Hey, has anyone found that Newsweek with the big election story on the newstand?

Should I think that not seeing means it hasn't arrived at the store yet, or that it has sold out?

The last chapter has a Nov 17th issue date.

sumi, we have a subscription and our Newsweek came in on Saturday, which means it should hit the newstands this week.

I just drove off from McDonalds without my food. The kids got their happy meals but I'm making a sandwich at home.

If Lieberman wants to stay an Independent, then he should lose his party senority, IMO, He can caucus with whomever he likes but he can't be a committee chair.

I am rarely a centrist but...

No. He SHOULD have lost his "party seniority" (and the seniority that counts is not necessarily to the party, but to the years of service, right?) but in 2006 it was convenient for the Dems to leave him in their caucus with all of the privileges that entails because he was tipping point.

Now that he isn't, it's too late, IMO, to strip him of those things because they didn't when it would have made the most logical sense. 57 seats is a nice fat lead, but 1/3r of all of them will be up for re-election in 2 years and there is no guarantee that the Dems won't need Leiberman again in the very near future.

So I guess the public spanking might feel like the right thing, but it might not be right politically in a long term perspective.

Sigh. UC-Irvine professor risks losing his job because he refuses to go to anti-sexual harassment training. [link]

I saw on CNN's ticker that Lieberman was talking to McConnell about caucusing with the Republicans. I think I have to agree that a public spanking isn't going to do a whole lot of good. I would suggest that they forgive Joe for his actions but to not ever forget them. They still need to work with the minority in the senate and the best way to do that is to reach out and work with Lieberman.

But I totally understand the desire to punish him for his very public behavior and dissing of Obama. I would guess he's going to be a pariah in the Democratic caucus anyway.

If he bolts the party first, then they can strip him of his chair, without seeming vindictive.

Nobody's talking about booting him from the caucus. But keeping him in that position has a lot of implications for party discipline, for opportunities for upcoming Senate leadership, and frankly for getting someone in that spot who can do it better. Seniority is a Senate tradition, but committee assignments aren't written in stone, and they're the majority/minority leaders' to determine.

He left the party, he cut himself a good deal to retain his power, and then he went completely off the rails and was out campaigning for the opposition, not just McCain but down-ticket races, and lending his authority to some of the most outrageous smears. Exactly what do you have to do? And what does it say to the people in the ranks who will be the party leadership in the future? What does it do to Reid's ability to pull together votes when you can go so far and not see any consequences?

No. Take away the gavel and let him caucus with whoever he wants as the "independent" he claims to be. If his "man of conscience" schtick has any meaning, you'll still have his vote on most things and you won't be held hostage to his hurt feelings.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh, seeing this in my mind is making me laugh and laugh.

I wish I could convey in text how hilarious it was when my friend imitated his dad's expression and the tone of his "NOOOOO!" Which, of course, startled the parrot awake.

I wish I could convey in text how hilarious it was when my friend imitated his dad's expression and the tone of his "NOOOOO!" Which, of course, startled the parrot awake.

I was telling the story to Lewis earlier and he said the only thing that would've made it better is if the parrot had hopped up and squawked, "Gotcha!"

I was telling the story to Lewis earlier and he said the only thing that would've made it better is if the parrot had hopped up and squawked, "Gotcha!"

And then, no doubt, got onto the net to Twitter about it.