Liberal hand-wringing over Obama appointments

I am a liberal progressive sushi-eating anti-war Democrat and I like Barack Obama's appointments to-date.

There. I needed it stated somewhere.

Am I the only self-described progressive who is OK with the Obama-admin-to-be? I keep hearing the commentariate talk about how all of us are just groaning with each new nomination. Are you groaning? Are you wailing about how Obama is abandoning the movement? Are you lamenting that Obama is ignoring the progressive MANDATE that his election proves?

If you are, I think A) you're a little bit full of crap, and B) you do not speak for me.

Yes, Barack Obama's election was a rejection of the Bush administration. It does not follow that his election is an embrace of progressive ideology. There are not two choices: Bush or Progressive. In this election, there was Bush and Other. The country chose Other.

Certainly the string of Democratic victories (can two cycles be called a "string of victories"?) can be seen as a continuing rejection of Bush. But what exactly about Bush are the voters rejecting? Fundamentalism in government? Neoconservativism? Free-market capitalism?

See, I've been hearing the punditocracy speaking for Progressives. They say that we say that Obama's election means that voters reject all of it. I think that's dumb.

Some voters are rejecting capitalism without regulation. Not capitalism in toto.

Some voters are rejecting evangelical ideology in place of policy. Not religion in government.

Some voters are rejecting cowboy interventionist policy. They've not become peaceniks.

Barack Obama and John McCain became the nominees of their respective parties because they promised to move away from partisan politics. They did not promise to reverse the polarity of the current brand of partisanship in Washington. Obama is making sense-based nominations. (Imagine: nominating an Ambassador to the UN who thinks it is a relevant body!) He is not balancing one Republican for every Democrat.

In general, I'm happy and comfortable and comforted by the decisions the President-Elect is making.

And while we're at it, let us remember that the man isn't actually President yet. Let's refrain from piling on what we think he is going to do. Please?

Should Lieberman lose his chairmanship?

I know what my husband's answer would be: "Let 'im hang!" There certainly are plenty of Democrats who would love to see Joe Lieberman's political career go up in flames for his support of John McCain. According to a report by The Hill today, Democrats are discussing a possible removal of Lieberman from the chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, a position he's held since 2007.

However, I find myself concerned not with Lieberman specifically, but with the reasoning behind the choice and the precedent it sets.

Here's the thing: I am one of those oft-referenced Americans who really hates how partisan Washington has become. And I'm not sure that punishing Lieberman, a Democrat-cum-Independent, for supporting a Republican with whom he has a long-standing friendship, is right.

Don't get me wrong. There may be a LOT of very good reasons to remove Lieberman from the chairmanship. Committee positions are used strategically by the leading party to put up-and-coming politicians in positions to gain experience. That's how you become an experienced leader. Lieberman is not entitled to hold his chairmanship.

Additionally, Lieberman did not just support McCain. Throughout the campaign season, Lieberman actively attacked Barack Obama using distortions of Obama's record and repeating "questions" about Obama's history and relationships with no evidence that there was actually any wrong-doing on Obama's part (a particularly virulent campaign tactic that I think is beneath the dignity of any honorable leader). The Democrats have no reason reward such behavior by honoring Lieberman's claim to the committee chairmanship.

But then let's be clear about why Lieberman is losing his chairmanship: because he's not entitled to it and has done nothing outstanding to earn retention of it.

Let us not ever approve of a vindictive approach to politics that punishes politicians to making decisions of loyalty based on personal conviction. Even if the other team did it first. We've got to move on from that brand of leadership.