Dean: Keeping Lieberman As Chairman Is Shrewd Move

DNC Chair Howard Dean welcomed the decision to keep Senator Joseph Lieberman as head of the Homeland Security Committee and, consequently, in the Democratic Caucus, saying the move was pragmatic, magnanimous and politically shrewd.

Speaking to the Huffington Post just moments after it was announced that Democrats in the Senate had voted to keep Lieberman as committee chair, Dean said the party had done the right thing by not giving into urges for retribution.

"You know, the desire of revenge is great, of course. But the truth is public policy doesn't run on revenge very well," he said. "And when you see the trouble this country has gotten into in terms of foreign policy, where Bush basically ran a foreign policy based on petulance because he was mad at, for example, Mexico, for abstaining on the Security Council when the Iraq War came up, if you have to actually run the country, it is best not to do it based on feeling of anger towards your enemies."

The Democratic Party chair, who will be leaving his post this January, went on to applaud Barack Obama for putting hurt feelings aside and welcoming the Connecticut Independent back into the party fray. He also predicted that the caucus would benefit from keeping Lieberman, who spent the past year campaigning alongside John McCain, often criticizing Obama and the Democratic Party.

"My point of view is that Barack won," Dean said. "He can afford to be magnanimous. And if we happen to win both recounts and Georgia, Joe is the 60th vote. And the truth is -- and I certainly don't have to defend Joe Lieberman because, you know, we have an interesting history -- but the fact is, he does vote 90 percent of the time with the Democrats. And no, he shouldn't have said all those things. But why not clean the slate? Why not start all over again? Why not allow him to vote with us on the 90 percent of the stuff? He will be a good vote on climate change -- and this matters. He may be a good vote on election reform, which I hope we will get to. So, you know, he may end up - though it is a little against the odds -- he may end up being the vote that allows us to conduct business when Mitch McConnell decides we shouldn't."

Comments

[FloGo]

I do hope that Obama will find a place in his administration for Howard Dean. Dean had it right when he said campaigning should be done in the Red as well as the Blue state and he was right!

[ObjectiveRealist]

I hope the DNC will keep him on as a special-purpose 50 state campaign specialist. He has a remarkable ability to articulate the connections among ideas, and personal strengths of candidates which I didn't notice when he was running for the Presidential nomination. Apparently I was depending too much on corporate media at the time.

[lthuedk 1]

All for a failed totalitarian cause...

Joe Lie_berman should resign in disgrace. His un-American, pro-Bushist behavior is well documented and no matter how the Senate vote went, he can never lose that signature of maximum disrespect for the U.S. Constitution or the People, unless he gives at least as much back as he had planned to take from us as an active Neo Con.

Naughty totalitarians need a tight harness. Lie down with ideologues and wake up pilloried.

http://www.light-to-dark.com/soda_jerk.html

Forever.

[ObjectiveRealist]

I agree Joe took the wrong side, but I'm coming around to Obama's & Dean's perspective. But first, I wrote a passionate argument that Joe's offense transcends party loyalty and as a matter of competence he should be relieved of influence on matters of national security.

http://reedyoung.blogspot.com/2008/11/non-partisan-argument-against-joe.html

In the meantime, I have considered Dean's and Obama's statements about the matter, and the GOP / McCain campaign approach to loyalty.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/20/mccain-pollster-explains_n_145139.html?page=9&show_comment_id=18168253#comment_18168253

I'm *relatively* pleased with the handling of Joe Lieberman's de facto defection. No, actually, I'm thrilled with the *handling* of it, by Obama and Dean; they made the *best* possible of a bad situation. Making the situation perfect just wasn't on the menu.

I still plan to keep his Senate page in my bookmarks, and if I'm in a position to do so, support any progressive candidate who opposes him next time he's up for election. 2012, is it?

[zest]

I trust Dean's judgement.

[blastit]

shrewed? we shall see,

[sepiasiren]

Don't we need to insure that Democratic policies are put into place--isn't this bigger than Lieberman and revenge...?

Isn't it better to have an indebted Dem in the seat? Also--isn't the off with is head stuff awful Palin like?

Big picture people, big picture...

[StillIRise]

YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!

[bygollymissmolly]

It had nothing to do with "revenge" and everything to do with accountability. Allowing Lieberman to blackmail the Democrats only proved that they are no different from the Republicans when it comes to accountability.

[bygollymissmolly]

And how do the Democrats know that Joe won't be taking their secrets to the Republicans on a regular basis?

[NWBrunette]

Lieberman's time on the Homeland committee has been the polar opposite of Barack's agenda. Kicking him out wouldn't have changed his votes (we'd still have 60 90% of the time). Putting a team player in charge of the committee would have helped with our agenda. What am I missing?

[SkyWolf]

RE: Obama is more centrist than I though...

Politics is relative and after 8 years of Bush, a centrist position looks like the left wing. If you think of politics as a game of chess you’ll understand that command of the center means you are in control of the board and the game. If Obama leads from the center he can attract center left and center right support and assemble a commanding majority.

[StillIRise]

I don't understand why so many on the "left" don't understand what you understand and have expressed so well.

Obama was elected to be the President of America, of ALL Americans. Not the president of the left, and not even the president of the Democratic Party, but the President of us all. When governing our country, extreme left ideology is as unbalanced and non-constructive as extreme right ideology, as we have witnessed in the last 8 years with Bush. President-Elect Obama will be balanced, and being balanced, he will govern from the center. This is the kind of leadership America needs, and the kind of leadership that will not only "assemble a commanding majority," but will also actually get something meaningful done.

[tavote08]

Being an advent chess player I have said from the beginning of this journey that President Obama was more than alittle familiar with the game. I believe it's a game that should be taught in every school as a course in psychology, starting at kindergarden....

[XME]

Yup, that's why I voted for him! I consider myself center-left, not far-left, and I had a strong feeling about him that he would lead with restraint.

Take a cue from the Repubs who are running as far to the right as the can fiscally and socially, and bleeding all kinds of support from the center!

[falls1105]

here we go again ,dems always unsure. I would love for us to be like the gop certain unfraid.Not always just sometimes.

[wltdnfaded]

The screamers just don't get it. The Dems did the right-- if not popular-- thing. Let the Repubclicans attack each other. The Dems are showing unity. But don't think I'm so naive not to know that some wheeling and dealing happened. Promises were made, and asses were kissed.

[StillIRise]

Exactly! The "screamers" are responding to this as if they were the fly on the wall, privvy to the debate and the conversation that took place between the Democrats and Lieberman. The Democrats, least of all Obama, didn't merely forgive Lieberman and move on. A deal was made, and in exchange for remaining in the caucus and in his chairmanship position, Lieberman will be kissing some Obama a*s*s* for a very long time.

[thatvisionthing]

You were there? Do tell.

[bygollymissmolly]

Sure, he'll kiss Obama's a$$ while taking the Democrat's secrets to the Republicans.

I predict this is a colossal mistake that will come back and bite the Democrats big time.

[mathme]

Obviously, he was setting up a Serbian J.ew double-bluff all along!

[snarkopolitan]

So far, every instinct Obama's had has been proved right.

The idea is to have an effective administration. Revenge is a luxury. There's something to be said for enforcement, though.

Try to have a little perspective. We're just coming off eight years of incompetence and cruelty on an epic scale. Let's at least wait until the inauguration before consigning Obama to the ash heap of history (I always wanted to use that cliche!).

[FearlessFreep]

"So far, every instinct Obama's had has been proved right."

Even supporting the Wall Street bailout?

[thatvisionthing]

And choosing FISA over the Constitution?

[rebeltoady]

Lieberman is now under the thumb of the Democratic leadership. Without them he is marginalized, a ghost inhabiting the Senate floor. A certain amount of obedience will be the price he pays for his precious chairmanship.

[NSeagle78]

My friends and I worked our buts off because we were true believers, now we look like idiots. There is no reason to hold on to LIE-BER-man. This is the final proof that the senate is the greatest good old boy club. "My friends" we have been had again.

[FearlessFreep]

Don't blame me, I voted Nader. (Or I would have if I were American instead of Canadian.)

[Asean4Obama]

LOL - I would have voted Obama but my heart is with the Green Party of Germany. Time for Nader to let go of the Green party to let in some new faces.

[talking2u]

Who said keeping (protecting) Lieberman is Magnanimous (kisskiss) and Shrewd? None other than Howard the DEEEEAAAAN­NNNNNNNNNN­NNNNNNNNNN­NNNNNN! And he "got back in" didn't he? Must know how to handle (silence) the people, huh.

Set 'em straight at the get-go folks. No time to sit back in shock and awe. We had enough of that didn't we? Remember '68 folks. Remember '68. Refresh their short term memories with the meaning of what we were yelling: "Yes we can!"

[entropy2]

BS - if your support of the party was based on this, then you're pretty short-sighted. Can you count to sixty?

[thatvisionthing]

Why should we have to count to 60? Remember change? It was supposed to be good faith bipartisanship, uniting us on common grounds instead of committing to mean and divisive failure. Remember no red states, no blue states, just the United States of America? If you have to count to 60, you are committed to the United States of Democrats. Having just come off the United States of Republicans, I can tell you that - is - fail.

[StillIRise]

If you and your friends worked your butts off because you truly believed that President-Elect Obama and the Democratic caucus would govern our nation from the limited perspective of you and your friends alone, then you WERE idiots. Obviously you don't understand the complexity of the political landscape of our government and that's it's not as simple as holding onto Lieberman or letting him go. Perhaps if any one of us was actually present behind the closed doors of the conversations between Lieberman and his colleagues, we would not be so quick to judge the outcome of those discussions. As it is however, you are only judging the outcome, without any knowledge of the context, which is idiotic in itself. If you truly believed in President-Elect Obama, then it seems that you would also trust his judgment. President-Elect Obama cannot and will not govern our country by the standard of our personal and sometimes petty preferences, and we will not always be fully cognizant or fully informed about the decisions he makes. But so far, he has not proven to be wrong, and I trust and truly believe that he will not be wrong this time either.

[ManyColored]

Wait for the opportune moment, and them screw him bigtime.

[Boadicea]

Dr. Dean, whatever makes you think that Lieberman would choose to vote with Democrats when it counted? He was telling Republican audiences that a fillibuster-proof Dem majority would destroy the country! What makes you think he'd pick that time to be loyal?

There is nothing to keep Lieberman from voting with Democrats 90% of the time without his committee chairmanship. If he's a man of conscience, he'd do that.

Oh. Right.

Lieberman's word is worth sh*t, sir, and Democrats are fools to trust that he'll cooperate if they let him have his way. He'll turn on them just as he turned on Bill Clinton, just as he turned on Barack Obama. Just as he turned on the people of Connecticut.

[GingerB]

His chairmanship can be taken away from him at any time. I think we should use Lieberman until we use him up. The people of Connecticut can retire his weasel-ass in 4 years.

[liberalCEO]

Absolutely the right point. Who knows what commitments were extracted from him that, should he fail to meet them, would result in an immediate removal from chairmanships.