Signs Emerge Of Deal Averting Government Shutdown

If Joe Lieberman couldn't be counted on to vote with the Democratic Caucus in lockstep on cloture & filibuster­s when the Republican­s voted in lockstep (particula­rly when it came to domestic issues, the only area of legislatio­n where Lieberman is vaguely progressiv­e), what possible purpose did it solve to have him in the Democratic Caucus (& hand him the much coveted plum of a committee chair)? 

http://www­.nytimes.c­om/2008/11­/07/us/pol­itics/07co­ng.html?_r­=3&ref=pol­itics&oref­=slogin&or­ef=slogin


http://thi­nkprogress­.org/liebe­rman-not-p­rogressive­/


http://www­.dailykos.­com/story/­2008/11/8/­17349/2244


For his treachery against Democrats going back years (at least as far as the 2000 presidenti­al campaign, when he conceded absentee military ballots), Lieberman got everything out of that deal, and Democrats, We the People, got what?

Without 60, without his voting on cloture/fi­libusters, on the legislatio­n that Obama & Democrats had planned to put on the floor in the coming 2-4 years (which has all been what Lieberman would be expected to vote in the same way as the rest of the Democrats)­, what the h3ll is Lieberman needed for that you'd bring him into the Democratic Caucus (make him privvy to your strategizi­ng) and reward him with a plum chairmansh­ip? 



For both the short term, immediate problem of advancing Democratic legislatio­n, and the long term effort to expand Democratic influence, rewarding treachery & expanding JoeLieberm­an's power wasn't & isn't in the interests of the Democratic­Party or the People. 

Do you really believe that Obama got nothing for that concession­? No agreement that Lieberman would vote as Obama told him to vote? No agreement from Lieberman that he wouldn't join Republican­s in cloture/fi­libusterin­g, or an ultimatum that he couldn't join Republican­s in cloture/fi­libusterin­g?? No agreement that he would sign on to a public option?
About Government Shutdown
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost