I completely agree with Sen. Bayh on this issue. Lieberman has voted the party line on virtually every issue. There should be no reason to punish him for expressing his beliefs and going against the party.

Here’s a transcript of his conversation with Rachel Maddow

MADDOW: Joining us now is Indiana’s Democratic Senator Evan Bayh. Senator Bayh, thank you so much for coming on the show tonight. It’s great to have you here.

BAYH: Good to be with you, Rachel.

MADDOW: You have been outspoken of Senator Lieberman keeping his
role as chair of Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Why do you
think he’s the best Democrat for that job at this point?

BAYH: I don’t think this is about Joe Lieberman, Rachel. I think
this is about maximizing our chances of making the changes that we need
in America, maximizing the chances that President-elect Obama will meet
those expectations you referred to by addressing the challenges that we
face that you also reported on just a few moments ago.

And let me explain to you what I mean. If this was just about Joe
Lieberman and the things he said in the campaign, well, I’d say we’ll
let it go. I mean, if people want to settle scores, fine. I mean, he’s
a big guy, he can live with the consequences of his actions.

But one of two things will be likely to happen if we were to kick
him out of his chairmanship. No. 1, he might very well decide to just
resign from the Senate. You know, he probably would not want to be a
person without a home, wandering the hallways without any influence of
any kind. And Connecticut has a Republican governor, who would appoint
a pure Republican to that seat, who would vote against the wishes of the
president-elect and the Democratic caucus, you know, the vast, vast
majority of the time. That’s No. 1.

No. 2, Lieberman, Joe Lieberman might decide to stay and be
embittered. And what would happen there would be from time to time, we
have close votes. You’ve been reporting on the Alaska race and the
Minnesota race and the Georgia race. We could be at 58, 59, maybe even
60 votes. Every two or three or four months, there’s going to be a
critically important vote, very close, every vote will count. And it
might come down to one vote.

Now, if Senator Lieberman has a strong view, he’ll vote his
conscience, but if he’s conflicted, frankly, you know, doesn’t really
know what to do, and we’ve exacted revenge on him, I suspect we could
probably expect the same in return. That’s really not where we want to
go. Let’s see if we can move this in a better direction.

And the final thing I’d say is, if he does retain his chairmanship,
we still exert oversight over him and control over him. He doesn’t have
the ability to just do whatever he wants. The caucus still has the
right to remove him from that position at any time if he starts going
off on some kind of tangent.

So I simply think it maximizes the chances of getting progressive
policies a better outcome if we have a Joe Lieberman, who is a little
reticent, who apologizes for the things that he said that were way over
the line, and instead is trying to do the right thing, instead of a
embittered Joe Lieberman or a Republican replacement who will not be
with us any of the time.

MADDOW: Is it not setting a strange precedent, though, for somebody
to have not only campaigned against the nominee of his party, but also
to have campaigned against other Democratic Senate candidates and for
Republicans, and to have honestly not only campaigned for his friend
John McCain, but also really deliberately against Barack Obama — as you
said, going, I think, quite over the line in terms of some of his criticism.

Is it not setting a strange precedent that he essentially gets to
set the terms on which he stays in the caucus? He’s said he will bolt
the caucus if he doesn’t get to hold on to his chairmanship. It seems
weird that he should be the guy driving the bargain at this point,
particularly when he’s sort of politicized homeland security in order to
make political points this year.

BAYH: Well, it is unusual territory. And you know, I was on
another national show, one of the Sunday programs sitting right next to
him when he basically said that Barack Obama was for defeat in Iraq.
And I had to cut him off and say, Joe, that’s not true. I mean, he said
things that were simply unacceptable, and I think he needs to apologize
for that.

And the question for us, then, Rachel, is how do we move on from
here and maximize the chances of us getting good things done for the
country, for your viewers. And I think the best way to do that is to
look to the future rather than to just exact revenge for the past.

Now, at the same time, you have got to expect an apology, a sincere
apology, and you have got to keep — to tell him, look, we’re going to
give you a chance here. But if you don’t do the right things as
chairman, if you know, we see any continuation of this kind of behavior,
well, then, at that point, you know, the game is up at that point.

MADDOW: But the game would be up in the sense that he would get
stripped of his leadership positions?

BAYH: Of the chairmanship, yes. You’ve got to remember, we have
the right to change chairmen at any time during the session, and you
know, we would expect him to conduct himself in that capacity, as
someone who was supportive of the administration and did not certainly
conduct himself in a way that reflected some of those comments, which I
strongly disagreed with at the time, and still do disagree with.

MADDOW: Senator Bayh, do you think that there are going to be major
issues — major divisions within the Democratic caucus on issues of
national security and homeland security moving forward? I mean, one of
the things about Joe Lieberman’s chairmanship is that he, in the past
couple of years, has been a real contrast with his colleague in the
House, his counterpart in the House, Henry Waxman, who heads the
Government Affairs Committee there, in terms of what he’s been willing
to investigate. Joe Lieberman didn’t investigate the government’s
response to Katrina or the Blackwater shootings in Iraq or anything like
that. Are there going to be real interparty divisions on security
issues, or do you see a united front going forward?

BAYH: Well, I would hope we would have a united front. And you
know, if the caucus and the committee feels that there are areas worthy
of investigation — and you mentioned two that I think would warrant
investigation — then there should — one would need to go forward,
regardless of what the chairman happen to think. And we have the power
to demand that sort of thing.

But I do hope, Rachel, we have just come through a tough campaign.
We have major issues that we face, real challenges — health care,
education, the environment, getting out of Iraq — a lot of things that
we need to do. I would hope we would have the maximum amount of unity
addressing those things.

And I honestly think — you know, look, we can take away his
chairmanship. That’s something we have the right to do. What you will
have at that point is either someone who may very well resign or someone
who’s embittered, and if, you know, all else being equal, might not be
with us on some of these key votes. I honestly think we have a better
chance to get unity for the kind of policies that you would probably
support, most Democrats would probably support, if we try and have some
reconciliation here rather than resorting to revenge right off the bat.
You always have that option if things don’t seem to be working out very
well.

MADDOW: You’re giving me a great prompt to ask Senator Lieberman to
come deliver that apology on this show. So thank you for that. And
thank you for — sorry, go ahead.

BAYH: Issue the invitation. And by the way, congratulations on
being number 7. In the United States Senate — in the United States
Senate, that would be right up there.

MADDOW: I would be fighting it out with Lieberman at this point, I
know. Democratic Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, thank you for your time
tonight, sir. I really appreciate it.

BAYH: Thank you, Rachel. Good luck.

MADDOW: Thanks.

Source – HuffPo

P.S. I try my best to avoid partisan sites like The Huffington Post, but their article on this was mainly reporting (and I saw no bias in it)

Winners

• Obama-Biden, Axelrod et al - Barring a couple of incidents, the Obama campaign was fantastic. It was run with a Bush-like discipline and a Clintonesque approach towards the media. Obama’s negative attacks was mainly under the radar (they were in the form of radio attacks) and the campaign managed to come off as “above the fray”.
• Tina Fey and late night comedy - Tina Fey nailed the Palin impersonations and the exposure added considerable boost to her career and brought in great promotion to 30 Rock. Palin also provided plenty of material for hosts of late night comedy shows.
• The Democratic Party - 4 years ago, the Democrats were in a horrible shape. Karl Rove was talking about a permanent Republican majority. But thanks to the wave elections of 2006 and 2008, Democrats are stronger than ever and the hands of Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi are greatly strengthened. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) (head of DSCC) and Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MDs 8th) (head of DCCC) won rave reviews for a repeat performance (although Rahm Emmanuel was in charge of putting the Democrats back in power in the House 2006, Congressman Van Hollen was quite instrumental as well).
• The Internet – The campaigns of Ron Paul and Barack Obama did one heck of a job in using the Internet to raise record fund raising totals. The Obama campaign also used the Internet to help supporters organize themselves and canvass for them. The Internet will surely play a bigger role in future campaigns.

Losers

• The Republican Party – Just years after talking about a permanent majority, the Republicans are in pretty poor shape. They’ve suffered defeats across the board.
• The McCain brand – 8 years ago, when Sen. McCain (R-AZ) first ran for President, America fell in love with this man. This was a man who spoke his mind, wasn’t beholden to special interests or to party leaders. Unfortunately, he had to abandon his “maverick” credentials and run as a candidate of the Right. 2 years ago, President. Clinton said McCain was the best hope of Republicans in 2008. He was absolutely right (Obama and Clinton had in fact struggled against McCain in much of the earlier polling). McCain, despite making Ethics reform the signature issue of his career, was portrayed as too close to special interests and out of touch. He also seemed extremely uncomfortable debating Obama and campaigning against him in general.
• Joe Lieberman – The Independent Senator (Lieberman was a Democrat. He ran as an Independent after losing the Democratic Primary to Ned Lamont) endorsed McCain and attacked Obama’s readiness to lead. He was reportedly McCain’s first VP Choice (However his advisers had “vetoed” the choice fearing a convention floor fight) and would’ve undoubtedly found a Cabinet Position had McCain won. Now there’s talk about Lieberman being thrown out of the Democratic caucus or being stripped of his commitee chairmanships (I frankly think it’s a horrible idea).
• Bill Clinton – Wrongly accused of racism (by the Obama campaign) many analysts felt President Clinton contributed to Hillary Clinton’s loses. The Clintons also fell out of favor within the African American community (thanks to the race card being played effectively by the Obama campaign). His approval and favorable ratings took a nose dive as well.

Somewhere in between

• Hillary Clinton - Once the inevitable President, she lost a string of races to Obama and lost a very narrow victory to Senator Obama. However she was very successful in getting her former supporters to vote for Sen. Obama and was very gracious in defeat.
• Sarah Palin – Although widely mocked for her rather interesting answers, the VP pick thrusted her onto the national scene. The GOP is very forgiving of those who lost elections (Reagan, Dole and even McCain are excellent examples of this). There’s already talk about 2012 – or 2016.
• The Media – Despite record ratings, the Media reared its ugly side with a string of sexist comments against Hillary Clinton. It was also wrongly accused of racism (by the Obama campaign) and sexism (by the McCain campaign).

In 2000 and 2004, the outcome of the presidential race was unknown into the wee hours of the morning (and indeed for several weeks thereafter in 2000). This time, it is possible that we will be able to guess the winner of the presidential race relatively early in the evening.

Mr. Silver does an excellent job of explaining how early (or late) we can find out who our next President is.

Besides the Presidential race, here are a few things to look out for tomorrow.

• The Coleman-Franken Race in Minnesota: This race has been exceptionally tight with neither side breaking away with a clear lead. We’re definitely seeing some Obama-Coleman voters, but it’s likely that Franken might benefit from some Obama coattails. If Democrats are to get a 60 seat filibuster proof majority, they need to win here. Minnesota is the true tossup for the Senate Elections.
• The Dole-Hagan Race in North Carolina: Hagan stands to benefit from the massive ground operation Sen. Obama has built up and the polls show Hagan having a slight lead (however these are from polls conducted before the “Godless” ads by Dole). Should Hagan win, this will be the first time since 1950 we’ll have neither a Dole, nor a Bush in elected office.
• The Chambliss-Martin Race in Georgia: I don’t think Martin might pull out an outright victory but he’s likely to benefit from Obama’s coattails more than any of the other individuals. It’s likely that Chambliss will not win 50% of the support, forcing the race to a run-off.

If the Democrats win the above mentioned states (and win Alaska, Colorado, Virginia, New Mexico, Oregon and New Hampshire while retaining all of their seats), the Democrats will win a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the United States Senate.

• The Murtha-Russell Race in Pennsylvania’s District 12: Sixteen-term incumbent Murtha (who also happens to be an expert of defense matters) would have cruised to a thumping victory given the current political climate, but Murtha’s comments about Western Pennsylvanian’s (calling them “racist” and “redneck”) might cost him his seat. In fact, we might see Pennsylvania actually voting in more Republican congressman than Democratic congressman this season.

I do think McConnel (R-Kentucky) and Wicker (R-Missippi) are likely to retain their seats however.

“I No Politics” has a pretty good post about the importance of Virginia here. But he fails to touch on many important points and the article is superficial at best.

I don’t think there’s necessarily a correlation between Warner’s advertising and the pro-Obama polling (as the article suggests). The wording is a bit unfortunate. There will be a lot of Warner-McCain voters (as clearly evidenced by the ~60 points Warner seems to be polling vs. the barely 50 points Obama has been able to muster). However like I reasserted many times in the past, Obama might benefit from the Warner coattails. Warner has incredible support in Southern Virginia (more so that Jim Webb and Tim Kaine – as evidenced by their rather razor sharp election margins), and he might make some voters comfortable enough with voting for a Democrat (even if that Democrat is significantly more liberal than Mark Warner).

Virginia is also important because it (along with Nevada) is Obama’s firewall should McCain somehow win Pennsylvania (This is assuming Obama carries all other Kerry states along with Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico – states where Obama has had some very strong numbers of late). Polls in Virginia close at 7 pm, so there’s a good chance we might know the winner of the election by 8-8:30 pm.

And Mark Warner will definitely win the Senate seat (being vacated John Warner – no relation) against former Gov. Jim Gilmore (Mark Warner had previously defeated Jim Gilmore to become the Governor of Virginia). Warner has repeatedly stated he’ll be the founder of a radical centrist coalition. Warner’s strong bipartisan record and his moderate stances on issues will aid greatly in getting things done in the Senate.

1. The myth of the Bradley Effect - The Bradley Effect is a belief that white voters will claim to vote for the minority candidate but pull the lever for the white candidate. The name stems from former LA Mayor Tom Bradley who ran for Governor. Polls showed him with a slight lead, however he lost the election. Many pundits believe voters couldn’t bring themselves to vote for the African American candidate. The problem with this is, George Deukmejian’s (Deukmejian defeated Bradley) general election pollster claims that the internals showed the race too close to call. In fact, the media picked up on the supposed Bradley victory because the Mervin Field (the state’s top public pollster) predicted so. Not only does, research has shown that the Bradley Effect faded out some time in the mid-1990s.
2. Reverse Bradley Effect – Barack Obama has in fact over performed in most states rather than vice-versa leading many to believe there’s a reverse Bradley effect in works. There’s an episode in the acclaimed show Practice in which the Bobby Donnell (played by Dylan McDermott) claims a trial in a Suburbia is the best thing to happen to an African American. His rationale was that the white jury members would be swayed more by middle class guilt and move to declare the defendant not guilty. We might be seeing a similar effect in play.
3. High minority turnout - We’re seeing Barack Obama command record support from African Americans (Key to Obama’s victory in Southern states) and Hispanics (Important to the Democrat’s Western Strategy). Barack Obama started to take a lion’s share of the African American vote after it become clear that he was a viable candidate for President (African Americans had previously backed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton by a 2-1 margin). Hispanics are supporting Sen. Obama despite Republicans putting up one of the most pro-amnesty advocates in either party. This could be attrituted to the fact that minorities increasingly see that anyone can become the President and are inspired by the historic nature of Sen. Obama’s campaign.