"Joe Lieberman is not some right-wing nutcase," he said. "Joe Lieberman is one of the most progressive people ever to come from the state of Connecticut."
Progressive Democrats didn’t support John McCain for President.
Progressive Democrats didn’t undermine our party’s nominee by agreeing that it was a good question to ask whether he was a socialist.
Progressive Democrats didn’t campaign for downticket Republicans — Joe Lieberman wrote an op-ed for Norm Coleman! He raised money for Susan Collins! Joe Lieberman took affirmative steps to increase the size of the Republican Senate caucus.
What more evidence is needed to oust Lieberman?
These are not the words of a progressive Democrat:
"Sen. Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead. But, my friends, eloquence is no substitute for a record," Lieberman said at the Republican convention in early September.
Lieberman charged that Obama had not reached across party lines to "get anything significant done" and said that the McCain-Palin ticket was "the real ticket for change."
From where Harry Reid sits, as an anti-choice Democrat, every single member of the Democratic caucus looks like a progressive. That doesn’t make Joe Lieberman a progressive. It doesn’t make him a Democrat, either.
But Harry Reid also made a simple Lieberman apology a non-starter:
Asked if Lieberman owed President-elect Obama an apology, Reid said “this is not some high school deal where you say, okay, you embarrassed me in front of my girlfriend therefore you apologize.”
This is a test of Harry Reid’s leadership. If he fails to oust Lieberman, the caucus should find itself new leadership. Unless the Democratic Senate caucus is happy with Reid’s treatment of Lieberman?