Traitor Joe must go. If things work out well in this election, Bold Progressives has a good plan that I support.

Today, the Hill reports:

One Democratic source said Lieberman is not likely to lose his position in the Democratic caucus, even if the party picks up several seats in next week's election... "There's no sense in cutting off our nose to spite our face," one source said.

When will Democratic leaders realize that every time Joe Lieberman spouts right-wing talking points on TV as a "Democrat" or attends a Republican press conference as a "Democrat," that spites their face big-time?

So here's the plan. Immediately after Election Day, if Democrats don't need Lieberman as their 60th vote in the Senate, progressive activists in Nevada will stand in front of Harry Reid's office for hours and read your letters to Harry Reid about Joe Lieberman.

He is an embarrassment to all Democrats nation wide. Especially since he's ripped Obama while supporting McCain even after Obama supported him. He is a true traitor. Please write a letter to Harry Reid and tell him how you feel..

(h/t FDL for the video) Anita Dunn gave us an indication something was finally brewing. It's on CNS, but the word I have so far is it's true.

Lieberman, a Democrat-turned-independent and a close friend of Republican presidential candidate John McCain, still caucuses with Democrats, which allows them to control the Senate with a 51-49 majority . A spokesman for Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., indicated Thursday that Lieberman may no longer be welcome.

"Lieberman went too far when he distorted Sen. Obama's record," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley. "From Reid's perspective, (Lieberman) has every right to give a partisan speech to whomever he wants. But he doesn't have the right to distort Sen. Obama's record like that. Sen. Reid was very disappointed in Lieberman's speech."

Added Manley: "The Democratic caucus will likely revisit Lieberman's situation after the November elections."

Asked if Reid was putting Lieberman on notice, Manley replied: "Without overplaying it, the answer is, yes."

I'm not sure what that means yet, but it is a step in the right direction that took way too long to happen. He's smeared Obama endlessly. The Democratic Party should have taken much stronger action against Joe many moons ago.

On ABC's THIS WEEK, they played a clip of Joe Lieberman saying he wanted a Democratic Congress and President in the White House back in '06. ( h/t Nedheads for the clip on TW) When Stephanopoulos asked him why he's backing St. McCain, he said some very interesting things---

Download | play Download | play (Heather)

LIEBERMAN: I want Democrats to be back in the majority in Washington and elect a Democratic president in 2008.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: And Senator Joe Lieberman joins us now. You're now an independent senator from Connecticut. But no one in your position has ever crossed over like this. You ran for vice president as a Democrat in 2000, ran for president as a Democrat in 2000. And now you are backing John McCain. What do you say to Democrats who say that that shows you've abandoned a lifetime of commitments?

LIEBERMAN: Well, I say that the Democratic Party changed. The Democratic Party today was not the party it was in 2000. It's not the Bill Clinton-Al Gore party, which was strong internationalists, strong on defense, pro-trade, pro-reform in our domestic government.

It's been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist and basically will --and very, very hyperpartisan. So it pains me.

He responded like Zell Miller because bloggers and activists made him lose the Democratic primary in CT over his warmongering. Zell Lieberman then was caught in a bunch of distortions by George. As he's questioned on St. McCain's right wing agenda, the agenda that he's been opposed to for his whole career, here's his response:

LIEBERMAN: No, I'm saying two things. First, as a matter of fact, George, John McCain is not for the private accounts to take the
place of Social Security. He's for what Bill Clinton used to call "Social Security-plus."

STEPHANOPOULOS: He disputed that in The Wall Street Journal this month, though.

LIEBERMAN: Yes. I think that's right. But let me -- there are two reasons why I support John McCain, when I did in December and I announced it, and I feel even more strongly about it today.

Well CT, here's your man. He's lying when his lips move today because he's a warmonger through and through. And Zell is supporting this war with Iraq while pushing for another war with Iran as hard as he can..(Yes, that's an old joke.) St. McCain fills the bill for him on this issue completely. He throws out the bipartisan theme he talks about all the time now since he was ousted from the party. You know---reach across party lines to fix health care and what-not. OK Joe, the right wingers will NOT work with McCain on immigration---they shut him and the bill down so he had to flip flop on his position. Oh, and forget about health care reform for this country if McCain is elected. The economy you ask? Hahahaha! The mortgage crisis maybe? Hahaha. The Social Security gaffe was a major, major problem for Joe, but he just blew it off as if the question wasn't asked. I guess Zelieberman missed Lindsey Graham whispering in his ear the correct answer...(updated the post)