OK the way Randi Rhodes put it.

[cooolandrew]

Lieberman has got to go. He would be more trouble than his vote is worth in that committee, I just initially thought it was harmless to leave him there till 2010. Randi Rhodes is never wrong I go with her better judgment. Being on that committee oversights the executive branch which he hasn't done for 8 years. With everything he has said he would now do so, and unfairly. Despite everything we might actually get co-operation from McCain, ironically.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. I agree he has got to go..

[AzNick]

2. I am with her and this proves Obama is a better person than all of us

Most people would have put their feelings and resentment first but he was capable of putting the interest of the country first.

Besides, Lieberman is a liberal, except on foreign policy. His support for McCain was ill-advised and showed that *he* put his feelings and resentment first.

Down the road, he will be useful when we need 60+ senators to pass our agenda.

He knows he has to be a good boy now and caucus like a true democrat that he once was.

Maybe that's his only shot at redemption and you've got to give it to Obama.

[bluetrain]

5. It does not prove "Obama is a better person"; all it says is that he's a centrist.

Lieberman is blackmailing the left with his affiliation and there is no reason to want or need to be affiliated with him. We have enough votes and enough popular support without him.

And, he was never a "true" Democrat. Censorship ring a bell? He's the reason Gore lost so many votes to Nader.

[me b zola]

6. I disagree. IMO, it says he is a pragmatist and a hard-baller.

Give it time to see how this plays out.

[cooolandrew]

7. Didn't Lieberman support the impeachment of Clinton.

[bluetrain]

3. Randi Rhodes is wrong sometimes, sometimes terribly so, but I agree with her on this.

Let him become a Republican. He already is one. He does not have the country's best interests at heart in the slightest and never has. He becomes irrelevant as a Republican; the GOP is defunct. By allowing him to continue calling himself a Democrat he stains the Democratic Party. They can have him.

[MadMaddie]

4. Absolutely. He has conducted 0 investigations in his role

under the * admin. You wanna bet he has 20 before the first quarter is over in 2009.

In reality Joe has failed to be successful in his role why the fuck should we keep him? Remove resources that are ineffective.

[backscatter712]

8. One of the compromise proposals I've been hearing...

to prevent him from defecting to the GOP is to pull him out of the chair of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (since he does have subpoena powers as chair of that committee, and is likely to use it to harass and undermine the Obama administration) and instead give him the chair of the Small Business Committee.

The Small Business Committee is currently chaired by John Kerry, who's been a solid Democrat and earned himself a chair of a more prestigious committee, and is up to move anyways, and by giving Joe that chair, we place him somewhere where he's mostly harmless, but still has a chair, which is something the GOP can't offer him.

Sounds like a good way of keeping that douchenozzle from fleeing to the GOP while still giving him a well-deserved rebuke for all the shit he's pulled, and keeping him on a tight leash.