Why don't I care about Liebermann much? Why isn't the netroots anger contagious.

Help. Please.

I don't see how he's doing anything to Reid. Reid has been saying his going to throw it to the caucus. Obama seems to be saying to me that he's staying above the fray and this is Senate business.

He's smart. Remember, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer". He's better off with an indebted Joe Lieberman than a bitter, Republican Joe Lieberman.

I want to believe this is plausible deniability for the president after the caucus makes Lieberman head washroom attendant.

Not to mention making Obama look so powerful and so confident that not even Traitor Joe as head of the committee on government oversight bothers him.

Yes, I think that's it. "Joe, I can see that changing committees would break your delicate little heart and crush that dear, precious ego. I wouldn't dream of doing that to you, my friend. I'll tell Harry to let you stay on."

I just hope Lieberman has the shred of self-awareness necessary to figure out how completely he's being patronized.

How can they leave Lieberman in a chairmanship? How?????

Also, Obama's stance makes Lieberman look inconsequential. that is what real power looks like. the man was just elected with the largest mandate and democrat has seen in a generation. the rantings of joe lieberman are not on his radar screen.

"At least I hope that's what's going on here"

It could be part of it but Obama is also smart enough to know the revenge is seldom useful. McCain and Grahm have both signaled a willingness to work with Obama. There is a lot to gain for Obama in not humiliating their third musketeer.

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

This sounds like Obama will not get in the way one way or the other. This is passive to me.

Lieberman's homeland security doctrine is hopelessly tied to the Bush doctrine and the Iraq war. That he has been completely ineffectual as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security committee as well is bad enough, but his failure to admit going to war in Iraq put the US in a more precarious security position is simply unacceptable. To have someone with that world view in that role is not acceptable.

The operative word is accountability. Will Lieberman be held accountable for his actions during the election and his playing defense for republicans on the committees he chairs? In an Obama administration I thought accountability would be back in fashion? I hope the democratic caucus takes care of Joe.

Good post primergrey.

Obama has his eye on the ball.

Without additional comment here, here is my diary at DKos just this morning! (Give it some love too, :-)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/11/93148/945/934/659101

"To have someone with that world view in that role is not acceptable."

And if that were the argument being made for him losing his chairmanship, I'm all for it. But it's not, and don't pretend that that reason isn't six on seventh on the list when progressives talk about why Joe should go. One through five are payback.

Now is not the time for Democrats to bicker amongst themselves. Leave that to the imploding GOP.

The Dems should set the example for tolerance of diverse views within a single party. Kicking Joe from the chairmanship would send the signal that there will be politics as usual in Washington.

Harry Reid should leave the decision up to Joe. He should clearly state to Joe that he needs to think about his decision and then make some public statement to clear the air.

There is too many other more important things to deal with in this country than Joe's affiliation and chairmanship.

One reason why should Lieberman be kicked off his Chairmanship at Homeland Security: MICHAEL fucking BROWN.

The disaster that was Katrina can be squarely laid at his doorstep. Lieberman approved that incompetent asshole! He should've paid the price then and he should definitely PAY NOW! (yes, I'm pissed and yelling)...

Don't forget he looked the other way when Bush appointed a completely unqualified person to head Homeland Security, Michael Brown. Then he looked the other way when Katrina happened under Brown's watch. Why no committee hearings on Katrina, not one? Lieberman new he fucked up. Karma's a bitch, Joe! Time to pay up...

How bad does it have to get before the Democratic Senators discipline another? Hell, he isn't a Democrat! He lost the Democratic primary and ran as an Independent. What does the Democratic Caucus owe him? Nothing! Don't our Democratic leaders have any guts at all! This 'collegiallity' is full of crap! How many more down slate elections would have been won without Lieberman campaigning against them? Reid and the Caucus; get you heads out of your a$$e$, tell Clinton to F@#$ off and dunp the slimy lizard!

What do you bet that Joe now finally decides to make use of the oversight powers of his committee - against Obama and against Deomcrats?

I'm sure that at some level, there is part of Obama that wants to tie a concrete block around Loserman's neck and throw him into the Chicago River, but he's smart and understands that this sends a clear olive branch-type message, not only to Joe Lieberman, but folks all over Capital Hill. It's a way for Obama to show that he does intend to usher in a new type of politics, and it gains him important political capital. Lieberman owes him bigtime and they both understand that. Furthermore, for obvious reasons, Lieberman has pull with the GOP that no other Democrat does and I fully expect that Obama intends to exploit that. Besides, as many have pointed out, Obama has much bigger fish to fry than Joe Lieberman.

Good grief! I've had to take several deep breaths readng this thread. Obama is not a dictator as Bush has attempted. The legislative branch makes their own decisions.

Obama responded because news reports and blogs were attempting to tie Obama's "feelings" into this Senate decision. Obama has merely said he doesn't have these feelings of revenge and he's fine with Joe staying with the Democratic caucus.

The legislature needs to stop trying to kick the can to the executive branch--and so do the blogs and those who post in them.

Congress is a co-equal branch and needs to stop trying to tie their difficult decisions to the Prez--and so do the blogs. Congress stands alone in this no matter how much they would like to deflect the decision to the Prez.

Obama may not hold any grudges against JoeL, but I certainly do.

Throw JoeL under the bus, and let Reid try retrieving him, if JoeL's so f*cking valuable to the Democratic party.

I liked him better when he was still with Buffalo Bob . . .

This is getting ridiculous... not Obama's handling of Joementum, but the insane, hysterical handwringing here and elsewhere.

The move is all but certain to take the steam out of any efforts to dislodge Lieberman from the committee

Absolute, utter hogwash.

"The move" does exactly what Obama needs to do, which is to shove this janitorial discussion off the Commander In Chief's desk and back into Harry Reid's lap where it belongs. If Senator Milk & Crackers can't muster the balls to deal with his own Senate, then maybe the Senate needs to find someone with a pair (read: Hillary).

Obama has bigger fish to fry than helping move Lieberman's office to the storage room.

There are two ways to get rid of a crew member who isn't working out: the "flick" and the "ease." The flick is pretty straightforward, but the ease is subtle. I suspect that Lieberman is experiencing the ease.

What would stop Reid from packing Lieberman's committee with Democrats from his circle with the sole purpose of being on top of Liberman intensely, like stink on shit? The committee members could badger the shit out of him every second they're in session on any and everything related to Homeland security. Nothing worst the being hen-pecked over minor details to drive a chairman up the wall. Make it the Committee from Hell and see how long Liberman and take the heat.

I don't agree with the premise of the article that this "hands off" comment means that Lieberman is "safe." I think it means just what it says -- Obama is not going to be involved in the internal workings of the Senate. That can easily be taken as saying "Do with him what you will."

You can write, call or fax the members of the Democratic Steering Committee and give them your opinion about Lieberman. If a big enough stink is made, they may feel more inclined to act on their own dislike of Lieberman's antics.

Particularly, I would note that Lieberman is unlikely to do a 180 in his domestic voting patterns just because he "crosses the aisle." It's possible, but unlikely. Therefore, we don't lose his vote on those issues -- we just eliminate his dangerously destructive behavior within our own caucus.

Thanks.

mp

You know, I was talking to my wife about this last night. My emotional lizard brain says "screw Lieberman--he should be thrown out of the caucus." But my rational brain says "isn't it refreshing that we're going to have a president that actually practices bipartisanship and putting the country first and doesn't just talk about it?"

"The move is all but certain to take the steam out of any efforts to dislodge Lieberman from the committee, and hence to diminish his influence in some way in return for his support for McCain, his suggestion that Obama put troops in danger, and his claim that Obama hasn't always put the country first."

Why in the world does this take ANY steam out of efforts to get Lieberman out of his chairmanship? Only if the Dems in the Senate continue to be spineless worms, as they have been unnecessarily for the last two years. Obama said that he doesn't take a position on the chairmanship. He said that he is willing to work with anyone. That means even Repugnicans. Even Lieberman, for gods' sakes. It doesn't mean that Lieberman gets to keep the keys to the kingdom. Grow a spine. Dems control the White House and both houses of Congress. They don't have to throw up their hands and mewl in fear every time Repugs (or quasi-Repugs like Lieberman) say "boo." I'm so sick of this shit. The Repugs are STILL running the country.

Nice posturing on the part of the Obama team. Hopefully, behind the scenes something very different is going on. There could not be a worse signal to send to the Republicans than the one Obama is sending publicly on Lieberman. What Republicans will see is someone who won't "do" anything to someone who spits in his face and logically they will conclude that they can do so without facing any consequences whatsoever as has been the case when they have done so to Harry "left my balls in Nevada" Reid almost daily for the past two years.

Again, nice posturing, very bad signal to send to an asshole like Lieberman and his fellow Republicans.

I'm not worried about Obama's stance. He says that Holy Joe should stay in the caucus, but he will not "referee" regarding the chairmanship; he's not saying "no," but he damned sure isn't saying "yes." It makes him seem magnanimous without giving Holy Joe the aid he really wants, which is help to keep his chairmanship. That's what matters to me.

So now, the ball is in Reid's and Democratic caucus' court. What will they do? Bayh's response is a troubling, yet unsurprising one...the question is--how will the rest of the caucus vote?

In fact, what exactly is the vote? Is it to keep him within the caucus or to strip him of the chairmanship?

Obama needs to be careful about this. The first rule of politics: reward your friends and punish your enemies. The second rule of politics: those that don't follow the first rule end up with few of the former and lots of the latter.

Basically, Lieberman is hanging in the wind! Obama is publicly avoiding the issue; it is difficult to believe that the Democrats will allow Lieberman to head this committee as it would become a platform for the Republicans. The Homeland Security Committee is too much of a temptation to make into a political battle ground. Reid provided Lieberman a way out to avoid a confrontation with the Democratic Caucus; this matter will be decided in this forum.

Why does this have to be about grudges? "You said bad things about me, and now I'm gonna getcha!" Baloney. What's wrong with Lieberman is that he's the Senator From Israel, and that as chairman of a Senate committee with investigative powers, he's done almost zero investigating of anything because the results might reflect poorly on the Bush administration (in fact, you can almost count on it). I'm glad that Obama is above carrying grudges, but it worries me that he's not willing to replace someone who isn't doing his job.

Greg - what part of separation of powers don't you understand? it is not appropriate for the POTUS to be declaring who should or should not be appointed to Congressional committee Chairs. To say that the spokesman's comments take the wind from the sails of those who want to remove Leiberdick from the HS Comm is pretty weak logic. Reid can (and probably) will simply re-appoint him to some backwater Comm chair in the next couple of months. Payback needn't be dealt so blatantly.

Harry Reid agrees with Obama that we need to keep Lieberman in the caucus because on everything but the war,he votes with us. Senate dem races 58, 59 and 60 are still running and Nate Silver at 538.com and others in the know say we still have a chance. If we boot Lieberman, that 60th vote would become #59. Have we forgotten that the senate republicans used the fillibuster to block nearly all legislation for the past two years? There are solid domestic agenda reasons why Lieberman's vote is worth keeping. Would you like to see universal healthcare in America after decades of trying? That's not going to be easy if we have to count on republicans going against their party to pass it. How about education and middle class taxes? How about a lot of things? Think strategically. We need the senate votes to do what we came here to do! That is a lot more important to American well being than the satisfaction to be had from punishing Lieberman. Time to act like grown ups who can think strategically even if we're ticked off.

Obama is staying above it all, but there's going to be a rude awakening if they let Lieberman keep Homeland Security and he becomes his usual dickish self. He's proven, repeatedly, that he'll turn on his own party, campaign against them, and say the most disgusting things about the Democratic nominee. He's also proven that he won't do his duty as committee chair and conduct oversight, unless of course it means undermining a Democrat(which everyone knows he intends to do).
Fuck this fucking asshole. If the Democratic leadership can't even remove him from his chairmanship, then I have absolutely zero faith in their ability to pass Obama's programs.

Oh, and I agree that the whole 60 votes thing is meaningless--anyone who thinks that all 60 Dems, or all Repubs for that matter, will vote in unison on any issue is naive beyond belief.

I'm pretty sure that Obama means is:

"You're likeable enough, Joe."

What "move"? This item references an email to Greg in which Cutter says they hold no grudges, will take no position on the chairmanship question, and would be happy for Lieberman to caucus with the Dems. There is nothing here that even remotely limits the Dem caucus' options when it comes to Lieberman. They can do what they want. There is no reason that Senate Dems need Obama to sully his early days with vindictive statements against Lieberman to give them cover to do what is their prerogative alone. Obama is trying to usher in a new era of bipartisan cooperation. Let the Senate clean up their own messes and stop trying to drag the president elect in using statements that are intended to be as innocuous as possible.