Did I miss something? Didn't the country, on the whole, vote for Democrats over Republicans at every federal level? Why do Dems seem to have this bi-partisanship fetish? They WON! That means they can select people from their party who should share a progressive viewpoint and support a progressive/liberal agenda, and then..they can go out and enact that agenda! Holy shit, it all seems so easy! But that's not what's happening. Greenwald, as usual, sums it all up nicely:
If this is how the next four (or eight) years is going to be: spineless Democrats enacting a half-baked, flaccid agenda with the help of all of their bi-partisan Republican friends, count me among the seriously underwhelmed.Our political system is afflicted by many, many problems. A lack of bipartisanship hasn't been one of them. At least during the Bush era, the Beltway political establishment has been fueled by trans-partisan cooperation and internal allegiance far more than by any ideological differences, policy debates, or partisan warfare. Do the last eight years -- defined by George Bush's virtually unimpeded political agenda -- leave any doubt about that?
That's why the outcome of this Joe Lieberman "controversy" is anything but surprising. Having Democrats overlook Lieberman's extremist views and reward him is anything but "change." That's perfectly consistent with -- not a departure from -- how Washington works: political disagreements can be expressed on the rhetorical level but they're virtually always subordinated to the far greater imperative of bipartisan harmony within the political class.
Update: It's official! But I don't think Kos' comment about a tone-deaf Senate is entirely accurate; the Senate is quite aware of the political tone of this decision, it just realizes that ignoring the current tone will have absolutely no repercussions. Until Greens poll at more than one or two percent nationally, progressives are stuck - with Harry Reid and the Democrats.