Obama didn't need to weigh in on Lieberman as early as he did, but he did it anyway. That tells me that he sees all of this dust kicked up about Lieberman in a lame duck session as premature and unnecessary, especially with three undecided Senate seats in the balance.
He's using him and it's not a bad play.
I thought it weird for Obama to have spoken up so quickly about Lieberman, at first, but it makes more sense as this plays out and in light of the way the three remaining Senate races are taking shape and the staffing decisions he's making now. He's sabotaging partisanship, plain and simple. You don't do that by playing to your passions or to the party extremes right out of the gate. Of course, this is going to piss a lot of people off, but not in ways that are unprecedented or outside of reason.
Obama spoke up right away to take an immediate pragmatic unemotional stand in forgiving Lieberman and that if everyone is going to throw up their hands and react passionately, the no-brainer practical position to take is to keep him.
At least with Lieberman in the Democratic caucus, they can keep tabs on him and the possibility/probability exists that he'll vote with them on many domestic issues. On the other hand, kicking him out and sending him over to the Republicans absolutely guarantees that he won't vote with Democrats at all, because if he wants to be in the good graces of the GOP, he will have to prove himself and fall in line with their inevitable opposition bloc. Why do that if you're Obama when you could end up with 59 seats, which looks increasingly likely?
But, think about what Obama forgiving Lieberman so soon after the campaign says to the Republicans: "You're reign of knee-jerk division is over, we're not playing your game, we're destroying it and we know it scares you."
Also, think about what it says to moderate Republicans Obama might be courting for other positions in his cabinet who may be reluctant to go against their party in a time of such crisis for them. Obama is passive aggressively pressuring them to confront their consciouses and asking, "Do you want to repeat the last two years, or the six before them? ie. Do you really need the stress of playing "gang of fourteen" for the next four years or being forced to filibuster everything in sight against your will, or do you want to fix this international pariah of a broken fucking country and redeem it and yourself?"
Let's put foreign policy aside for a second and focus on the domestic front: What are senators like Snowe, Collins, Hagel, Lugar, Voinovich, Specter, and McCain supposed to do, in this economy, with a party that wants to cling to its recently agitated rabid Christo-fascist base?
My guess is they're itching to run from it, but not to the point of changing parties. Who else but Obama has or ever will afford them this option? How else can Obama succeed in dismantling partisanship without convincing them he's on the level? What does anyone think went on during the Bush/Cheney/Delay/Frist years? Do you think those nutballs made friends with the moderate Repubs? Or, did they strong-arm them to do a lot of shit they didn't want to do?
My guess is Obama is betting on their help, and, frankly, I don't see him succeeding as much without it. Lieberman is a pawn to winning over the moderate Republicans. Moreover, consider that Obama met with McCain already and even a little speculation was floated about offering HIM a position in the administration, which is very hard to imagine. It then becomes much easier to envision someone like Olympia Snowe accepting a seat at the Obama table to champion a pet issue near and dear to our hearts, say, Net Neutrality.
Winning over moderate Senate Republicans to produce votes for the Democrats is v-e-r-y important, but, check out this math:
The Senate minus Olympia Snowe = A very acceptable moderate Republican on the Obama team, a Senate vacancy with a Democratic Governor in Maine = the appointment of a 61st seat for four more years= the further neutralization of Lieberman's leverage = inroads to the other Senate moderates voting with the Democrats.
This is called the longview and after so many years of being lost in the partisan wilderness, we're just not used to it.
I could get used to this.
UPDATE: Glenzilla Adds:Has there been too much bipartisanship or too little?