Obama 2012 Gaining Support From Democrats

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.

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

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost