Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

Former Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder has apparently been offered the job of Attorney General. This is an inspired choice. Holder is highly qualified and will bring the emphasis back on justice in the Justice Department. I was hoping he would be offered the job and I am very glad that it now appears that he will be our next Attorney General.

On the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, the Senate Democrats have decided to allow Joe Lieberman to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee. I guess the Senate Democrats are so used to being humiliated the last eight years that they have acquired a taste and craving for it. Still, its their caucus and if they enjoy being laughed at its their right. So much for Joementum. Joe Lieberman is a disgrace and the Senate Democrats deserve his company.

Then there is the drama surrounding the appointment of the next Secretary of State. After a weekend of beating the drums and publicly applying pressure on Obama, it appears the Hillary Clinton backers are pulling back a bit. This from the Politico:

Hillary Rodham Clinton isn’t certain she would accept the Secretary of State post even if Barack Obama offers it to her, several people close to the former first lady say.

Press reports that portray Clinton as willing to accept the job – once the Obama transition team vets Bill Clinton’s philanthropic and business ventures – are inaccurate, one Clinton insider told Politico.

Now there is news that Clinton backer Richard Holbrooke - another awful choice - is actively lobbying for the Secretary of State job. Perhaps this is a way of muddying the waters to allow Clinton a graceful path back if the job goes to Richardson or another worthy candidate.

Apart from the rather unseemly attempt to roll the President-elect, Clinton at Foggy Bottom would be disastrous for an Obama foreign policy that holds out the prospect of a strategic realignment vis a vis Iran. With Clinton delivering Obama’s foreign policy message, there will be little or no progress with Iran. Diplomacy is all about nuance, and I suspect a lot will be lost in translation with Clinton delivering Obama’s message to her opposites. A Secretary of State that has already threatened to obliterate Iran would signal that Obama’s Iran policy is dead on arrival. As a reminder, this is what Barack Obama said about Clinton’s threat to obliterate Iran:

"It’s not the language we need right now, and I think it’s language reflective of George Bush," Obama told NBC’s "Meet the Press."

Barack Obama was exactly right. So, as Obama ponders whether he will cave to Clinton’s pressure, he should consider the impact Clinton’s belligerence will have on his foreign policy. Then he should consider whether that is the signal he wants to send to the world.

In spite of the public Clinton drama, I remain convinced that Bill Richardson is still the most likely candidate for Secretary of State. And, unlike a Clinton appointment, a Richardson appointment would send just the right signal to the world.

Allow me to go Cheney for a minute:

Joe Lieberman,

Lanny Davis,

Ralph Nader…

Go fuck yourself.

There, now I feel better. Back to being a family friendly blog.

"I could be well moved, if I were as you:
If I could pray to move, prayers would move me:
But I am constant as the northern star,
Of whose true-fix’d and resting quality
There is no fellow in the firmament.
The skies are painted with unnumber’d sparks,
They are all fire and every one doth shine,
But there’s but one in all doth hold his place:
So in the world; ’tis furnish’d well with men,
And men are flesh and blood, and apprehensive;
Yet in the number I do know but one
That unassailable holds on his rank,
Unshaked of motion: and that I am he"

- The Tragedy of Julius Ceasar, Act III, Scene 1

 

On August 8th, Democrats in Connecticut will go to the polls to choose who will represent them in the November election for U.S. Senator. They have two candidates to choose from: Ned Lamont and the incumbent, Joseph Lieberman. If they vote for Mr. Lamont, they will be voting for a Democrat to represent them. If the vote for Mr. Lieberman, they will be wasting their vote.

Mr. Lieberman has already stated that if he loses the upcoming Democratic primary, he will run in the November election as an independent. Therefore, a Democratic vote for Mr. Lieberman is a wasted vote. Mr. Lieberman does not need the votes of Connecticut Democrats in the Democratic primary - he has said so. So any vote cast in his favor would be a wasted vote - it would signify nothing. On the other hand, Mr. Lamont needs and wants the votes of Connecticut Democrats. He has campaigned hard for these votes. He has fought an often-lonely battle against a 35-year incumbent to get to this point. He has worked hard to become the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate from the great state of Connecticut. Democratic voters in Connecticut have only two meaningful choices: cast a vote for Ned Lamont or stay home. A citizen’s vote is his or her most powerful weapon in the arena of democracy - to cast that vote for a person who neither wants it or values it is a wasted exercise is democracy.

While Mr. Lamont has campaigned on the most important issue of the day, Mr. Lieberman has asked the Connecticut Democrats to ignore the issues and vote for him as a matter of inertia. Here is how Mr. Lieberman framed the decision facing Connecticut Democrats in his debate with Mr. Lamont:

Connecticut Democratic voters have a clear choice to make on primary day. I’m running for a better future for Connecticut based on my 18 years of service and results for our state. Ned Lamont seems just to be running against me, based on my stand on one issue, Iraq. And he is distorting who I am and what I have done.

Well, let me take Mr. Lieberman up on his offer on clarifying who he is and what he has done. Let’s clarify Mr. Lieberman’s stance on Iraq - the one issue, as he says. How many of you readers think that we are making progress in Iraq? If you do, please raise your hand. If you are like me or anyone else with sensory perception, you might be inclined to believe that a death rate of 3000 civilians per month is not progress in Iraq. However, if you are Senator Lieberman, you have a different yardstick. Here’s the Senator from the debate:

The situation in Iraq is a lot better, different than it was a year ago. The Iraqis held three elections. They formed a unity government. They are on the way to building a free and independent Iraq. Their military — two-thirds of their military is now ready, on their own, to lead the fight with some logistical backing from the U.S. or stand up on their own totally. That’s progress.

And the question is, are we going to abandon them while they are making that progress?

Let me repeat. I’m not for an open-ended commitment to Iraq. The sooner we’re out of there, the better it will be for the Iraqis and for us. But if we leave too soon, we will create disaster there. A terrorist state, civil war, regional instability, and the terrorists will be emboldened to strike us again.

So I am confident that the situation is improving enough on the ground that by the end of this year, we will begin to draw down significant numbers of American troops, and by the end of the next year more than half of the troops who are there now will be home. But not because we set a deadline. That would make it harder. [Emphasis added by me.]

I know what you are thinking. You are thinking that I quoted George W Bush instead of the Senator just to trick you. I assure you that I quoted Joe Lieberman above. They read off the same Republican talking points. Either the Senator is incompetent because he can’t tell the difference between "progress" and "disaster" or the Senator is lying. I don’t know which it is and I don’t care. Neither should you. Both explanations suggest that he is no longer fit to be a United States Senator.

The fact that Mr. Lieberman defended his and Mr. Bush’s stance on Iraq in the debate is not at all surprising. But what is surprising is the way in which he attacked Mr. Lamont, a fellow Democrat. Lieberman was crass, at times vulgar, and always offensive. He was dismissive and arrogant. He was in complete attack dog mode:

The Joe Lieberman television viewers saw on Thursday night in his debate with maverick challenger Ned Lamont was not the mellow, sleepy-voiced, decent, religiously observant man we used to know. No, this was Joe Lieberman, the savvy, battle-hardened, and very aggressive politician.

Face to face with his rival, Lieberman came across as a man absolutely determined to save his career in the Senate, a man who wasn’t going to bother being genteel.

The real question is, why, time and time again, faced with Mr. Bush’s disaster in Iraq, his wiretapping, his Guantanamo Bay failures, etc. has Mr. Lieberman never felt the need to get aggressive? Instead he has preferred to kiss up to Mr. Bush on almost every significant issue of the last six years. When faced with a Democrat asking legitimate questions about our national security, the Senator thought that a civil tone was not warranted. Mr. Lieberman is a disgrace as a Democrat. If the Democrats lose the seat to a Republican in November, they will not have lost much. Mr. Lieberman already carries water for the Bush Administration - I doubt any registered Republican could carry more water or has a bigger bucket.

Mr. Lieberman is using Connecticut Democrats as cannon fodder. If he succeeds in the primary, he will use them some more. If he loses, he will toss them aside and defecate all over the will of the Connecticut Democrats. He will exercise his "option" to run against the Democratic nominee in November. Here’s the Senator again describing why he alone knows he is better for Connecticut regardless of the will of the voter:

I intend to win the primary, but I want to say, why did I do what I announced the other day, create the option? It’s because I believe this man can’t be elected in November.

And I know — and I have to say this directly — that I can do a better job for the people of Connecticut, a lot of whom are going to need some special help in the next six years than either he or Alan Schlesinger can, and I want to give all the voters, including a lot of Democrats, the opportunity to make that final decision in November.

Such arrogance is usually reserved for kings and tyrants - not United States Senators. This man must go - he views his job as an entitlement. That is an insult to all citizens. Furthermore, if he runs against the Democratic nominee in November, he will hinder the election of a Democrat to the U.S. Senate by dividing the Democratic vote. No Democratic party supporter would willingly do such damage to his party - except Lieberman, he is no Democrat.

While Mr. Lieberman has mutated into a vulgar mouthpiece who is only capable of aping his master, George W Bush, Mr. Lamont has shown steady poise and decency. He has grown in stature and confidence as this campaign has progressed. He did well to stand toe-to-toe in the debate against his more experience and rabid opponent. Since then he has gained even more confidence. I saw him last night on The Colbert Report and was thoroughly impressed by his confidence and his good humor. He appears to be a man of conviction and values that all Democrats can be proud of. He took a courageous stand on the Iraq War when most Democrats were still running for the hills. It appears now that his party is beginning to catch up to him.

Mr. Lamont is a Democrat with courage and conviction - the kind of Senator we need on the Hill. We have had enough of Democrats like Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman. We need real Democrats who will be able to come together as a viable opposition party in the United States Congress. It is time to nominate Ned Lamont as the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate from Connecticut.

Weep not for Joe Lieberman, he has a cabinet seat warmed up and waiting for him next to Mr. Bush.