Tonight, we all sense the frustration. After Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that in the Senate Bill, that the Independent senator from Conneticut, one Joseph I. Liberman, plans to vote against this bill if a public option is included.
I remember the rabble rousing that my fellow liberals were expousing at how the White House was selling us out by telling Majority Leader Reid that he doubted his vote count was really viable. At first, being a liberal myself, I remember getting angry at this, but then I thought about it. I remember that we have red state senators like Lincoln, Pryor, Landrieu, and Nelson. We also have conservadems such as Bayh and Carper. Now, all of these senators are Democrats, who are under the Democratic National Committee. They can be taken out of chairmanships, easily defeated in primaries, they can lose their election funding from the DNC or get a lot less from Democratic organizations. These Senators can be really dealt with accordingly. Not Lieberman. Joe Lieberman has not been a Democratic senator since 2006, which means that by 2006, had he not caucused with the Democrats, we would have had only 50 Democratic senators in the 110th Congress, which means that Republicans,with Lieberman caucusing with them, would have also constituted 50 senators. That, included with the fact that the Vice President at the time was Dick Cheney, really have given the GOP leverage.
Now, in the 111th Congress, Joe Lieberman, being the "maverick" he is as we know today, endorsed and actively campaigned for the 2008 Republican Nominee and Arizona Senator John McCain. Though that team lost,we had a new President, who during the campaign, emphasized bipartisanship and getting rid of the old ways of Washington. Now then, we really had like 56 or 57 senators, clearly a majority, but not filibuster proof. With Lieberman included, that upped the ante to 58, and when Al Franken came in, 59. Now, Vice President Biden's genious in getting Sen. Arlen Specter to switch parties must be lauded. Whether you like him or not, Senator Specter is not moving. He wants to survive for another six years and knows that Rep.Joe Sestak is a formidible and appealing candidate.
Here is my point, It is true that then Senator Obama of Illinois did campaign for Joe Lieberman early in 2006. Being the incumbent Democrat will make other Democratic Senators in the party do that. However, after the August 2006 Conneticut Democratic Primries, Senator Obama endorsed Democratic Nominee, Ned Lamont, as referenced in this Washington Post article exerpt.
The Illinois senator and potential 2008 presidential candidate sent an e-mail message Thursday praising Lamont.
"Ned Lamont has waged an impressive grass-roots campaign to give the people of Connecticut a choice in the November Senate election," Obama wrote. "Please join me in supporting Ned Lamont with your hard work on-the-ground in these closing weeks of the campaign."
The Lamont campaign said Obama's e-mail went to about 5,000 Connecticut residents.
Lamont aides said they welcomed the support of Obama, who has enjoyed a surge in popularity in recent weeks as speculation about his national ambitions mounts. Obama has also given $5,000 to Lamont's campaign through a political committee.
"Ned Lamont and I share a commitment to bringing our troops home safely from Iraq, to achieving energy independence, to helping all our citizens realize the American dream, and to empowering the American people to reclaim their government," Obama wrote
.http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Now, there are many that say he should have done more in that race, such as make a campaign appearance for him. Perhaps, but remember, though he was touted as a 2008 Presidential contender, many people then did not take that seriously. Two, he wasn't in any real position of power as say a Minority Leader, the DNC chairman, or even former Presidents. Then, he was just one senator out of 100, not the leader of the free world.
I say to those same people, had then Senator Obama campaigned long and hard for Ned Lamont, and he still lost, would health care reform be worse off than it is now? Because it is still not apparent that Ned Lamont would have won the race anyway. The final Conneticut 2006 Senate Race tally had Lieberman win 49.7% of the vote, Lamont win 39.7% of the vote, with the Republican candidate winning 9.6%. He won because of Republican/Conservatives, with Lieberman fans voting for him. Thus, bringing us to our hell today.
I say to those same people, had now current President Barack Obama admonished Senator Lieberman for his support of Senator McCain in the election, thus tearing down the bipartisan meme he was trying to craft going forward, how would this have worked out? Would we still be going after Sen. Olympia Snowe's vote, like the White House has been trying to do for a while or Sen. Susan Collins even?
My point is that no matter what any pundit, blogger, or "Obamabot" said about the senate, we never had 60 votes.
We never had a filibuster proof majority, in name only, but in actuality, hell no. This is one thing that we should learn from all of this, That the President Obama is way smarter than any of us are willing to admit. As much as we hated it, he was right in trying to get Snowe's vote. Politically, it may have hurt him, but in the process of getting legislation through, it was savvy. Because he knew, he didn't have a filibuster proof majority. My question is, when will we know that?