Last week, in an eye-catching moment on the Senate floor, Barack Obama led Joe Lieberman to the back of the chamber and, according to one report, “engaged in what appeared to reporters in the gallery as an intense, three-minute conversation.” No one could hear the senators, but Roll Call noted the body language, and said Obama “leaned in very close at times, and appeared to be trying to dominate the conversation.”
Not surprisingly, a lot of us have been anxious to hear more about what, exactly, transpired. Newsweek quoted an anonymous campaign aide who said Obama “told Lieberman he was surprised by Lieberman’s personal attacks and his half-hearted denials of the false rumors that Obama is a Muslim.”
Lieberman’s office is not at all pleased. His spokesperson told the National Review:
“The anonymous Obama campaign staffer’s characterization of the private conversation was entirely false and fabricated.”
And an anonymous Lieberman staffer told Time’s Mark Halperin:
“If the Obama campaign thinks they are going to intimidate Joe Lieberman with these sleazy tactics then they are sorely mistaken.”
Given the context, I assume Lieberman’s aides were referring to the comments to Newsweek as “sleazy,” not Obama’s discussion with Lieberman on the Senate floor (which Lieberman’s office described as “a cordial and friendly discussion“).
Either way, we’re watching the end of Lieberman’s relationship with the Democratic Party. At this point, it’s a matter of “when,” not “if.”
It’s nearly mid-June in an election year, so it’s unlikely we’ll see any major changes before the next Congress convenes, but Josh Marshall makes a compelling case that Lieberman has burned a bridge that won’t be rebuilt.
What does seem clear to me is that Lieberman’s days in the Democratic caucus, or more specifically, his days with a committee chairmanship courtesy of the Democratic caucus are numbered in months.
My assumption is that after the November election, regardless of the outcome of the presidential campaign, Joe will be stripped of his chairmanship. (This seems even more certain to me if Obama wins the general, but I suspect it will happen regardless.) Whether he’ll actually be expelled from the caucus I don’t know and probably doesn’t really matter. Once he’s stripped of the benefits he gains from it, presumably he’ll leave himself and become an actual non-caucusing independent or, more likely, start caucusing with the Republicans.
What that tells me is that Lieberman has no incentive not to make the maximum amount of trouble over the next five months both for his senate colleagues and for Sen. Obama.
Josh raised a couple of points here, both of which are important. Lieberman might as well kiss his committee gavel goodbye, and once that happens, he’ll have no incentive to caucus with the party. Lieberman probably realizes this, which will make him an unrestrained Republican attack-dog throughout the campaign cycle.
Two other angles to consider here. First, once Lieberman departs from the party altogether, the chances of Dems reaching a 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority become far slimmer, if not literally zero. Indeed, publius recently made the case that this alone was reason enough to let Lieberman stay in the caucus, regardless of his offensive behavior. If Dems go +9 on Election Day, expect this to draw quite a bit of discussion in party circles.
Second, I wonder if Lieberman has considered the implications for his reputation — not with the party, and not with his constituents, but with the media establishment he loves (and which loves him right back). Lieberman’s interesting to pundits and talking heads because he’s unusual. The media can’t get enough of unusual. Lieberman was on the Democratic ticket eight years ago, he had Obama campaigning for him two years ago, and now he’s McCain’s Mini-Me. The media can’t get enough.
But come January, if he’s just another neocon caucusing with the Republican Party and attacking Obama and the Democratic Party, he’s not quite as fascinating anymore.
Something to keep an eye on.