it's highly unlikely that he'll do anything. it would be interesting to see if he even says anything privately to him

It is hard to be tough with only 49 dems and 2 independents. One should not judge Harry too harshly since he does not have a working majority.
Hopefully, this next session will provide him more leverage. ( I am not a big Reid fan but will give him the benefit of the doubt for now )

Yep, and that's why he's been an ineffective Senate majority leader.

A big reason Lieberman is effective as a surrogate for McCain is that he's seen by regular voters as "independent." I think it's very important that we (Democrats) take that away from him and in so doing disarm one of McCain's weapons against Obama. Make Lieberman a partisan figure before it's too late.

That's how I see this as well. Other than his ethics (if he still had any), Joe has nothing to lose and a lot to possibly gain with his current behavior.

This needs to be dealt with now and not only when we're sure we'll have 50+ seats without him.

That's a good point. I've been trying to figure out what Lieberman was hoping to gain by sucking up to the Republicans and burning bridges with the Democrats when it seems pretty certain his new best friends are going to lose seats in the next election.

Your take on that makes perfect sense. His only hope for a future in politics is with a cabinet appointment in a Republican administration.

Making Hillary senate majority leader wont sit well with some of those Dem senators. a junior senator as majority leader? i think not. The clinton influence is already wanning in the party so people know they dont have to take their crap.
If BO becomes president he wants people who he knows have his back and people he can trust. Reid and Hillary aint BO supporters. There will be a new senate majority leader if BO wins the presidency.

They may no longer have the majority, but my understanding is that they'll still control the committee chairmanships, and hence, the agenda.

So it would be a mixed bag.

You are correct, but the question is (for me, at least), how much practical difference will that make between now and January 20th? (As in, how much is actually getting done now, and how much will get done if it shifts in their favor in the meantime?)

I think you are correct Opus.

Which of course sucks for us given what a piece of shite Lieberman has become. It is one thing to believe a candidate on the other side will be a better president - it is quite another to bash the candidate of your own (mostly) party and worse yet to spread dishonest smears.

Thats okay, we won't need him after Jan and
there will be no place for him in the Obama administration. Polls already show he is toast if Lamont runs again so then his career is done.

Currently the Republicans and Democrats are tied with 49 Senators each. There are two Independents caucusing with the Democrats, giving them the majority and thus control of Committee Chairmanships etc.

If Lieberman were to start caucusing with the Republicans, the two caucuses would be tied 50-50. In that case the Majority status would go to the party that the Vice President is affiliated with.

So yeah, Lieberman does have the Democrats over a barrel for the rest of this congress - but as soon as the new crop of Senators is sworn in, that influence will completely evaporate, and he knows it. At that point, having burned his bridges with his former party, he's going to be better off, in terms of personal power and influence, with the Republicans, even though they will be the Minority Party.

So as long as Reid wants to keep that gavel in his hand, and maintain control over what legislation is brought to the floor, he has to put up with Lieberman. I guess we all have to suffer through it, and I don't blame Reid for the position that Lieberman has put us in.

By the way, did anyone see Reid on the Daliy Show the other night? He has a new book out, so he's been making the rounds. I saw him on another news program, too, but can't remember which one.

The House could prevent legislation from passing, but a majority there won't have any effect on the powers that are unique to the Senate, naming confirmation of appointments (judges, FEC Commissioners, and so on).

The *only* thing stopping Bush from making recess appointments is the fact that Democrats control the Senate calendar.

The best way to deal with Lieberman after the election is to give him a cabinet post - DHS would be a good choice. Get him out of the Senate and replace him with a real Democrat.

Exactly. But the really big prize is the ability to allow or prevent recess appointments - which, if made before the end of this year, would remain in effect until the end of the next session. That's December 2009. Unless, of course, someone is nominated and confirmed by the Senate to that office or judgeship, which isn't going to happen if the Republicans want to filibuster, even if they lose the White House and are badly beaten in the Senate races this November.

One other point: in case of a tie, the leadership of committees isn't split between the parties; majority status goes to the party of the Vice President.