Joe Lieberman angered a lot of liberals recently with his declaration of opposition to Harry Reid's opt-out public-option provision. But liberals who also care about climate-change legislation may want to temper their rage. Lieberman has long championed climate-change legislation in the Senate, and is emerging as a critical player in the current effort. Politico reported back in September that Lieberman had been busy meeting with a bipartisan group to figure out a path forward on climate change. In a recent interview with the National Journal, Lieberman gave some insight into his negotiating strategy.

Lieberman knows they won't get to 60 without concessions on four key areas: nuclear, coal, agriculture, and manufacturing. Satisfying a few senators with interests in each of those industries might be enough to get the bill across the line. It looks as though Lieberman and his pals have found people to champion each issue. Tom Carper from Delaware is working on coal; Debbie Stabenow from Michigan is taking the lead on agriculture; and Sherrod Brown from Ohio is active on manufacturing. It sounds as though Lieberman himself will be central to nuclear negotiations, which makes sense given that he's close to Republicans like Lindsey Graham and John McCain who care deeply about expanding the nuclear sector.

If Harry Reid were Jerry Seinfeld, he'd probably be snarling the name "Lieberman" through gritted teeth right now, in true Newman-esque fashion. The Connecticut senator announced this afternoon that he'll join a Republican filibuster of the health-care bill unless the public option provision is changed. In doing so he's effectively cleared the way for other fence sitters, like Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson, and Blanche Lincoln to do so as well, and avoid taking as much heat.

When Lieberman, who is technically an Independent, came back to the Democratic caucus after deserting it in the 2008 election, he could have been stripped of his committee assignments as punishment for his infidelity. That's what any party who understands a thing or two about political discipline might be expected to do. But we're talking about Senate Democrats here, so of course Lieberman got a light rap on his knuckles. He lost his spot on the Environment and Public Works Committee, but he retained his coveted position as Chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. President Obama was a key Lieberman supporter, encouraging Democrats to let bygones be bygones. That was the heady aura of D.C. just 11 short months ago. A new kind of politics. Post-partisanship. Change we can believe in and all that. But Lieberman's actions today demonstrate that no good deed goes unpunished. I'm sure many Democratic senators are wishing right now they could take that vote over. They're probably reminiscing fondly about Ned Lamont.

USA Today presents some interesting, if perhaps not groundbreaking, numbers on socioeconomic representation in Congress today. According to the report, which is based on analysis of census data,

Democratic members of the House of Representatives now represent most of the nation's wealthiest people, a sharp turnaround from the long-standing dominance that Republicans have held over affluent districts ... Democrats now represent 57% of the 4.8 million households that had incomes of $200,000 or more in 2008. In 2005, Republicans represented 55% of those affluent households.

The change in distribution of seats in the House is roughly the same size as the shift the article describes—although USA Today's data doesn't connect any dots between the two. Still, it goes without saying that some of the shift is a natural product of Democrats' electoral gains in the 2008 elections, in which they picked up 21 seats.

On last night's Daily Show, Jon Stewart, at his sharp, inimitable best, ripped into congressional Democrats for failing to get a public option included in the health-care bill before the Senate Finance Committee, despite having a supermajority. For the few people still harboring concerns that the liberal-leaning Stewart would have difficulty matching his piercing critiques of the Bush administration while Democrats are in power—worry no more. (If you haven't seen it, watch here.) Stewart's observation was a simple one, delivered with devastating effectiveness: how is it possible that the Democrats appear so thoroughly incapable of taking advantage of their majority? And it's not just any old majority—it's a supermajority! Stewart is right. It's mind-boggling that a political party could be competent enough to sweep so many seats, and yet have such a stunning lack of discipline that it's unable to deliver on its agenda.

To be fair, the entire Senate caucus shouldn't be tarred with that brush. In reality, there are just a handful of Senate Democrats forcing their party to compromise so thoroughly. It's pretty obvious who they are. Blanche Lincoln, Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, and Evan Bayh are the main offenders, but Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, and Tom Carper can also cause headaches on occasion.  Part of the blame has to lie with Harry Reid. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has her caucus whipped into shape, though admittedly she has a much larger majority to play with, and individual senators have a lot more power to derail bills than individual House members do. Still, for some reason, Reid doesn't seem to be able to hold sway over the votes of his caucus members. (It's been suggested to your Gaggler by Democratic aides, who clearly don't want to be named bagging the majority leader, that Reid isn't tough enough. He won't play hardball with them.)

Yesterday, Public Policy Polling released results of a poll showing that 42 percent of Republicans nationwide do not believe Barack Obama was born in the United States. This sort of statistic has become old news by now. Despite overwhelming evidence that the president was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born citizen, a core of Americans remain convinced he was born overseas.

But with pollsters frantically trying to get in on the birther action, has anyone stopped to ask whether Sen. John McCain was born in the United States? McCain was actually born in Panama, but is considered a natural-born citizen, since he was born to an American military family stationed on a U.S. base. And, except for perhaps a small fringe, no one has questioned whether he would have been constitutionally qualified to be president. 

We've poked around a bit and been unable to find any professional poll that asked Americans whether they believed McCain was born in the U.S. The fact that he was physically born outside the U.S. should have had no bearing on his own legitimacy, real or perceived, had he been elected president. But it would be interesting to see how many of the people who believe, incorrectly, that Obama was born outside the U.S. realize that McCain actually was not. 

It's been more than six months since I last sat in the chamber of the House of Representatives to watch President Obama address a joint session of Congress. In some ways it felt very similar. Obama still got a rock-star reception when he entered the room. Hillary Clinton was again greeted warmly, like an old friend, by her former Senate colleagues. John McCain and Lindsey Graham sat together, chattering to each other at every opportunity, reluctantly joining the standing ovations at a few choice points. Anthony Weiner couldn't stop checking his BlackBerry. Nancy Pelosi popped up so promptly and often that she appeared animatronic. In between, she surveyed the room with her cool, critical eye.

Not everything felt the same, though. For starters, Al Franken was on the floor. And this time, John McCain got props for a health-care proposal and gave the president a big grin and a thumbs-up. In a marked departure from his February speech, Obama got heckled and, at one point, laughed at. But perhaps the difference is best explained by senior Obama adviser David Axelrod. For much of the speech, Axelrod leaned intently forward, chewing gum as though it were a tough piece of flank steak he'd decided to punish. He personified the tension in the room. Obama is no stranger to high expectations, or to high-stakes speeches. This time was different, though, because never before have his plans caused so much division. The president came prepared for a fight. His tone was forceful, even terse at times. And he left aside his typical rousing rhetoric until the very end.

On Sunday, John McCain told George Stephanopolous that Ted Kennedy's absence was sorely impacting the health care debate. "No person in that institution is indispensable, but Ted Kennedy comes as close to being indispensable as any individual I've ever known in the Senate because he had a unique way of sitting down with the parties at a table and making the right concessions," McCain said, adding that health care reform would likely be in a very different place today if Kennedy was present. Pundits tend to agree with McCain that Kennedy is uniquely placed to deal with Republicans. Ezra Klein doesn't. Here's Klein:

This stuff just isn't plausible. Kennedy was around in 1994 andthere was no deal. More to the point, Kennedy's committee, the HELPCommittee, has passed health-care reform. Kennedy's staff, as you might expect, led their effort. But neither Kennedy nor his staff can make the deals for another committee.If Kennedy were in the Senate now, health care would be exactly whereit is: Through Ted Kennedy's Committee and stuck in the morass of MaxBaucus's Gang of Six.

Over seven months after Barack Obama took the oath of office, the long-awaited campaign book from Washington Post political writer Dan Balz and Pulitzer Prize winner Haynes Johnson hits bookstores tomorrow. We were lucky enough to get an advance copy of The Battle for America 2008, and sent Gaggle-pal Stuart Johnson out to read it and report back on the juicy bits. The Washington Post has been excerpting the book over the last few days, but if you don’t have time to wade through all that, here’s Johnson’s take on it, and a few spoilers.