More Lieberman

I really hate to say this, but Evan Bayh is right.

Look, there’s a time and a place for everything. There actually is a good time to cull your caucus for the good of the party or movement. But the term of what is probably your peak position is not that time. Let’s be clear, 2010 presents some opportunities for Democrats, especially in the Senate, but not many. And history will not be on their side. So whether Democrats end up with 57 or 58 or even 59 seats, that’s probably going to be their peak over this particular cycle, and it’s short of 60. 60 is a little overblown, as major bills can still be passed through thebudget reconciliation process,but such a moveis going to require the support of Max Baucus, who isn’t exactly known for being a good Democrat.

So, simply put, this is not the time to go risking your votes to settle political scoreswith apostates. The agenda is too big, the procedural hurdles too high, to be causing yourself any more obstacles. If Lieberman doesn’t vote to support the Democratic agenda, then we’ve got an entirely different situation, but so long as he remains a reliable vote in favor of healthcare reform, carbon pricing, labor, and other important aspects of the agenda, he can certainly be tolerated for the far greater good.

Also, Chris Dodd kind of raises another good point:

“What does¬†Barack Obama¬†want?” Dodd rhetorically asked reporters Friday in Hartford. “He’s talked about reconciliation, healing, bringing people together. I don’t think he’d necessarily want to spend the first month of this president-elect period, this transition period, talking about a Senate seat, particularly if someone is willing to come forward and is willing to be a member of your family in the caucus in that sense.”

I think the better way to frame that question is; do Democrats really want their first fight of a term in which they hope to pass cap-and-trade, healthcare reform, economic stimulus, EFCA, and get out of Iraq to be an internal dispute over Droopy Dog? Really?