Obama Says Neutral On Lieberman Fight (Updated)

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 10:44


Greg Sargent becomes the first person to get the Obama campaign on record about whether Lieberman should keep his committee position or not. They claim to be staying neutral:

President-Elect Barack Obama doesn't "hold any grudges" against Senator Joe Lieberman for opposing his presidential candidacy, and will not take any position on the question of whether Lieberman should be permitted to keep his plum chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee, an Obama spokesperson just confirmed to us.

"We aren't going to referee decisions about who should or should not be a committee chair," Obama transition spokesperson Stephanie Cutter emailed me, in response to questions about Obama's stance on Lieberman's future.

This is a bit of a setback to the campaign to oust Lieberman from his committee chairmanship. Internal Democratic Senate caucus support to remove Lieberman from his chairmanship appears significantly based on Lieberman's support for McCain. For the Obama campaign to say "meh, we don't care that he supported McCain," will thus help Lieberman out quite a bit.

Some will argue that there is no political benefit to be had for the Obama campaign to publicly oppose Lieberman's chairmanship. That may be true, but we need to remember is actually "Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs," and as such is the committee charged with oversight of the executive branch. Surely, having someone more favorable to your administration than Lieberman would be useful to an incoming administration.

The Democratic Senate caucus will vote on whether Lieberman keeps his chairmanship in seven days. Firedoglake has a "Just Say No To Joe" campaign you can participate in here:

Call Your Senators NOW

Also, Bold Progressives are holding events at Democratic Senate offices around the country. Check it out, and find an event near you. If the pressure to remove Lieberman isn't coming from above, it will have to come from below.

Update: Also, in some very positive news for the campaign, Jane Hamsher reports that Senators Durbin and Schumer are apparently in favor of Lieberman losing his chairmanship. Those are two very big dogs to have on our side, making this campaign very winnable. I will be calling Senator Casey shortly.

Chris Bowers :: Obama Says Neutral On Lieberman Fight (Updated)

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Obama Says Neutral On Lieberman Fight (Updated) | 31 comments
How is this a major setback? (4.00 / 5)
Obama didn't say anything about the chairmanship leaving it up to Senate.  The senate votes by senate ballot so they can oust Joe which is what I think they will do.

So what if Obama says he should stay in the caucus. That's not the issue. If Joe is stripped of his chairmanship and leaves the Caucus after Obama and others have asked him to stay he is the one who looks petty and vindictive not Obama.

I don't see this as a setback at all and we should keep up the pressure for the Senate to strip him.

So far it looks like Schumer and Durbin are ready to vote to strip him of his chair.

Durbin (4.00 / 1)
If Durbin wants to strip Lieberman of his chair then Obama does too. Its just a matter of keeping Obama's hands clean.
[ Parent ]
I agree... (0.00 / 0)
I guess we know who one of Obama's Senate Hatchet men is going to be.
[ Parent ]
Wrote directly to Durbin myself (0.00 / 0)
This may not be the type of constituent comment that he'll respond to, at least not until it's settled. It took quite some time to hear back whenever I e-mailed him during the campaign, and with their daughter's death, his mail may have increased many times over.

Sens Biden, Dodd and Clinton are on the Steering and Outreach Committee, along with Byrd, Kennedy, Leahy and both Michigan Senators, Levin and Stabenow, who is the Chair. Clicking on the member's photo will open their home page and contact link.

[ Parent ]
Agreed... (0.00 / 0)
I want Lieberman out of the chair of any committee more significant than one that keeps soap in the Imperial Bathrooms. No hesitation there -- Lieberman is not a Democrat either formally or by his behavior.

That said, I'm relieved that Obama knew better than to involve himself in an ugly intra-party fight that would set the narrative as him being a vindictive micromanager. As almost always, he's way too smart to fall into that pit. Plus, as president it ain't his job to play mommie to our elected representatives. Maybe we've just gotten way too used to a president that messes in everything and ends up messing everything up.

Besides, Obama is a savvy pol, among other things. If he wants HolyJoe out he knows how to get that message to those who will make the decision. He doesn't need to present a public drama. I'd say this is far from being a setback -- it's an encouraging sign that we are about to inaugurate a real president for a change.

Meanwhile, Durbin's DC switchboard is apparently overwhelmed with calls about something. Lieberman? Who knows. Anyway I'll keep calling til I get my chance to congratulate my senator on his good and courageous advocacy for dumping Joe out of the chair.

[ Parent ]
To be perfectly honest... (4.00 / 6)
This is a bit of a relief to me.  This, to me anyway, frees Senators to oust him if necessary.  This "neutral" position is far different than actually supporting his keeping the committee chair.  In some ways, this may be the best possible response we could've gotten from Obama.  He didn't want to look vindictive and say "Yeah, he should definitely be stripped for supporting my opponent", but has instead said he is going to step aside any of this.  Democrats should feel free to do what they want to do now (and I hope that's to oust his ass from his committee).
An issue for the Senate? (0.00 / 0)
I wonder if this is more of an attempt to foreshadow Obama's view of the relationship between the WH and Congress.  Although the role of the President is, in part, to provide leadership and outline the legislative agenda, I wonder if this is Obama's way of saying that the Senate should retain autonomy in certain affairs, and Obama's WH isn't going to try to micromanage the Senate.

I could be way off, of course.  I'm just agreeing with leshrac55 that this might be a principled decision rather than a display of of indifference.

[ Parent ]
Cross-cutting principles (4.00 / 4)
This might be a slightly tougher call than it appears at first, for Obama.  On the one hand, Lieberman is actively at odds with his own party and obviously doesn't deserve a key chairmanship.  On the other hand, as Kos said recently, for Congress to act as any sort of extension of the administration, rather than an as independent body, is bad news no matter which way it's coming from.  Dems in the Senate should be able to take care of their own internal affairs without direction from the incoming administration.

Another point on Congressional oversight: sure, any administration would want someone favorable to them in that spot, but lack of Congressional oversight was one of the worst problems we had in the past 8 years.  On the other hand, that doesn't mean you want oversight being conducted by a dishonest hack who's more interested in undermining your administration's legitimate efforts than in conducting principled oversight.  I sure as hell don't trust Lieberman to be anything but the latter.    

Yes to honest Congressional oversight... (0.00 / 0)
But Lieberman isn't an honest guy.

He'll use the position to flummox Obama's policy proposals. He'll innoculate himself against being removed from the post by starting investigations and denouncing calls for his removal as a political purge, thereby undermining the image of the whole party. He'll claim he is crusading for truth as a mavericky independent, thereby setting himself up for a 2012 re-election campaign with the full wind of rightwing media blowing in his sails as the icon of courageous post-partisan blah, blah, blah...

[ Parent ]
Agreed (0.00 / 0)
Someone with reliable principles should have that job.  Hopefully that'll be the clinching argument for enough Dems in the caucus.
[ Parent ]
ISTM (4.00 / 1)
It seems to me that the smart politic for one and all is the caucus vote.  As it's secret there is no price to pay either way.  My guess is "Le Affair" Lieberman will end with him losing the chairmanship(s) he so desires and being offered benign ones like education.  If he choses to bolt then we all are winners cause the Reps. will rip his heart out.  Either way it will be bye-bye to a bad penny.  
That would probably be the best outcome (4.00 / 2)
On substance, get someone way better in charge of his committee, and put him somewhere he can't do too much damage.  And on principle, it would be the sort of insider-clubby humiliation he richly deserves.
[ Parent ]
That's what I think will happen (4.00 / 1)
It sounds like there are enough pissed off dems who will strip him of his chairmanship and since it is by secret ballot what can Joe do but speculate who voted against him.

I don't see  anyone losing by voting to kick him out by secret ballot.

Joe is screwed.

[ Parent ]
I think Obama's letting Dems know (4.00 / 1)
that there won't be a price for dumping Lieberman. He's saying, go ahead, do what you want with him, it's fine with me. It's just unrealistic to have ever imagined that Obama would come out publicly with a petty public call for revenge. Given the Senate's infamous belief in its autonomy (however that's been disproven in recent years), an Obama attempt to publicly put the screws on might just as likely have caused resistance.

I just hope the Senate takes advantage of its chance to show it can be more than a rubber stamp. Keeping HolyJoe as chair would be like, um, putting Goldman Sachs in charge of the Treasury.

[ Parent ]
What are Obama's chance in four years if the economy (0.00 / 0)
hasn't turned around.

I'd say pretty close to zero.

This other stuff is not decisive.

I disagree... (0.00 / 0)
The economy won't turn around in four years.... but, if we can show some steady improvement...  like FDR did... then we will be OK!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Kinda puts it in perspective: Lieberman in charge of (0.00 / 0)
"..."Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs," and as such is the committee charged with oversight of the executive branch..."

If the Senate caucus votes to keep in power a known vindictive, revengeful, Zell Millerite, obstructionist a*hole -- then we really do have problems.

With regards to Schumer coming out over Lieberman, not buying it -- Mukasey is too fresh in my mind,  Actions speak louder than words.

Why I think SOME of the concern over Lieberman's oversight is excessive (0.00 / 0)
Doesn't the fact (or theory) that Lieberman is unprincipled and politically motivated suggest that he would be loathe to oppose Obama and the rest of his party at this particular juncture?

I too want to see Lieberman banished from any position of authority, as well as the caucus.  But it does seem to me that the risk of him causing problems with investigations has been somewhat exaggerated.

You want to risk it? I don't... (0.00 / 0)
I'm not into 'learned helplessness' -- oh no.
[ Parent ]
Problem is, (0.00 / 0)
in a position like that he doesn't have to openly oppose Obama's initiatives. He can quietly sow distrust and misdirection like the crafty Iago that he is. On this committee in particular he would have access to all kinds of information that's known only to a few, and the opportunity to use it for his own sociopathic ends. Remember the old story about the scorpion and the frog? For Joe, the whole universe is the Middle East.
[ Parent ]
Q for Chris Bowers (0.00 / 0)
If you get to ask important people about Lieberman I'd ask..

A) are you using similar criteria to the DNC, which stripped Joe Lieberman of his superdelegate status AS PER THEIR RULES

or

B) if that isn't the criteria (supporting the other party), what IS the criteria you will be using to make your decision

There is too much vaporous BS in this discussion. I wish Senators would just state the criteria they are using and act instead of using the usual Club Foggy Bullshit spin that is omnipresent in the "cooling saucer" which moves about as gracefully a dog with his balls frozen to a pond.

John McCain

Super D (0.00 / 0)
Just to correct a misnotion on your part... Lieberman lost his SD status because he is an independent.   It didn't matter whom he supported in the election.  Bernie sanders was not an SD either.    Lieberman lost his SD status the moment he lost the CT primary.
[ Parent ]
It's hard to say (0.00 / 0)
Think Progress, 2/7/08:

"Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who endorsed Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for president, will be disqualified as a superdelegate at the Democratic convention "under what is informally known as the Zell Miller rule." In 2004, Miller - then a Democratic senator from Georgia - attacked Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) in a speech at the Republican National Convention. The DNC "responded with a rule disqualifying any Democrat who crosses the aisle from being a super delegate." (HT: Firedoglake)"

It's my understanding that the trigger to strip Lieberman was his endorsement of McCain, not his election as an independent.

In general, the Bernie Sanders case is different than Lieberman because Sanders actively works to keep voters aware that he is NOT a Democrat (he refused the Democratic endorsement in his last election) while Lieberman seeks to actively confuse voters about his affiliation.

You may be correct on the letter of the DNC rules but when the CT Democrtic Party chair releases a statement saying that Lieberman was stripped because of the "Zell Miller" rule I have to go with that. You are definitely correct in stating the rules and almost all of these Lieberman problems would have been avoided if election and party officials had followed the letter of the law and rules and not put their friendships ahead of doing their job.

Sources:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/...
http://www.demconwatchblog.com...



John McCain

[ Parent ]
Not so bad (0.00 / 0)
This is actually an improvement from the noises we were hearing yesterday, when it sounded like Obama was dead set on keeping him in the caucus (which implies that he would keep the chairmanship.) This indifference isn't perfect, but it's an improvement. Basically it's "I don't run the senate, so I'm not going to insert myself in that process as president-elect. You guys can do what you want with regard to the chairmanship."

We were going to need to get a majority of the caucus on board with us either way, and that's probably easier without the Obama administration explicitly pushing against us. Yeah, it would be easier still with the Obama camp on our side, but I can understand why they don't want to touch it (even if I disagree strongly).

With Durbin and Schumer on our side, and clear denials from the Clinton camp about being on Lieberman's side (would they really be so explicit about it if they were pro-Lieberman or even indifferent?), we've still got a good chance.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

Obama ran a campaign based on post-partisanship (4.00 / 4)
Did anyone really expect one of his first acts would be to lash out in an apparent partisan act of retribution?  Joe supported McCain so he's gotta go?

Honestly, this is the best move for the Obama administration to take.  If Joe is ousted the admin can honestly say they had nothing to do with it and perhaps even reach out to Lieberman to try to restore relations, keep him in the caucus and possibly not have him as a certain impediment for future legislation.  And they get the credit if Joe stays in the caucus- this will allow Joe to save face in the process of doing so as well, "I was gonna leave but the President appealed to me directly and in an act of post-partisanship I will continue caucusing with the Dems..."

On the other hand if Lieberman somehow stays on as the chair ol' Joe will know it had a lot to do with Obama not coming out against him and that should have a mitigating effect on Lieberman's actions in the committee.

And he can always be booted later if he continues being a jerk.

Still, though, my gut says jettison this hack and lets move on!

This is the right response (4.00 / 1)
from the Obama campaign.  

What roles Lieberman gets to keep is entirely up to the Senate.  It is their Constitutional prerogative to do whatever housekeeping they feel appropriate.

A President should respect that and not try to push them one way or the other.  

There is a subtle but important difference between this statement and yesterday's support of keeping Lieberman in the caucus.  Keeping Leiberman in the caucus is a party decision.  Keeping Leiberman as chairman is a Senate decision.

Agree with other posters (0.00 / 0)
The ideal outcome for Obama is Lieberman kicked out of his chair while the President looks conciliatory.

But Rahm is making calls to all the Democrats, telling them to oppose Lieberman.  

Is this your assumption (0.00 / 0)
or your opinion? It seems reasonable to believe Rahm is putting on the screws as only he can, but have you seen evidence that that's the case? Hope so.
[ Parent ]
I think its the likliest interpretation (0.00 / 0)
of the information we have. Though Rahm might be too high profile to be making the calls himself :-)

But basically I think this is how smart people who handle the situation and I think the Obama people are smart.

I hope I'm right too.

[ Parent ]
Forgiveness (0.00 / 0)
Just because the Pope forgives the shooter doesn't mean the shooter avoids prison.

Just sayin'.

Isn't Durbin the person most likely to be representing (0.00 / 0)
Obama's behind the scenes position?

I think its a good sign that Obama has publicly denied that he is taking a position one way or another on Lieberman (Denying the reports from the past few days) while his closest ally in the Senate is working on booting Lieberman from the chairmanship.

"Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone

Obama Says Neutral On Lieberman Fight (Updated) | 31 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox