Clintons Deny Pushing For Lieberman To Stay In Caucus

Reports emerged on Monday afternoon that Bill Clinton was placing calls to Senate Democrats on behalf of Joe Lieberman, making the case that the Connecticut Senator should remain in the caucus.

The story sent immediate ripples throughout Democratic circles, which have been debating Lieberman's future in the party and, more specifically, whether he would continue to serve as chair of the Homeland Security and Government Reform Committee.

Almost immediately after, however, there was push back from Clinton's camp.

"It's completely false," said Matt McKenna, a spokesman for the former president.

Another former Clinton confidant said she would be incredibly surprised if Bill Clinton were weighing in on this matter. The two figures were famously at odds during the waning years of the Clinton administration -- Lieberman was the foremost Democratic critic of his conduct during the Lewinsky affair. Moreover, there is practically nothing for Clinton to gain by pushing this issue in the Senate.

Nevertheless, news that Bill Clinton was going to bat on behalf of the beleaguered Connecticut independent raised a secondary question: what is Hillary Clinton's position on the matter?

Two aides to the New York Democrat said she is not making calls on Lieberman's behalf. "Hillary isn't doing anything," one said. "She is leaving it up to Reid."

At the same time, as Glenn Thrush at Politico notes, she wasn't leading the charge to oust Lieberman from the caucus either.

"What does she have to gain by making any enemies -- even Joe?" Thrush quotes an ex-staffer as saying. "She's got her own agenda to push... she doesn't need a fight."

Comments

[rwe2late]

Without Lieberman caucusing with the Democrats, they would NOT be in a majority rule during the present session. Would you actually have favored that instead?
- Eosblue

Apparently, you are dazzled by all the impressive legislation a Lieberman-enabled Senate enacted in your imagination.
Less dazzled, I only observed how it facilitated the Republicans blaming the allegedly 'Democrat controlled" Congress for doing 'nothing'.

Your fawning eagerness to reward the Independent Lieberman out of gratitude is misplaced.

Your eagerness to deny a chairmanship to a deserving Democrat like Daniel Akaka of Hawaii is also misplaced, and suspect as well.

[Insightful]

Lieberman has been completely untrustworthy for some time and does not deserve any consideration whatsoever. He can NOT be trusted in his current position and should be removed. He has shown himself to be of weak moral character, so why cater to him in the hope he will change.
Independent, Republican or Democrat Joe is a turncoat and deserves no respect.

[itsover]

Its not that Liebermann supported McCain...he should be able to support whoever he chooses...it's his entire roll with the McCain campaign...what was so infuriating was him speaking at the GOP Convention...to me, that was the straw that broke the camel's back. I believe he should be punished for his actions...he should be able to caucus (as he can do that any way), but he should not chair any committees!!!

[Rosey]

You hit the nail on the head! Remove him as Chair....if that means he goes Republican to spite us, then he was never n honest and true friend of Dems in the first place! How he got re-elected is beyond me.

[sixx]

Why would any Democrat support someone, Lieberman, who said Sarah Palin can lead are nation.

[Wingit]

Politics. In the democratic caucus he represents a solid vote to overturn any attempt at a filibuster. Out of the caucus he is another one to negotiate with to gain his vote to prevent a filibuster. If the Democrats got the sixty seats they needed, you would see a very different picture.

[Operagoer]

Lieberman? What can I say about this guy? It is a mess. To make it short, just kick him out from the senate would be most appropriate. Unfortunately, this is not going to happen. This is the most selfish guy in the entire planet. It is only about himself, nothing else. He declared himself an Independent immediately after he was defeated as a democrat at the CT primary. Forgetting that he was Gore’s running mate, he hanged around with McCain in hope to become his VP pick. Now he even thinks to become a republican all together. Does he have any principle? Absolutely not. Do people (particularly Republicans) always say that character is important? The character of his is lower than the lowest. If I were a democrat senator I would not want to see his face in the caucus.
P.S. I think he should be a Republican if he ever stays in politics.

[jpmdevildog]

Lieberman is so distraught he turned to an ape for therapy:

http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/election-08/phd-ape-flies-to-liebermans-side/

STAMFORD, CT – In the midst of helping John McCain grieve, PhD Ape took a red-eye flight Monday night to be with Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman.

[ajax2]

Robert Greenwald's video on Joe Lieberman.
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20081111_blowback_for_lieberman/

[LeonBNJ]

To me the main reasons Lieberman is kept in his positions, are to show that the Democrats are concerned with homeland security and more so on the pro-Israel hawk support to hold off Republican charges they are not. Still, LIeberman should be demoted by the Democrats if they have any guts.

[rwe2late]

Lieberman should not get a committee chair any more than a Republican Senator.

The voters of Connecticut rejected Lieberman as a Democrat.
Lieberman quit the Democratic party and ran as an INDEPENDENT.
As an Independendent, he opposed the Democratic platform and Obama during the election campaign.

Why reward 'Independent' Lieberman by keeping him on as chair of an important committee where he opposes Obama/Democratic reforms?
Why deny a deserving actual Democrat like Daniel Akaka of Hawaii a well earned chairmanship?

Lieberman would only use a Homeland Security chairmanship to maintain the repressive and undemocratic Bush policies.

The attempt to portray this as a petty squabble BETWEEN Democrats is disingenuous.

[EosBlue]

Just goes to show you how little influence the Democrats or the Republicans have in election a candidate. If the candidate doesn't appeal to the Independent/Center voters, he/she is toast. The majority of Connecticut supported Lieberman and thus, he is their Senator.

Now, I suppose you can make a case that he might NOT be reelected in '12 when his present term expires, but that's a long way off.

Without Lieberman caucusing with the Democrats, they would NOT be in a majority rule during the present session. Would you actually have favored that instead? Reid would still be just a Senator.

[levibatgirl]

Close your mouth Joe.

[donttasemebro]

Didn't the pres. elect say that he would prefer Lie berman remain in the caucus. If he can forgive if not forget, so can I. However, I do believe that Joe should have to answer to the people of Connecticut for what he has done.

[eden4barack08]

Staying in the caucus is one thing, keeping the chairmanship another.

[itsover]

Agreed...plus, the President Elect has to say that...he is the one who ran on the platform of reaching across the aisle...but the other Dems don't have to accept this "traitor" behavior. John McCain and Liebermann are friends...so Liebermann supported his friend...can't blame him for that...but he didn't have to go as far as he did --- particularly speaking at the RNC...that was just unacceptable behavior...plenty others could have taken his place there...he should pay for his actions...the Dems should not allow him to chair any committees...period!!! Plus, that will give him more time to be with his dear friend, John McCain!!!

[elizlucinda]

Why should the Democratic caucus allow Lieberman to remain as Chair of the Homeland Security Committee. He did everything he could to undermine the Democrats during the election, including openly supporting and working on behalf of McCain. Seems to me he has made his political bed with the Republicans and if he had any class, he would quietly leave the Democratic caucus and sit as an Independent.

[useyourbrain]

"Reports emerged......" This is the same thing talking MSM heads say when they claim that people are talking this and that -- as if the circle jerk of thought they are part of are "people". They ain't "people". They are so-called "pundits" (rhymes with "idiots") and have an agenda they promote and try to back it up by saying, i.e. "Many Democrats I spoke with...." Just which Democrats are these?

These guys aren't down at the local bar, or slamming clothes against the rocks a the river. Who are they kidding?

What reports? Who said this? They need to self-vet or shut the F up.

[longislandlol]

The Prodigal Son comes to mind

[who38]

Trust me, Joe is no Prodigal Son.

[who38]

Joe is no Prodigal Son.

[partyofone]

American voters did not want to see Lieberman re-elected to Congress, but that was the choice of the citizens of Connecticut. Since his re-election, he has done nothing but support Bush and McCain, and attack the Democratic party and Obama, and work hard to prevent Obama's nomination and election. American public opinion of Lieberman, his lack of integrity, alliance with Bush, and warmongering, should be weighed in the decision of whether to give him a major committee chairmnship in a Democaticly lead Senate.

This is a good test of the agenda for change, and how responsive Senators will be to the will of the people. PE Obama would be wise to listen to public opionion on this one and enourage Senators to respond to it.

[LisaJeanM]

Also, Lieberman's Democratic defenders (like Evan Bayh) will say that Joe usually votes in favor of Democratic issues so "he's someone we need to keep as an ally". But I would say as a woman that it was highly offensive to me that Joe thought nothing of wholeheartedly supporting McCain who was, aside from being misogynistic over the years, totally commited to rescinding a women's reproductive rights should he become president. Evan Bayh thinks nothing about this, nor do some of the other career Senators apparently. I am especially offended because I voted for the Gore-Lieberman ticket in 2000, as did many democrat women. This man has not just betrayed Barack, he has betrayed the people who have given him his wonderful career and given him the very privileged position he so arrogantly feels entitled to keep under any circumstance. It just makes me even angrier that people like Evan Bayh don't seem to get it.

By the way, Evan is going to be on Rachel Maddow's show tonight, defending his pal Joe. If you want to say something to him before he goes on, here is his number:

Evan Bayh's D.C. office: [phone]

[who38]

Guress that puts Evan on the Do Not Re-elect List along with Joe.

[eden4barack08]

*The vote on Joe the Judas' chairmanship in the Democratic Caucus is six days away, we have some good chances of prevailing, but they can be better if we keep contacting our Senators. You can do so with the following easy link:

http://tools.advomatic.com/7/kickjoe

Joe can caucus all he wants with us, but we cannot entrust such an important chairmanship in the hands of someone who votes the total opposite of us on the subject, and frankly he also has been lousy at that post. If he doesn't like it, it's his choice to leave.

[partyofone]

It will be very funny to see Hillary the Hypocrite forced to make a decision on Lieberman and defend it. You can't dodge responsibility forever.

[who38]

Why is the vote prior to Obama's becominig President? I agree that Joe should not have a Chairmanship. I think that a Dem who is in line for that position should challenege Joe. Why should that Senator be punished so that the Dems can continue to pander to Lieberman?

[who38]

Why is this vote being done prior to Obama's becoming President? Allowing Joe to maintain his Chairmanship is depriving some worthy Dem Senator from having an appointment that he/she deserves. When will this pandering to the freshman Independent Senator from Connecticut end?