Lieberman Campaign Manager Tapped To Be Obama DHS Spokesman

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 07:01:38 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Watch the heads explode:

Joe Lieberman's 2006 primary campaign manager, Sean Smith, who accused Ned Lamont of hacking their website the day of the Connecticut primary in 2006, has been selected to be the new Administration's spokesperson at the Department of Homeland Security. If there's any federal department that needs truth-talking more than DoJ, it's likely DHS. . . . Americans have many good reasons to distrust DHS.

Putting Sean Smith at the podium at the Department of Homeland Security is not going to advance the credibility of the department. Recall, please, that Sean Smith first proposed the "hacked website" canard in Connecticut the day of Ned Lamont's primary victory over incumbent then-Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman

That's a good point actually. This Smith fellow probably is the wrong choice here.

Speaking for me only

< Down From The Ivory Tower: Private College Applications Down | Congressional Dem Leaders Must Provide Answers To Cheney's Charge of Complicity In BushCo Illegality >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Lieberman Campaign Manager Tapped To Be Obama DHS Spokesman | 28 comments (28 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

gee, (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by cpinva on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 07:14:49 AM EST

ya think?

This Smith fellow probably is the wrong choice here.

unfortunately, i am getting what i pretty much expected from pres.-elect obama.

The man who cried "Wolf!" (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by Fabian on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 07:44:08 AM EST

as a spokesperson of the DHS?

That's either incredibly apropos or ludicrous. If this was the Bush/Cheney administration, I'd be going with "apropos".

But this is the Obama administration...WT_?

: Aw, you beat me to the line. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by scribe on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 08:59:55 AM EST

So, we get to buy duct tape and plastic wrap in response to the calls of the boy who cried wolf.
Grrrreat.

The latest sign of an Obama cult member (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by andgarden on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:46:01 AM EST

is a blog commenter who insist that their hero simply cannot be criticized for any reason until he has "done something" in office.

Unhappy with Obama's DHS Spokesman? (1.00 / 1) (#3)
by uncledad on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 07:47:05 AM EST

Wow who cares really, isn't this a little too inside baseball? BTD why don't you just issue a blanket statement disagreeing with everything Obama will do from now on. Reading your posts makes it so obvious that you wanted a McCain/Palin win to vindicate your "dear leader" Hillary's disastrous campaign loss. Maybe you should consider a new handle: maybe Big tent begrudger!

Heh (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 07:57:25 AM EST

Why don't you argue (none / 0) (#4)
by Fabian on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 07:49:35 AM EST

why this pick is a great choice?

Maybe he's a better spinmeister than we know?


: Good choice? (none / 0) (#15)
by uncledad on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:33:06 AM EST

Hell I don't know, like I said he's a goddamm spokesman who cares really. It's not like he picked him to actually run anything. I suspect Obama picked him as a wink to Lieberman, maybe a little good will towards loserman may pay off during a senate vote on. hmmm I don't know the next supreme court nominee. I think Lieberman is a major tool but the good people of Connecticut elected him and Obama will have to deal with him in some fashion, maybe better as reluctant allies?

BTD (none / 0) (#5)
by WS on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 07:51:21 AM EST

supported Obama during the primaries.

As for me, I don't think this is such a big deal.


oh uncledad, uncledad, uncledad, (none / 0) (#9)
by cpinva on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 08:15:56 AM EST

you poor twit! beyond the obvious concerns raised by your nic, the point of BTD's post (i TOLD him to attach fishing weights to them, but did he listen to me? nooooooooooooooooooooooo!) clearly went right over your head.

simply put, this is just another example of the "realing" of the upcoming obama administration: style vs substance; progressive vs "can't we all just get along?".

i hope that was helpful.

ok, really, don't give two nanny goat sh*ts if it was or not.


Smith is exactly who (none / 0) (#10)
by Salo on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 08:45:56 AM EST

McCain would have picked uncledave. He's a Lieberman staffer. When will people start their cognitive sonnance? :-)


McCain (none / 0) (#19)
by uncledad on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:43:45 AM EST

would have oicked Lieberman to actually run DHS. Now had Obama done that then BTD would have a valid complaint. Appointing losermans campaign manager "spokesman" is just a political wink to loserman, he's a spokesman thats it, not actually in charge of anything.


It's all very mark penn (none / 0) (#22)
by Salo on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:51:17 AM EST

Very sad considering the crap in the primaries


Seriously, can someone (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by dk on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:54:47 AM EST

explain how this is any more Mark Penn than it is Barack Obama? I mean, are we really revising history already and forgetting that Obama campaigned on post-partisan unity? Really?


: Ironically (none / 0) (#26)
by Salo on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:06:48 AM EST

Obama is more a disciple of micro marketing than Clinton ever could have been. The crap I am refering to was the obamabot attack on Penn

Sounds like the Obama group (none / 0) (#11)
by Jake Left on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 08:46:30 AM EST

has hired someone with all the acumen of Mark Penn to advise them. They are having a problem seeing the real world.

That's funny, I'd say (none / 0) (#13)
by dk on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:09:03 AM EST

the incoming Obama administration understands the real world just fine. The people who don't understand it are progressives who supported Obama.


If by "real" (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Fabian on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:30:10 AM EST

you mean The Village, I agree.

While I see some signs that Obama has enough brains to appoint qualified people, he still is the same old pandering pol he ever was.

The campaign trail pandering to win mere votes is over. Now comes the serious pandering that forges alliances - with whom and for what purposes?


Exactly. I was (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by dk on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:42:31 AM EST

being snarky in response to a point that seems to view Obama's action as some kind of "misstep" that will cost them politically. Instead, I just see it as a consistent underpinning of the Obama campaign/administration.

Courting the Village while lying to the fauxgressives is what has gotten them where they are, and so far it seems to be working. Why would they want to stop now?


: The liberal types in the us (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Salo on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:56:48 AM EST

Are obamas cheap date. Or as Zappa sang in bobby brown "got cheerleader here wants to help with my paper,let her do all the work maybe later..."

Glad to brighten your day. (none / 0) (#17)
by Jake Left on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:39:50 AM EST

But you just don't understand. My problem isn't so much with his right leaning tendencies, but with the errors in judgement. Warren will not get him any support. Those who follow Warren are not going to stop being homo-bigots because Warren prays for Obama to get right. And the OP was dead on in pointing out that the appointee in question lacks credibility and is in a position that requires credibility.

Surely these aren't personal selections by Obama. Surely some clowns on staff are making these suggestions. If not, then it is not his lets-hug-a-republican nature that is the problem, but his insularity.


Are you kidding?? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by dk on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:47:48 AM EST

Firstly, you better bet that Warren was a personal decision by Obama. No way no how someone that controversial would have been picked for the inaguration without Obama's personal say so. Plus, Obama has stated that Warren is one of his spiritual advisors.

Second of all, you are living in a very small world if you think that Warren will not get him any support. It has already gotten him even more support than he already had in the Village. The Village eats up that kind of "post-partisan" stuff. And with the Village comes the media, and with the media comes the A-list bloggers (who ironically started up as media critics but now mostly parrot the media when it comes to praise for Obama at least).

And as far as the former Lieberman aide pick goes, don't you know that Lieberman is the Village's second favorite pol (after Obama)? Markos may blow a gasket, but that says much more about Markos' inconsistencies than it says about Obama's political acumen.


Nothing I can (none / 0) (#23)
by Salo on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 09:53:45 AM EST

Disaggree with in that post.


Golly, (none / 0) (#27)
by Jake Left on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:19:07 AM EST

I am making your day. First I make you laugh, then I kid you. Let's try again.

If you find my posts so hilarious, then you shouldn't take everthing so seriously. Lighten up. I will label my sarcasm and irony for you in future posts so you can recognize them. Literal readings of forum posts will drive you crazy.

The only "serious" part of my post was the comment about Obama's insularity, a trait you share if you think that courting the religious right will pay off. You cannot out bigot them. They will always have a stiffer candidate to run against you. They never back off. Slobbering over Warren will not get those people to support pro-choice legislation or gay rights or any of the things that the huge masses of Obama's supporters voted for.

Your small world is the one where people think that cooperating with the neocons will get them to agree with you that we need national health care. Won't happen. It's the world where voting half the time with the republicans will get them to vote your way sometimes. Hasn't worked yet.

So, my view is that Barack buys his own message. One that says we all must get along. I sort of read yours to be that Obama was a stealth neocon who likes republicans and fooled everyone. I think it more likely that he is repeating the early Clinton mistake of trying to get conservatives to change. He's just doing what he said he would do and those who thought otherwise were not terribly prescient.

If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. The poor planning of this appointment and the Warren blessing will only make him itch. It won't get him any conservative votes and will cost him the fanatical support that put him in office. Hence my feeling that these are blunders rather than shrewd political maneuvers.


Nope, I still think (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by dk on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:52:39 AM EST

you're silly.

Firstly, where did I say that my view was that cooperating with the neocons will get them to agree on a need for national healthcare. Heck, Obama was quite upfront about being against national healthcare, or any substantive change for healthcare (did his goldilocks ads not air in your state?).

That aside, you are still not getting my point. Obama did not do this to get the support of the religious right. He did this to get the support of the Village. They want a center-right nation, they confer power, and Obama wants power. Obama's selection of Warren has been viewed positively by the Village (more positively, I may add, than it has by Warren's own supporters). Fanatical support did not put Obama in office. The Village, and the Democratic leadership, put him in office. With the singular exception of Barney Frank, the Village and the Democratic Leadership are perfectly fine with, and even supportive of, Obama's choice.


: Now you're making me giggle. (none / 0) (#30)
by Jake Left on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:57:59 PM EST

Can anyone tell (none / 0) (#28)
by JThomas on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:49:24 AM EST

me who the current spokesman for the DHS is?

If you can off the top of your head..you win the prize.

Is it possible that Janet Napolitano could have an influence in who will be the spokesman for her dept?

Does Obama hire all 10,000 new govt. employees personally?

I just think a spokesperson who does not say exactly what his boss,Janet, wants will be fired that same day. If there is anyone who cannot hide their mistakes,it is someone whose job is to speak to the press. Within two minutes of disregarding an edict from Janet, it will be apparent to everyone,including Janet,that the person has to be fired.

I'm excited (none / 0) (#32)
by WS on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:25:27 PM EST

about the legislation Obama is going to sign. That doesn't mean he's above reproach.