Obama walks post-partisan talk

O

Onceler

New member
As much as I disagree with it, I'm also kind of impressed - word is that Obama is telling Reid & other Senate colleagues to keep Lieberman in the Dem caucus.

You would think he'd be the most interested in seeing Lieberman dangle & twist in the wind. It's a good sign that he's practical, and not vindictive. "No drama Obama," as they say...
 
Lieberman fits best there anyway. While he supported McCain, he really is a liberal in every way except when it comes to war in the Middle East.
 
Not to mention that Obama understands that he is close to 60 in the Senate... so why piss off someone that could help him out on most issues. That said, I do agree that he could easily have gone the other way and been vindictive. So plus one for Obama.
 
I don't mean to be cynical but besides revenge what good would it do the Democrats to push a guy towards the Republican cacus who essentially votes with them (the Dems) on most issues?
 
cawacko said:
I don't mean to be cynical but besides revenge what good would it do the Democrats to push a guy towards the Republican cacus who essentially votes with them (the Dems) on most issues?
Click to expand...
Absolutely right, and so Obama can look magnanamous while remaining merely pragmatic.
 
Onceler said:
As much as I disagree with it, I'm also kind of impressed - word is that Obama is telling Reid & other Senate colleagues to keep Lieberman in the Dem caucus.

You would think he'd be the most interested in seeing Lieberman dangle & twist in the wind. It's a good sign that he's practical, and not vindictive. "No drama Obama," as they say...
Click to expand...

i disagree with this decision, if he is going to be allowed to keep powerful committee chairmanships. and the reason why is; he would be benefitting greatly from a democratic majority which he actively worked against. he didn't just campaign for mccain, and against obama ( in the most despicable way), but he also campaigned against democrats gaining senate seats. so he is to be rewarded for the work of others???

the work of people like, say, Hillary Clinton?? How many dems has hillary worked to gain seats for?? and what is she getting?? she did more than any man ever, has ever done, for their opponent, once they lost. and what is she getting???

it's bullshit.
 
Darla said:
i disagree with this decision, if he is going to be allowed to keep powerful committee chairmanships. and the reason why is; he would be benefitting greatly from a democratic majority which he actively worked against. he didn't just campaign for mccain, and against obama ( in the most despicable way), but he also campaigned against democrats gaining senate seats. so he is to be rewarded for the work of others???

the work of people like, say, Hillary Clinton?? How many dems has hillary worked to gain seats for?? and what is she getting?? she did more than any man ever, has ever done, for their opponent, once they lost. and what is she getting???

it's bullshit.
Click to expand...

Yes it is BS Darla, but that is politics.
Politics is a parasite living off of our government.
 
Darla said:
i disagree with this decision, if he is going to be allowed to keep powerful committee chairmanships. and the reason why is; he would be benefitting greatly from a democratic majority which he actively worked against. he didn't just campaign for mccain, and against obama ( in the most despicable way), but he also campaigned against democrats gaining senate seats. so he is to be rewarded for the work of others???

the work of people like, say, Hillary Clinton?? How many dems has hillary worked to gain seats for?? and what is she getting?? she did more than any man ever, has ever done, for their opponent, once they lost. and what is she getting???

it's bullshit.
Click to expand...

Unless I heard wrong, he's still going to lose the chairmanship. Obama is saying he should still be able to caucus w/ the Dems.
 
cawacko said:
I don't mean to be cynical but besides revenge what good would it do the Democrats to push a guy towards the Republican cacus who essentially votes with them (the Dems) on most issues?
Click to expand...

It represents a change no matter the motivation. Bush would have seen to it the guy was twisting in the wind.
 
Jarod said:
It represents a change no matter the motivation. Bush would have seen to it the guy was twisting in the wind.
Click to expand...

Really? Was he ever put in that situation? I don't think he was.

Somehow when this decision was being made I doubt "change" was the driving force behind it.
 
cawacko said:
Really? Was he ever put in that situation? I don't think he was.

Somehow when this decision was being made I doubt "change" was the driving force behind it.
Click to expand...

C'mon - it represents a completely different tone, if that's how he's going to run things.

Bush/Rove was all about "you're either with us or against us." Loyalty was rewarded, dissent was basically treated as betrayal. Clinton was basically the same way.

Seriously - in the past, a guy like Lieberman would be a total exile. I understand the practical reasons for Obama's stance, but it's still a surprise.
 
Onceler said:
C'mon - it represents a completely different tone, if that's how he's going to run things.

Bush/Rove was all about "you're either with us or against us." Loyalty was rewarded, dissent was basically treated as betrayal. Clinton was basically the same way.

Seriously - in the past, a guy like Lieberman would be a total exile. I understand the practical reasons for Obama's stance, but it's still a surprise.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I see the difference.
 
Chapdog said:
Lieberman is to important for obama. He has A LOT of connections.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't stretch it. He's pretty damaged goods in the Senate right now.

He's a vote; that's about it, but with the Dems flirting w/ a 60-seat majority still, that's important.
 
Onceler said:
Unless I heard wrong, he's still going to lose the chairmanship. Obama is saying he should still be able to caucus w/ the Dems.
Click to expand...

if he loses the chairmanship, then that's fine. but i don't think so onceler, because he has said he won't "tolerate" that. that means if the dems want him to caucus with them, they'll have to let him keep it.
 
Onceler said:
I wouldn't stretch it. He's pretty damaged goods in the Senate right now.

He's a vote; that's about it, but with the Dems flirting w/ a 60-seat majority still, that's important.
Click to expand...

He is the most powerful Jewish politician as well.
 
Darla said:
Jane Hamsher has the best wrap up of this in my opinion, and I could not agree with her more. Most especialy with her final conclusion. This (allowing him to keep the chairmanship) would be avery bad, bad, mistake, and it will come home to roost.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/11/10/the-case-against-lieberman/
Click to expand...

I don't know; sounds a little paranoid to me. Why would Lieberman seek "revenge" against the guy who gave him a last-minute death row pardon?

On just about every level, I want to see Lieberman ousted & exiled & humiliated. He's earned it. However, that's just on a personal level. On a purely practical, political level, it makes sense to at least keep him in the caucus. I'm really not as keen to see him keep the chairmanship, but I expect Obama is trying to send out a message that he is change, and he is striving for a post-partisan Washington.
 
Onceler said:
I don't know; sounds a little paranoid to me. Why would Lieberman seek "revenge" against the guy who gave him a last-minute death row pardon?

On just about every level, I want to see Lieberman ousted & exiled & humiliated. He's earned it. However, that's just on a personal level. On a purely practical, political level, it makes sense to at least keep him in the caucus. I'm really not as keen to see him keep the chairmanship, but I expect Obama is trying to send out a message that he is change, and he is striving for a post-partisan Washington.
Click to expand...

is it revenge? i think it's his ideology. i wouldn't let him within range of any kind of power. i think it's foolish. i'm not interested in revenge against him. he should not be rewarded however; others who worked for that majority, rather than against it, should be. and...he can't be trusted in any way, for a minute.
 
Darla said:
is it revenge? i think it's his ideology. i wouldn't let him within range of any kind of power. i think it's foolish. i'm not interested in revenge against him. he should not be rewarded however; others who worked for that majority, rather than against it, should be. and...he can't be trusted in any way, for a minute.
Click to expand...

Im glad both you and Lorax are showing a teenie weenie bit of tolerance towards Joe ... who is a Lefty Democrat on just about every issue except the War.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top