Thank you. (21+ / 0-)

    I argued on a few threads that people were making a big steaming mountain out of a molehill, but to no avail.  I fail to see how Holy Joe being given a pass has much of anything to do with the huge clusterfuck that the incoming administration has to deal with.  OK, so maybe in the best of all worlds there are investigations that we'd like Homeland Security to do that won't get done?  Even that is speculation, as Lieberman's power is really at its all-time nadir.  So why keep him?  Maybe BECAUSE he is so powerless.  Keep him to use him.

    I am fairly certain that is Obama and Reid's plan.  We'll see how it works out.  I have no idea.

    But I do know that this is hardly some catastrophic, Constitutional crisis with world-shattering ethical implications.  You'd never guess that to see the rec list yesterday.

    "Wild-eyed" liberals indeed . . .

    The festive scenes of liberation that Dick Cheney had once imagined for Iraq were finally taking place -- in cities all over America -- Frank Rich

    by Mother of Zeus on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 06:54:28 AM PST

  •  Boy, do I agree with this (11+ / 0-)

    And, being in New York, I not only donated to Ned Lamont, I worked for him.

    But the idea, expressed by dozens if not hundreds here yesterday, that the Lieberman decision and possible naming of Hillary guarantees that the Obama Administration will be exactly the same as McCain would have been (no differences at all!), is so mind-boggling that it almost beggars belief.

    And so does the suggestion, also stated here and rec'd, that it would be better for a Republican to win in Nevada next time than Harry Reid. So now we're not in the business of electing better Dems, but electing Republicans to punish the Democrats we don't like?

    Thanks for this diary, dansac.

    •  A republican will likely win Nevada, (0+ / 0-)

      because all of Harry Reid's hard work sucking up to Republicans, is garnering terrible approval ratings. Harry will lose that one through his own merits, without a blogger in sight.

      But the idea, expressed by dozens if not hundreds here yesterday, that the Lieberman decision and possible naming of Hillary guarantees that the Obama Administration will be exactly the same as McCain would have been (no differences at all!), is so mind-boggling that it almost beggars belief.

      So accepting your claim, preventing the absolute worse case scenario is no better, or worse, than restoring accountable, lawful and effective governance. Am I understanding this correctly, or do I have to eat a large bag of stupid to get it?

      This is what happens when Democrats put winning ahead of accountability. -rolandzebub

      by James Kresnik on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:19:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  An unspoken reason for the Lieberman tantrum (9+ / 0-)

    is that now that Lieberman is beholden to Obama and the Dems, he will likely work far more actively to push the progressive issues he does believe in.

    Why does this matter? Because if he does so, then the chances for Ned Lamont in 2012 diminish, albeit only slightly in my opinion.  Removing him from the chairmanship or having him leave the caucus would have left no doubt who CT dems would vote for.

    Now, the door has been left open.  I'm not saying it will matter then or it's a conscious choice now, but I think it's part of the whole tantrum.

    •  I have another minority opinion: (7+ / 0-)

      I hope Ned Lamont doesn't run again.  I thought he's a good guy but a bad candidate and I found him hard to take seriously as a Senator.  

      His campaign, complete with ads starring Markos and others with teenage kids as stand-ins for him, were awful.

      I hope another candidate runs against Lieberman in '12

      Strategy '08: Obama vs. the other guy

      by dansac on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 06:58:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I was thinking something like that (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skertso, Mother of Zeus, pinkbunny

      Not so much the Lamont line but how basically Lieberman kinda owes Obama and the rest of the Dems for letting him actually have something relevant to do in the Senate (since if they took the chairmanship he'd be with more or less nada); everyone knows it, and acting less of a Democrat than he is now will give him the chopping block in '12. I guess if there was a downside to that, well there you go; not sure if this is THE chief reason but I suppose if people thought ahead far enough it could maybe be a factor?

      First person to tell me why Joe Scarborough is such a pissy man who needs baby shampoo gets a cookie (whatever the cafeteria has).

      by ronin122 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:00:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I disagree with this for the simple fact that (5+ / 0-)
      1. Lieberman is no longer a "Democrat", and one wonders where his money and organizing will come from.
      1. There are plenty of great, progressive Dems in CT who would be very excited to get Joe's seat. I've been emailing back and forth with another Kossak on this one - we have a Big Blue Bench in CT.
      1. Unlike most of the folks here, I'm actually opposed to Lamont running again because I'm not convinced he would win. He's also been outside the public eye for some time now as far as your average nutmegger is concerned. And...see #2 and the Big Blue Bench. I think we have better options than Lamont.

      So, I think this is Joe's last show, and I think there'a a part of him that realizes it.

      "The revolution's just an ethical haircut away..." Billy Bragg

      by grannyhelen on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:05:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What's the def. of an honest politician? (0+ / 0-)

      Once he's bought, he stays bought.  I don't think Lieberman feels beholden, at least, to the democratic party or Obama or Reid.  All they did was keep him in the seat that Lieberman already felt was his by right.    

  •  no flames here (14+ / 0-)

    I shook my head and decided it was best to keep it moving. I strongly disagreed with the decision to keep Liberman in his chairmanship role. Heck, he should be thrown out of the caucus altogether.

    But it's too early for me to rail against the Obama administration. After the 111th Congress convenes, I'll be ready to go. Let me get through the holidays and inauguration first.

    -7.38, -5.23 I voted for Barack Obama at 8:31 a.m. EDT on Oct. 24. What about you? Go Obama/Biden 2008!

    by CocoaLove on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 06:56:47 AM PST

  •  IOKIYAROL (8+ / 0-)

    It's OK if you're a Republican or Lieberman.

    Petulance getsyou what you want then.

    The only point I would mke is that we will NEVER get what we want.  Period.

    The leadrship gives us the Sista Soulja treatment every chance they get.  That's just the way it is.

    I see that now.  No progressive agenda ever.

    If I want universal health care, I have to move.  That's all there is to it.

    •  I don't think that you are really thinking (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      teknofyl, sydneyluv, Sleepwalkr, pinkbunny

      about this.  Sometimes you have to look down the board.  It is political decisions like this that might actually GET you universal health care.

      The festive scenes of liberation that Dick Cheney had once imagined for Iraq were finally taking place -- in cities all over America -- Frank Rich

      by Mother of Zeus on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:15:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You'll Have To Explain That One, M.o.Z.... (9+ / 0-)

        How does that work? One of the lessons of yesterday is that even the most outrageous acts of apostasy come with absolutely no consequences whatsoever.

        So, what is to keep Lieberman (or Ben Nelson, or Blanche Lincoln, etc.) from defying...VOCALLY...the Democrats when an end to the war hits the table, or universal health care.

        I think too many folks are putting great faith in the idea that Lieberman will somehow fall in line now, properly chastened, and be Obama's bestest buddy. I fail to see how that works. If anything, I think he'll learn the opposite lesson from this little episode.

        "You share your young with the wolves of the nation...
        Theres nothing left til you pray for salvation"
        Black Rebel Motorcycle Club "American X"

        by Steve Singiser on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:23:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  How? (0+ / 0-)

        As soon as the GOP throws a hissy fit about the cost of it, all the media start saying BAILOUT! GOTTA CUT SOMETHING!

        Andhalf them Dems will bolt.  Bam.  Suddenly the bipartisan thing to do is push it off.

        Ooops.  Now it's anothr election cycle.  Can't do this in an election cycle.  Maybe next time.

        Thanks for playing.

        That's how it'll go down.  Tell me why it would be any different, given what we've seen so far.

        •  Maybe. But there is no connection between (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          teknofyl

          that and giving Lieberman a pass.  None whatsoever.  It's just that people here are so conditioned to be victimized and run around with their hair on fire all the time that they can't distinguish between, say, the MCA vote on the one hand and a political decision about whether to let Lieberman keep the gavel on the other.  Sad.

          The festive scenes of liberation that Dick Cheney had once imagined for Iraq were finally taking place -- in cities all over America -- Frank Rich

          by Mother of Zeus on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:38:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Granted it's unlikely (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JoanShearer, zett, teknofyl, SoxFan04

      But it's possible that Lieberman's vote could be the one to push us over the top on an issue like UHC. Perhaps that's the rationale behind keeping him: He can be a useful tool. (Emphasis on tool)

      The diarist made an interesting comment about "getting rid of homeland security altogether" - and I'd certainly agree. I'm wondering (daring to hope) that perhaps that's what Obama has up his sleeve - eviscerating that God-awful Bush abomination with its Nazi-esque sounding name.

      Because that would sure end up leaving Joe Lieberman to be a nutless monkey if he did that - and that wouldn't bother me one bit.

      This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin' around!

      by Snud on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:39:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe. Maybe not. (0+ / 0-)

        Why would you choose to focus on the LEAST likely occurance?

        I mean... when I buy a lottery ticket, it's possible I might win, but I'd be a fool to count on it to keep the bookie from beaking my leg, wouldn't I?

  •  I railed and wailed at Obama et al. during the (7+ / 0-)

    campaign.  Finally, finally, I came to trust they just may have a broader, wiser plan than I was able to envision (shocking, I know).

    That does not mean they will not make mistakes.  It just means they have earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to screaming they are wrong at full register.  It won't cure my queasiness, but it gives me pause in my condemnation.

    I have a feeling that whatever undue credit is being extended to someone like Lieberman will be called in the future.  I think our new crew headed to DC see some enormous challenges.  They play their game of chess 6 moves in advance.  I'm looking forward to seeing this unfold.  Still popping the occasional antacid.

  •  What yesterday proved (9+ / 0-)

    Is that the Democratic Leadership, at least in the Senate DOES NOT take us seriously.  And if you think just rolling over and playing dead will change that you are sadly mistaken.  There is a time for righteous outrage and if that time wasn't yesterday I don't know when it would be.  Whats so hilarious about your diary is that for all your brow beating of other diarist including the one giving you the opportunity to express yourself on his blog, you offer NOTHING in the way of an alternative.  What "civilized" responsed do you suppose we should have had?  Should we have politely asked for another spoonful of shit to swallow after FISA, offshore drilling and now Lieberman's chairmanship?  You can get off your high horse because this site is all about people being able to vent their frustrations and come up with solutions to being overlooked and underrepresented and sometimes our rants will be rightly riddled heavily with snark.  Maybe we AREN'T high brow enough for you.  Well in that case you can definitely kick rocks.  But what you won't do is curb anyone's freedom to express themselves here exactly they way they damn well please.  It has been people with sentiments like yours that have allowed the Democrats to get our votes without ever bothering to truly represent us because we wouldn't want to look "childish" by calling them out when they throw us and our sentiments under the bus again.  Now I might have respected YOUR childish little rant had you actually come up with your idea of how we should have been expressing our outrage in a supposedly more mature fashion.  Since you didn't its obvious that all you are doing is looking down your nose at everyone else and hoping to get recd for your piety.  Sorry but most of us arent buying that particular load of bullshit.

    •  What your comment proves, (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yoshimi, geejay, Sleepwalkr, kfd313, pinkbunny

      is that there are good reasons why the Senate Democratic leadership doesn't take "us" seriously.

      Pretty soon you'll be arguing that dansac is impeding your First Amendment rights.

      The festive scenes of liberation that Dick Cheney had once imagined for Iraq were finally taking place -- in cities all over America -- Frank Rich

      by Mother of Zeus on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:17:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What your comment proves (5+ / 0-)

        Is that you are a sheep who will keep hiding behind a dumbass argument about being taken seriously when you still can't come up with a way that they WILL take us seriously.  Want to know why?  Because they NEVER will take us seriously unless we agree with them.  Do you think they just said "fuck you" to the dailykos yesterday?  What about the good folks at thinkprogress.org who by the way are under the same umbrella as James Podesta who is leading Obama's transition team.  When thinkprogress.org eloquently and passionately put forth their case of why Joe Lieberman shouldn't have his gavel did that help them make a dent in the Democratic Senators mind yesterday?  When Glen Grenwald writes passionately but eloquently about why they should have shunned Joe Lieberman do you think they listened to him?  When Rachel Maddow who never even uttered a hint of a cuss word eloquently spoke last week about why Joe Lieberman should lose his gavel did they listen to her?  Jane Hamshire put forth a credible and eloquent case about why Lieberman should have lost his gavel did they listen to her?  They gave all of the "high brow" liberal/progressive folks the same "Fuck YOU" that they gave us and that proves that it has NOTHING to do with our approach.

        You and your brood of sheep continute to fight this strawman because you fear standing up and fighting for yourself.  Well I and most of the good folks here at kos realize that NOBODY gets taken seriously by the Democratic Senators except other Democratic senators.  And if we don't do SOMETHING that will never change.  But you can keep on blindly sending them your money and giving them your time while they are making your promises that they never intend to keep.  Maybe you don't realize this but Senators are elected to reflect the will of their constitutents, they are NOT elected to do whatever in the hell they damn well please.  Thats why its called a "representative democracy" I for one am done with that shit.  There needs to be a new day not only here at kos but everywhere on the liberal blogosphere that we will NOT be ignored anymore!

        Here is my idea from yesterday.  And I intend on following through!

  •  No flames from me. (9+ / 0-)

    I know that this is an issue that inspires a lot of heated emotion in people. But surely there is a way to express outrage like a grown up. We hate Howard Dean? We're sorry we elected Obama? Really?

  •  I, too understand (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, teknofyl, Gut Check

    I, too do not like it.

    The Republican Party's agenda to subjugate average Americans is so rotten, it smells worse than the toilet seat on a shrimp boat." Aristotle

    by funluvn1 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:01:42 AM PST

  •  I was childish too until I read Dean's comments (10+ / 0-)

    Dansac: thanks for the straight dope. Initially, I wanted Liberman to get the shaft  BEFORE I read his comments about revenge being a poor strategy for governing and I reconsidered everything. I am disappointed in the craven leadership of the Senate Democrats, but what else is new.

    The way I see is that Obama signaled to the leadership to let bygones be bygones...for now. The option to strip JL of the chair still exists and could happen if he attempts to embarrass the administration with some kind of bogus fishing expedition.

    Once again, kudos for calling out most of the people on this site and other liberal blogs for the same kind of infantile behavior that we see time and again from the Republicans. Let's get over it. The reality is that in life you often have to work with sanctimonious pricks and douchebags all the time. IMO, this is one such time.

    •  hmmm (6+ / 0-)

      The option to strip JL of the chair still exists

      Hmmm, what will Lieberman have to do:  openly campaign for a Republican and openly put down the Democrat and the Democratic party?

      Oh wait...he has done that. :-)

      When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

      by onanyes on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:22:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  A new Senate resolution would be needed to strip (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sparhawk, DelRPCV, Uberbah

      Lieberman of the chairmanship after January, and such a resolution can be filibustered.

      The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

      by lysias on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:26:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They can't even do that until 2010, can they? (0+ / 0-)

        At least, not without changing Senate rules.  They're the same rules that meant Reid would retain Majority leader even if Lieberman had flipped during the last Congress.

        •  No, it was the organizing resolution of the 110th (0+ / 0-)

          Congress that prevented changing chairmanships after the Congress started.

          That was an unusual organizing resolution that was negotiated between the two parties, because of the close numbers of the two parties in the Senate, and the real risk that the Dems could lose their majority during the course of the Congress.

          I assume the 111th Congress will organize itself like almost all previous Congresses, so that a mere resolution can change a chairmanship.

          At least that's how I understand things.

          The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

          by lysias on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:04:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Could never be mad at you BUT (7+ / 0-)

    As always well argued diary. However, it is important to make one very important point

    "He spoke earnestly of the pain he felt when he was rejected by the Democratic Party in his re-election and in turn, the rejection he felt from many in the caucus who campaigned against him after decades and decades of friendship," the lawmaker said. "And that put him in a very different place approaching the 2008 election and John McCain was the only candidate for president who asked for his support."  

    The biggest tantrum of all was on the part of Joe Lieberman. He had his feelings hurt because we in Connecticut felt Lamont was a better choice and he was hurt because people like Dodd had the unmitigated gall to support the nominee of the Democratic party.

    Therefore, the entire nation deserved to be punished, right to choose, our national security, our economy got to be compromised because Joe was hurt. We deserved Sarah Palin as President of the Senate because Joe was hurt. We deserved him spreading lies about Obama so vile that hate crimes spiked all over the country, because Joe was hurt. We deserved not to get a 60 seat majority and Al Franken deserved to lose, because Joe was hurt.

    This should illustrate just what a piece of garbage Lieberman is and WHY this is such a big deal.
    It all really came down to the fact his feelings are hurt. Would that not have been a great combination, him and McCain there at the nuclear switch, volatile as hell?

    A fellow ain't got a soul of his own, just little piece of a big soul, the one big soul that belongs to everybody - Tom Joad, Grapes of Wrath

    by gladkov on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:10:52 AM PST

    •  Piece of garbage, yes. (0+ / 0-)

      Feelings hurt? Maybe a little (since he was the DEM VP Nominee only 8 years ago), but if anything Joe I. Lieberman is a opportunist. If there had been no potential end game in his promotion of McCain/Palin (at first, VP slot, second, McCain Cabinet position) he'd have kept his mouth shut during the campaigns.

      But now, where's his opportunity? Dems will run the House, Senate and WH, his state hates him, and the only cabinets in his future are the ones in his house. So where's the benefit in him rabble rousing against Pres. Obama now that he's been given leniency? His best chance right now is to go along/get along, and hope in 4 that Connecticut has forgotten what a d*ck he was.

      He may have gotten the slap on the wrist in public, but he'll be droppin trou and bending over in private, hopin Barack uses the KY.

      In light of the struggling economy, this signature space is FOR SALE.

      by Gut Check on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:42:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Lieberman doesn't need Obama or Reid (5+ / 0-)

        He has an independent power base, to wit, Connecticut Republicans, the Connecticut arms industry, low-information elderly Jewish voters in Connecticut, and AIPAC.  Moreover it is procedurally very difficult to remove him from Homeland Security in mid-session.

        He's not bending over for anyone.  I can tell you who is getting it in the .... the progressive blogosphere and grassroots progressive activists everywhere.

        •  I kind of agree (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gut Check

          What you say is true but I think Lieberman has run the numbers. If it would have been advantageous for him to become a Republican he would have done so now as he could get the most gravy in terms of switching to the Repub side in terms of committee appointments NOW.
          In terms of polling, despite the low-information elderly and Jewish communities, Joe is still doing miserably. He is propped up by the Repub approvals, his Dem and Indie approvals are in the toilet.
          So in the next few years, Lieberman can make or break himself either way - if he undermines Obama, he will further wreck what last Dem support he has in the state. Or if he goes along on important issues, say a Supreme Court appointment or a pro-choice vote etc., he will varnish his golden boy stature among the Repugs.

          A fellow ain't got a soul of his own, just little piece of a big soul, the one big soul that belongs to everybody - Tom Joad, Grapes of Wrath

          by gladkov on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:10:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I meant to say of course (0+ / 0-)

            some members of the Jewish and elderly communities which are low-information, not all of course, that came out wrong.

            A fellow ain't got a soul of his own, just little piece of a big soul, the one big soul that belongs to everybody - Tom Joad, Grapes of Wrath

            by gladkov on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:11:47 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  my sentiments exactly except.... (7+ / 0-)

    I don't disagree with the Senate Liebermann decision yesterday even though i agree with everybody's sentiments about Liebermann.  Obama campaigned on unity.  It would have looked and been very divisive for his first move to be about this.  This was not a Reid decision or a Dean decision this was an Obama decision.  I voted for Obama for his smarts, his judgment, and his leadership, all of which far surpasses me, and as i have been able to discern, anyone else, i have known or read about.  Was it the right decision?  We won't know for a while, but it was Obama's judgment, and until he shows the American people that in fact his judgment really isn't what we all thought, i'm going with President-Elect Obama.

  •  It's not selling out. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zeke L, lysias, GenXWho, Uberbah, James Kresnik

    It's buying in.  Learn to love war.  Our plutocrats are great people and great Americans, why do think God gave them all that money in the first place?  Our country's founders knew the masses were too stupid to be trusted with direct democracy.  The sooner we all learn to shut up and just let the ruling class do what they do best--rule us--the happier we will all be.  And if sometime we don't understand the decisions our leaders make, well, God moves in mysterious ways.

    /snark

    Main Street before Wall Street! NO DEAL is better than a bad deal.

    by Subversive on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:17:08 AM PST

  •  Kos and the "liberal blogosphere" (10+ / 0-)

    ...seem to be mentioned by the media a lot these days. I understand your embarassment with some of the posts and comments on this site regarding the Lieberman issue. The whiny titty baby act does little to help the powerful image of progressive politics that the "liberal blogosphere" should want to project.

    Thanks for your diary. Fortunately, there are bigger fish to fry right now and Lieberman will soon be yesterday's news.

    ...there's a rose in the fisted glove and the eagle flies with the dove - Stephen Stills

    by NuttyProf on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:17:16 AM PST

  •  Re-emerging. Thanks for the diary. (5+ / 0-)

    Yesterday, anyone expressing the opinions of this diarist, or similar ones, got flamed and pounded, and it was ugly here IMO.

    I have never thought that "politics" is a dirty word, and I'm not just meaning "partisan" politics. Politics is the process by which we humans who have different interests and disagree make usually imperfect decisions that are better than leaving it to a king or dictatorship. So no person is ever going to agree with, or understand, everything that goes on in the political process.

    What matters is outcomes. Now I'm sure I will be bitching about some of those, or the lack thereof, on issues that matter most to me.

    Lieberman is a despicable weasel. All in favor say "aye." The "ayes" appear to have it. The motion carries. Next on the agenda...

  •  Shutting Joe up, going forward (3+ / 0-)

    Should be Obama's #1 objective.

    Had Joe been evicted from the caucus, he would have become a regular on FOX six nights out of seven and adding Joe's voice to the "Obama intends to destroy Israel" echo chamber (as merely one example) would seriously de-rail Obama's ability to carry out a needful agenda.

  •  I'm sorry, you have confused (11+ / 0-)

    "Petulant temper tantrum" with what it really was and is: Righteous wrath.

    And there was an outpouring of it for a reason.  After everything we've done to put these people back in power -- so that they could represent US for a change -- they thanked us with a gigantic Lieberman-flavored "Fuck You."

    You're goddamned right I'm angry.  And guess what -- calling me "petulant" is not calculated to make me any less so.

    •  I'm not worried about hurting your feelings (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skertso, Ponder Stibbons, pinkbunny

      I understand your wrath, but I believe that this community, especially the people on the front-page, should behave more maturely and channel their wrath more productively.

      If that makes you mad, fine.  I said what I had to say.

      Strategy '08: Obama vs. the other guy

      by dansac on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:19:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Phew, no more defining! (0+ / 0-)

        People of Daily Kos and especially the FrontPagers reflects (and quoting) to you:
        anger
        the most embarrassing day
        Temper Tantrum
        'mature' people
        every stereotype of 'wild-eyed liberal'
        childish
        the juvenile petulant manner
        a mass freak-out
        Markos was an embarrassment
        just blurting out the first angry thing.

        Is ist never occurred to you that perhaps the problem of progressive movement is found from the nearest mirror of you.

        •  Nope, didn't occur to me (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pohjola

          I stand by what I wrote.  I've been a member of this site for 6 years and have been through it all with DKos.   I'm a part of this movement and community.

          Yesterday was a bad day, in my own opinion.

          Strategy '08: Obama vs. the other guy

          by dansac on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:07:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Constitutional and Effective Governance (0+ / 0-)

            Constitutional and effective governance will not happen without accountability.

            I think your views will be taken more seriously here when you stop critiquing the tone of very concerned and involved citizens, and produce  substantive ideas for re-establishing lawful, effective and Constitutionally guided governance.

            How many more years of failures and capitulation will happen before we wake up and realize that reinventing government requires putting pressure on both Republicans and Democrats?

            We have to find ways not to accommodate Democrats, but pressure them to perform lawful, effective governance. Because, if we do not pressure them to perform, neither you or I will get the government that we need to see us through the coming maelstrom.

            This is what happens when Democrats put winning ahead of accountability. -rolandzebub

            by James Kresnik on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:38:12 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  ranting won't phase the Senate Ds (7+ / 0-)

    only the drying up of money will.

    I'll just quietly tell the DSCC and the DCCC and the DNC to take me off of their lists; instead I'll contribute to candidates that I like and leave it at that.

    Frankly, I don't care any more about "electing Democrats" because that clearly means nothing.

    I do care about electing liberal, talented, intelligent and trustworthy legislators.  Hence I'll continue to hang around here because this place is where I can find out about some of them.

    When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

    by onanyes on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:20:41 AM PST

  •  Yes. (14+ / 0-)

    We must move forward in a true spirit of reconciliation.

    Not like the attitude all you jerk-off douchebag assholes have.

  •  Not sure I get your objection (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV, chumley, cybrestrike, itswhatson

    I half-expected his next sentence to be, "And I’m going to hold my breath and stomp my feet until I get what I want!"

    Well it may have been what you expected but its not what he wrote.  You quoted what he wrote but other than calling it childish,  I am not clear on the substance of your objection.  The poin kos is making seems pretty clear to me.  The notion that we can ignore party loyalty in the new spirit of something or the other isn't really tenable.  Punishing Lieberman would have been no more accurately described as a "purge"  than the coming shift in the administration which will involve replacing Republicans with Democrats.  In both cases, it is the routine business for a party that has an interest in party loyalty and discipline.  What exactly is your objection to that?

    •  Based purely on the content of what he wrote (0+ / 0-)

      I felt like he was behaving childishly because the content was a ridiculous comparison.

      Appeasing a Senator whose vote Obama will need has no direct comparison to Bush aides in the executive branch, and Markos knows that.  It was a silly, childish, outburst.

      Strategy '08: Obama vs. the other guy

      by dansac on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:21:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But that was exactly his point. (0+ / 0-)

        There would have nothing remarkable at all about punishing a member who openly betrayed your organization's goal and mission.  Raising such a punishment to the idea of a "purge" in order to engage in blown up rhetoric about the supposed evils of partisanship,  invites absurd comparisons.
         
        Partisanship is not evil.  It is the normal business of democracy where people disagree and join parties/coalitions in order to negotiate those disagreements from a position of the greatest possible strength.  Pretending that placing value on loyalty in a party or coalition is akin to a purge is what is ridiculous.  It seems glaringly obvious to me that Kos' example is meant to point out the flaw in this way of thinking.  In other words: If party loyalty is now to be devaluated in the new spirit of something or the other,  how far are we willing to take this concept?  That seems to be a completely appropriate question despite how childish you seem to think it is.  

  •  If Snarky Lectures to Obama are Called For (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    space, Uberbah, mamak

    Then we must snark on.

    The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by easong on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:22:21 AM PST

  •  These remind me... (12+ / 0-)

    ...of all of the diaries where Kossacks lectured Obama on what he needed to do to save his campaign.

    Unfortunately, Obama didn't take any of the advice and look where he is now!

    •  Kool Aid (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fnb

      If the economy wasn't in the crapper and we weren't bogged down in Iraq, we would have been looking at a repeat of 2000.

      Obama's victory came more from the hole the GOP has dug itself into than his own talents.

      •  Bull. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JoanShearer, pinkbunny

        You can't say that, because it didn't happen. Maybe so, maybe not, but you can't prove it. Obama is vastly better at the game than Gore was.

        •  you bull (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gph11

          Obama won with 52% of the vote.  If you don't think this election would have been vastly harder for him without Bush & the economy dragging McCain down and driving Dem turnout up, you're crazy.

          •  Obama won 68% (0+ / 0-)

            ...of the votes that matter: electoral votes.

            Obama's electoral advantage was dramatic.  He could have easily lost the popular vote and won the election.  The point is that Obama could have prevailed in the election, even if it was, as you say, "vastly harder."

      •  I disagree (0+ / 0-)

        There is abundant evidence (poll data) showing that Obama was a strong candidate going into the campaign.

        Obama played the cards he was dealt and he played them well.  Had he been dealt different cards, he would have played them differently.  That's all we can say with certainty.

        Comparisons to 2000 are simply not justified.

        •  Gore was a vastly stronger candidate than Bush (0+ / 0-)

          The point I'm trying to get at isn't that Obama would have lost, but that he would have been brought down by the usual media BS to make it a close race - the repeat of 2000.

          I wish we could swap 2004 for 2008, with Obama being the DNC chair and Dean being our first real progressive president since LBJ.

  •  i continue to blame Nader... (2+ / 0-)

    and that fateful barn tryst involving Granpa Cheney...

    Hey, how 'bout we impeach the people who are supposed to do the impeaching and get some other impeachers who are more impeachy?

    by ronny mermaid on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:23:26 AM PST

    •  that's the spirit! (0+ / 0-)

      I blame Nader for the last 8 years (am serious kinda). Good for him! Glad to know he'll remain relevant only as a footnote

      First person to tell me why Joe Scarborough is such a pissy man who needs baby shampoo gets a cookie (whatever the cafeteria has).

      by ronin122 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:26:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I disagree (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irmaly, GN1927, Uberbah, alexa100

    Some of your points are fair, but this is about how the Democrats in the Senate organize.  Ask yourself this:  Are there more deserving and loyal Senators in the Democratic caucus who could serve as chair on the Homeland Security Committee?  Of course.  In fact, most people think Lieberman has done a poor job in that role.  

    Joe Lieberman should suffer some tangible consequences and accept responsibility for his actions.  Given his actions, the burden should be placed on Joe Lieberman in the first instance to show that he deserves a chairmanship position.  The burden should not be placed on everyone else.

    Senate Democrats have failed miserably to uphold the intergrity of the caucus.  Taking the chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee from Lieberman doesn't mean that Lieberman can't hold other committee and subcommittee positions.  That doesn't mean they can't work with Republicans on issues.  

    •  You don't actually disagree. Read the diary. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      baudelairien

      I agree with everything you just wrote.

      My argument is about the MANNER in which we reacted yesterday.

      Strategy '08: Obama vs. the other guy

      by dansac on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:22:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I understand the point you are making (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GN1927

        but I can't criticize people who need to vent about this.  This is a big deal in my book and if folks want to rant about it that's fair game.  

        A lot of folks have invested a lot into this and earlier elections.  Having Lieberman conduct hinself in the manner he did is unnacceptable.  The Senate Democrats' response also is unnacceptable.  

        Yesterday, I said I will not contribute any donations to the DSCC or any Senator who is known to have voted for Lieberman, while Lieberman holds that Senate Committee chairmanship.  My donations are not huge, but I meant it.  

        Four words come to mind:  Accountability, consequences, responsibility and respect.  I wish the Democratic caucus in the Senate had shown us some respect.  Indeed, had Lieberman shown any respect for his position within the Demnocratic caucus and his appointment to various committee assigments, we wouldn't be dealing with this mess.  

        That all said, I don't deny the sentiment of goals of your diary.

  •  The great temper tantrum of 2007 (3+ / 0-)

    Was the Jet Blue "crisis" that erupted when they asked for their LOGO not to be used on Yearly Kos banner.

    We had a petulant shit fit back then too.

  •  if Liberman votes with Dems 90% of the time (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irmaly, cybrestrike

    why did he openly support McCain?  Why did he speak at the Repub convention?

  •  Balls. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    expatjourno

    ::Holding cupped hands down by my knees::

    An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy. (Woodrow Wilson)

    by Alter Ego Manifesto on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:26:56 AM PST

  •  Thanks for posting this (5+ / 0-)

    I think the obvious reason is that it's a grudge being held against Lieberman from the 2006 senate race. I certainly understand the anger, but the reaction yesterday was very childish.

    •  it is much more than the 2006 race (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joehoevah, alexa100

      Think about it.  Lieberman spoke at the Republican National Convention.  He actively campaigned for the Republican nominee.

      What do you think the Repubs would have done if Specter had spoken in Denver and actively campaigned for Obama??? Can you imagine the right wing blogosphere????

      •  So we measure ourselves (0+ / 0-)

        by the actions of the Republican Party? Yeah, they would have acted like the petty fools that they are. We're better than that.

        And no, I'm not a fool who thinks we should forgive every crime under the sun, but in this case I think it was the prudent move. I'm more interested in results, and on a day when Barack Obama stressed his commitment to science and fighting climate change I think it's important to remember that we need the votes of as many senators as possible on those (and other) pressing issues.

    •  Because obviously nothing that he did in (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DelRPCV, cybrestrike, joehoevah

      the 2008 PRESIDENTIAL race had anything to do with it.

      Is there some sort of pill I can take to join the chorus?

      The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

      by kovie on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:32:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because obviously we don't have (0+ / 0-)

        important issues like health care, the environment, or the economy on which we need votes in the senate. You people act like because some of us think this is a worthwhile gamble (which NONE of us really will know until votes are cast) we're the devil incarnate.

        THAT'S my gripe. To say we're wrong is one thing - and we shall see about that. As I replied to another post, I apologize if I came across as saying that the 2006 race was the ONLY thing that upset people, because obviously it isn't, nor should it be. I was indicating my feeling that it is part of the reason why people were SO upset.

        •  Because Dems can't walk and chew gum (0+ / 0-)

          at the same time, and weakness is strength. You are repeating the same exact mantra that has been used by Dems, and by defenders of Dems, to justify spinelessness and inaction for nearly 8 years. And no one who's paying attention is buying it.

          We can't oppose the Patriot Act because we need to pass X and win the next election.

          We can't oppose the Iraq war because we need to pass X and win the next election.

          We can't oppose the MCA because we need to pass X and win the next election.

          We can't oppose FISA because we need to pass X and win the next election.

          We can't oppose torture because we need to pass X and win the next election.

          We can't oppose judges because we need to pass X and win the next election.

          We can't fight for X because we need to pass X and win the next election.

          Does this sound familiar?

          The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

          by kovie on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:17:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well then I guess (0+ / 0-)

            Barack Obama and Howard Dean aren't paying attention. After all, the American people expected that the first order of business after voting for Obama was that he would exact revenge on Joe Lieberman. Now THAT'S leadership!

            •  Keep at it with those straw men... (0+ / 0-)

              Never mind about his horrible voting record on the war, torture, warrantless wiretaps, his being a diehard neocon dead-ender, his squelching investigation of Blackwater and Halliburton, his stabbing Obama in the back. Naw, it's all about revenge!

              The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

              by kovie on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:04:13 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Absolutely wrong (6+ / 0-)

      This is not about a "grudge."  That would imply that Lieberman was somehow arbitrarily selected as some sort of enemy of progressive blogs and CT Dems who voted for another candidate.  Lieberman built a track record of supporting the most bellicose and regressive foreign policy vision, and supporting it loudly, divisively, and without regard to the damage done to the Democratic party.  He could and can be counted on as the Democratic politician always willing to make the rounds on the news talk shows parroting GOP framing of weak Dems too fearful/naive to understand why warmongering is the only solution.  That he went to the lengths of trying to scare the living daylights out of the American public in his efforts to install yet ANOTHER corrupt GOP presidential administration is totally consistent with his record and is why years ago blogs presciently attempted to defang him in the first place.

      This country has now awarded the Democratic party a mandate to do a complete about-face from the Republican excesses of the past 8 years.  "Democratic" politicians like Lieberman who stand in opposition to that about-face absolutely threaten the ability of the Democratic party to fulfill that mandate and ultimately stave off GOP electoral challenge to the WH and congressional majorities.

      I totally reject any piece of propaganda or spin which posits this issue as some mere petty squabble or grievance, revenge, or sour grapes.

      "If you don't have a record to run on...You make a big election about small things." - Barack Obama

      by GN1927 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:45:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Complete about face" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GN1927

        The country has certainly asked for a new direction. To suggest that the average citizen expects a 180 degree turn is a little much. If that were the case, then there would be no trouble rounding up people to hound their Congresspeople into supporting any number of pieces of legislation that will end up being pretty difficult to pass. Yes, the people want change, but they also didn't vote for extremism.

        And to provide yet another laundry list of reasons why Joe Lieberman sucks, all of which I agree with and all of which everyone has heard a million times already, is getting old. Did I say that I think Joe Lieberman is a swell guy or something? He's a little rat, but it's time to move on, IMHO.

        I could be wrong. And I wasn't chalking up a squabble from 2006 as the ONLY reason, so I apologize if my comment came across as such. I feel that it is A reason, among many. My point in mentioning it is that I feel SOME people are feeling more upset about this issue in particular because of 2006. I myself am upset that that rat is still in the senate, but really, it is time to move on.

        •  I would absolutely argue (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Anima

          that the country has awarded a mandate for a complete and total about face from the Republican excesses of the past 8 years.

          The real extremist agenda was one in which intelligence was stove-piped in order to create a veneer of legitimacy for what amounted to a misbegotten war of choice in Iraq.  The extremist agenda yields billions per month spent on war and none on health care.  

          These are issues on which Barack Obama and congressional candidates directly campaigned and were awarded a mandate to change.  

          Lieberman has stood in opposition to a moderate non-bellicose foreign policy for years, and stood in vociferous opposition to the more moderate of the choice between Obama and McCain.  I have seen no sign that he has had any change of heart.  

          Ultimately, I see Lieberman and a few others as politicians who via their propensity for causing chaos, spin, and sensationalized environments, are capable of derailing the Democratic one party state's ability to provide the change for which the country voted.  And if the change agenda is derailed, the Democratic party will become a minority one quickly.  The fact that minority party status is one for which Lieberman actively campaigned more than deserves the storm of protest which was unleashed against a senate leadership which would allow him to chair such an important portion of this country's homeland security apparatus.

          There is a propensity to dismiss the objections to Lieberman as mere grudges, or revenge seeking, or as Lieberman himself has done, posit the situation as soap opera-ish rather than something which implicates the Democratic party's ability to respond to the interests of this country.  I definitely take your points and thank you for clarifying them, but wanted to make sure that it's clear that progressive blogs have wanted Lieberman out of power for reasons which are not petty.

          "If you don't have a record to run on...You make a big election about small things." - Barack Obama

          by GN1927 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:21:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  If Senator Lieberman is now Senator Geary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV, Rustbelt Dem

    (sans the dead hooker), then perhaps yesterday was a smart move. Otherwise, it was dumb. Faux unity for the appearance of faux unity is still just faux unity. Something tangible has to emerge from this for our side, or it was all just same old same old.

    And I'm going to hold Bayh at his word.

    The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

    by kovie on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:29:39 AM PST

  •  To much analisys (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irmaly, Uberbah

    Man how many Lieberman dairies explaining and excising and playing senate fantasy league.

    This is a very simple issue: Lieberman rejected the voice of his constituency, then he created his own party, then he sided with a 20% approval president, then not only promoted the Republican candidate but talked shit about the Democratic one, then he gave a speech in the Republican convention.

    Meanwhile the Democratic Amoeba Leadership in the Senate waited until the lame duck session to kick this arrogant egocentric traitor of the caucus and take all the benefits he obtains for passing out as a Democrat when he is not. But at the end the Democratic Amoeba Leadership does nothing to put the traitor in his place, other than grandstanding bullshit, and Lieberman shows all of us the middle finger.

    Let me be clear an immature: FUCK THAT!!

    •  Don't you understand? (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DelRPCV, Iberian, Catatonia, Uberbah, Gut Check

      Until every member of this site changes their sig line to "I bow down before my Democratic leaders' greater wisdom", they won't be silenced?

      Resistance is futile.

      The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

      by kovie on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:34:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Uberbah

        Is not that is just they seem unable to accept they been played.

        •  Yes and no (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zett, Catatonia

          The more I think about it, the more I think that it MIGHT have been the smart move by Obama--as opposed to be the Dem leadership. As some have pointed out, he owes Obama, and knows that he'll be watched closely to make sure that he toes the party line. If he doesn't, then there may well be repercussions (or not, as it's too soon to tell how serious Obama would be about that). Whereas if it were up to the Dem leadership, they probably would have just caved without conditions, or repercussions if he strayed again. So if this results in Lieberman being a loyal "Dem", it was smart. But if he ends up doing his old crap again, it was dumb.

          Either way, though, I'm not going to just STFU because a bunch of Obamabots tell me that Obama knows best and I best be quiet and do as he says. People who think that way aren't progressives. They're cultists. Supporting him doesn't mean worshipping him. Clearly, these people came of age politically quite recently, and don't realize that both parties can't be trusted, even if it's in different ways, and that it's our job to second-guess all of them. It's called democracy.

          The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

          by kovie on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:55:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  why are you bringing it up again? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    expatjourno, Gut Check

    If it was so embarrassing, then why rehash it? I got it out of my system yesterday, ready to move on, but you "keep draggin' me back in"

  •  oh go blow yourself... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV, atmplant, Uberbah, demoKatz

    ...I am so sick and tired of people telling me how to act for the benefit of Dkos and the whole left wing blogosphere.

    It is my opinion that very few in the political establishment give a shit what I or any other group of their constituents think unless we can help or hurt them at the polls.  Until Dkos, or a group of left leaning blogs, have the fear generating power of let us say ‘The Club For Growth’ or similar group has on the conservative side we will not be considered anything but an ATM no matter how well we behave by your arbitrary standards of decency.

    Just my $0.02

    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

    by delver rootnose on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:32:22 AM PST

    •  "Go blow yourself" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dansac, Yoshimi, pinkbunny

      For many, that's what blog participation really amounts to.

      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

      by Geekesque on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:54:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh yea I keep ... (0+ / 0-)

        ...forgetting that reading Dkos means we are part of some sort of great high minded political movement.

        Although there is some argument what we are supposed to be doing.  Electing Democrats regardless of how they serve us or the nation or electing progressives or electing political strategists or bashing other people, like Cindy Sheehan, who do more than just sit on their ass like most people here do or is it to support people like Reid when they rollover or 'keep the powder dry' or is it to hold politicians accountable for their actions even if it weakens the whole party for a while.

        You tell me what the charter, purpose and goals of this high minded political movement are and then I will tell you if are doing more than just ‘Blowing yourself’ while you are here.

        We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

        by delver rootnose on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:30:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Getting Obama Elected and LIEberman Ousted... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    expatjourno, George Pirpiris

    ... was all the same mission.

  •  I'm optimistic that yesterday's spewing (6+ / 0-)

    was a one-day wonder, to be shelved in the trophy case next to vomiting dogs and deleted fucking accounts.

    As it should be.

    What is that delicious flavor? Is that what victory tastes like?

    by Crashing Vor on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:33:35 AM PST

  •  Overly-socialized POV (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparhawk, expatjourno

    To couch the conflict in grown-up versus baby terminology only points to the diarist's view of politics as some kind of age/maturity dialectic. Anger doesn't get a cookie. Diarist wants nothing more than for boys and girls to play nice.  Nancy, is that you?

    Meanwhile, those who fight to change things have to keep going, keep speaking out effectively, and sometimes sharing frustrations among fellow travelers. Who gives a damn what other people think of kos? Character trumps reputation any day.

    emerging research proven

    by bob zimway on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:34:42 AM PST

  •  yes, where was that eloquence and elegance (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SecondComing

    that markos usually displays?

    /snark

    in a crisis, we must have a sense of drama

    -- MLK

    by missreporter on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:35:24 AM PST

  •  Most embarassing (4+ / 0-)

    If yesterday was truly the most embarrassing day to be a member of the liberal blogosphere that you can remember then you clearly weren't here for the Great Pie Debates.

    Good times, good times.

  •  I don't know (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irmaly, Catatonia, alexa100

    I think there were a lot of very good debates which took place yesterday.  The response to yet another Lieberman drama was appropriate IMO.  A lot of people worked extremely hard to help seat a Democratic WH and enhanced congressional majorities and should be allowed to express anger with any sign that the Democratic one-party state, because of people like Lieberman, isn't equipped to make good on the strong mandate which voters provided.  This was a big deal.  Additionally, this took place after the election and not during the campaigns.  What better time to pivot to a strong critic mode than now?

    "If you don't have a record to run on...You make a big election about small things." - Barack Obama

    by GN1927 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:36:50 AM PST

  •  REASONABLE AND MATURE? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Front Toward Enemy

    What? We should do that again? Gad, I hate that...grrrr....GRRRRRRR! Stomp, snarl.

    sigh.

  •  Netroots 0 - AIPAC 1 (6+ / 0-)

    Yes, we should take a long serious look at reality. The Netroots went up against one of (if not the) largest special interest in Washington DC and lost. Huffing and puffing will not change things. That there was a challenge at all is a good thing, but we have to recognize that Sen. Lieberman has strong backing. The AIPAC fought to have veto power of the soon-to-be Obama foreign policy in the form of their strongest supporter having the gavel of the Homeland Security Committee. They are in a position to want it and they are powerful enough to get it.

    I doubt this means the US will stay in Iraq forever. It does mean that policy will continue to support Israel.

    That doesn’t mean he pisses me off any less that anybody else here.

  •  Hope you have a thick skin :) (6+ / 0-)

    My advice is to ignore the obvious trolls and respond respectfully to those who return respect. Thanks for the shout-out!

    By the way, to the objects of this diary's title: There are well written diaries on both sides of the debate. Many on both sides reached the rec list. The ones promoting the SANE result (mine, First Amendment's and dansac's) have consistently been rec'd higher. Take the hint.

    •  By the way (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skertso, pinkbunny

      I know you disagree on what precisely the best course of action was; I still lump you with the sane side. The front page temper tantrum was an embarrassment.

    •  it's not a competition about the rec list (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GN1927

      it's a debate about the future of the party, the netroots and dkos, all rolled into one.  No one wins or loses based on the rec list, I can't even believe you actually said that.

      I rec things I disagree with when it's well written, makes me think, and it's something I think others should read.

      The biggest problem with the Bush administration is the refusal to listen to other points of view.

      Mr. Bush, we'll be forever in your debt.

      by k8dd8d on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:15:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  All I meant by that comment (0+ / 0-)

        is that this was an exceptionally poorly thought out "cause" to be championed so vigorously and offensively on the front page, and that this is EVIDENCED by the fact that it is unusual to have so many top-recced diaries decrying what is going on on the front page.

        I agree that it is not a competition.

        •  But it's been evident for a long (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          zett, Argyrios

          time that Kos was, shall we say, unhappy about Lieberman.  This dates back to 2006 and maybe beyond.  It's been building in his comments, and he's justified his being pissed over and over again.  To me, it just seemed his pet peeve and while he might have gone a little over the top, it shouldn't have surprised or offended anyone who reads the front page regularly.

          I don't actually think this is about Lieberman so much as it is about figuring out where the power lies in the party, who answers to whom, where does the blogosphere/netroots fit into the power equation?  This is the transformation from campaigning to governing.

          If you look at it from that angle, it's a cause worth discussing on the front page and in the multiple diaries.  There is a lot of good debate going on as to the role of this blog, constituents, special interests, Congress' response to pressure, etc.

          Mr. Bush, we'll be forever in your debt.

          by k8dd8d on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:16:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think that's a good way to frame it... (0+ / 0-)

            however, I want to focus on this bit:

            where does the blogosphere/netroots fit into the power equation?

            I think that the net roots has to consolidate its power and influence by reaching consensus before it CAN fit into the power equation. This particular issue was bitterly divisive within the net roots itself (and practically inconsequential outside of the net roots.) I think that the divide was fairly even (I read every one of the 1300 comments on my diary and they were pretty much half and half). So the net amount of influence that was available was effectively zero. It was a very bad bluff by kos to attempt to leverage that zero influence so boldly, and it was annoying to many of us on the other side.

            •  but by its very nature, the (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Argyrios

              net roots reaches its consensus in a public forum, so how do you propose it can reach consensus before fitting in?

              It's not like we can go off in a room and have a debate, reach an agreement and then present a position paper.  

              Our consensus is reached, and maybe it's even our purpose, to debate all sides of an issue ina public forum.  We listen to voices that others do not.

              How do we inject those voices into the power structure that doesn't yet acknowledge us?

              Mr. Bush, we'll be forever in your debt.

              by k8dd8d on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:50:20 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I suppose you just have to have a sense of (0+ / 0-)

                what is a good outrage investment. Kos misread his constituency and tried to rally them to a cause that they did not, as a whole, support. Success requires some intuition about the likelihood of reaching consensus, which in turn requires a cogent analysis of the merits of the cause in light of the shared values of the constituency. This cause was not sufficiently meritorious and I think kos was a bit blinded by his understandable and longstanding loathing of all thing Lieberman.

                Of course we are all human. You are correct to point out the difficulty and the need for an open process. I think that this particular issue was handled poorly, but I suppose every set has an outlier or two.

                •  Over the past several weeks, Kos had been (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Argyrios

                  building to this.  I took his vehemence as the outlier, because I agree with him on the substance.  The real debate may be whether his vehemence undermined his substance with his constituency.

                  And yet, on the net, even the constituency is fluid.  IMO, the consensus on the net root will be reached by migration.  By this I mean people will migrate to sites that give them what they are looking for...in some cases, open debate and opportunity to dissent.  In other cases, an echo chamber to reinforce their own positions.  Like generally seeks like, that's just human nature.

                  So all the screaming about the blogosphere being the counter culture to right wing talk is yet to be determined.

                  We've never been in the position to govern.  Oh shit, now we have to put up or shut up and we have to figure out this bold new world!

                  There is value in having a voice, or a cacophony of voices, to the left when we have a centrist president.  What remains to be seen, is how this voice is going to work.  Will its vehemence outweigh its substance or vice-versa?  IMO, only time will tell.

                  The discussions of yesterday and today have a lot of merit towards resolving that.  I still think it's going to be a power struggle between "wonks" and "hacks" in the words of Rahmbo.

                  Mr. Bush, we'll be forever in your debt.

                  by k8dd8d on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:55:02 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  I think Dansac has a thick skin (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Argyrios

      To not take Lieberman's actions personally one needs to have a thick skin.

  •  dansac offers no suggestions for action (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jmknapp, chumley, Uberbah, George Pirpiris

    Note that the people dansac criticizes here at least offered courses of action, such as fielding primary opponents against at least some of the senators who voted to let Lieberman off.  All that dansac and the diarists s/he approvingly cites here offer is measured language.

    Perhaps some of us here need to moderate our language.  But I would like to know what dansac thinks we should DO about this.

    Perhaps s/he thinks there is nothing to do, in which case we all might as well just go home and fuggedabout the last eight years of struggle.

    •  First of all, I'm a "he," second of all... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Argyrios

      My diary is about what it's about.   Yes, it's about style and language and approach.   That's why I highlighted diaries I liked on both sides of an issue.

      My diary is about HOW we deal with these setbacks and talk about them.  

      The "no suggestions for action" is a straw-man, because this diary isn't about Lieberman, it's about us.

      Strategy '08: Obama vs. the other guy

      by dansac on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:25:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  there are 200k people here, and no consensus (4+ / 0-)

    i have never been "embarrassed" by dkos, although i've seen some outrageous shit posted here (how long has it been since the fucking PRIMARY? hello?)...

    most people who come here want more progressive policies, less corporatism, more justice, less ignorance and violence against the constitution - you know the drill...
    and most people here despise fucking lieberman - i for one am not going to rag off someone for going a little bit crazy on the lieberswine issue - it comes with the territory

    james jamerson: genius!

    by memofromturner on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:38:56 AM PST

  •  Dems: Still a bunch of pussies (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irmaly, Hiraga, Uberbah, George Pirpiris

    I don't care if you don't like the word, but I heard it from several of my non-political friends yesterday.

    See, these moves are not received in the kumbay-fucking-ya spirit in which they are offered.  No, sir.  They are seen as pansy-waisted Dems doing what they always do.

    If our anger is justified, then showing it is not "whining" -- it's not acting like a baby.  It is standing up for principles against entrenched power.  Obama is not signalling that he wants reconciliation; he is a freshman senator with no power in the old boys club.

    Markos is right--fuck the Dem establishment.

    Omaha must now be referred to as Omama

    by GenXWho on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:39:04 AM PST

    •  My brother who is a new Dem (0+ / 0-)

      (formerly a Republican) said Democrats and their supporters are too emotional and whiney.

      Yesterday this site proved him right.  

    •  Funny. (0+ / 0-)

      No one who is apolitical knows who Lieberman is.  Don't try to bullsh1t a bullsh1tter.

      •  The don't live under rocks (0+ / 0-)

        He was the VP candidate eight years ago.

        The vote yesterday was all over the news.

        They know I am into politics and the topic came up over beers.

        Whatever.

        Omaha must now be referred to as Omama

        by GenXWho on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:41:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Meh. (0+ / 0-)

          The page three headline in the Tribune today was:

          Obama Throws Lieberman a Lifeline

          A few things:

          1.  Most people don't read the paper.
          1.  If they do read the paper, they read the front page and sports section.
          1.  It actually looks good for Obama because it makes him look conciatory.
          1.  It makes Lieberman look beholden to Obama.

          OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG!!!  oH NOZ!!! :)

          No offense but your "apolitcal friends" are more knowledgable than most Americans.

          •  Fine (0+ / 0-)

            My oh-so-totally-into-politics friends called the Dems pussies.

            But they called the Senate Dems pussies, not Obama (who they voted for).  They're like, Obama is playing it cool, but Reid bent over AGAIN.

            And here's a clue:  Lieberman is going to vote the way he wants regardless of this.  It is all about him.  We could have got him out of this chair and it wouldn't have made a wit of difference in his votes.  There is no evidence to the contrary, and plenty in support (i.e., his long liberal voting record and his home state).

            Omaha must now be referred to as Omama

            by GenXWho on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 12:39:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  My sentiments (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skertso, itzik shpitzik

    exactly. Thanks for the eloquent way you present this POV.

    "One of the reasons we were all thrilled Tuesday night is it was pretty obvious this was a collectively intelligent decision." - Al Gore

    by Marcus Junius Brutus on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:39:44 AM PST

  •  I agree, dansac. I share the disgust at HolyJoe (5+ / 0-)

    but punishing him is trivial compared to advancing the objectives all of us share.  

    Obama is going to disappoint us many times - sometimes because he is caving to power interests;  sometimes because he is a shrewder chess-player than most of us.

    But Obama has given us no reason to shake our faith in him.  If Obama needs to strike a deal with HolyJoe, he'll do it.

    Obama faces a dire situation in a month and a half.  He's going to need support from all over - not just us.  He's going to have to make some sausage to get it.

    That's been Obama's plan -- and his message -- from day 1.  That strategy of cooperation, avoiding poison politics, and restraint - is why he won the primary, and the election.

    I think we all would be wise to support him right now.

    "The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous"

    by al75 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:40:00 AM PST

  •  I fully expect... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dansac, itzik shpitzik

    That Markos will offer a public and sincere apology for his comments.  Or else I will have to put my foot in my mouth.

    Paid for by Bayh 2010.

    •  Toe jam...yum! (0+ / 0-)

      Markos has nothing to apologize for.  It's his blog, his opinion.  Even if I disagree, we are all here at his pleasure.  

      I personally prefer to hear both sides of the issue, and feel I learn a lot that way, but the evolution of the netroots will either separate the sides (see my post below about hacks and wonks) or forge a forum for true debate which doesn't much exist in this country.  

      Either dkos will continue to be diverse and a great place to debate every nuance of an issue, or it will evolve into a more partisan site without the moderating voices.

      That's up to the users and how they react to Kos, but he shouldn't apologize.

      Mr. Bush, we'll be forever in your debt.

      by k8dd8d on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:11:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  </snark>? (0+ / 0-)

        I was poking fun at the statement that Senator Bayh made, hence the reference to him at the end of the comment.  So to set the record straight, I do not feel he needs to apologize (and I certainly do not expect him to).  

  •  an optomistic take (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skertso

    I certainly agree we have an identity crisis in the wake of major success.  Here's a happy thought about the Lieberman move.  Maybe that Environment and Public Works subcommittee will be VERY important in the Obama administration and Homeland Security--not so much.

  •  got room in the doghouse? (10+ / 0-)

    'Cuz I'd like to get in there with you.  I agree; yesterday was a bunch of hissy-fit-tossing, and went beyond silly.

    I hate Lieberman, I hate the decision not to punish him, and I am not the kind to not question my leaders.  Hell, I'm registered Independent: I think Democrats are better than Republicans, but I by no means think they're perfect.

    That said, yesterday looked like a bunch of self-important people going into a fury because the will of the "mighty netroots" wasn't obeyed to the letter, so, of course, heads must roll!

    Yesterday looked less like a reality-based political community's reaction to an unpopular policy decision, and more like some sci-fi-fandom board's reaction to a plot twist involving "Desdenova of Centauri-5."   How dare they marry her off to a Thetian Verga-Prince?!  Don't they know that'll compromise the whole 'Decline Of The Cyclo-Gods' storyline that was begun in season 3?!?!  Shit!

    This too shall pass, all screeching aside.

    "Does anybody know what the difference between a bulldog and a hockey mom is? The bulldog gets vetted!" - Bob Barr

    by Front Toward Enemy on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:40:44 AM PST

    •  alright, so what (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Uberbah

      concrete pragmatic reaction do you recommend for those of us outraged by this unjust and politically foolish move?  Keep our mouths shut?  Actually, I'm not just being sarcastic here.  I'd like to know if there is any effective action I can take, other than ending my donations to the DSCC, etc.

      •  first, accept the fact that it's happened (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JoanShearer, baudelairien, pinkbunny

        First, we need to accept the fact that it's happened, and all the fit-tossing in the world isn't going to change it.  Some people here act like they really think that Harry Reid is going to show up in the news today and go, "Oops, we made a decision about Lieberman yesterday, but it turns out a bunch of bloggers are upset about that, so, we call take-backies!  Olly olly oxenfree!"

        Ain't-gon'-fuggin'-*happen.*   We don't have that kind of power, and - judging from a lot of "campaign strategy" that came from the netroots during the past several months and was (wisely) ignored, it's a good thing.

        Second, we have to accept the fact that these guys are privy to knowledge and insider strategy that's not available to us.  They may know some stuff we don't, and may have reasons for doing what - to us appears to be bad decisionmaking.

        Third, we've got to be grown-up enough to understand that we don't own the president or the congress just because we voted for 'em.  Things will be done that we don't agree with.  We should hold off on stopping-sending-money-or-support-or-whatever until there's a bigger reason to that one or two decisions we don't like.

        I'm not telling anybody not to complain or voice their opinions on this thing.  But some people are losing perspective in a big way.  Will continued complaining actually affect any change in the situation?  I think that, at this point and with this situation, probably not.  And we'd be a more reality-based commnity if we quit pretending otherwise.

        We don't like this move, we've said so, so, okay, we roll with the punch and move on to the next thing.  The Republican enemy is still out there.  Do we want to embolden and aid them with fracturing, or do we want to keep kicking their asses?

        Me, I wanna keep kicking their asses.   Even if Lieberman's a duplicitous schmuck and Harry Reid's a snivelling worthless cunt.

        "Does anybody know what the difference between a bulldog and a hockey mom is? The bulldog gets vetted!" - Bob Barr

        by Front Toward Enemy on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:05:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  so, what do we do when they betray us on a major (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Uberbah

          policy issue.  And they are capable of it -- see FISA, bankruptcy bill.  I'll tell you what I do - I stop contributing and volunteering time. I want a political party that represents me.  

          •  is there a viable alternative? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JoanShearer, pinkbunny

            I'm registered independent, but I rarely vote anything but Democratic... because Democrats and Republicans are usually the only ones that have a chance of getting elected.

            I side with Democrats almost every time, but I'm not in love with any party.  But... are they still better than the Republicans, or not?  We've got two actual choices.  Either pick the lesser of two evils, or work to make a third party viable.  It's brutal, but those are the options.

            I'm not thrilled by a lot of stuff the Democrats do.  Since I'm pro-gun ownership and pro-death penalty, I've often been at odds with them.  But are they still better than the Republican alternative?  Hell yeah, no contest.

            Pure idealism is great and all, but this world just isn't an ecosystem that supports it.  It's sad, but it's true.

            "Does anybody know what the difference between a bulldog and a hockey mom is? The bulldog gets vetted!" - Bob Barr

            by Front Toward Enemy on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:17:31 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  if the Dems prove as ineffective as they have in (0+ / 0-)

              the past two years in defending Fourth Amendment rights, ameliorating economic inequality, and protecting the environment, it is time to begin building an alternative party.  It's happened before in American history.

              All sorts of stuff happens by surprise...the Soviet Union collapsed.  Perhaps the Democratic Party will too.

              •  If we're hoping for a Democratic Party collapse.. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JoanShearer, pinkbunny

                ...then why are we mad at Lieberman?

                Seems ironic that people on this site are so disappointed at not seeing Lieberman punished for being disloyal to the Democratic party that they're planning to turn their back on the Democratic party.

                Kinda like protesting the cutting down of  trees with a write-in campaign, ain't it?

                "Does anybody know what the difference between a bulldog and a hockey mom is? The bulldog gets vetted!" - Bob Barr

                by Front Toward Enemy on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:32:54 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  I just wanted to throw in my lot with this. (9+ / 0-)

    If you think you personally, or progressives generally, were going to get everything asked for, then you were not listening to Obama during the campaign.  

    I don't think a lot of people understand what Obama meant when he said he would reach across party lines and would try and get away from the politics of the old.  That does not--indeed, can not--mean we get what we want, Republicans get the shaft, and anyone who crosses us or our candidate get the icepick.  That's how the Republicans did things.  We don't win by being Republicans in blue coats.  We win by systematically changing the rules.  

    Not having a political honor-killing two weeks after the election was a good start.

    And all the people who think they know what this means, or what it says about Democrats, or what it says about the Senate, or how this will all play out for the Obama Administration don't understand the nuances of this, the traditions of the Senate, or the political skill of the Obama Administration.

    I completely understand wanting to punish Lieberman.  I do.  But I agree with the diarist, yesterday was not the way to move our ideas forward.    

    Goddamnit, people, you proved every day for the last  eight years that being rational, reasonable, and always seeking the truth with an eye to bettering the nation was the One True Path, and by taking it you proved correct.  The Republicans were resoundingly voted out of office, and we were voted in.  Because the American people, as a whole, whether zealously progressive or just middle-of-the-road occasionalists, voted for us.

    BNecause we showed them with ideas the error of the ways of the last eight years.

    And going off on a tear about one Senator out of 100, even if he is a chairman, is not the way to engender confidence.  

    Keep it up, and we will be voted out for being just as nutty as the Republicans.  

    That's how you win.  Not like yesterday.  

    Barack Obama is going to be the next President of the United States.

    by LarsThorwald on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:41:09 AM PST

    •  Except it doesn't work that way... (6+ / 0-)

      ...most of us who voted for Obama saw "post-partisanship" for what it should have been.  Something that sounds great for an election but leads to you getting walked on when you have the advantage and thus not being able to govern.  It's a campaign shop piece that gets rightly retired when it comes time to actually engage in the sausage making of goverance.  

      Obama now has a hardcore political enemy pretty much gauranteed a chairmanship (any attempt to remove him before 2010 requires a motion to the whole Senate and, even if we get Minnesota and Georgia, we don't have the votes to beat that fillibuster) that has the ability to investigate him.  Knowing that this enemy is a mere puppet of the Republican party you know that this enemy will then use the chairmanship to investigate Obama and paralyze the Whitehouse.  He hasn't even taken office yet and Obama already lost it all.  Expect "All Rezko all the Time" (as part of a fishing trip similar to what Whitewater was for Bill) in 6-9 months.  Care to bet $10 on it?  

      "An army of principles can penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot." - Thomas Paine

      by Mister Gloom on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:55:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Except that you're full of shit. (0+ / 0-)

      If you think you personally, or progressives generally, were going to get everything asked for, then you were not listening to Obama during the campaign.

      No one, no one, NO ONE, NO ONE expects that they "personally or progressives generally were going to get everything asked for." Start with a grotesque strawman than that and the rest of your comment is barely worth reading. But just for the fun of it, here goes.

      That does not--indeed, can not--mean we get what we want, Republicans get the shaft, and anyone who crosses us or our candidate get the icepick.

      Strawman number two.

      Not having a political honor-killing two weeks after the election was a good start.

      Strawman number three. Do you have any other rhetorical techniques?

      And all the people who think they know what this means, or what it says about Democrats, or what it says about the Senate, or how this will all play out for the Obama Administration don't understand the nuances of this, the traditions of the Senate, or the political skill of the Obama Administration.

      Yes, good thing we have you to keep us in line. We have had a pomposity shortage.

      And going off on a tear about one Senator out of 100, even if he is a chairman, is not the way to engender confidence.

      I guess not. Strawman number four.  

      Keep it up, and we will be voted out for being just as nutty as the Republicans.

      Oh, you can also do concern trolling. Congratulations. How versatile.

      •  If you think I am a concern troll, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yoshimi

        then you are cordially invited to go fuck yourself.  

        I sometimes forget how condescendingly arrogant we on the left can be.

        Thanks for reminding me that not all the fences that need mending are on the right side of the divide.  You smug asshole.

        Barack Obama is going to be the next President of the United States.

        by LarsThorwald on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:54:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are cordially invited to go fuck your... (0+ / 0-)

          ...strawmen. All four of them. They have nothing to do with the people who are outraged at yesterday's decision.

          Maybe you'll learn to argue without belittling, distorting and oversimplifying your opponent's position, you pompous little wanker. "Condescendingly arrogant"? Talk about projection! What in your comment was NOT condescending and arrogant?  Four  strawmen in one comment is about as condescending and arrogant as it gets. To say nothing of smug.

  •  Poker players (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    k8dd8d, pinkbunny

    I think Obama just plays political poker better than most people and that's why Joe Lieberman is still in the Senate Democratic caucus.  

    Obama is a poker player.  Poker players are pragmatists who are forced to play with and bet on the hands they are dealt.  The same is true in politics.

    The election is over.  Lieberman's chosen side lost.  

    Want revenge? - That's what elections are for.  2012 - no one will argue that he's not fair game.

    But right now, Lieberman is a sitting Senator.  We have more to lose if he (or any other Senator) caucusses with the other side than if we play with him.  

    This also has good optics - for Obama and our continued grousing only plays into the hands of our foes.

    Principles drive elections.  Politics drive governing.  

    Understand the difference.

    I close by stating that Lieberman may be the biggest a55hole in the Senate, although there is a lot of competition for that honor, but at least he's not caucussing with the Rethugs.  

    Besides - Obama owns him.

    "What has not been examined impartially has not been well examined. Skepticism is therefore the first step toward truth." - Denis Diderot (1713-84)

    by windje on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:42:48 AM PST

    •  Nope. Losing him doesn't affect our majority. (0+ / 0-)

      Keeping him doesn't make it easier to override any filibusters. So this:

      We have more to lose if he (or any other Senator) caucusses with the other side than if we play with him.

      is horseshit.

      This also has good optics - for Obama and our continued grousing only plays into the hands of our foes.

      Just wait until Lieberman starts trashing Democrats or undermining Democratic initiatives on the Sunday talk shows. Just wait until Lieberman uses his committee to conduct frivolous hearings in order to hamstring th Obama Administration. Just wait until Lieberman uses his committee to make it difficult to end the war in Iraq. Lieberman's "optics" are a lot better when he does that from inside the caucus.

      Besides - Obama owns him.

      Horseshit. You are so naive.

    •  Obama also understands negotiation and the art of (0+ / 0-)

      your opponent saving face.

      "I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization." Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

      by ggwoman55 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:11:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I am glad that DailyKos has shown its vitality (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dansac, skertso, zett, baudelairien

    I got 13 recs for a comment along similar lines. And this diary as well as similar ones have been on the rec list.

    I thought what they did about Lieberman was somewhere between acceptable and admirable, and while that is a minority opinion - there was a lot of yelling from the majority side yesterday, but also for the most part a tolerance and even encouragement of dissenting views. Some of the recs for diaries and comments of the minority side certainly came from strident anti-Lieberman voices.

    That's why I think in the long run, the "progressive" netroots will be far more dynamic and successful than the opposition for a long time to come.

  •  I call it the day I Stopped (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    expatjourno, smkngman

    Giving money to politicians and spending any of my time doing anything to get them elected.

  •  Another "Grow The Fuck Up Diary" (6+ / 0-)

    on the Rec List. Why do you think you're going to get seriously flamed by writing this? This seems to be a very popular position to take these days, no doubt because it's what Obama wanted.

  •  My diary called for voting him out (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smkngman

    as did others. I hope we'll put our energy into that now.

  •  Just you wait (3+ / 0-)
    He'll fuck us over soon enough. Once a traitor, always a traitor.

    Why do you think Benedict Arnold was executed anyway?

  •  These eruptions occur naturally. I bet you could (0+ / 0-)

    come up with some kind of algorithm to predict them. Don't bother being embarrassed.

    "...there is no evidence of a dramatic tightening of the sort he would need to make Tuesday night interesting." -Nate Silver, 11/3

    by iconoclastic cat on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:47:32 AM PST

  •  No tips from me (5+ / 0-)

    I don't think much of this diary and I don't think much of the Lieberman lifeline. I'm a part of the site and the left in general to push back against assholes like Joe Lieberman. The reason that the left has been marginalized all of these years has been that lack of "consequences" for kicking us in the balls.

    Fuck Harry Reid and Fuck Joe Lieberman.

    I listen to wingnut radio so you don't have to!

    by Sharon on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:47:35 AM PST

  •  I'm a big fan of your work, dansac (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, zett, justmy2, cybrestrike

    But I strongly disagree with this...

    Perhaps most disheartening was Kos writing snarky lectures to Barack Obama on what it takes to govern, drawing a false equivalency between what he did for Lieberman to what he should do to former Bush aides. Markos Moulitsas, a guy who has been on Meet The Press, written two books, and expects us to take him seriously as an analyst, wrote the following passage about Obama:

    Since he doesn’t want “purges” to be the order of the day, perhaps he’ll make sure to keep the thousands of Bush appointees in their respective offices, from Cabinet secretaries on down? That would only be consistent with his meddling in the Senate.

    You're confusing "serious" with staid, solemn and perhaps humorless.

    There can be great seriousness of purpose in satire and "snark," and I think Markos' aim is true here.

    Besides, a lot of lying, spinning fools have been on "MEET THE PRESS."    It's hardly the High Church of Seriousness.    In fact, that reverence for All Things Beltway is part of the problem, and I think Markos' tone was perfectly justifiable.  

    Hunter's analysis was golden too, and more substantive -- as befits a longer piece.   But I think Markos was spot on.  

    We have to stop acting like "serious" = "the way things have always been done."  It's a recipe for more of the same.  

    •  Thanks Chumley, but disagree on Kos (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yoshimi, peraspera, lirtydies, chumley

      I felt that substantively he was drawing an intellectually unsound and disingenuous comparison between a Senator whose vote Obama needs and members of the executive branch.  Apples and oranges, and he knows (or should know) better.

      So his snark was silly an intellectually unsound, which is the least effective kind of snark.

      Oh, and I like your stuff too!

      Strategy '08: Obama vs. the other guy

      by dansac on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:28:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Replying much later, dansac.... (0+ / 0-)

        Two things:

        1.  You still seem to object to snark in general, because it's "silly."  See my point above about confusing "serious" with staid and humorless.
        1. As far as "intellectually unsound..."  well, it may not have been home-run brilliant as satire, but it was hardly disingenuous.   Lieberman was a functional Republican for the past year, and one of McCain's greatest supporters, etc... (We don't need to review that.)   Though Obama needs his vote, he also needs votes of moderate Republicans, or anyone for that matter.  But Lieberman is not a reliable vote.  

        So if your point is that Kos's satire was intellectually unsound because Lieberman is now going to vote with Democrats, and help pass Obama's agenda, just because of the kindness shown him... I say wait and see.  I don't think you can guarantee that in any way, and given Lieberman's history he can't be trusted.  

        But what we do know is that Lieberman was an atrocious committee chair who covered Bush and co.'s ass on Katrina, has been a bellicose warmonger, etc.  He's been a functional Republican on the commitee.

        And that was exactly Kos' point.  If you're going to "forgive" Lieberman's sins with no guarantee of him doing better in the future and voting with Obama (and I'd need proof before I believe the Democrats have such a guarantee, and even then I think Lieberman will renege on ANY promise when he damn well feels like it), then why not extend the same generosity to Republicans?

        Perfectly valid point.  Intellectually sound.  

        Thanks for the discussion.  

  •  I agree wholheartedly. We constantly berate false (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    freakofsociety, pinkbunny

    equivalencies on this site, when made by Republicans and the media, but it seems to be in vogue here lately.

    The only thing we have to fear is fear itself - FDR. Obama Nation. -6.13 -6.15

    by ecostar on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:49:11 AM PST

  •  Equivalency (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RaulVB, GN1927, chumley

    false equivalency between what he did for Lieberman to what he should do to former Bush aides

    Lieberman is a Bush aide.

    •  Lieberman was an integral component (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jmknapp, chumley

      of the McCain-Palin campaign, for no other reason than his championing of GOP foreign policy.  Open ally of the GOP.  Open, unabashed, and divisive cheerleader of GOP bellicosity.  There should be no wonder why the response to yesterday's dealings was so strong.

      "If you don't have a record to run on...You make a big election about small things." - Barack Obama

      by GN1927 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:57:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Daily Kos = Wingnut Talk Radio? (5+ / 0-)

    That's the comparison Chuck Todd made yesterday when talking about the liberal blogosphere's reaction to the Lieberman decision.

    I think the comparison is a stretch, but, the point is valid - the liberal blogosphere is showing some signs of becoming the voice for the rabid fringe element of the democratic party, bashing the democrats and Obama for never going far enough.  

    •  "Rabid fringe" (6+ / 0-)

      Really?  Pray tell me how Lieberman as Chair of the Homeland Security Committee is going to assist in any way shape or form with the Democratic party making good on the mandate to do an about-face from the excesses of GOP foreign policy, of which Lieberman is an open and vociferous fan.

      The guy campaigned for Sarah Palin yet progressive blogs are rabid?  I don't get it.

      "If you don't have a record to run on...You make a big election about small things." - Barack Obama

      by GN1927 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:54:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your post just supported my point. Thanks. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pinkbunny
        •  Your point is little more than name-calling (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sparhawk, expatjourno, chumley, Uberbah

          and does not address the substance of my argument.

          Will Lieberman help or hinder the Democratic party in making good on the mandate to do an about-face from the foreign policy bellicosity of the GOP?  His unapologetic shilling for McCain and Palin for no other reason other than that they agreed with that bellicosity does not bode well.

          Is there any response to that at all?  Or are we going to pretend that this argument is a mirror image of those who believe that the Clintons ride black helicopters and killed Vince Foster?

          "If you don't have a record to run on...You make a big election about small things." - Barack Obama

          by GN1927 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:02:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Bull... (0+ / 0-)

          ...he made a factual argument that showed you were wrong, you with nothing to say said "You just supported my point."

          Bull.  You got owned and your deflected to try to save face.

          "An army of principles can penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot." - Thomas Paine

          by Mister Gloom on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:10:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Dansac... One Hell of a Diary! Thank you! n/t (4+ / 0-)

    Change will not come if we wait for some other person or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.

    by First Amendment on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:50:08 AM PST

  •  I am proud and happy we have the luxury (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, RaulVB, baudelairien, itswhatson

    to be debating such matters.

    I am not concerned AT ALL about whether the netroots acts as a cohesive political force, because when the chips are really down, it does. That has been demonstrated again and again.  When you aggregate thousands of intelligent people, there's bound to be sharp, emotional disagreement on topics, no matter how "united" we are in our general purpose.

    Look at the conservative blogs. Look, if you dare at Free Republic.com. It's just a sad echo chamber, no real "debate," no stimulating thoughts, certainly no solutions.

    The netroots will do what it will do. So far, what it's "done" has been great. Millions of people channel the netroots and the ideas on this site through the national media which no longer dares to ignore us.

    Lieberman is a minor issue and will soon be forgotten.

    Who was Bush_Horror2004, anyway?

    by Dartagnan on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:51:58 AM PST

  •  Best Diary Ever (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, UndercoverRxer

    Now that we're in power, it's time we start growing up a little.

    "just give me some truth" --John Lennon

    by vernon nackulus on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:52:20 AM PST

  •  Anger (and rage) need to be expressed. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catatonia, stillwaters

    Our feelings are legitimate, and our Senators need to know what they are. That's communication. Maybe if we had done so more in the past we wouldn't have had to suffer the Lieberman stiffarm we just got in the face.

    No one got hit yesterday with anything harder than light waves emanating from their computer screen. If Lieberman refused to investigate New Orleans because of hurt feelings then he doesn't belong anywhere near politics at any level. Just what about the citizens of New Orleans says don't worry about us Joe, just take care of your ego.

    When they let us sit down at the table when they're making these decisions and calmly discuss them maybe we won't have to shout, but right now it's like we're talking to them through a thick wall.  And yes the Lieberman decision reminded us all that complacency is no help to democracy.  Our Senators are big boys and girls. They should have serious primary challengers every time around. Democracy is about us not them.

    These sorts of things are what spur people to action, and I won't be forgetting this one for two years.  We'll have another chance to get him away from where he does not belong and apparently we'll need to be more prepared next time, starting now. But anyway, thanks for the opportunity to communicate further.

    Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists. Herein lies the peace of God. A Course in Miracles.

    by Steven wonders on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:53:09 AM PST

  •  This was my thoughts on Obama's "Change" (4+ / 0-)

    Allowing Joe to keep his chairmanship is what he was preaching. It was the reason I didn't support him in the Caucus because I didn't think being adult and respectful would win (I am a recovering 2-time Edwards chair).

    Well, he proved me wrong. And I find his lack of pettiness refreshing.

    Joe is weakened and can't do much right now. His only hope is to try and win back the hearts of his constituents back home. His state is a very blue state and will not accept him if he is a problem for Obama.

    And for those claiming he is leveraging for Repug positions. Think:

    1. It got him nothing this time.
    1. The only way Repugs in the party would have accepted him was if he had to pay some sort of price to the Dems so he could be seen as a political victim (that option is gone).
    1. Moderate Repugs have no power in their party, why would he?

    You usually get what you paid for.

    by IowaMike on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:54:17 AM PST

  •  first may I preface this by saying... (8+ / 0-)

    I am a 62 year old gent.

    Yesterday I was angry, but my anger was directed to the Senate. Obama, I've not seen him make any serious errors in judgement (fisa?) and his instincts are admirable. I am trusting him to this point in time and will cut him slack for quite the period of time.

    My beef is with the Senate. Look at the pictures of the members. Most, it would seem, are senior to me. They've been holding their Senate seats for term after term. We are living in the 21st Century and need an understanding of 21st Century economics and tecnology. How many of our seated Sentors have a true understanding of our future? I fear few.

    Their experience is in how to play the game and not getting the best results for the Nation as a whole. Yesterday I read on TPM that Senator Levin was looking for a workaround for the $25 billion targeted for the auto industry, Detroit. A means of  getting around the enviromental restrictions placed on the release of those monies to Detriot. Levin, Dingle two of those resposible for our capitulation to Detroit over the past 30 years. And here we go, more of the same bullshit from the both of them.

    This election was about change. We need change in our Senators as well. We need to bring intelligence, copurage back to the fore. Many of our sitting Senators know no such thing.

    The netroots... change the Senate including our own party and incumbents, the Democrats.

    "Be convinced that to be happy means to be free and that to be free means to be brave." - Thucydides

    by JasperJohns on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:54:35 AM PST

  •  meh. n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    expatjourno, GenXWho, Words In Action

    "History is a tragedy, not a melodrama." - I.F.Stone

    by bigchin on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 07:55:29 AM PST

  •  Markos the Baby (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, candid psychiatrist, kfd313

    Sorry kos, but I have to agree with Dansac on this one.  There was nothing reasonable or particularly thoughtful in what you posted yesterday on this subject.  You came off sounding like Ashton Kutcher did last Friday night on the Bill Maher show: intelligent but flighty.

  •  Amen brother (or sister)! n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thebluecrayon
  •  I've mixed feelings about your dairy and they are (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lirtydies, Shiborg, BlueInARedState

    thus:

    1.  I despise Lieberman the politician and always have.  Perhaps he has a function in the Senate and the Democratic Party but he isn't the face or leadership of either of them in my opinion.  At best, Lieberman should occupy a supporting role. I believe one of Gore's biggest mistakes was choosing Lieberman as VP and by inference bestowing party leadership upon him.  Whatever good qualities Lieberman may or may not have, personality and charisma are both severely lacking; therefore, from a strickly marketing point of view (yes, politics is marketing) he was always a non-player.  Yet, his ego prevents him from recognizing this.
    1.  The outrage expressed yesterday did go to extremes which was to be expected, undesired but expected nonetheless.  We are a community are we not?  However, Lieberman's smiling countenance over the shoulder of Reid during the presser was just salt in an open wound.  I do intend to campaign heartily for Democratic oponents for both Reid and Lieberman and am actively seeking more objects to satisfy my ire and exercise my newfound political clout, as should we all.  Shame on everyone that went to the extremes of bashing Obama specifically (more to follow on this) and/or calls to deny support for the Martin campaign in Georgia.  If anyone in the GOP is evil incarnate and deserves removal, its Saxby Chambliss regardless of the super-majority goal.
    1.  I personally believe that Barack sent a clear signal to his Senate colleagues to strip Lieberman of his HLSC chairmanship and they were too cowardly to follow through.  Given the opportunity to express his opinion on Lieberman, Obama said that he wished for him to remain in the Democratic caucus.  Provided Obama's oratory and political skills, the fact that he did not specifically endorse Lieberman to retain the HLSC chairmanship speaks volumes and, I believe that he may be as dissappointed as we are at the lack of meaningful action taken against Lieberman yesterday.  The Democratic caucus lost a valuable opportunity to powerfully send the message of a new dawn.  Lieberman should be ashamed that the majority of his support rests in the hands of the GOP and 43 timid Senate colleagues.  He should be ashamed also that he might be the reason for their perhaps premature political demise.  But such timerity should never be rewarded

    Howard Dean was wrong in even using the word "revenge."  After years of unrequieted outrage over the abuses of this administration and its minions, the progressives who toiled to get Obama elected rightfully deserved to expect a modicum of instantaneous gratification in Lieberman's comeuppance.  Lieberman was and remains an affront to the 24 months of heartfelt effort that was poured into Obama's campaign and represents every lie, obfuscation and out of context accusation lobbed in Barack's (and ours by association) direction.  This voting bloc is righteously tired of being bullied and taken lightly so get used to a bit of posing.  Our time has come and it's long overdue.

    KOS, your mission is to be our collective memory to marshall us when the time nears for yesterday's frustrated retribution to be allocated amongst Lieberman supporters as their re-election nears.  We should not allow ourselves to be dismissed so lightly.

    ..most profound moments of my life...the last few -- And, for Global COOLING, if it's man-made and doesn't move, paint it WHITE!

    by tristan57 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:00:11 AM PST

  •  Count me among the crybabies, then. (11+ / 0-)

    I don't think we should primary every Democratic senator.

    But I do think we need better leadership in the Senate.  Harry Reid has been a total failure and an embarrassment in his leadership position, and the very reasons for selecting him as leader no longer exist.

    Remember, he was tapped in 2004, after the humiliating defeat at the hands of "values voters."  So the Dems picked a conservative from a red state who hates abortion, just to prove that Democrats have "values" too.

    Well, the times have changes.  Those values voters have pretty much been replaced by the "it's the economy, stupid" voters and the "dear god, no more Bush" voters.

    And Nevada is a blue state now.

    And all Harry has done for the past four years is make pathetic excuses for why he can't actually be a leader.  Yesterday was a pure test of his leadership.  The choice was simple.  There were no consequences, and it didn't involve standing up to Republicans.  And yet, Harry still failed, and failed miserably, and, to add insult to injury, announced in the press conference that he wouldn't apologize for his failure because he's "proud" of his pathetic capitulation to the temper tantrums of Joe Lieberman.

    So if wanting to have a true Democrat as the leader in the majority makes me a crybaby, so be it.  But getting rid of Reid is a priority for me (along with a long list of other priorities).

    I want him out of the leadership, and I want him out of the Senate.

    More, better Democrats.  Period.

    Hope you enjoyed it, Sarah, 'cause we just kicked your silly winking folksy lipsticked ass back to Alaska. For good. Also.

    by Kaili Joy Gray on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:00:14 AM PST

    •  You're only a "crybaby" (7+ / 0-)

      when you're angry and snarky about the Lieberman decision yesterday.

      Being angry and snarky at those who were angry and snarky about the Lieberman decision yesterday = "mature" and "serious."

      We have been schooled.

      •  Apparently. (8+ / 0-)

        After some of the shit that went down during the primaries (or some of the shit people posted when Tim Russert died), I suppose all I can do is laugh at the accusation that the reaction to the Lieberman is the greatest shame of the blogosphere.

        I seem to recall a number of rather serious posts that Obama couldn't tap Hillary as his VP because she would plot to have him assassinated.  Oh, but that wasn't embarrassing.  No, what's embarrassing is Democrats being upset that they worked their ass off to elect more, better Democrats, only to have those Democrats decide to honor a Republican as one of the senior members of "their" party.

        Oh well.  It's always good to be surprised at the reactions on DailyKos.  Keeps me on my toes.

        Hope you enjoyed it, Sarah, 'cause we just kicked your silly winking folksy lipsticked ass back to Alaska. For good. Also.

        by Kaili Joy Gray on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:14:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Reading some of these comments... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thebluecrayon

    You know, if this was the prevailing attitude back in 06, Ned Lamont might have gotten all of $20 in netroots donations. Weird.

  •  This diary is interesting in light of (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lirtydies, kfd313, island in alabama

    the Rahm Emanuel book I am reading, The Plan, co-written with Bruce Reed.  I figured if this guy is whispering in Obama's ear, I'd like to know what he thinks.  Anyway, he discusses the balance of power and decision making in Washington as a sort of struggle between what he calls Wonks vs. Hacks.....the constant negotiation between policy theory and political partisanship/maneuvering.

    I would call Kos a Hack, the diarist a Wonk, and both are necessary to balance each other out.

    As for what that means for the future of the netroots, I would submit that will depend upon how that balance plays out in the Obama administration.

    In Bush's White House, it was all Hack, with no policy apparatus, and therein lied a lot of the problem.

    Just saying it's something to think about.

    Mr. Bush, we'll be forever in your debt.

    by k8dd8d on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:03:35 AM PST

    •  Re (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Words In Action

      I would call Kos a Hack, the diarist a Wonk, and both are necessary to balance each other out.

      Really? What will Lieberman controlling the Homeland Security committee do for policy?

      •  nothing (0+ / 0-)

        but in the grander scheme of things, Obama wanted him there.  I disagree heartily, but my point is that time will tell how the balance between policy and politics plays out.  Obama made the choice, this time, for politics.  

        I think he is the rare politician who does understand both sides of the struggle.

        I also think this struggle is happening here on dkos as well.  In the shift from campaigning to governing, dkos and other netroots activist blogs and bloggers will have to redefine their roles.

        We've not been in power since the blogosphere came into existence, so there'll be some pain, some changes while it evolves.

        I was attracted to the way that Emanuel described it in his book, and happy to know this guy is working with Obama, because he too gets that governing is different than campaigning.

        Mr. Bush, we'll be forever in your debt.

        by k8dd8d on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:06:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well, your first mistake is to read (0+ / 0-)

      Emanuel without acknowledging that he is a career politician who would gladly achieve half as much if can stay twice as long in DC.

      And Emanuel is the hack pretending to be a wonk.

      DLCers like Emanuel cannot be the foundation of significant progress. They do incrementalism, poorly, bceause they just want to be around.

      Kos, IMHO, is simply a predominantly Netroots-based commentator and organizer (for fundraising, etc.).

      I coudl be wroing, but I don't think the diarist is a player any more than you or I.

      If your actions speak louder than your words, you're not yelling loud enough. - Stephen Colbert

      by Words In Action on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:02:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This was planned weeks ago. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    exreaganite, catilinus, sethtriggs

    this was not a last minute decision. The rehabilitation of Joe L was a step in getting close to a filibuster proof majority, it was always a plan because the theory was a 58 or 59 or 60 Dem majority wasn't solid, it might slip on whatever the issue was requiring a fierce contest.

    Perhaps 1 or 2 or more Repubs would agree. perhaps not.

    But there are a couple of issues like health care transform, the vote checkoff for unions, and others that the Repubs  had a TO THE DEATH ATTITUDE ON.

      the chances of chairless Joe L simply being petulant and voting no to 'punish' his former colleagues was great enough for them to leave him be. As a tactical move in  the  strategic plan to win a few big battles down the road.

     I believe the guy is worse than  useless, but this is politics and a hit on Joe Lieberman should be when it suits the big picture, not to have a thrill of a lynching yesterday, then  A 24 HOUR ORGY OF REJOICING AROUND HERE AND THEN MOVING ON TO THE NEXT TOPIC DU JOUR.

    I am calm now. I wrote my pissy comments , all half dozen of them yesterday. Joe will be dealt with in Connecticut if the oppo gets organized and solid enough.

    cast away illusions, prepare for struggle

    by Pete Rock on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:03:56 AM PST

  •  Not sure I see the problem (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catatonia, Shiborg, Words In Action

    I half-expected his next sentence to be, “And I’m going to hold my breath and stomp my feet until I get what I want!”

    And it wasn't, was it?

    Perhaps most disheartening was Kos writing snarky lectures to Barack Obama on what it takes to govern, drawing a false equivalency between what he did for Lieberman to what he should do to former Bush aides

    I read it that he was presenting this as an equivalency and inviting us to evaluate how well it applied. I feel like I'm deconstructing literature, here, but note the "Right?" at the end of his post. The invitation was explicit.

    Meantime, you characterize the equivalency as false, but don't tell us why you think so.

    Finally, why on earth should we stop getting mad because wingers and the tradmed like to caricature us as the "wild-eyed left"? Think Dean was embarrassed after The Scream? (If he was, should he have been?) Giving a flying fuck about what they think is the real problem, especially if the anger is part of a collective process of figuring out the next step. Giving a flying fuck about what they think is what Gore and Kerry did, and probably No on 8, to the extent they ran a similarly "well behaved" campaign.

    "Rove's job, and by extension McCain's job, is to basically nuke reality and leave everything open to question." - dday

    by itswhatson on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:06:06 AM PST

  •  The left vertex of the triangle (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smkngman, stillwaters

    It doesn't bother me if a small fraction of the left turns into rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth rock throwers. That's what Keith Olbermann's Special Comments already sound like to me, and as long as Fox News is on the air, we need something on our side for balance.

    You're not going to get any attention if you stroke your beard sagely and mutter something equivocal. Make your voice heard loudly, clearly, and plainly. Let no one doubt what your meaning. That's our role.

    For example,

                 Joe Lieberman is a hemorrhoidal butthole!

    See how that works? It's juvenile, but unambiguous.

    •  Funny, but that small portion of the left (0+ / 0-)

      you refer to is a large portion of the few percent of Americans who actually contribute to and work on campaigns.

      So it's interesting you don't care, because that's how the Congress and administration are behaving, so closely after their victory. And this party's  track record of being in that position is no better than its record of being in the minority. Which is why it's been so rare over the past thirty years.

      If your actions speak louder than your words, you're not yelling loud enough. - Stephen Colbert

      by Words In Action on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:55:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Conflating too many issues into one (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, chumley, Shiborg, itswhatson

    Is probably the single biggest challenge DKos faces, along with a need to turn around from a pro-Democratic party candidate site, to a progressive site which keeps in mind the relative importance of electing Democrats, but focuses on doing so only when it advances responsible, progressive positions.

    What do I mean by conflate? Well, the Lieberman issue diaries conflate several issues:

    1. How to deal with Lieberman's support of McCain and GOP Senators.
    1. How to deal with Lieberman's open and hostile criticism of his party, and his party's candidate.
    1. How to deal with Lieberman's ongoing behavior and history as a "rogue" Democrat.
    1. How to to make decisions regarding Senate roles and responsibilities of Senators.
    1. How to address the failure of the Homeland Security Committee to perform its basic oversight responsibilities effectively.
    1. How to show that the Senate Democratic leadership recognizes Obama's stated goals and coordinate with them.
    1. How to send a message to Americans that the Senate will act responsibly, whether that also advances partisan interests or not.

    Now I don't presume that this 7 question break-down of what's wrapped up in these discussions is the only way of looking at it, comprehensive, or will be agreed to by everyone. But here's the thing: it is possible to loathe the Democratic Senators' votes for Lieberman retaining his Chairmanship of the HSC based on 4,5,6 and 7, without even addressing 1,2,3.

    Chair assignments should reflect seniority, expertise, judgment and past performance rather than partisanship--but that still suggests booting Joe.

    The HSC has been impotent and unwilling to perform it's duties--that falls at the feet of the Chair.

    Keeping Joe at Environment while booting him from Chair of HSC addresses 6 quite effectively.

    Regardless of whether Joe is booted or not, either decision sends a message to Americans, and one cannot irresponsibly hide behind the myth that making a decision to keep the status quo is not a decision. It is, and this decision sends, IMHO, the wrong message.

    Now, as to 1,2,3... Some kind of sanction is necessary, but I agree that practical considerations, including setting a new example about fairness, justice AND accountability must be a prominent part of that sanction. Again, IMHO, the message here is that accountability is as important to Reid et al as it is to Bush. That is not a good message to send the American public, is it?

    So what practical benefits accrue to Dems from sending this woeful message of weakness and lack of accountability? I can't think of any, can you?

    And if you think being unilaterally bipartisan works, you haven't learned anything from the last 8 years in this country, or the last 3000 years of human history.

    So while I appreciate your attempt to be eminently reasonable, I think your criticisms on substance are dead wrong, even if I might share your opinion about the general tone of some comments.

    -8.38, -4.97 "...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.

    by thingamabob on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:08:02 AM PST

  •  I was one (4+ / 0-)

    that rec'd a ranting diary. Now, in the cool of the next day, i'm rec'n this one.

    Damn emotions.

    "....But it all amounts to nothing if together we don't stand...."

    by LeftOverAmerica on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:09:29 AM PST

  •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    catfood, smkngman

    I'm sure many of you disagree with me, but I believe that the way so many of us reacted yesterday played right into the hands of those who would marginalize us.   I believe that our anger was completely justified, but there was a way to deal with it rationally and intelligently - and many people here did (more on that soon).

    They won't have to marginalize our party, our party is busy marginalizing itself by keeping disloyal people in a key role.  This is not about revenge, this is about leadership.  If a chair can not command the respect of its committee members, he can not do his job effectively.

    Time will tell, of course, if it is the wise choice to leave the mole in charge of the hen house.

    IMO, chairmanships should go to the ones most able to pursue the agenda of the party in power.  If that means those that change party affiliation at the drop of the hat to avoid the expressed will of the members of their own party, what does that say about the loyalty of the leaders of said party to the actual party members?

    (-8.50, -7.54) Klaatu barata nikto

    by Tin hat mafia on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:11:17 AM PST

    •  If every democrat embraces the dKos agenda (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fiona West

      We'll have fallen down the very same well as the GOP.

      The agenda this site advocates is not the agenda that got Barack Obama elected, it is not the agenda that got us to 58 seats in the senate and 255 seats in the house, nor the agenda that got us 29 governors.  I am all for better (i.e. more progressive) democrats, but like it or not the blue dogs get us over the hump.

      It is my opinion that the reason the GOP was unable to realize it's permanent majority is that it stifled dissent.  If there were a few republicans who could credibly have run as not-george-w-bush republicans our majority might have been considerably narrower.

      I don't want an ideologically pure party.  I want a pragmatic, big tent party.  I want to write to my senator about why I think what I think, not write him off as an adamantine ideologue.  

      Joe Lieberman, Jay Rockefeller, Chris Carney, and Even Bayh belong in our caucus, some (not Joe Lieberman) even deserve re-election.  That doesn't mean I'm happy about Joe maintaining his gavel, but neither do I think it signals the fall of the democratic party.

  •  Ahem (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jazzence, pinkbunny

    Actually, this how I think they see the blogosphere. And Daily Kos...

    We win. Now about the change...

    by RElland on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:11:31 AM PST

  •  We've earned the right to be pissed (5+ / 0-)

    We worked our asses off and gave money we didn't have to ensure the success of the 50-state strategy.  I know I'm right when I say that a lot of the impetus for us was the prospect of marginalizing Joe Lieberman, who, despite his past history of being a Democrat, has opposed us on too many turns of late.

    And we worked and we gave and we succeeded.  And what did we get?  "That's okay Joe, have a big fat wet one buddy."  Fuck that.

    Barack Obama: One house, one spouse.

    by rb608 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:11:35 AM PST

    •  that's bullshit (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RaulVB, zett, rb608, joeyk22, Words In Action

      we earned the right to be pissed by the act of being US citizens.

      We just hoped that they would listen to us because we worked our asses off to get them elected.  We always think that.

      Now they have to demonstrate that they will care about us after they have been elected.  A thing that history tells us they are not likely to do.

      (-8.50, -7.54) Klaatu barata nikto

      by Tin hat mafia on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:19:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great diary (4+ / 0-)

    thanks for posting it.  I also completely agree with you.

    ~ Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. ~ Albert Einstein

    by skertso on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:13:23 AM PST

  •  You've saved me a diary (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dansac, COwoman, LeanneB, relayerbob

    my sentiments exactly.

  •  If you want to ignore the contex... (5+ / 0-)

    Go ahead and do it.

    You lost me at the "petulant, childish" part of your rant, in any case.

    Just because you are critical, do not pretend that your opinion must be taken as the final one in this matter.

    If what happened to Lieberman was OK with you, enjoy the ride and worry about those "fundamental issues" that are so relevant.

  •  Feh. We're the mob...the rabble. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sockpuppet, zett, awkawk, Positronicus

    Venting is part of the experience at Blogger Disney World, along with poor dental hygiene, feet wrapped in rags and craaaazy bug-eyes.

    While I'm here, can anyone recommend a good pitchfork-tine straightener?  My usual guy is on vacation.

    -

    The fact that I occasionally spark rational thought depresses me to no end.

    by Bill in Portland Maine on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:14:56 AM PST

  •  Speaking of concern trolls.....n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    delver rootnose, RaulVB, Cleopatra
  •  I have noticed that (6+ / 0-)

    Barack Obama has a very Eastern philosophy when it comes to the art of politics. People talked about political Aikido during the campaign.

    Markos and the other people that are so angry are completely blinded to any strategy that might seem magnanimous on the front end, but be much more effective in winning the fight in the long run.

    I have never been so freaking proud of anyone representing my country. Barack Obama has shown in his first few days to be the steady hand and calm mind this country has been yearning for for years.

    I was struck by this Time article that seems to sum up so well. This is why I refuse to tell the chef how to make dinner.

    Many members of the caucus are still furious with Lieberman - 13 voted against him in the secret ballot and many more emerged saying that while this was good for the country they personally will have a tough time forgiving him. That lingering resentment should help guarantee his cooperation. "It is the iron law of reciprocity. He will remember and help those who helped him at a critical time in the future," says James Thurber, director of American University's Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies. "It is politically smart. The President and the Democrats will need him in the future. It is part of building bipartisanship and political capital."

    (emphasis mine.)

    The meaning of life is to live it.

    by COwoman on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:16:11 AM PST

    •  Obama and political Aikido (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheLoneliestMonk, COwoman

      Barack Obama has a very Eastern philosophy when it comes to the art of politics. People talked about political Aikido during the campaign.

      "Political Aikido."  I often noted that likely strategy in watching Candidate Obama during the election season.

      Aikido is a martial-art discipline that never attacks.  It never instigates.  It always takes evasive action to avoid conflict, to take oneself "out of the way" of an impending attack.

      If conflict avoidance or diffusing is not an option, then the defense tactic is to use the aggressive momentum of the attacker against him or her. Because by attacking, the attacker is essentially already off-balance.  Aikido maximizes on this inherent weakness in the attacker to disarm the attack with the least amount of harm to either party.  Peace is always the goal in Aikido.  Peace and balance.

      So if we apply this Aikido-strategy analogy to President-Elect Obama's strategy toward the Liebertoad, perhaps we can see that PE Obama is avoiding a conflict trap set by the LIEbertoad.  He's giving Joe-the-Liar a chance to come back into balance, which would ostensibly benefit the Democratic Party in the Senate.

      But if Joe-the-liar-man decides to attack anyway (which I believe he will because he's so clueless), President Obama will be able to use the attacking Joe-mentum against him and Joe will end up on the ground with his face in the dust.

      So maybe we should all just calm down (I know, it's hard, I spent a lot of time shouting at the TV yesterday) and let PE Obama run our Ship of State as he's already proving so capable of doing. (It wasn't easy winning this election against Hillary and John McLame.  It took brilliant strategy.)

      Yesterday I recc'd the angry diaries and the conciliatory ones.  I'm ambivalent on this vote yesterday in the Senate.  I both want Liebermann out of his Chair in HSC, and I want to trust PE Obama's strategy.

      Our president as ninja-warrior.  Is that cool, or what?  ;)

      President Barack Obama -- that just sounds so wonderful.

      by sockpuppet on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:15:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Best analysis I've heard yet. (11+ / 0-)

    via Ambinder

    Reader David Loewenberg has been watching his WSOP:

       One of the most important points about winning poker is counting your opponents' chips. Joe Lieberman is "small stacked" in chips and that's why Obama wants him at the table. How so? Because Obama will win those chips later on in the "game." Obama is a poker-player (and I'm sure that Lieberman is not). He knows "when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em." Trust me, he will call Lieberman's bluffing (actually, he'll have someone else call it) when it's time, when he needs the votes for important legislation, for example. And if Saint Joe starts to feel comfortable and begins to "bully the table" again, he'll get called and show his weak hand against, undoubtedly, Obama's winning hand. The President-elect hasn't missed a "read" yet; he knows he can play Lieberman for as long (or as short) as he wants to.

       

    "Could an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy that even that being could not lift it?"

    by awkawk on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:17:24 AM PST

  •  Younger Dkos users don't give a shit about this. (8+ / 0-)

    I'm relatively young, 26, and came to this site in 2006.  I love this site for the news and information that I see on the front page everyday.  This site is dedicated to making government work better and for the people...progressiveness.  

    I don't see what Lieberman has to do with any of that.  It seems that many want to settle old personal scores with Lieberman.  I don't have any connection to Lieberman or Ned Lamont.  I don't care what happened way back when and I don't care about Lieberman or his chairmanship. I care about moving forward and governing this damn country correctly.  

    I'm part of a generation that craved for Obama and new politics where infighting and political drama were no longer part of the equation and pragmatism and good governance trumped old political battles.  Scoring political points doesn't make this country better...the last 8 years have proved it.  Lieberman sucks and so does Reid, but let's focus on them the next election. In the meantime, let's dig in and get to work to try and rid this country of Bush's policies and governance style.  If we have to carry dead weight like Lieberman for awhile so be it.  Wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last.

    •  And do the young Dkos users care that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      expatjourno, justmy2

      the democratic caucus has just created a congressional Titan who will now be fighting Obama at every turn so that we just might not get those new politics you have been so craving?

      Wake up Joey, by providing Lieberman cover his position has just been re-inforced and we can now count on him successfully leading the charge against us at every turn.

      •  Speculation (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Yoshimi, Argyrios

        I'm not going to speculate with you on whether Lieberman will or will not fight Obama at every turn.  However, is there not a chance that Lieberman should feel indebted to Obama?  How is it that he became a Titan overnight?  He's an idiot and should be thrown out of the Senate when he's up for reelection.  I think he owes Obama some pretty big favors, whether Lieberman thinks that is another issue altogether.  I'm just saying that in the scheme of things, this Lieberman issue isn't going to sink progressive values or the Obama presidency.  I must also say that for those of you who fought Lieberman at every turn in the past, I understand your anger and frustration.  I just hope this isn't a theme for the next two years.  

        •  In a word...no. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          expatjourno, justmy2

          >>However, is there not a chance that Lieberman should feel indebted to Obama?  How is it that he became a Titan overnight? <<</p>

          No, he won't feel indebted, he's a politician, he only understands fear and power and we've given him a sign of weakness and no reason to fear us.  He became a titan because he heads a committee that is allowed to investigate Obama (the unmentioned corrollary to Homeland Security is Government Oversight), and is now impossible to remove (any motion to remove him before 2010 has to go through the whole Senate, and even if we get Minnesota and Georgia we don't have the votes to break the fillibuster).  Combine these two things with the fact that Lieberman always dances the Republican tune and I expect a Tony Rezko fishing expedition coming up in order to paralyze the Obama admin.

          "An army of principles can penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot." - Thomas Paine

          by Mister Gloom on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:06:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Older dKos readers know a thing or two about... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          justmy2

          ...Lieberman and how he operates. It's not speculation. He has a track record.

  •  Bravo. (6+ / 0-)

    Reading DK yesterday was pretty embarrassing.

  •  I completely agree. (5+ / 0-)

    It almost reminds me of the religious right feeling entitled to run the government because they helped get somebody elected.

    •  Kinda ironic since we are all laughing (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joeyk22

      at the right wingers last week for basically doing the same thing.

    •  I completely disagree. (0+ / 0-)

      The percentage of people who work on and contribute to campaigns is in the low single digits.

      Most of those people are activists.

      For Democrats, most activists are progressives.

      We have a right to be pissed when we are insulted. There has been nothing about this transition that has been consistent with Obama's campaign.

      My re-cap:

      Axelrod and Rahm are BFFs.
      Obama and Rahm are close and Obama owes Axelrod big time.
      Rahm, the DLC capitulating-triangulator extraordinaire gets the nod for CoS.
      Virtually every seat on every damn team or committee is filled with DLC types.
      The short list of Treasury Sec candidates are all trickle-down, de-regulation, derivative-mongers.
      Holder, the scribe of Bill's pardon list, gets AG.
      Joe gets his group blowjob...again...for stabbing everyone in the back...again...and DLC triangulation begets capitulation...again.
      Hillary waits to take over implementation of foreign policy.

      DLCers do incrementalism, poorly. They cannot and indeed WILL not tackle the big changes we need to address all the big problems we have. They are simply career politicians who are there to be there. Accomplishing stuff is secondary and certainly not to be undertaken if it threatens staying around.

      If this doesn't concern you, then you haven't figured out who the DLCers and their minions are and what they have, and more importantly, haven't accomplished. Chances are, if you've been disappointed about the party, it's because of the DLC. Using the DLC as a foundation is...a disaster.

      Of course, it could be worse. We could have "w."  But that's setting the bar a little low under the circumstances, don't you think?

      If your actions speak louder than your words, you're not yelling loud enough. - Stephen Colbert

      by Words In Action on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:46:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  God, SO much word! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi, Argyrios, relayerbob

    I, too, was embarrassed by yesterday's outpouring of entitlement-whining and gnashing of teeth over our "betrayal."  Growing up, it seems, is hard to do.

    Proud to be an American, once more.

    by LeanneB on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:25:09 AM PST

  •  good point (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    baudelairien

    All in all I agree w/your diary's main point. As much as I dislike that sanctimonius nitwit Lieberman and I'm not a big fan of Harry Reid (someone w/more "gravitas" should be maj.leader, but what do I know) some things that I read here and on other blogs gave me pause. I'll chalk it up to the frustration of the moment and the need to vent!

    And that hasn't change my general dislike of Lieberman. I hope that he knows that he's on a tight leash. And I sincerely wish that CT voters get rid of him at his next election!

  •  Markos was using hyperbole.... (5+ / 0-)

    I'm always amazed when people take words so literally.  I felt exactly as Markos did.  Angry.  Pissed.  He was venting his frustration.  He wasn't serious.  He was exaggerating to make a point. Do I agree with him every time? No.  But he makes a lot more sense than a lot of the people who write diaries questioning him.

    I'm a pacifist, but also a hypocrite. I'm fighting the War on Incompetence.

    by Docta J on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:27:14 AM PST

    •  He used hyperbole...twice...in 2 posts (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Yoshimi, Argyrios

      If he wants to be taken seriously, he should write seriously.   Hyperbole is one thing, intellectually disingenuous snark is another.

      Strategy '08: Obama vs. the other guy

      by dansac on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:37:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Kos' hyperbole was making a very legitimate point (2+ / 0-)

        Since he doesn’t want "purges" to be the order of the day, perhaps he’ll make sure to keep the thousands of Bush appointees in their respective offices, from Cabinet secretaries on down? That would only be consistent with his meddling in the Senate.

        Kos is ridiculing the argument that taking away Lieberman's chairmanship would be just an act of "revenge." It is no more an act of revenge than taking away the chairmainship of the Republicans after the 2006 election--or kicking out the current Republican political appointees in the executive branch. (Just because they're Republicans? That's not bipartisanship!)

        This whole revenge thing was ginned up by Lieberman's supporters to sidetrack the perfectly legitimate arguments--that Markos stressed repeatedly--for not giving the chairmanship to someone who opposed the Democrats' & Obama's agenda. It's the kind of trick the Republicans used over & over to evade serious discussions of their own policies. I sympathize with Markos completely on his anger.

        Obama doesn't have to agree with me about everything, just the important things.

        by Shiborg on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:17:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  He is a front pager (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      abrauer

      We expect hyperbole in the diary list, not on the front page.  

      I love his a lot of his posts but when he gets emotional, it looks pretty immature for a reputable political writer.  

      •  I love a lot of his posts (0+ / 0-)

        is what I meant to say.

      •  Why not on the front page? (0+ / 0-)

        In my opinion, he miss-directed his anger at Obama, when I think Obama was playing the politically safe unifying card and leaving it up to the Senate.  They took the easy way out and claimed Obama gave them the okay.  What Kos said represents a lot of the sentiment on this site, even if it was miss directed to Obama and not Harry Reid and the senate.  It's a mounting frustration and I have to give him a pass for all the work he's done to advance the progressive movement.  I won't proclaim him the all knower, but I do have a lot of respect for the guy.  If this was a right wing blog, he would have already removed the diary questioning him.  I don't always agree with how he says it, but Kos does represent a lot of us.

        I'm a pacifist, but also a hypocrite. I'm fighting the War on Incompetence.

        by Docta J on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:14:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Bad indications (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smkngman, Words In Action

    Holder, who appears to be a willing Gonzalez-type and Lieberman.  And you could well be troll rated for playing the "childish" card.  That itself is an immature, childish argument to use against your opponent's, whose argument are legitimate and, I suspect, will in the long run prove to be meritorious.

    As before, I'm a progressive first, an Obama fan second.  Since he apparently knows better, and disregards the progressive wing's opinion on these, I simply will not support these decisions.

    I doubt this inside baseball player approach will work.  It's a shame the country has to go further down the bipartisan path as it's just lost time and additional suffering for us all.  But we all must learn from our mistakes.

  •  I was particularly embarrassed (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gangster Octopus, abrauer

    by the questions posed to Howard Dean.

    They weren't so much questions as screeds about progressives being "screwed," and about the Senate Dems hating us.

    The tone was sophomoric and petulant.

  •  I knew something was wrong (7+ / 0-)

    with all this Lieberman Sturm und Drang when I heard Pat Buchanan last night defending the progressives' reastion. I had been leaning with the "kick his ass out" crowd, but was feeling pretty uneasy about the rhetoric around here, especially kos's posts (i admire kos a great deal but he often comes across as almost ugly in his immaturity). When Buchanan mentioned Dailykos and the idea that the progressive base should get what they want, i.e., Lieberman's head on a stick, I thought, why is good ole Pat defending this?
    Well, because it's how he/they wants politics to continue to be played so that when (*if*) repubs get back in power they can continue to justify their own purges and partisan political cronyism. Hey, that's just how it's played, right? Obama, and, I think, even the spineless congress is trying not to fall into this trap.

    What I really wanted to say is--you know something's wrong when Pat Buchaana is defending your position.

    "Americans wish to be settled. Only so far as they are unsettled is there any hope for them" -Emerson.

    by kfd313 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:31:39 AM PST

  •  Bravo! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jazzence

    Thank you for adding some maturity and sense to what has otherwise been a rather unpleasant series of diatribes on the Lieberman Affair.

  •  Prodigal son...anyone? (0+ / 0-)

    Not that he's there yet, but Joe could turn into this if President Obama (I love writing that) handles it well. When that cloture vote on say Carbon cap and trade comes, and Joe votes with us after we get one of the moderate GOPer's to vote with us (Spector, Snow, Collins) won't all the venting seen juvenile.

    I don't like Joe, but let's make him a useful tool.

    Free at last, Free at last, Thank God Almighty, Free at last. (Even though I'm an atheist.)

    by UndercoverRxer on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:34:18 AM PST

  •  Aid and Comfort to the Enemy (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RaulVB, justmy2, smkngman, Words In Action

    Congratulations Dansac, you've just provided mountains of cover to all those weak kneed spineless shits in congress the rest of us have been working so hard to either replace or help grow a spine.

    Here is what you are missing, we have every right to not only be angry, but to seek retribution. It's time our representatives begin to understand that they work for US, not for their buddies. I don't care how great a senator Lieberman used to be. He has committed a cardinal sin that can not be forgiven.

    Only when politicians realize there is a price to be paid, can they be expected to act responsibly. They know that in large measure, the netroots is who we have to thank for our recent electoral victory, and if they know that the netroots is full of raging furious activists, they will think twice about continuing to antagonize us.

    Reid and Lieberman are going down and we are going to take them down. Let them be on notice, that we "wild eyed liberals" are coming after them. They will not survive this (politically speaking of course).

  •  I disagree (6+ / 0-)

    If only more Americans would have what you call 'temper tantrums' maybe our elected officials woudl actually follow the will of their constituents instead of pursuing their own self interest and the dictates of their coporate donors.

    Because, what you call a 'temper tantrum' involved citizens contacting their elected represenatatives and expressing their views on who should be chair of an important senate committee. Also part of that so-called temper tantrum involved citizens considering supporting primary challenges against entrenched politicians (like Harry Reid) who have been derelict in their duties of oversight against one of the worst executive administrations in US history.

    What you call a temper tantrum, I consider to be our system of government at work by means of citizen involvement.

  •  The 'voted 90% of the time with' meme (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RaulVB, Smirking Chupacabra

    is coming home to roost. We used the 90% to link McCain to Bush. Turns out now the Dem Senators are using Lieberman voted with us 90% of the time.

    The fact that the remaining 10% included some significant votes while most of the 90% is policy and procedure stuff, is something we tried to gloss over when using the 90% to contaminate McCain with Bush's number.

    Now, Obama, on the other hand voted 97% of the time with the Dem Caucus (a good thing). Now, 97% is a number that shows agreement. Not 90%.

  •  Is a representational government too much to ask? (6+ / 0-)

    i mean really!

  •  This diary is crap. You get the Broderella award. (5+ / 0-)

    This, in particular is a bunch of horseshit:

    But if we're meant to be taken seriously as a player, analyst, and force in politics, it's time we react to difficulties by behaving like serious players, and not be just blurting out the first angry thing on the tip of our tongues.

    I can just see you clutching your pearls as you write that.

    God forbid that the very people treated with such contempt by Lieberman since the war started should be upset that he's gotten away with costing Democrats a Senate seat in Minnesota and could have cost Obama the White House.

    God forbid that the people who put heart and soul into electing Democrats -- even pretty conservative ones like Jim Webb -- should be furious that the Democratic leadership once again, and on general principle, decided to say fuck you to them.

  •  Great Diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Yoshimi

    It was crazy here yesterday. The atmosphere was more charged than at any other time I can remember - and I've been here for years. I believe that it helps Obama politically to be seen as disagreeing with us on the Lieberstooge issue. He has far bigger fish to fry than Joe the Wheedler.

    Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.

    by dpc on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:47:01 AM PST

  •  The calculation is so simple it is embarrassing (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joeyk22, Yougottahavehope

    that people still don't see it.

    Obama needs a majority NOW to get all of his agenda through Congress, THEREFORE

    Lieberman will stay in the caucus and retain his precious chairmanship, BUT

    Lieberman will have to kiss Obama's ass if he wants to win re-election in 2012, THUS

    Lieberman will have to help push through Obama's agenda, IN CONCLUSION

    Contrary to what alot of people think, Lieberman will have to be Obama's bitch, not the other way around.

    QED

    Grau, teurer Freund, ist alle Theorie, und grün des Lebens goldner Baum.

    by toadvantagedressed on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:47:06 AM PST

    •  If you lived in CT, you'd know how wrong you are (6+ / 0-)

      Joe Lieberman will never be the nominee of the CT Democratic party in 2012. No amount of fawning over Obama is going to change that. One of our Congress people will surely challenge him.

      What Joe needs to do is act centrist for a few years and then find an issue which allows him (on his high moral principles and for the good of the country) to run again as an independent with only token Republican opposition, just like in 2006.

      I think it's ironic that someone elected by Republicans votes with us, but he's not worth the agita. I'd have kicked him to the curb two years ago.

      What did you do with the cash Joe?

      by roguetrader2000 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:18:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not just the quality, but the quantity (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dansac, jazzence

    It wasn't just that there were whiny posts, but the sheer quantity of posting about Lieberman was rather unseemly.  It struck me as obsessive.  In a wierd way I don't necessarily think any one person is obsessive, but the DailyKos as a community seemed to be that way.

    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

    by Gangster Octopus on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:48:07 AM PST

  •  What do you expect? (5+ / 0-)

    While I don't think we should quit sending money or leave the party over this, Joe Lieberman is a fucking backstabber. All I have to say is, when the knife goes in our backs once again, will you still be saying that?

  •  Sclminc: Web Psychic (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joeyk22, JBL55

    Here's what I posted on October 19th:

    I'm sorry, O: you're going to be president

    I think the take-home message for Obama here is that he probably is going to be president of the United States. May G-d save his soul.

    He's probably about to go through about 4 years of uncertainty, humiliation and abject misery that few of us can begin to imagine.

    About two weeks after he takes office, many of the people here who would normally troll rate anyone who dared to say a mildly critical thing about Obama will be trashing him as hard as the wingnuts.....

    Hmmm. Two weeks. So it looks as if I even got the timing right . . .

    •  Not to quibble ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lirtydies

      About two weeks after he takes office

      ... but Obama hasn't taken office yet.  It was even worse than you predicted, I'm sorry to say.

      There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who know binary and those who don't.

      by JBL55 on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:09:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The term "Tantrum" trivializes the issue. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RaulVB, zett, demoKatz

    You state:

    I believe that our anger was completely justified, but there was a way to deal with it rationally and intelligently - and many people here did (more on that soon).

    Yes, the  outrage and anger you,  I and a lot of other people felt was justified. Then why make the word "Tantrum" the keynote of this diary? Did you throw a tantrum? Why must you thus extend your self-condemnation to all who expressed anger over the Lieberman appeasement? Some people may not have expressed it in the most polished terms, but that is always going to be the case with a group comprising 200,000 people.

    There are sure a lot of wanky masochists here on DKos, who love to flock to every public act of self-flagellation. For example, every single goddamn day during the primaries, 5-15 people would post diaries of handwringing and wailing and snivelling about all the "hatred" and "incivility" kicked up by that hard-fought campaign, and vowing to say GBCW and never come back. Most went back on that promise, BTW. I don't care if they stayed, in fact I am glad most of them did, but I wish people around here would do more of their self-flagellation in private. It is undignified and never seems to have any effect on the general level of civility or maturity.

    Wars based on principle are far more destructive...the attacker will not destroy that which he is after. ~Alan Watts

    by revbludge on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 08:51:32 AM PST

  •  it's great you can disagree with (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dansac, joeyk22, creamer, inexplore

    other members and express your sentiments and frustration at being embarrassed , just as others who disagree with you have been doing. Opinions and dialogue are important and there is room for ALL of them...

  •  Apologies if this has been said already ... (5+ / 0-)

    ... but I'm not scanning through 400-ish replies for conciseness's sake.

    It is not a temper tantrum to want to hold your leader's accountable when they do things that displease you.  The most democratic thing you can do is to publicly question one's leaders and the decisions they've made or to point out their hypocrisy, and it is absolutely within bounds to inform them, when they've crossed a line, that they've lost your support.  Were some of the things said yesterday bordering on childish?  In my opinion, yes, a little.  In your opinion, it would seem a lot.  I would say that, after 8 years of being ground under the heels of the right, to then have our leaders in the legislature do the same thing to us is justification for being at least a little childish.  It's suppose to be our time, and they're still playing the game like it's the other side's time.

    •  No disagreement (0+ / 0-)

      I agree with everything you said - but yes, my opinion was, a lot of things said here were childish - especially when they were said by "prominent" bloggers on this site.

      Strategy '08: Obama vs. the other guy

      by dansac on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:06:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's fair ... (0+ / 0-)

        Leaders of a community, whether it be as larger as the US or as small as DailyKos, have a responsibility to be the best of us, as it were.  Hence, them going to that level is a bit uncalled for, whereas we, the unwashed masses, can totally go there :)

  •  Thanks for your concern. nt. (0+ / 0-)
  •  Who said change would be easy? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JBL55, aggie98

    I too felt the anger at Lieberman getting away so lightly, but then I listened again to Obama's view that he didn't want retribution.  It made me feel at piece. Obama's great strength is that he doesn't allow himself to be sidetracked and he knew that this was an issue where a lot of energy would be expended and nothing of substance would come out of it.

    In a single stroke Obama made Lieberman so beholding to him that even Joe got the message.  This was not Lieberman winning anything, but Lieberman being made a debtor to Obama. Obama will cash this in at sometime when it is important.

    I understand why so many are outraged, but stop and think a moment.  Lieberman has just been neutered and not much blood was left on the floor.  That's mastery of politics.

    •  oversight has been neutered... (0+ / 0-)

      You make a great point. Obama wants people who owe him favors. He will get more out of Lieberman by being nice to him, just like when he got involved in a local primary race in 2006 and supported Lieberman over Lamont.

      The retort, the question in response, is so what?

      Is what we need in a Chair of Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs someone who will do one important favor for the President-Elect, someone whose support the president can 'cash in' at some point in the future?

      Don't we need a chair who will consistently use his committee to perform the critical oversight of the Executive Branch that needs to happen all the time?

      In a single stroke Obama made Lieberman so beholding to him that even Joe got the message.

      That's the words of a dictatorship, not a system of checks and balances. I don't think that's your intent, but do you follow my reasoning? Or do you think this is just innocent cooperation and a few favors are all that's needed from HS&GA-the investigative responsibilities that Lieberman has been shirking these past two years just aren't important in the scheme of things?

  •  Unfortunately....your analysis (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RaulVB, justmy2, Words In Action

    should be about the behavior of the Senate Dems. This type of behavior is what got us the war to begin with, No Child Left Behind, fake Medicare reform and the Patriot Act. This is why we worked so hard in 2006 and 2008. I don;t just arm chair QB, I am active every day in my community and party on behalf of the progressive ideas I hold dear.

    •  Two different things (0+ / 0-)

      I'm not disagreeing with you - this diary happens to focus on DKos.

      Strategy '08: Obama vs. the other guy

      by dansac on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 09:03:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And Dkos is arguing about what yesterday, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        parakinesis

        in the context of Barack's campaign and his transition to date, means.

        Many of us see the Joe Lieberman thing as an exceptionally poignant example of much larger, more disturbing trend:

        Axelrod and Rahm are BFFs.
        Obama and Rahm are close and Obama owes Axelrod big time.
        Rahm, the DLC capitulating-triangulator extraordinaire gets the nod for CoS.
        Virtually every seat on every damn team or committee is filled with DLC types.
        The short list of Treasury Sec candidates are all trickle-down, de-regulation, derivative-mongers.
        Holder, the scribe of Bill's pardon list, gets AG.
        Joe gets another round of blowjobs from all the people he stabbed in the back...again.
        Hillary waits to take over implementation of foreign policy.

        It says a lot, and what it says should not be comforting who actually believed Barack and feels that a lot of important changes need to occur to solve our problems.

        DLCers are incrementalists of the worst sort. To DLCers, their are no goals, really, just endless plays to keep the ball in motion and gain seniority and power and perks.

        If your actions speak louder than your words, you're not yelling loud enough. - Stephen Colbert

        by Words In Action on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:16:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  And that is how change will occur (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JBL55

      Great that you are taking change to your community. In the long run that means the most.  However, I feel strongly that we should think long and hard about why Obama did not want to punish Lieberman.  This act alone is the most diametrically opposed action to what we have had the last 8 years.  He truly does mean to bring us together. He never said it would be easy, but he is clearly committed to this. Eventually most will understand Obama's jujitsu politics.  Right now, it is hard, but I suspect given a few months many who are outraged now will be quite content with the direction things are going.

      Obama can imagine that Lieberman still has something to offer the Democrats and he is willing to recover that for the good of the country. The question is whether we can see that potential good ourselves.

  •  You are, of course, absolutely right. (0+ / 0-)

    It is juvenile of us who divvied up millions of dollars of our hard earned cash, canvassed in the rain and cold, led GOTV drives, blogged our fingers to the bone for CHANGE to actually expect CHANGE.  Our petty contributions mean little in the grand scheme of things.

    After all, we came to dailykos to praise Joe Lieberman, not to bury him.  To do otherwise is not juvenile, but infantile.  What a bunch of babies.  Lucky for us there is anonymity here.  I will never have to bear the humiliation of being a dailykoser who was so fucking mean to poor Joe Lieberman.

    The Republic Lives.  Joe Lieberman has kept his power.