Countdown: "Let's NOT make a deal on health reform" (video)

MSNBC-Countdown, video (09:17).

Howie P.S.: Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) joins Olbermann and promises to "fight" for the Medicare buy-in option during the final negotiations on the health care legislation. I didn't hear anybody say "NO DEAL" on health reform, if there is no public option or Medicare buy-in. Brown didn't want to talk about punishing Lieberman, either.

mcjoan: "Reid Caves: Medicare Buy-in, Public Option Pulled from Senate Bill"

mcjoan (Kos):

With Tom Harkin pre-capitulating, telling TMPDC that "There's enough good in this bill that even without those two, we gotta move," even before the Dem caucus met to decide the way forward, the writing was on the wall. Add Rockefeller, who says he'll vote for the bill even without Medicare buy-in, and it's gone.

A number of sources are reporting that the majority capitulated to Lieberman, who was in attendance in the meeting, cuz, you know, he's with us on everything but the war.

Senators emerging from the special Democratic caucus confirm that the Medicare buy-in proposal will have to be stripped from the Senate bill in order to achieve 60 votes.

So what's out next at Lieberman's demand? The 90% medical loss ratio is destined to be a goner, now that the CBO has concluded that requiring insurance companies to pay 90% of money collected through premiums out in direct medical care would--and this I don't get at all--"make such insurance an essentially governmental program," that's gonna be out.

What's Lieberman's next demand going to be? My guess is Medicaid subsidies have to be removed.

And don't forget that we still have Ben Nelson's abortion demands.

Yes, Virginia, this bill can look even worse by the end of the week. And probably will.

Howie P.S.: Progressives in the House are pushing back: "House Progressive Caucus Pressure White House." mcjoan concludes with

They've bent pretty far thus far, and the pressure on them to pass something, anything, will be extreme. But there could very well be a breaking point for them, and it's likely to be what Joe Lieberman would strip from the bill, and what Ben Nelson would add to it. That's part of the equation that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have to keep in mind.

"Good question… "

Shaun (Upper Left):

…from John Cole.

Now that Lieberman clinched the Monday morning headlines and will get the most attention on Morning Joe, what will drama queens John McCain and Ben Nelson do to get back in the news?

I dunno, but I'm sure they'll find a way, as will any number of Senators on the other side of the health care issue. Senators are like that. Even the most junior minority backbencher in the US Senate is, by virtue of the position itself, an important and powerful person, with the capacity to make news and a sense of entitlement to a certain amount of deference and attention. The afore-mentioned are simply exemplars of the unpleasant reality that the most effective way to fulfill that expectation of attention is to position yourself on the extreme side of an issue, though most will disguise that extremism under the cloak of moderation.

There's nothing moderate, of course, about the threat to join a Republican filibuster of an important Democratic policy initiative. To do so is to make common cause with the extremist obstructionists of the Republican Party, which is unified its desire to damage Democrats politically regardless of the costs or consequences for America or Americans. Questions of rational governance are irrelevant to a party whose political strategy calls for the failure of government as a first principle. No moderates there, and nothing moderate about helping them to implement that strategy.

The other, our, side is hardly silent, of course, but the voices we hear the most are from "mavericks" like Russ Feingold or non-Democrats like the independent socialist Bernie Sanders. If a Democratic Senator wants to make the papers, the suggestion that they might vote against final passage of health insurance reform that doesn't include a public option. There's a difference, of course, since they don't, as a rule, threaten to actually join a Republican filibuster, but the threat of any kind of dissension is usually enough for an enhanced degree of media attention.

The real story, of course, isn't Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson (President McCain is in a different category, nor is it Russ Feingold or Bernie Sanders. The story is Republican extremism that has given Harry Reid they Sisyphean task of finding sixty votes for permission for the majority of the Senate to work its will, and the story can't be told without the word extremism. Not moderation. Not conservatism. Extremism. I suppose that's one reason the story isn't being told - the media seems to think calling extremism by its name is, well, extremist.

Glenn Greenwald on Afghanistan, State Secrets, Healthcare and the Media (video)

Democracy Now! with video:

One of the leading political and legal bloggers in the country, Glenn Greenwald, joins us to talk about about the war in Afghanistan, the Obama administration’s use of state secrets, the healthcare debate, the renewed military commissions at Guantanamo and the coverage of it all by the corporate media. Greenwald is a constitutional law attorney who writes for Salon.com and is the author of three books.

"Rachel Maddow - FDL's Jane Hamsher Discusses Joe Lieberman's Filibuster Threat" (video)

firedoglake, video (04:10).

Howie P.S.: This conversation may explain Harry Reid's comment that Joe Lieberman is "the least of Harry Reid's problems."

Maddow: "Lieberman defends insurance industry interests" (video)

MSNBC-Maddow, video (11:24).

Howie P.S.: Glenn Greenwald joins Maddow to discuss conflicts of interest on the health care reform issue involving Lieberman and Evan Bayh.

Rachel Maddow on LIEberman (video) (Updated)

UPDATE: Jane Hamsher takes Chris Dodd to task for backing Lieberman on this issue.

MSNBC-Maddow, video (08:54).

Howie P.S. Jane Hamsher joins Rachel to offer historical perspective. Robert Scheer writes "Lieberman Twists the Knife." Ezra Klein (WaPo) says "I don't know why I don't take Joe Lieberman's threat to filibuster health-care reform more seriously, but I just don't." ED Schultz DOES, video (12:31). Political Wire adds their 2 cents: "Analyzing Lieberman's Threat."

"Markos Talks About Change vs. Joe Lieberman On MSNBC" (video)

DailyKosTV, video (04:58).

Katie asks Holy Joe "Do you feel as if you owe President-Elect Obama one?" (video)

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., talks with Katie Couric about reconciling with Democratic leaders after endorsing Republican Sen. John McCain's presidential run.
CBS, with video:

He was a ubiquitous presence on the campaign trail. Sen. Joe Lieberman, the former Democratic vice presidential candidate, stumped for his close friend, Republican Sen. John McCain.

Even speaking at the Republican party's convention in St. Paul, Minn., he said: "Sen. Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man. But, my friends, eloquence is no substitute for a record." Lieberman became an Independent in 2006 after a painful primary defeat by Ned Lamont, who, unlike Lieberman, was staunchly anti-war.

On Tuesday, Senate Democrats, who had threatened to strip Lieberman of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee decided he could keep it, though he was asked to step down as chairman of another sub-committee. Lieberman spoke with CBS News anchor Katie Couric Tuesday morning.

Lieberman: I think what the Democratic caucus did yesterday in response to the appeal from president-elect Obama was to say "it's time for us to reconcile, to close ranks. Yes we didn't like some of the things Joe Lieberman said during the campaign, but he's one of us."

Couric: Do you feel as if you owe President-Elect Obama one?

Lieberman: Well, look, no more than what I've said from the day after the election two weeks ago, which is: I congratulate Barack Obama on becoming our president. I offer him my full-hearted commitment to help in any way I can to make him the president we need at this urgently critical time in mesh history.

Couric: I know you want to look forward, Sen. Lieberman, but I feel I would remiss if I didn't mention a couple things that enraged Democrats.

Lieberman: Why did I know you were gonna do that?

Couric: You said on whether Sen. Obama is a Marxist, you said "it's a good question to ask." Are you sorry you said that?

Lieberman: That's one of those things I wish I said more clearly. Obviously Barack Obama is not a Marxist.

Couric: You said it's a good question to ask.

Lieberman: But then I answered it and said, "no he's not Marxist." I said at the time that he's somewhat to the left of me on some issues.

Couric: What really irritated even enraged some Democrats was your speech at the Republican National Convention.

Lieberman: Yeah.

Couric: Did you understand at the time how nervy that might seem to some Democrats? How inappropriate?

Lieberman: I understood that I was doing something different as an Independent Democrat supporting a Republican candidate. But I did it not only because I felt so strongly on behalf of my friend John McCain, but because there is so much partisanship in our politics today that really stops us from getting things done for the American people. And in a speech that I would guess went 15 or 20 minutes, I spoke three sentences, which I believe were respectful, about Sen. Obama.

Couric: It was no secret, Sen. Lieberman, that in his heart of hearts, John McCain really wanted you.

Lieberman: Well, I don't know that that's true. I must tell you, when Rick Davis, the McCain campaign manager, called me and said that John wanted to put me on the so-called short list for vice president for vetting, I really said, Katie "are you kidding?" Because though we're very close friends, John McCain and I thought, now how's he gonna get the Republican Convention to confirm a Democratic vice presidential nominee? Somebody during that time told me that that hadn't been done since Abraham Lincoln.

Couric: Sen. Clinton is a key contender, it seems, for secretary of state. What do you think of that?

Lieberman: Well, I'm a big Hillary Clinton fan. I think if he decided he wanted her and she decided she wanted to do it, she would be a great secretary of state.

Couric: I have covered a lot of elections in my career, and it seems to me, senator, that every time a new president comes into office we hear the same thing. "We're going to work together. We're going to work for the American people. There's going to be a new spirit of bipartisanship." And, while frankly, it dissolves pretty quickly into bitter partisanship and the same-old-same old.

Lieberman: We have had here in our government in Washington for too long now a permanent campaign. There are times here, Katie, when I see the partisan squabbling going on in Congress and with the White House over the last several years I feel like we're firefighters who have stepped outside a house that's burning and are spending all our time arguing with each other instead of putting out the fire in the house.

Couric: Arguing about which hose to use?

Lieberman: Arguing about which hose to use. And I think it's so clear now that America's house is being threatened by fire that all of just got together and help to put out that fire and rebuild the house.

Barack Obama

Ned Lamont on Holy Joe (video)

MSNBC, video (07:40).

Dean: "Keeping Lieberman As Chairman Is Shrewd Move"

Huffington Post:

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."

Howie P.S.: I'm trying to keep an open mind on this and if I see a crack in the doorway, I will push right through. This helps, but I'm not there yet.
Barack Obama

Jed Lewsion on Lieberman and Hillary as SOS

"Lieberman Wins, 43-12"

Oh, goody.

"HRC For SoS? What About SoD?"

Ben Smith weighs in with a look at how the possibility of HRC as SOS is causing some (totally understandable) strife within Obama-land, and Al Giordano continues his push to thwart her nomination.

I'm still totally confused. I don't know why Obama would want her as Secretary of State as opposed to, say, Secretary of Defense. For a Democrat, she's a hawk -- think about her support for Kyl-Lieberman, her vote for the Iraq war resolution, and her threat to "totally obliterate" Iran -- but she's still to the left of any Republican Obama might appoint.

SecDef also has as much stature as SecState, the vetting issues with Bill would not be nearly as thorny, and for those who care about such things, her appointment would shatter a glass ceiling at DOD.

Howie P.S.: Ed Schultz is saying that maybe Hillary isn't worth all the grief Bill's Drama will bring to Obamaland.

"Lieberman keeps Homeland Security post"

The Crypt (Politico):

Senate Democrats have voted to allow Joseph Lieberman to keep his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee -- despite his support for John McCain and criticism of Barack Obama during the presidential race.

Lieberman's punishment for what many Democrats saw as an unacceptable betrayal: He will lose his seat on the Environment and Public Works Committee.

The vote on Lieberman's fate came in a closed-door session in which Lieberman, members of the Democratic Senate leadership and some current and soon-to-be-senators all spoke.

Sources who were inside the meeting said Lieberman did not apologize for supporting McCain during the campaign, but that he did say he was sorry for some of the statements he made about Obama.

Howie P.S.: Ben Smith comments

And if there was ever a campaign that took the complaints of liberal bloggers seriously, it was ... well, not Obama's.

Howie P.P.S.: Smith's comment was about the Hillary SOS appointment, but it applies to Lieberman as well.

"Democrats in the Senate are all talk, no action"

Joe Sudbay (AMERICAblog):

Good morning.

Today, the Senate Democrats meet for the first time since the election. On their agenda is the Lieberman situation. Seems like Joe has learned well from his Republican colleagues. He's trashed the president-elect and worked against Democratic Senate candidates. For that, he'll be rewarded. He's called the Democrats bluff. This is, of course, instructive for the small GOP caucus. They now know that the Democrats in the Senate are all talk, no action. Not a good signal to send. But, that's what Democrats do. They cave. Pathetic.

What's Joe Lieberman doing to help Al Franken in the recount? Lieberman helped Coleman during the election. What's Joe Lieberman doing to help Jim Martin in the Georgia runoff?

It's just irritating.

Let's get started....

"Rachel Maddow Makes the Case for Why Lieberman Should Not Keep His Committee Chair" (with video)

Crooks and Liars, with video (06:06):

Rachel makes a very strong case for why Joe Lieberman should not remain the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs and why the damage he could do and already has done in that position far outweighs the slim hope he might vote with the Democrats when really needed.

Responding to Evan Bayh's promise that they'll take the chairmanship away from him if he tries to pull any investigative shenanigans on Obama, Maddow notes adroitly:

Are you really going to wait until he starts his first off-base witch-hunting investigation of Obama into whether he's a Marxist or a traitor or whatever, and then you're going to take away his gavel. [Laughs] I'm sure that's going to go over great.

... Listen, Democrats, you have lost Lieberman anyway. If you boot Lieberman out of his chairmanship, I know you probably won't get your 60 votes. But you do get a guy who politicized national security and homeland security in a disgusting fashion during this election, you do get him out of one of the most important security jobs in the government.

You go, Rachel. Why didn't the Democrats already do something about his failure to hold any hearings on hurricane Katrina and the no-bid contracts given to Cheney's buddies? Why have they allowed someone who's acted as a protection arm for the Bush administration to chair one of the most important Senate committees in the Congress already and not investigate the fraud and corruption that has occurred in this illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq?

How can Democrats think it would not be a complete political disaster if they tried to shut Lieberman down after he decided to use the position to possibly go after Obama in the same way Republicans went after Clinton for overblown controversies? Especially given the statements he's already made about Obama regarding foreign policy, particularly his oft-stated fear of what actions Obama might take as President?

Joe Lieberman needs to go before he can do any more damage than the Democrats have allowed him to do already.

Veteran's Day Excerpts

"Matthews to Todd Harris: You Speak With A Forked Tongue" (Crooks and Liars with video):

Chris Matthews calls B.S. on Todd Harris for the double standard Republicans have whereby they can come in with slim wins and do exactly what they want and claim a mandate for themselves, and then expect Democrats to pussyfoot around and apologize for being there when they win by large margins.

"How Obama Tapped Into Social Networks’ Power" (NY Times):

The juxtaposition of a networked, open-source campaign and a historically imperial office will have profound implications and raise significant questions. Special-interest groups and lobbyists will now contend with an environment of transparency and a president who owes them nothing. The news media will now contend with an administration that can take its case directly to its base without even booking time on the networks.

More profoundly, while many people think that President-elect Obama is a gift to the Democratic Party, he could actually hasten its demise. Political parties supply brand, ground troops, money and relationships, all things that Mr. Obama already owns.

"Giving Lieberman a pass?" (Markos):

Sure, Lieberman has argued that if he loses Homeland Security he'll bolt, but he's bluffing. He's still got 2012 to think about, and being in a GOP minority with zero committee chairmanships won't do him any favors, either politically or substantively on policy matters.

So call his bluff. Give him some other committee chairmanship. If he doesn't like it and bolts, it won't be because Democrats pushed him out.

Barack Obama

"Maybe Lieberman can get the morning coffee or something"

Dave Neiwert:

Dana Bash at CNN reports that Holy Joe is unhappy about his looming and well-earned demotion, and is thinking about joining the Republican caucus:

A Senate Democratic source familiar with the meeting confirms that account and tells CNN that one of options Reid gave Lieberman in a private meeting Thursday is Chairman of the Veteran’s Affairs Committee.

But the aide to Lieberman says the Connecticut senator made clear that was “not acceptable” to him, and reminded Reid that he was one of the Senators who wrote the legislation creating the Homeland Security Department, and that’s where he wants to stay.

Nothing was resolved in the meeting, and the Lieberman aide tells CNN that although he still wants to caucus with the Democrats, Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell has contacted Lieberman about formally aligning with Republicans, and that Lieberman is “keeping all of his options open.”

An aide to McConnell confirms to CNN that the two men “have been talking.”

As Steve Benen says:

Look, Reid is offering Lieberman a very sweet deal. By some counts, much too sweet. Lieberman betrayed the Democratic Party and broke his word to his own Democratic constituents. Reid is nevertheless willing to a) let him stay in the Democratic caucus; b) keep his seniority; and c) give him the chairmanship of something else. That, by any reasonable measure, is ridiculously gracious of Reid. It's certainly more generosity than Lieberman deserves or has earned.

Joe can threaten all he likes, but fact is: He's irrelevant now. There's no reason for Dems to cave on these threats.

Let's let his Democratic colleagues know. As Josh Orton at MyDD says:

Before, Lieberman was hoping to privately lobby his colleagues to save him. But with the curtain pulled back, we can lobby the same potential Lieberman allies. And now they'll have to choose between personal loyalty to Joe and doing the right thing - with the whole world watching.

If they hear from enough of us, there's no way Joe keeps his position of power.

So let's get to the phones. And the emails.

The number for the Capitol switchboard is (202) 224-3121. Start with your own Senator, but call the more conservative members of the Dem caucus too. Ask whether they support Lieberman remaining as Chair of the Homeland Security committee, given his unfair attacks on President-elect Obama. Be polite, and calm. The young people who answer the phones are entry-level staffers.

The key will be making sure the Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee holds the line.

Howie P.S.: My grandfather was a plumber who installed most of the toilets in the Jewish households of Albany, New York during the first half of the 20th century, so I find the reference a little insulting. But overall, the image is irresistible.

"LIEBERMAN'S NEW KISS OF DEATH" (with video)

Ari Melber (The Nation):

Senator Joe Lieberman will finally come clean on Monday, unleashing his inner-Republican to endorse the struggling campaign of Senator John McCain, according to several news reports. It is a bittersweet alliance for both men. Lieberman's move confirms his critics' longtime argument that he is a "Democrat in Name Only," while McCain looks desperate by leaning on backers beyond the G.O.P. base in the homestretch of a partisan primary.

The Politico first reported that Lieberman will "cross the aisle" to back McCain on Monday's edition of the "Today" show. As an independent, however, Lieberman was already standing in the aisle. The article says the joint appearance is "an effort to draw attention to the McCain campaign, which needs a splash. Otherwise, it does not make sense for McCain because it will only remind core Republicans why they distrust him." The pair also have a long history together, having cosponsored the Iraq War resolution, Climate Change legislation, and lobbying disclosure reforms.

During his 2006 reelection campaign, Lieberman emphasized that he would support Democratic candidates in 2008. "I want Democrats to be back in the majority in Washington and elect a Democratic president in 2008," he said during a televised debate in July. Lieberman promptly backtracked after his reelection, announcing this January that he was "open" to supporting a Republican or Democrat for president, depending "on a whole range of issues." By not even waiting to see who the Democrats nominate, now Lieberman is revealing that the issues aren't important to him, either.

But the Democrats' battles over Joe Lieberman are important because they have always been about more than a single politician. Last election, Democratic voters in Connecticut -- along with activists and bloggers across the country -- did something unusual in today's politics. They put issues above incumbency and prioritized leadership over the "strategic" imperative of holding a "safe seat." This activism was derided by many pundits and the Democratic establishment, including Senators Obama and Clinton, who backed the primary campaign of a man who literally cannot wait for the presidential race to start before he endorses one of their Republican opponents.

But Lieberman's detractors were right about his loyalties. They were also right about Iraq policy -- and the political imperative of running on an alternative foreign policy in 2006. And as I've argued many times, the activists were right to reject the entire Washington discourse that asks us to think as tacticians instead of citizens.

Howie P.S. Some Obama supporters challenge the idea that their candidate "supported" Lieberman and this argument continues in the comments on this piece. What I really love about this article is the history lesson that circles back again to the present. Paul Loeb also did this in his piece on Hillary dividing the party. Melber adds this short video, Lieberman: "I want to elect a Democratic president in 2008", to close his case.

Iraq War Roundup---June 10, 2007

AP: "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has sought out former Secretary of State Colin Powell for advice on foreign policy matters."

AP: "Richardson-I'd Leave No Troops in Iraq"

Dan Schorr (Christian Science Monitor): "New White House plan: Keep US troops in Iraq permanently."

CBS, with video: LIEberman--"We've Got To Be Prepared To Take Aggressive Military Action" Against Iran.