I just listened to Howard Fineman of Newsweek on Countdown with Keith Olbermann. He stated that things are moving in Joe Lieberman's direction in the Senate, including support for Lieberman from Dick Durbin of Illinois, whose 40-year-old daughter died suddenly just before the election, and that there almost certainly will be a vote within the Democratic caucus.
So far, so good. I, like many other Kossacks, am perfectly fine with Lieberman's caucusing with the Democrats. In a great many areas, he remains in line with Democratic policies, moreso than a number of more conservative Democrats.
However, when Fineman continued by opining that Lieberman would probably keep his committee chairmanship, and that President-Elect Obama had signaled that he favored this, I wanted to scream.
Does Howard Fineman know something the rest of us don't? I don't think so. I do not recall hearing Obama make any such statement, nor any such statement having been attributed to him. What I do recall is that Obama wanted Lieberman not to be kicked out of the caucus. In fact, an article in today's Washington Post by Paul Kane is entitled "Obama Supports Keeping Lieberman in Democratic Caucus" and opens as follows:
President-elect Barack Obama has endorsed keeping Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) in the Democratic caucus, suggesting to leadership that the two sides reach a compromise in the conflict over the former Democratic vice presidential nominee's future, sources said today.
So, why do the talking heads continue to equate support for Lieberman's remaining in the Senate's Democratic caucus with support for his remaining chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs?
We can hope that our Democratic senators aren't making this same erroneous conflation, but I'm not willing to count on it. I think we need to continue to press Democratic senators, especially majority leader Harry Reid, not to allow Lieberman to retain this important committee chairmanship.
It is important to emphasize that it is one thing to allow Lieberman to remain within the caucus as a recognition of philosophical diversity and a rejection of a revenge mentality. (Okay, personally, I wouldn't mind a little revenge -- I thought some of his remarks and actions while stumping for McCain were outrageous -- but I get the point and can actually agree with it intellectually, if not viscerally.) It is another thing altogether, however, to allow Lieberman to retain chairmanship of a committee that is not only important but is integrally related to his major area of disagreement with the rest of his (former) colleagues.
I keep hearing from the talking heads about how much affection many Democratic senators still have for Lieberman, despite his reneging on his earlier promise to support the Democratic presidential candidate and, particularly, despite his gross betrayal of Barack Obama, who campaigned for him -- at Lieberman's own request -- in Connecticut two years ago in spite of their differences over the Iraq war.
Continuing to caucus with the Democrats is a minimally acceptable demonstration of this personal affection, of gratitude for Lieberman's support regarding many Democratic policies, and of pure strategic savvy in keeping his good will and vote for many issues which are likely to come up.
However, allowing Lieberman to keep the chairmanship of a committee connected to foreign affairs matters which he does not support is outrageous. This is a matter of policy, not of personal affection. The primary concern of Democratic senators, especially Harry Reid, in assigning committee chairmanships should be the suitability of that person for the job in terms of knowledge, experience, competence, and support for Democratic Party policies in that committee's area of focus.
So, start/keep calling and e-mailing Democratic senators ... and maybe write a few e-mails and letters to the MSM about the juvenile lack of nuance demonstrated by so many talking heads' in their inability to differentiate between caucus membership and committee chairmanship.