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

[BillyMae]

It's not about revenge; it is about whether you can count on the guy. He's shown you can't. If the Democrats are going to play the prt of wimps, then it's all over.

[MattePgh]

Deep breath everyone.

Obviously Leebs owes Obama and we are two away from 60 blue seats. But what really what went down will only be known to a few.

Does anyone know why McCain made peace with "that one" so very soon after the election?

Do you think that they met one day before the senate caucus was to vote on poor Joe's fate was just a co-wink-e-donut?

McCain did the walk of shame to save his friend Joe the Senator.

We will never know what McCain had to pledge to Obama, but I bet it is worth it.

Who forged this deal? Raul ARI Emmanuel. The era of whimps is over

[Beninn]

"The Myth of the Filibuster-Proof Senate"

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/143

This is about telling the left to take a hike.

[wltdnfaded]

Well played.

[smcilree]

Heck, Lieberman's record of voting with the party is better than Ben Nelson, our supposed Democrat Senator from Nebraska. (87% to 81%)

[firelord5000]

I'm disgusted by dems letting the traitor to America keep the seat after he attacked the president elect's character multiple times.

[ajax2]

Lieberman supported, Torture, Wars of Aggression, Warrantless Spying, shrewd or unconstitutional?

[ErikW65]

The problem with opting for a strong partisan accountability for Joe Lieberman is, you're assume that he will vote with the opposition, and thus you don't care if he does anyway, and so you make that more likely to be the case. And so to some degree you hurt Obama's chances of being a successful president, in order to satisfy an urge for revenge. That's counterproductive. And ironically, it's a compromise in principle to seek this "accountab­ility.". The principle that we want Obama to fix this country, above all else.

[psy]

Well said. Emotional decisions are almost always the wrong decisions.

[Unreadable]

So what Dean is saying is that it's shrewd to keep a prostitute at home in case your wife isn't feeling up to it.

Because that's what Lieberman is - a political prostitute.

That's not shrewd. That's disgusting.

[independent32955]

Lest we even bother mentioning that Obama is a Christian and he is showing humility and mercy in his position that Lieberman should keep his position.

I mean, I get that those "christians" on the gop side would consider that a weakness, but then most of them don't even like Christ or what he stands for, so go figure.

[MetalCanuck]

HAHAHA!!

What a joke, yeah change is coming.

[johnfrum]

Yes indeed - Change you can believe in!
To be fair, Obama at no point said you SHOULD believe.

The really sad part is he is head and shoulders above the offered alternative. Truly, America is 5crewed.

[toypiano]

So, what Dean is saying is that Obama is playing this like a game for HIS benefit, not for the good of the country. Meanwhile, Lieberman is a warmonger who has done a terrible job on the committee so far. WTF. Not what I voted for when I voted for change.

It's not about revenge (as if the Dems could ever pull that off anyway), it's about strategy. Apparently that democratic "kick me" sign is still stuck to the back of our collective shirts. But hey, as long as Obama gets to feel magnanimous.

Wait, I get it. Obama's playing the good-cop, bad-cop game. He wants to be the good cop. But Congress also wants to be the good cop. Which means the voters have to be the bad cop in order to change things? Oy.

[entopticon]

If I were a cartoon character there would be smoke coming out of my ears right about now. Words cannot fully capture the severity of my anger over this. The asinine decision to let a man that implied that Obama is a Marxist, and even questioned Obama's patriotism, be chair of the Homeland Security committee is absolutely outrageous.

[doublesvb]

I know they kept him around for poltical reasons but I don't care. It's like the dems have no gonads. They should have thrown him under the bus immediately. What he did to Barack is inexcusable and he should have been thrown right out of the party. let's grow a few.

[strandwolf]

Right; what happened to the 1992 version of Rahm Emanuel: "I want him dead" to each and every enemy of the party?

[JoelGrant]

I do not defer my judgment to Howard Dean or Obama or any other of these spineless Democrats. I reluctantly voted for Obama when McWarmonger chose Palin. I still prefer a country with Obama as president than That Other Guy.

But I am already disgusted and looking forward to finding ways to help fellow progressives take out the pathetic Dems who decided to keep Lieberman in their caucus.

Pathetic. These people make me puke.

[weatherwaxx]

Dr. Dean has a point. Why is it that anytime a Democrat doesn't act like he learned how to behave from watching pro wrestling, s/he is "spineless?"

I can't stand Lieberman. I wish he'd shown enough of his true colors to keep the people of Connecticut from being bamboozled -- and I hope he's beaten by a real Dem next time out. But if he quits, the Republican governor of CT will send in a GOP shill.

And I don't have to work with him. I'm sure Joe Weasel knows that this is his last chance to be a team player ... I hope the Dems pick up a few more Senate seats in 2010 and put a dependable Senator in that chair.

[as1504]

Lieberman is an AIPAC Republican shill. He refuses to investigate any of the shortfalls or illegal behavior of the Bush administration. The excuse he uses? That he does not want to live in the past and engage in petty partisanship. Wow! That is the same excuse Reid and the other Democrats gave for selling the Democratic voters out time and again!

[Weathermaker]

I really don't understand this move. The dems won because they were against the war in Iraq and now they put Lieberman in charge of Homeland Security Committee??? Why didn't they put Lieberman on something related to Climate Change, where Joe's position is not at odds with what the dems stand for? It makes no sense whatsoever.

[Malamati]

-The dems won because they were against the war in Iraq-

What gave you that idea?

[Fraugher]

Um, they removed him from Climate Change as a matter of fact.

Iraq, FISA, $750B, Lieberman, why does this continue to surprise?

[wheresthebeef]

Is it just me, or is this guy Obama really proving himself to be very, very good at what he does? Not only does keeping Lieberman inside the tent bring Obama one vote closer to the magical 60, but it also stands in obvious contrast to Bush's propensity for valuing loyalty over utility. Those, like Dean, who say it would have run counter-message for Obama to show any appearance of vindictiveness are right on. As brand protection, it makes perfect sense.
Then there's the fact that Lieberman's going to have a real need for the Dems' support when he runs for re-election in 2012, and for all the good will that he can wring from them in the interim. And the fact that he provides a natural link to John McCain and whatever Republicans rally around him as putative head of his party.
The bottom line is that this should make Obama's job easier. If you're not convinced that that's the point...

[mitaka]

Lieberman as the 60th vote is worse than not having him on board. He will have such a huge leverage on issues that are dear to neo-cons. Yes, he will vote 90% of the time with Dems on some issues (where the Republicans can afford to bend) but when it comes to war and freedom, he will be a drag for Dems. This is ridiculous and bad politics.

[Troubledwawa]

I think it's a good move too.

It may not guarantee the magical 60 all the time, by the one vote by itself.

Right now, you don't want to push him away. He's got too many non Democrat friends, which if played correctly, can guarantee the magical 60, or maybe even a more magical 65, by reaching across the aisle.

[learnsomething]

This decision has nothing to do with the President-elect Obama.

[ErikW65]

You're absolutely correct- this only concerns the President Obama.

[Malamati]

Right. It's not like the senate has any say in what the president does. And vice versa.