Magic Number In The Senate? It's Not 60. It's Joe Lieberman.

If anything was proven by yesterday's post on Sen. Joe Lieberman, it's that few people are neutral about the independent from Connecticut.

And that's putting it mildly. Lieberman, who was thought to have put the Democrats' health-care bill in jeopardy on Sunday by saying he could never support legislation that included a Medicare buy-in program — a plan that would let people as young as 55 buy into Medicare — let alone a public option, has incurred the wrath of many Democrats and liberals across the country. He remains a member of the Democratic Party (though re-elected as an independent in 2006) and votes to organize the Senate with the Democrats, but he has long been a thorn in their side, dating at least back to the late 1990s, when he took to the floor to denounce President Clinton's moral failures.

The alleged transgressions since then are many, including supporting the war in Iraq and endorsing John McCain for president in 2008 (and attacking Barack Obama in the process). But because the name of the game is 60 votes — in this case, the number needed to pass health care in the face of a united Republican opposition — Democrats have been giving him a free reign. And that drives the left apoplectic.

Yesterday, in the words of the New York Times' Herszenhorn & Kirkpatrick, Democratic leaders "were on the verge of bowing to Mr. Lieberman's main demands" — scrapping the Medicare buy-in program as well as "even a fallback version" of the public option. It was a grudging concession, they write:

Just the thought of Joseph I. Lieberman makes some Democrats want to spit nails these days.

But if the Democrats are outraged, Lieberman "could not be happier":

He is right where he wants to be — at the center of the political aisle, the center of the Democrats' efforts to win 60 votes for their sweeping health care legislation. For the moment, he is at the center of everything — and he loves it.

And while no Republicans seem inclined to vote for the bill, one of those being wooed — Susan Collins of Maine — has nothing but praise for Lieberman. She's quoted in the Times as saying, "I believe that his principled stances have improved the bill."

The White House — as well as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — has made it clear that they want a bill by Christmas. This afternoon, President Obama brought Democratic senators — including Lieberman — to the White House to get them to resolve their differences. By the Times' account, by threatening to vote against it, Lieberman "may actually have saved it":

On some level, Mr. Lieberman appears to accomplish a goal that has eluded party leaders for months: settling a sharp dispute between liberal and centrist Democrats over whether to create a government-run health insurance plan, or public option. ...

When Democrats emerged from a tense, 90-minute huddle behind closed doors on Monday night, they seemed more determined than ever to pass the health care legislation. ...

A sentiment among some lawmakers present seemed to be that if they were intent on not letting Republicans defeat the health care legislation, they certainly were not going to let it fail at the hands of Mr. Lieberman, whom many Democrats regard as a traitor.

But if Lieberman got what he wanted, the same can't be true of the left. Huffington Post's Rachel Weiner reports that the bill "is so compromised, some progressives argue, that it would be better to try to kill it than fight for its passage":

In light of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's decision to give in to Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and agree to scrap a Medicare compromise, and with the public option already off the table, many ardent supporters of health care reform are giving up on the legislation.

"Insurance companies win. Time to kill this monstrosity coming out of the Senate," wrote DailyKos founder Markos Moulitas on his Twitter feed Monday night.

Darcy Burner, a beloved (but unsuccessful) progressive candidate for Congress in the past two elections and executive director of ProgressiveCongress.org, wrote in a blog post:

The first rule of medicine is, "Do no harm." The post-Joe Lieberman version of the Senate health care bill fails that basic criterion. Unless Democratic leadership steps up to fix this misguided proposal, our only recourse will be to kill it.

Huffington blogger Greg Saunders goes even further:

It's been pretty clear that the members of the Democratic leadership in the Senate are a bunch of amoral cowards who are not only afraid to play hardball, but unwilling to at least pretend to play hardball. As the predictable consequence of this weakness, Sen. Reid has let the health care reform debate become an opportunity for "centrist" Democrats to use logically inconsistent assertions about reform (which often go unchallenged) as a pretext to block the Senate from making progress. ...

Democrats in the Senate still seem to think there's some virtue in being polite to their colleagues who would uphold a status quo that kills tens of thousands of Americans every year, but this needs to end. While I doubt the leadership in the "upper house" would ever deign to lower themselves to hurting Joe Lieberman's feelings in order to save lives, here's what I would do if I were in charge : ...

Joe Lieberman is persona non grata - From this point forward, it should just be assumed that the Democratic caucus has 59 members. I wouldn't suggest taking punitive measures against him (yet), lest the leadership come off as spiteful and alienate some of the votes still in play. Rather, Democrats should just ignore Lieberman completely. Stop inviting him to caucus meetings, don't pay attention to the things he says, and actively engage on-the-fence Senators like Nelson, Collins, and Snowe while making no secret of the fact that the Senate leadership is no longer interested in giving a troll like Lieberman the attention he craves. If asked about Lieberman, Dems should be diplomatic, but treat him as if he were Sen. Graham or McCain. If Joe bashes any aspect of the reform effort, amiably write it off saying something like "Of course Joe would say that. Sen. Lieberman is a good friend, but he's made it clear over the past few months that his vote isn't in play." If Joementum isn't going to negotiate in good faith, stop negotiating. ...

As they say, politics ain't a beanbag, but for too long Democrats in the Senate have chosen the path of least resistance and let the American people be a punching bag in the process. This isn't a game. Harry Reid and the rest of his cohorts need to put down their copies of "Robert's Rules of Order" and pick up Machiavelli's rules for kicking some ass (aka The Prince). They need to stop being congenial and realize that if reform doesn't happen in the next few weeks, it's unlikely to happen for another generation or more. The fate of hundreds of thousands of lives rests on their shoulders.

Until then, Lieberman remains a key vote on the legislation. This afternoon, he said that if the Medicare buy-in and public option are gone, "I'm going to be in a position where I can say what I've wanted to say all along: that I'm ready to vote for health care reform."

UPDATE: Recall Joe? Politico quotes Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) as saying that Lieberman should be recalled from office:

No individual should hold health care hostage, including Joe Lieberman, and I'll say it flat out, I think he ought to be recalled.

House Democratic caucus chair John Larson, also of Connecticut, doesn't go as far:

It goes beyond frustration in Connecticut in terms of the way people feel. I have a great deal of respect and I have long admired Joe Lieberman. This goes against the grain of most of what he's fought for and stood for all of his life. It's thoroughly frustrating and disappointing for so many of us.

As far as a recall goes, this also appears in the Politico post:

Connecticut has no recall law for state officials, and the Constitution does not authorize states to recall members of Congress since each house has the authority to police its own members.