So you all think that punishing Liberman is worth not having 60 votes if we gain 59 other seats?!? If things go our way and we get Franken, Begich and Martin the Senate will still be the place where bills go to die. The House can write it, Obama can be waiting, pen poised to sign it, and it can still die in the Senate. The Republicans can take back the whole cake if after 2 years nothing is accomplished EVEN if they stopped all the accomplishments. Plenty of time to punish Joe (and I sent money for Lamont) when & if we find out we have no chance at the "supermajority". Until then diplomacy means talking to those you despise along with your allies.

I sure wish it was my call. I would not only kick Lieberman out of the Democratic caucus. I would make it my political life's mission to hound him forever and without mercy.

As for Republican filibusters, let them do it. But let them actually filibuster. You know, bring in the cots and talk and talk and talk and stop Senate business.

While they are doing this, the actual Dems should maintain a message discipline on the theme: Republicans have nothing constructive to contribute. They are shutting down the government to continue the failed Bush philosophy.

Or, they can do as you suggest and bend right over to accomodate the right wing and the right wing's favorite ally, Lieberman.

If this isn't the time to stand up for principles we need to get a new clock. Let's be clear: Lieberman has used his institutional power to block legitimate investigations into government wrong-doing.

And, in the name of a super-duper-we-can-work-with-this-one! majority you let him keep the keys to the henhouse?

Yeah, Glenn, we can't give up hope too soon. I'm waiting another thirty minutes before I give up on Obama and the Dems.

We should consider ourselves lucky that a Senator who was elected as an independent wants to caucus as a Democrat. I don't hear anyone asking Harry Reid or Jim Webb to leave because they support the right-to-life movement (something that affects far more Americans than the Iraq war).

Lieberman spent most of his political life as a Democrat. He wants to caucus with his former party because they are in the majority and can give him the most goodies. Do you think he would want to caucus with the Democrats if they were in the minority?

You don't hear anyone asking Reid or Webb to leave for good reason.

They did not appear at the Republican convention to endorse McCain and insult the Democrats and their nominee. They did not travel around the country smearing the Dem nominee. They did not use a major committee to shield Republican malfeasance.

None of the arguments you make to keep Lieberman are relevant to the reasons why so many people want him out of the caucus.

This is not about being liberal or leftist or requiring strict ideological orthodoxy.

Please try again, this time with arguments that are to the point.

I went to see it in the theater when it first came out. I was on a first date. She chose the movie.

I almost retched at the scene in the shower where they chainsaw the poor SOB. I looked at my date and she seemed to be disturbingly interested.

I said "I'm outta here", walked out, and never saw her again.

No, it wasn't Sarah Palin.

They're going to get away with it.

"Change" - not so much.

Obama is now kicking his supporters in the teeth. If he wants this horrific warmonger as his Secretary of State let's kiss all that lovey-dovey diplomacy stuff goodbye.

Disgusting news on a Friday.

at an ACLU Bill of Rights dinner here in Seattle. Romero seems more or less optimistic. For now. He is way more optimistic than I am.

Any improvement is goodness but I am skeptical that we will see a lot of positive change on the civil liberties front under Obama.

At what point will the 'plump as a manatee' right wingers be so discredited that they will just stop it with the lying crap? Count the votes. Find the winner. Deal with it.

What a bunch of whining babies.

This book sounds like Gladwell's other two books, not to mention his numerous articles.

I really never think about whether his central claims are right or wrong. I am not sure this could be objectively measured very easily.

Gladwell's writing is interesting. I learn what I learn and put it all in the hopper and try to make a little sense of life, the universe, and everything.

Except for the deranged idiots who actually like Lieberman, the basic argument for kissing his ass and letting him continue to run the Homeland Security Committee for the benefit of his Repug friends is this: we want him voting for the Dems.

Logically, what that means is this: Lieberman does not put "country first." Lieberman puts Lieberman first. He will vote for the party that gives him the most power and goodies.

What a disgusting pile of crap he is.

His vote is not even needed. The spineless Dems seem to believe they need 60 votes to get anything done. Funny how the Repugs got whatever they wanted with fewer Senators in their caucus than the Dems will have, without Lieberman or Franken.

They could easily suspend Rule 22 and force the Repugs to actually filibuster. The Dems could actually fight for what they believe.

But it is easier to capitulate to the right wing at every turn.

Change you can believe in? Or change you have to believe to see?

Seriously. Is it Joan Walsh? Someone else?

This is another in the (apparently) endless series of articles/interviews known as: let's find a smart person to say dumb things about god and/or religion.

So who keeps authorizing this crap?