Democrat-turned-independent-turned-John-McCain-backer Joe Lieberman faces an election of sorts on Tuesday.

The junior senator from Connecticut who was reelected as an independent ("Connecticut for Lieberman Party") candidate in 2006 has for the past two years enjoyed the full benefits of membership in the Senate Democratic Caucus. On Tuesday, in a secret ballot vote, the other members of the caucus -- all of whom backed Democrat Barack Obama for president while Lieberman was campaigning for Republican McCain -- will decide whether to deny Lieberman that most significant of those benefits.

The Connecticut senator currently chairs the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee -- a powerful post with responsibility for a wide range of national-security issues and, more importantly, for ethics and lobbying issues and oversight of government agencies such as FEMA.

In addition, Lieberman sits on the Armed Services, Small Business and Environment and Public Works committees. On Environment and Public Works, he chairs the influential Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection Subcommittee. On Armed Services, he chairs the subcommittee that overseas the Army and Air Force -- no small matter for a senator from a state that is home to several military contractors.

Arguments have been made that, because of his support for McCain and his neo-conservative stances on foreign-policy issues, Lieberman should be stripped of all his committee assignments. And some pound-of-flesh critics propose expelling him from the caucus.

Forcing Lieberman out of the caucus makes little sense, as Democrats are currently in competition for the 60 seats that would give the party a filibuster-proof majority for the first time in decades. (With Alaska looking like a Democratic pick-up, a recount in Minnesota and a run-off in Georgia will decide whether the party gets to 60. But all the calculations are based on keeping Lieberman -- who since the election has made some tepid pledges to "support" Obama, particularly on economic issues -- in the caucus.)

Additionally, any move to expel Lieberman from the caucus will merely make the 2000 Democratic nominee for vice president the first "martyr" of the Obama era. Conservatives who are already using the threat of Democratic super-majorities to try and scare voters away from voting for Democrat Jim Martin in the Georgia Senate run-off are salivating at the prospect of using a Lieberman purge to their advantage.

By the same token, Democratic senators can strip Lieberman of some or all of his committee assignments. As a longtime critic of Lieberman's policies who has argued for keeping him in the caucus, I like the approach taken by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, another independent who caucuses with the Democrats.

Says Sanders:

To reward Senator Lieberman with a major committee chairmanship would be a slap in the face of millions of Americans who worked tirelessly for Barack Obama and who want to see real change in our country.

Appointing someone to a major post who led the opposition to everything we are fighting for is not 'change we can believe in.' I very much hope that Senator Lieberman stays in the Democratic caucus and is successful in regaining the confidence of those whom he has disappointed. This is not a time, however, in which he should be rewarded with a major committee chairmanship.

That sounds about right.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, has met with Lieberman and is working to cobble together some sort of compromise. The conversations are ongoing; Lieberman says he has been offered "options."

There is some suggestion that the Connecticut senator might be asked to apologize or to offer some sort of loyalty pledge, but no one should take those conversations too seriously. Talk, especially from the Senate's moralizer-in-chief, is cheap.

In the end, Lieberman wants to be part of the majority caucus in order to maintain a measure of influence in the Senate. One compromise might be to strip him of the Homeland Security chairmanship while allowing him to continue to serve as a member of the majority caucus on the four committees to which he is currently assigned -- and perhaps to chair the armed services and/or climate-change subcommittee.

That would take away the reward of a major committee chairmanship while still giving Lieberman enough of a reason to stay in the caucus -- and to reject the martyr's route.

Comments (60)

1. I hope Lieberman gets booted out, he has been a disgrace during the campaign..."palling" around with John McCain all the time. I don't know how he has the nerve to show his face at any Democratic function, they should get rid of him. The campaign by McCain was vile enough without Lieberman inadvertantly being part of it by supporting McCain.

   Posted by Caj at 11/16/2008 @ 4:31pm

2. Posted by Caj at 11/16/2008 @ 4:31pm

   "I hope Lieberman gets booted out, he has been a disgrace during the campaign..."palling" around with John McCain all the time. I don't know how he has the nerve to show his face at any Democratic function."

   Clearly you have no awareness of the power of AIPAC over events in Washington, son. Did you think that Stephin Fetchit's speech at their June gathering or Rahm Emanuel's appointment as Chief of Staff came about as the result of a kind of personal attachment?

   Lieberman will get what ever it is he may want and if he doesn't there will be substantial hell to pay, trust me.

   Posted by john lowell at 11/16/2008 @ 5:16pm

3. *Lieberman will get what ever it is he may want and if he doesn't there will be substantial hell to pay, trust me.

   Posted by john lowell at 11/16/2008 @ 5:16pm*

   A) Rahm and Barack have a long personal history and a long collaborative relationship (and unlkine most here I like Rahm as CoS) so watch the almighty AIPAC references.

   B) Lieberman HAS to know he's going to be watched extremely closely from here on out. The Dems are in a position where they could just let him do what he wanted and court the likes of Snowe/Collins/Specter if a vote gets close. I still think it's a tragedy to frame this as political payback when simply labeling it as a matter of lack of performance is sufficient enough to dump him from Homeland Security.

   Dream act of the Obama Administration (yes I know it'll never happen Mask!): the dissolving of the Homeland Security Department. Can you imagine the credit Obama could take for SHRINKING the size of government???

   Posted by yutsano at 11/16/2008 @ 5:30pm

4. "the power of Aipac"

   All right! The good old Nation magazine, in whose readership "The Protocals of the Elders of Zion" lives on.

   Posted by mickyboy212 at 11/16/2008 @ 5:49pm

5. *All right! The good old Nation magazine, in whose readership "The Protocals of the Elders of Zion" lives on.

   Posted by mickyboy212 at 11/16/2008 @ 5:49pm*

   Ahh what's a few debunked libels among fake progressives? Trust me Micky, JohnLowell is a conservative chain yanker. He was on here touting both Ralph Nader AND Chuck Baldwin!

   Posted by yutsano at 11/16/2008 @ 6:17pm

6. As mickyboy222 politely reminds us, AIPAC has no power at all. They bake cookies in the basement of the Boys and Girls Club to sell for flophouse space and cigarette money. They've never even *met* the Senator in question.

   Posted by cyrano at 11/16/2008 @ 6:24pm

7. >>>Forcing Lieberman out of the caucus makes little sense, as Democrats are currently in competition for the 60 seats that would give the party a filibuster-proof majority for the first time in decades.<<<

   Go Nuclear to destroy the filibuster; then give Lieberman the choice of backing ALL Democratic initiatives that have majority Democratic support or stripping him of all of his committee chairmanships if he votes with the Republicans.

   By killing the filibuster, Lieberman loses all leverage to play the Democrats off the Republicans and forces him to vote with the caucus 100% of the time or lose his power.

   Posted by Metteyya at 11/16/2008 @ 6:36pm

8. THE NATION APPEARS TO BE ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL on this Hillary as Secretary of State talk.

   Hillary has rejected direct talks with adversaries and has embraced Bush's approach of not talking as "punishment".

   She also seems to be comfortable with Feinstein's "New Haliburton" approach of her husband (Blum), which suggests that as long as a "Democrat" is profiting from war it is OK.

   Hillary was also eager to do a photo-op at an illegal Israeli settlement on Palestinian land, and this clearly suggests more foot-dragging and the lack of an "honest" broker needed to bring this conflict to an end.

   Posted by Metteyya at 11/16/2008 @ 6:58pm

9. <i>Posted by cyrano at 11/16/2008 @ 6:24pm</i>

   I'm sure that if you work at it, you could make that gigantic strawman even more blatant. The argument isn't "AIPAC? What AIPAC?" It's "AIPAC is running everything? That claim sounds oddly familiar..."

   Posted by Thrawn at 11/16/2008 @ 6:58pm

10. Posted by cyrano at 11/16/2008 @ 6:24pm

    http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/05/1117964.aspx

    WTF are you talking about?

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/16/2008 @ 6:59pm

11. For a real view of the STATE OF CHANGE, consider today's Washington Post editorial on Nicaragua.

    President Daniel Ortega moves to construct another dictatorship.

    THROUGH MUCH of the 1980s, the United States waged a proxy war to prevent Daniel Ortega and his Sandinista party from consolidating a dictatorship in Nicaragua. In 1990, Mr. Ortega finally agreed to hold a presidential election, which he lost; since then Central America's poorest country has struggled to build a functioning democracy. Now Mr. Ortega is back and once again is seeking autocratic power. This time, however, neither the United States nor other outside powers are doing much to stop him.

    Mr. Ortega regained the president's office in 2006, thanks to a corrupt alliance with a right-wing leader and a constitutional amendment that allowed him to claim power with 38 percent of the vote. Since then eight of 10 Nicaraguans have turned against the president, according to independent polls -- yet Mr. Ortega's campaign to dismantle the political system has accelerated. He has banned two opposition parties, brought criminal charges against independent journalists and nongovernmental organizations, and built bullying "citizens power councils" with funding from Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez.

    The opposition hoped to block what several former Sandinista leaders have called an emerging dictatorship by winning local elections last Sunday. Mr. Ortega responded by barring international election observers for the first time since 1990 and organizing what the opposition and Nicaraguan election observers say was a massive fraud. Opposition leader Eduardo Montealegre, who was favored to win the race for mayor of Managua, was declared the loser by a government-controlled electoral council.

    << MORE >>

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/16/2008 @ 7:07pm

12. *It's "AIPAC is running everything? That claim sounds oddly familiar..."

    Posted by Thrawn at 11/16/2008 @ 6:58pm*

    Hell why not just abolish all world governments and make Netanyahu Grand Poohbah of the planet? Sheesh!

    (unless you're being sarcastic, which I hope you are)

    Posted by yutsano at 11/16/2008 @ 7:07pm

13. << CONTINUATION >>

    Mr. Montealegre's own count, compiled by collecting results from individual polling stations, showed him winning decisively. In the country's second-largest city, León, thousands of ballots were found in the municipal dump, most of them marked with votes for Mr. Montealegre's Liberal party. Now violence is mounting in Managua's streets between opposition supporters and groups of Sandinista thugs, who wield machetes and guns.

    Outraged by Mr. Ortega's behavior, European governments are moving to cut off funding equal to a third of the government's budget. But the Bush administration's reaction has been laconic. The State Department issued a statement last week deploring the "irregularities"; on Thursday the U.S. ambassador said he was concerned. The United States has considerable economic leverage it can employ -- there is no need for another contra army. Among other things, Nicaragua is currently the beneficiary of a $175 million aid program from the Millennium Challenge Corp., which is supposed to condition grants on the government's respect for political rights and the rule of law. It seems pretty obvious that Mr. Ortega has flunked those tests.

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/16/2008 @ 7:09pm

14. Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/16/2008 @ 7:09pm

    And this has WHAT to do with Lieberman or Sanders, exactly?

    Posted by yutsano at 11/16/2008 @ 7:10pm

15. Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/16/2008 @ 7:09pm

    yutsano at 7:10pm, asks:

    <<< And this [Ortega] has WHAT to do with Lieberman or Sanders, exactly? >>>

    About as much as AIPAC and Feinstein's "husband (Blum)"

    Why didn't you challenge Metteyya on the relevancy of that?

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/16/2008 @ 8:15pm

16. yutsano at 7:10pm, asks:

    <<< And this [Ortega] has WHAT to do with Lieberman or Sanders, exactly? >>>

    About as much as AIPAC and Feinstein's "husband (Blum)"

    Why didn't you challenge Metteyya on the relevancy of that?

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/16/2008 @ 8:16pm

17. *Why didn't you challenge Metteyya on the relevancy of that?

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/16/2008*

    I only have so many hours in a day, plus paranoia about an appointment that hasn't occured yet (and is directly relevant to the future of this country) is a wee bit more topical than a situation in Nicaragua that Obama has zero control over at this point.

    Posted by yutsano at 11/16/2008 @ 8:28pm

18. Posted by Metteyya at 11/16/2008 @ 6:58pm

    But since Hugo brought it up, breathe Mett. She hasn't been appointed to bupkess and right now anything is pure speculation one way or the other. Who knows, Obama could make a choice we didn't see coming.

    Posted by yutsano at 11/16/2008 @ 8:35pm

19. yutsano at 8:28pm wrote:|

    <<< I only have so many hours in a day, plus paranoia about an appointment that hasn't occured yet (and is directly relevant to the future of this country) is a wee bit more topical than a situation in Nicaragua that Obama has zero control over at this point. >>>

    You are short on more than time. So I will say it again slowly.

    My digression to Ortega, and Nicaragua, a topic which once fascinated The Nation, irks you enough, busy though you are, to complain.

    Yet several posts with nonsequiturs about AIPAC and Senator Feinstein's husband, and Hillary, none of which figured in Nichols' essay, draw no complaint.

    Why is that? Why is this journal of brave, unconventional opinions, determined to ignore Commandante Ortega, yet any number of diversions to AIPAC, no matter how irrelevant to the thread, are ever accepted as pertinent?

    Might one say, a racist obsession operates in these precincts?

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/16/2008 @ 10:57pm

20. Posted by yutsano at 11/16/2008 @ 5:30pm

    "Rahm and Barack have a long personal history and a long collaborative relationship (and unlkine most here I like Rahm as CoS) so watch the almighty AIPAC references."

    Son, Rahm Emanuel IS AIPAC, and nothing could be more frightening about the upcoming regime than that he and Obama have had "a long personal history and a long collaborative relationship". It is precisely because of this relationship - or should we call it a purchase - that Joe Lieberman, an AIPAC favorite - has little to fear from the Democrats in Congress.

    And, oh, since you're on a first name basis with these slugs perhaps you can answer this question for me: Why is it that Emanuel would have elected service in the Israeli Army over volunteering for the United States Army at the time of the Gulf War? Seems to me a stange choice indeed for someone serving as White House Chief Of Staff to have made. Want to clear that up for us?

    Posted by john lowell at 11/16/2008 @ 11:01pm

21. Posted by cyrano at 11/16/2008 @ 6:24pm

    "As mickyboy222 politely reminds us, AIPAC has no power at all. They bake cookies in the basement of the Boys and Girls Club to sell for flophouse space and cigarette money. They've never even *met* the Senator in question."

    :-)

    Posted by john lowell at 11/16/2008 @ 11:07pm

22. *Why is that? Why is this journal of brave, unconventional opinions, determined to ignore Commandante Ortega, yet any number of diversions to AIPAC, no matter how irrelevant to the thread, are ever accepted as pertinent?

    Might one say, a racist obsession operates in these precincts?

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/16/2008 @ 10:57pm*

    A) It's Sunday and a vast majority of the staff of TN take this day as a Sabbath. Perhaps articles involving both these subjects are forthcoming, but I don't presume to dictate editorial content to Ms. Vanden Heuvel.

    B) As far as you know I could be Nicaraguan. Gotta love the anonymity of the Internet huh?

    Posted by yutsano at 11/16/2008 @ 11:13pm

23. *Son, Rahm Emanuel IS AIPAC, and nothing could be more frightening about the upcoming regime than that he and Obama have had "a long personal history and a long collaborative relationship"*

    Rahm Emmanuel is the ENTIRE committee? Well YEE-HAW! I guess Obama has that well under control then huh? Here's the funniest part: the fact that Emmanuel (since you have such an issue with me using the familiar) happens to be Israeli-American automatically disqualifies him?

    Posted by yutsano at 11/16/2008 @ 11:18pm

24. Seems to me that turning Lieberman out into the wilderness turns the super majority argument on its head.

    Posted by lachatte at 11/16/2008 @ 11:19pm

25. *Seems to me that turning Lieberman out into the wilderness turns the super majority argument on its head.

    Posted by lachatte at 11/16/2008 @ 11:19pm*

    Personally I'd just as soon they rely on the soft Rep Senators for the really important stuff. Plus it's a great chance to have Lieberman show that he stands for something other than his own political skin. I honestly think if he gets too obstructionist he might just face a recall from the good folks in the Nutmeg State.

    Posted by yutsano at 11/16/2008 @ 11:24pm

26. Posted by yutsano at 11/16/2008 @ 11:18pm

    yuts, lowell is a looney.

    Posted by Mask at 11/17/2008 @ 09:13am

27. Implant a chip in Lieberman which causes him pain when he's bad.

    Posted by JFHill at 11/17/2008 @ 12:15pm

28. 1. Whatever Ortega is doing, all we can do is cut off aid. No more interventions--overt or covert! 2. There's no way I want Hillary at State--I vote for Hagel. 3. AIPAC has a lot of power, but I agree with Sanders that a compromise re Lieberman is in order. He ought to lose as HS chair...I think we'll get more cooperation from Collins, Snowe and Specter anyway...if we need it...we'll see how the undecided elections come out. 4. I'm uneasy about Emanuel's history and hope he doesn't influence policy--it's about time Palestinians moved toward their own country

    Posted by mimsky at 11/17/2008 @ 12:30pm

29. "Change" = Keep Lieberman?

    Posted by fragen at 11/17/2008 @ 12:36pm

30. Excerpt from:

    Bayh's Defense of Lieberman Wrong Experts Say, Huffington Post, 11/14/08

    "And the final thing I'd say is, if he does retain his chairmanship, we still exert oversight over him and control over him. He doesn't have the ability to just do whatever he wants. The caucus still has the right to remove him from that position at any time if he starts going off on some kind of tangent. Bayh's rationale appeared persuasive to some Democrats, including former Clinton campaign operative Phil Singer, who wrote on his blog that the Indiana Senator's take was "not unreasonable."

    But former Democratic Senate staffer Martin Paone suggested Bayh is under-educated on this matter. Paone, who became as the "secretary to the majority" in the Senate starting in 2001, notes that Republicans harbored similar desires in the past, but never executed them due to the threat of a filibuster.

    "It takes a Senate resolution to change a chairmanship, and that resolution could be subject to a filibuster," Paone told the Huffington Post. Put simply, under Bayh's proposed scenario, Republicans would have every reason to filibuster a new Senate resolution taking Lieberman's chairmanship away if he was proving an effective antagonist of President Obama."

    Would Joe get to vote on a resolution to strip him of his chair in the Dem Caucus?

    There goes the "fillibuster" proof majority.

    Posted by OneVote at 11/17/2008 @ 1:27pm

31. Lieberman HAS to know he's going to be watched extremely closely from here on out. Posted by yutsano at 11/16/2008 @ 5:30pm

    I say the Dems hook up of one of those electric shock collars like they use to train dogs.

    As soon as he steps out of line.. ZAP!

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/17/2008 @ 3:12pm

32. This seems highly hypocritical to me. All these Democrats who talk about 'change', and yet they want to remain just as hyperpartisan as it has been in the past. Lieberman backed the Republican candidate for president, sure. But doesn't Obama talk about being Post Partisan? It certainly would seem to me that if we are going to become a post partisan party then we shouldn't kick somebody out of the caucus or reprimand them like this for simply not backing our party's candidate for president. That's not change, it's business as usual.

    Posted by bholm at 11/17/2008 @ 3:18pm

33. I hope they strip Lieberman of his chairmanship. I mean what better way to hand the Republicans another filibuster blocking vote then to tell Lieberman you can caucus with us but you get no chairmanships.

    Posted by pdross2000 at 11/17/2008 @ 4:30pm

34. Great. You Liberals finally have a man of principal, doing what he truely belieeves best for his country and you morons don't know what to do with him. I hope you do boot Joe. He deseves better and the Republicans will give it to him. McCain was a maverick in his own party and was handed the baton, not the boot. Grow up!!!

    Posted by si4evr at 11/17/2008 @ 5:30pm

35. Apolgies to Caj. I was refgistering and accidentaly warned him or her. I believe in total free expression. Let it all hang out!!

    Posted by si4evr at 11/17/2008 @ 5:34pm

36. "McCain was a maverick in his own party and was handed the baton, not the boot."

    Heckofaparade ya got there brownie.

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/17/2008 @ 5:54pm

37. Your sweet..nuthin but love for ya!!

    Posted by si4evr at 11/17/2008 @ 6:29pm

38. You Liberals. Posted by si4evr at 11/17/2008 @ 5:30pm

    Just like an anal repug to lump everyone in them nice tidy box that says, "You Liberals" on the top. What a maroon..

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/17/2008 @ 6:32pm

39. Posted by si4evr at 11/17/2008 @ 5:30pm

    Can the silly "Maverick" tag finally be removed from the English language for at least a decade?

    Posted by chaoszen at 11/17/2008 @ 6:38pm

40. "Just like an anal repug to lump everyone in them nice tidy box that says, "You Liberals" on the top. What a maroon.."

    LOL!! You "Liberals" are far to easy ;-)

    Posted by si4evr at 11/17/2008 @ 6:39pm

41. The Commander-in-Chief answers him while chasing a fly Saying, "Death to all those who would whimper and cry" And dropping a bar bell he points to the sky Saving, "The sun's not yellow it's chicken"

    Bob Dylan

    Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/17/2008 @ 7:30pm

42. and how many of the Democrats participating during this secret ballot vote are supporting the "card check" bill taking away the secret ballot vote as respects union organizing? why are they afraid to publicly vote as respects Lieberman-might there be undue pressure or threats if someone finds out they are voting in a certain way? talk about hypocrisy.

    Posted by jab at 11/17/2008 @ 7:49pm

43. Brilliant analogy Jab. The hypocrisy on the left is astounding. They're all about dismantling power until they have it....now they are all about power plays....filibuster proof majorities, secret ballots, fairness doctrines, censorship, Obama booting three conservative newspapers off his plane (like that was a coincidence), recognizing and embracing Colin Powell while throwing out Joe Lieberman like last week's trash, etc etc.

    Totally hilarious. Abuse of power appears to be a bipartisan phenomenon, doesn't it?

    Posted by jimmylove at 11/17/2008 @ 8:38pm

44. Leiberman is the most honorable man in the U.S Senate. His former party has betrayed, backstabbed, and vilified him enough. Its unbelievable that they are talking about expelling him or stripping him of his committee chairmanships after he gave them the majority for the last 2 years. Harry Reid for 2 years has owed his position of Majority Leader to Sen Lieberman. Enough is enough....If they strip him of even one chairmanship Lieberman should join the Rep caucus and promise to support them on all cloture votes. Backstabbing a man of honor and principal should come with a very high price tag! New politics?...looks like the same old corrupt backstabbing democrat politics to me!!!

    Posted by valwayne at 11/17/2008 @ 10:33pm

45. Dear Friends: Readers of The Nation Magazine:

    How are you all?

    I am an avid reader of this site, and also of many other alternative news sources such as: the websites http://www.socialist.net http://www.prisonplanet.com http://www.socialistworker.org http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ http://www.globalresearch.ca and many other alternative news-sites in the internet.

    I even own a book about zionism "The Power of Israel in the United States" by James Petras, I am not a scholar, a scientist, nor philosopher however the internet and some books have given me the power to be relatively, moderately aware of what's going on within US government which is linked and related to 9-11, the US wars in the middle east, and Israeli's influence in USA thru AIPAC, and of course the capitalist exploitation of the upper classes against the majority thru the system of capitalism which is linked to zionism (Zionists are capitalists).

    Well having said all this, I am writting you all to let you know that this morning I receieved a hate e-mail from a pro-Israel Zionist, evangelical baptist Republican Party Mccain-Palin supporter who started to write all sorts of things against me and even against my deceased mother, by labeling me "Hate monger" and "Anti-Semite". He wrote all these outragous irrational labels against me because some months ago I was a regular member of the Barack Obama blogs. and i thought that by posting articles about the great influence of Israel within the US government, i was doing the right thing in favor of USA and US constitution. Because i *really think* that each country and nation-state in this world should have self-determination, unless that nation was not an independent nation, like Puerto Rico, or Virgin Islands.

    But last time i

    Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/17/2008 @ 11:07pm

46. Lieberman is a zionist, fascist. He is not good, how can people say that he is good. He is in total support of Israel and not USA. Jesus how can people blindly support that zionist, reactionary right winger!!!!!

    Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/17/2008 @ 11:09pm

47. last time i checked USA is an independent country and should not have any direct control from *outside* powers. So i thought that i was doing the right thing by exposing the direct control that Israel exercises against the US government via the Israeli lobbies.

    well i posted some anti-zionism articles by James Petras, Scott Ritter and other alternative writters and thinkers. and from alternative news sources in the Barack Obama bloggers. And that's what caused that evangelical baptist zionist to send me that hate email (He hates Obama with a passion by the way)

    And My dear friends, we are living in dangerous time, i am in Tennessee, USA which is a very zionist, ultra-right wing Brown Shirts Red State. In fact Obama got like 20% in this ultra-right wing red state.

    I don't like the political ideology of this state (TN), which is right-wing ultra-capitalism and zionism. but some times moving is not an option for most of us. I would love to be in Vermont, in Venezuela, in New England, or in some other more progressive society. But you see in this corporatist world the oppressed people (Like me) don't have any option of any thing. All we could is UNITE !! Because the people united will never be defeated !!

    So i am telling you this, and to other people of good concience like Michael Rivero, Alex Jones, etc., because zionists, specially the zionist voters of the Republican Party are real angry at Obama even if Obama has zionist members on his government like Raham Emmanuel, and the anti-zionism people of this country even if they don't support Obama.

    There is a lot of deep rooted irrational hatred in this country against any social reformist, and even against Obama who they think is a threat to Israel's interest, because i think that Israel controls USA indeed.

    Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/17/2008 @ 11:11pm

48. valwayne: Do you get a check from Liberman or something? or are you on drugs or something? How can you say that Lieberman is a good honorable man when he is a zionist warmonger? are you an Israelite or an American?

    Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/17/2008 @ 11:13pm

49. Hugo: Most US newspapers are ultra-right wing newspapers and owned by zionists, of course they have to say that Ortega and Chavez are dictators. But in truth they are social-reformers. They don't bomb people, they don't steal, they dont kill like US government does. The real dictator is US government and Israel

    Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/17/2008 @ 11:26pm

50. The "real stuff" as displayed by "majority rules" indices. How about rallying a public outcry to have Joe unseated and recalled from his senatorial post as an independent. Independent of only one thing, ethical behavior. Let the people have a voice and 'educate, instigate, activate' a commonsensical public against his bileness!

    Posted by structurequity at 11/17/2008 @ 11:26pm

51. structurequity: Indeed !! How can people in this magazine which is supposed to be an alternative magazine, an alternative website to mainstream corporate news which are total lies and joke by the way say that Lieberman is a "man of honor and integrity" and should be given a chance !!

    I swear by God that lots of people in this country need a good philosophical and scientific courses to teach them the differences between *beliefs* and *evidence-based* facts.

    .

    Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/17/2008 @ 11:43pm

52. I can see it now. We have a new president determined to act and act quickly, with a House of Representatives that will want to be an integral part of that. However, a Republican Senator or two will lightly whisper the words "filibuster...maybe" and Harry Reid will do what he pretty much always does - run up a white flag. LBJ, when he was majority leader, would have cut Lieberman's balls off and run them through a blender in front of Lieberman's own eyes (metaphorically, of course...OK, maybe physically as well). What Reid is doing in that position is an utter mystery to me. If he would, just once, stop cowering around Republicans. Just once. There's far too much work to do, and Reid has far too long been part of the obstruction of that work. And his caving to Lieberman is simply one more, in an unending series of caves.

    Posted by jmusolino at 11/18/2008 @ 12:53am

53. Totally hilarious. Abuse of power appears to be a bipartisan phenomenon, doesn't it?

    Posted by jimmylove at 11/17/2008 @ 8:38pm

    Well, that's pretty funny - you're into irony, Jimmy? Abuse of power leans heavily right, if you've been paying attention (and judging from your post, you haven't been). You know - suppression of dissent, stolen elections, cronyism, attacks on basic civil liberties, torture, war of aggression...that's all right wing stuff, Jimmy. A filibuster-proof majority is an abuse of power? Interesting hallucinations there. But as you said - totally hilarious.

    Posted by jmusolino at 11/18/2008 @ 01:04am

54. Emanuel & Lieberman are AIPAC people, no one has ever questioned that.

    As are Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, Allbright et al. Can't avoid them, and can't avoid giving them major voice in foreign policy. They're the Democratic counterpart of JINSA & WINEP.

    Posted by yaldabaoth at 11/18/2008 @ 01:35am

55. *yuts, lowell is a looney.

    Posted by Mask at 11/17/2008 @ 09:13am*

    YOU NEVER LET ME HAVE ANY FUN!!!!

    Posted by yutsano at 11/18/2008 @ 03:01am

56. I don't like the political ideology of this state (TN), which is right-wing ultra-capitalism and zionism. Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/17/2008 @ 11:11pm

    Wasn't that guy Ford only narrowly defeated the other year? And I thought Knoxville was a very cool place....

    Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 11/18/2008 @ 09:15am

57. Liarman made his bed and he should be sent to sleep in it.

    Posted by ultvio at 11/18/2008 @ 09:34am

58. McCain backer Lieberman keeps committee chair

    By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer – 11 mins ago

    WASHINGTON – Sen. Joe Lieberman will keep his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee despite hard feelings over his support for GOP nominee John McCain during the presidential campaign.

    The Connecticut independent will lose a minor panel post as punishment for criticizing Obama this fall.

    Lieberman's colleagues in the Democratic caucus voted 42-13 Tuesday to approve a resolution condemning statements made by Lieberman during the campaign but allowing him to keep the Homeland Security Committee gavel. He will leave the Environment and Public Works panel, however.

    Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he was very angry by Lieberman's actions but that "we're looking forward, we're not looking back."...........

    Posted by OneVote at 11/18/2008 @ 12:53pm

59. marxist-socialist

    You are enlightening and a joy to read. You express yourself so well. Every one of your missives is so refreshing. Do continue to present your views on the great evils besetting this country. Post as often as you can to the various blogs here.

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/18/2008 @ 2:08pm

60. Some of this is ridiculous to read.

    -Most American Media outlets are Right wing? Really? Or is this just because they don't subscribe to your socialist agenda? Most American Media is left wing, except for talk radio.

    -Everyone who is attacking Lieberman has not presented one good reason why he isn't honorable. You all just resort to name calling and insults.

    -This is just more hypocrisy by democrats. They espouse Post-Partisanship with Obama, yet they go back to the same old politics when lieberman doesn't toe the party line. Ridiculous.

    Posted by bholm at 11/18/2008 @ 5:44pm