The vote on a milquetoast resolution
Hm.
Democrats – Lieberman + Collins + Coleman
Oh, and minus Reid, for procedural reasons so he can bring the milquetoast Resolution back up for debate.
So, that’s Collins and Coleman, up for re-election in 2008 in what look now more than ever like Blue States. The other interesting votes are of John Warner, Chuck Hagel, and Gordon Smith — who you must admit the Republican op-ed writer in the Oregonian spotted as still being true to the spirit of Supporting the War despite what everyone in the nation saw as a speech showing a change of heart — slippery, slipper little Gordon Smith. As for Chuck Hagel, I’ve been a defender and quasi-admirer of Chuck Hagel. At the moment, I can’t quite figure out why I would be such.
And then there’s Lieberman, who announced that to debate this issue right now would be to send a “No Confidence” vote to the troops at a time when we are preparing for a “Decisive Battle”. Regretably, he is in the right in one sense: this bill does not actually do anything, and won’t stop the “Surge” — so weakened has Congressional Perogatives become.
I bring up Lieberman, whose vote is hardly surprising, to remind everyone of something to consider for the purpose of the 2008 Democratic Primary. In the run up the Connecticut primary race, the word came out that Lieberman was set to run as an Independent should he come within single points of Ned Lamont. Lieberman came within four points — 52 to 48.
The entire Democratic Party powerhouses came out in defense of Joseph Lieberman, acting as the Incumbent Protection Racket that political parties tend to act as.  There is a man by the name of Barack Obama, who served as Lieberman’s understudy in a Senate program that grooms Senate Freshmen (and apparently selected Lieberman for this task). He came out strongly on behalf of Lieberman.
So the question is this: Was Barack Obama worth six points for Lieberman? And isn’t it grating that Bush feels himself able to use Lieberman as a bi-partisan prop for his military purposes?