Make it stop.

Cutter's comments are the first on-the-record indication of Obama's position...

Greg got a scoop!  Careful, Greg.  Don't let it go to your head!

"We aren't going to referee decisions about who should or should not be a committee chair."

A careful parsing of that sentence -- what does referee mean? -- gives no indication as to whether BigO does or will support or oppose LieberSchmuck's committee chair, either publically or privately.

The golden quote in hand seems to turn to dust upon close inspection.

Man, this is way too much tea-leaf reading for my tastes.

Just let me know when Lieberman gets kicked out of his HomeSec chairmanship.

Glenn Greenwald argues more broadly that the decision properly belongs to the Senate, and not Obama, in any case.

Yes. For years we've had a Congress do what the President wanted. This issue, with respect to Lieberman, is a Senate issue. If the Dems are so freaking spineless that they're waiting for Obama to take the lead on what is, first and foremost, a SENATE issue, then shame on them.

If, on the other hand, Dems feel that Lieberman would be just A-OK in continuing as chair of Homeland Security Committee, then they're not just spineless, they're despicable.

Either way, this is a Senate issue. Not a presidential issue. Call, e-mail, or write to your Democratic Senators and insist that Lieberman be stripped of his chairmanship.

And I think Orton is off-base. If the Dems strip Joe of his chairmanship, what's his complaint going to be? President-elect Obama had nothing to do with it.

can someone straighten me out here? i understand lieberman to have 3 committee assignments:

homeland security
armed services
environment and public works

wouldn't it be most important to get him out of armed services -- i know he's not chairman, but he's close to it, seniority-wise. seems this committee is where he does the most damage.

and if FEMA was re-removed from DHS, traitor joe can keep his fearmongering little committee until CT gets rid of him in '12.

But, more importantly, what does Biden think, since he's going to be in charge of the Senate. Right?

Personally, I think the "we don't hold grudges" comment is not just a magnanimous gesture to Lieberman, but that it's also meant (and perhaps mainly meant) to send a message to (other) 'Publicans who might want to sign on to Obama's programs. I.e., Obama's saying "Yeah, you might have criticized me during the campaign, but hey, we all know that's just politics. We can still work together."

But what do I know? I'm just sitting here in my cat's basement in my pj's...

This is so easy. Obama was basically saying I am out of it, you guys take care of him. And they will, I am most certain. Maybe before they vote, they should watch Obama taking him over to a corner of the senate chamber and having words with him. That is the real Obama speaking.

Late Update:  Markos says that the statement doesn't help Lieberman at all.

That's because the statement doesn't say anything at all.

If Lieberman keeps his chairmanship, I'm switching my registration back to "independent" immediately.

Democrats are such weaklings. "Maybe if I take him back one more time, he'll be different!" Pathetic.

It's impossible to respect men who don't respect themselves.

There are two issues: 1) Should Lieberman be allowed to caucus with the Democrats and 2) should he be allowed to keep his important committee chairmanship. Regarding issue 1) LBJ said it best: better to have him in the tent p****ing out that outside the tent p***ing in. Allowing Lieberman to caucus with the Democrats can make the party look magnanimous with little risk. Regarding issue 2) Under no circumstances should Lieberman keep his committee chairmanship. Leadership roles should be reserved for actual members of the majority party in good standing. There is nothing remotely punitive about insisting upon it. Lieberman lost any claim to an exception from this norm with his support of McCain in 2008.

http://www.alternet.org/election08/106033/election_day%3A_palin%27s_panic_and_the_right-wing%27s_big_freak-out_/

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) expressed his deep concern for the future of the country today, saying in so many words that a Democratic majority in Congress will destroy America. From Think Progress:

... Lieberman made clear that he firmly opposes Democrats gaining 60 seats in the Senate, saying that the survival of the country is in doubt if Democrats break the filibuster threshold:

BECK: But do you agree that Senator Hatch said to me that if we don't at least have the firewall of the filibuster in the Senate that in many ways America will not survive?

LIEBERMAN: Well, I hope it's not like that, but I fear.

What's Obama supposed to say-hang him from the highest yard-arm?
They clarified yesterday's leak/signal that they want him in the caucus (common sense) by passing the final decision onto the Senate, who will hopefully strip him of the HS comittee, at least.

And if they're clarifying publicly, why would anyone believe that they're not sending more specific signals, through Biden and others, of what specific action they want taken, i.e., keep him in the caucus, demoted but close.

Okay. Obama has spoken. It's just one voice, though an important one. The issue is not about Obama's feelings either. The issue is about party discipline and party development. It's about whether the party can afford to send a signal to the membership that they can do anything to hurt the party without having to worry about being penalized. It's about whether it's fair to give a committee leadership position to someone who is hostile to --- not just disagrees with --- the party during an election, a position that party members have worked very hard to secure. It's about whether it makes strategic sense from the perspective of party development to continue to let someone who is not exactly a member to occupy a Senate leadership position when the party has at least a few equally qualified Senators who can take the position and would love to gain that precious experience.

Obama is just keeping his enemies close.

ama is just keeping his enemies close.
Posted by GTFOOH

Why? So they can stab him in the back quicker?

WaPo:
Obama Supports Keeping Lieberman in Democratic Caucus

Lieberman faces a crucial Nov. 18 meeting of Senate Democrats at which he is expected to plead his case for retaining the chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which has wide oversight of the executive branch. Many Democrats have privately suggested that Lieberman should surrender the post even if that risks him crossing the aisle to caucus with Republicans, in part because Democrats padded their majority in the Senate by gaining at least six seats in last week's election.

I didn't know that Lieberman would have a chance to "plead his case". I'd love to see that on TV.

Say no to Joe, Senate Democrats!

I believe Obama said something nice because Dodd brought him into the mix. Now Obama has spoken and they can kick him out! I hope. I am tired of that ultimate WATB.

He should be removed from his committee chair positions not because he needs to be punished, but because he doesn't support the party platform planks for which his committee is responsible. Democrats control the Senate. Those people who support the platform should be chairing the committees. Move him to a committee where his views are aligned with the party. Then you're not putting politics before progress.

But was Obama strong enough? Doesn't seem like he took a position either way.

You list all the Elite blogs that claim to represent the left. They whined and yelled about Obama and FISA, and now they act as if they really know much of anything. Don't encourage these guys.

Maybe Obama is saying just what he is saying. By saying that he holds no grudge he indicates that he has no interest one way or another and won't take sides. He has left it clearly in the hands of the senate where it belongs, and does not want what Joe did to him to be used as a reason to keep or let go Joe.

I think that Obama has it pretty much together and says pretty much what he means to say.

For myself, I would penalize Joe. Not doing so shows party weakness, but that pretty much describes Harry Reid. Why not boot them both to the lower ranks.

The Left leaning Blogs that you list above need to find some humility. They did not win this election, Obama did - and without genuflecting to them. It is going to be pragmatic center-left governance and you all might as well get used to it.

Well, it seems as though Obama had to make a deal with the Israel-First brigade in order to get in. Between Rham in the nest followed by his pretending as though Joe didn't sell out his party and his own integrity. With this writing on the wall, I would guess we will see more of the same lopsided approach to the Palestinians.

Maybe Obama didn't see the video of Joe rolling over to ensure that the '00 election theft was not questioned? Go figure.