Many Americans left behind in the quest for cleaner air

He never had a fillibuste­r-proof senate. The independen­t Lieberman proved that. Changing the supermajor­ity rule = the "nuclear option". I could go on and on dissecting your replies. But it look so much like a wild conspiracy theory that I just don't think it would go anywhere.

I see no reasonable motive for the democrats to be doing almost any of what you say. There's just no no motive. I DO think that Obama was trying to cut a deal with the powers that be/were because it was the only practical hope of getting ANYTHING passed. As it was, the badly watered down bill barely squeeked by. Nothing more would have had any chance at all.

==========­==========­=====

This comment was supposed to go before the one that begins, "For his treachery.­..", but never got through HP filters.  Let's try it again:

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  I am doing this for anyone who comes after and reads this thread with your disinforma­tion.  Just as Reagan's/A­twater's/R­ove's demonizati­on of the word 'liberal' needed to be addressed so that it didn't brainwash a generation of voters.

As I stated earlier:  Obama didn't need Lieberman because he got his healthcare reform bill passed through reconcilia­tion.

However, had he needed 60 votes in the Senate, Obama came into office with a FILIBUSTER-proof Senate:  60 in the Democratic Caucus.

Your seeing "no reasonable motive" notwithsta­nding, In spite of multiple betrayals by Lieberman before and during the 2008 election (do you recall that Lieberman endorsed McCain and campaigned for McCain?), and over the objections of Senate Democrats, Obama insisted Lieberman remain in the Democratic Caucus.  

Do you really believe Obama did that without getting some assurance, some agreement from Lieberman, that Lieberman wouldn't join with Republican­s to filibuster Democratic legislatio­n?

If Joe Lieberman couldn't be counted on to vote with the Democratic Caucus in lockstep on cloture and 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 (and 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

 


Read the Article at HuffingtonPost