We now have a third Senator stepping up and strongly condemning the idea of Joe Lieberman remaining as Homeland Security chair: Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota...

Dorgan hammered Lieberman for his criticism of Barack Obama and his work against several Dem Senate candidates, and asked whether it was okay for the chair of one of the Dems' "significant committees" to have done this.

"The question is, Is that acceptable," Dorgan continued. "And the answer is no." Dorgan's quotes come after Senators Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders came out and called on Dems to give Lieberman the push.

Dorgan, however, didn't quite go as far as Leahy and Sanders, leaving the door open to the Dem caucus not voting to strip Lieberman of the chairmanship by saying: "I'll decide and I think our caucus will decide that on Tuesday."

It's unclear what to make of this. If it's not "acceptable" for a senior committee chair to have done what Lieberman did, as Dorgan says, then surely he'll vote to strip Lieberman of the chairmanship if given the opportunity, right?

Still, as of now, it's still not precisely clear what exactly Reid will throw over to his caucus to vote on tomorrow. Last week leadership aides were adamant that the vote would be over his committee chairmanship. But it's now unclear whether Reid will follow through on this specific vote or whether he'll ask the Dem caucus to vote on a compromise or a lesser punishment.

(Via Think Progress)

Okay, we now have a second Senator who's stepped up and joined Senator Patrick Leahy in calling on Democrats to boot Joe Lieberman from his plum slot atop the Homeland Security committee.

Bernie Sanders, also of Vermont, sent us a hard-hitting statement demanding that Lieberman get the push -- and strikingly, he said that if Dems didn't remove him, it would be an insult to Barack Obama's supporters and a betrayal of the change mandate voters delivered to the President-elect.

"To reward Senator Lieberman with a major committee chairmanship would be a slap in the face of millions of Americans who worked tirelessly for Barack Obama and who want to see real change in our country," Sanders in the statement sent our way by his office.

"Appointing someone to a major post who led the opposition to everything we are fighting for is not 'change we can believe in,'" Sanders continued. "I very much hope that Senator Lieberman stays in the Democratic caucus and is successful in regaining the confidence of those whom he has disappointed. This is not a time, however, in which he should be rewarded with a major committee chairmanship."

Rough stuff. The more voices we hear along these lines, the tougher it will get for other Senators not to follow in kind.

Sanders is technically an independent, but because he organizes with the Democrats he is still eligible to vote in the Dem leadership elections -- and he'll be voting against Joe for that chairmanship. More to follow?

Late Update: A good point from Jane Hamsher: These calls from Lieberman supporters like Evan Bayh for him to "apologize" in exchange for keeping his post -- would the "apology" happen in the closed-door Dem caucus, and what good would that be?

This is great, great stuff. Bob Geiger dreams up an imaginary, but awfully convincing, press release that Senators can attach their names to in announcing why they intend to vote against Joe Lieberman continuing as chair of the Homeland Security committee:

I have known and admired Senator Lieberman for many years, and had been willing to accept his continued support for President Bush's disastrous Iraq policy as a philosophical and political difference that, while considerable, still left room for me to work with him on a range of other issues and to find common ground.

But with his support of the Republican nominee in the 2008 presidential campaign and his persistent and active participation in events and forums that smeared and discredited President-elect Barack Obama in intentionally misleading and despicable ways, I believe Senator Lieberman has revealed beliefs and values that are inconsistent with the Democratic party and the President-elect's mandate from the people.

President-elect Obama inherits significant economic and political challenges when he takes office in January and, under a Democratic Senate, a committee as vital as Homeland Security can simply no longer be led by one who has abandoned our party's core principles and who stood by mutely and with no oversight as President Bush debased our Constitution and our national creed, while also diminishing our nation's security posture...

Therefore, I will vote in the Senate Democratic Conference meeting next week to strip Senator Lieberman of his Chairmanship of the Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee.

The whole thing is here. Geiger does the work so Lieberman's fellow Senators don't have to!

Some folks have wondered aloud why people are so bent on "punishing" Lieberman by stripping Lieberman of his Homeland Security chairmanship when he's going to have severely diminished powers next year in any case. As Geiger makes clear, it's not that complicated.

On some of the most pressing issues we face, Lieberman simply doesn't share the ideas or values of the Democratic Party. And given his performance as Homeland Security chair, Lieberman foes think stripping Lieberman of his post is, you know, better for the country. Some seem incapable of imagining that the push to oust Lieberman could be about anything other than revenge or that anyone could possibly oppose Lieberman simply because of his ideas, values, and governmental failures.

We now have our first Dem Senator who has come on the record and called for Joe Lieberman to be booted from his plum spot on the Homeland Security committee.

In an interview with Vermont Public Radio today, Senator Patrick Leahy left no doubt whatsoever: He believes Lieberman should be given the push.

"Every Senator will have to vote the way he or she believes they should," Leahy said, in a reference to the upcoming vote on Lieberman's fate in the Dem caucus next week. "I'm one who does not feel that somebody should be rewarded with a major chairmanship after doing what he did."

"I felt some of the attacks that he was involved in against Senator Obama...went way beyond the pale," Leahy continued. "I thought they were not fair, I thought they were not legitimate, I thought they perpetuated some of these horrible myths that were being run about Senator Obama."

"I would feel that had I done something similar," Leahy concluded, "that I would not be chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the next Congress."

This interview, first summarized by a Daily Kos diarist, could prove a blow to Liebrman. The Connecticut Senator seemed to be building up some momentum, with Barack Obama saying he held "no grudges" against him, a quote that some Senators and Lieberman allies started using to claim support from Obama.

Several Senators voiced qualified support for Lieberman, and a few were even said to be lobbying in his favor behind the scenes. And while Senator Harry Reid earlier seemed to be sending signals that he wanted support for Lieberman's ouster, he recently was reported to be in discussions about a possible deal on Lieberman's behalf.

Now, though, these quotes from the well-respected Leahy could prompt others to make public statements against Lieberman and could shift the momentum against him a bit in advance of the full Dem caucus' vote on Lieberman's fate next week.

Late Update: Here's audio...

Click To Play

Roll Call has the article of the day on the behind-the-scenes jockeying over Joe Lieberman's fate, reporting that Lieberman's Senate allies are using Obama's recent statement that he holds "no grudges" against Lieberman to claim momentum against punishing Lieberman for his many acts against the party.

One Lieberman supporter tells the paper that Obama "has in a large sense set the tone" in favor of Lieberman. Obama's statement specifically says that he won't "referee" the decision over whether Lieberman should keep his plum Homeland Security chairmanship.

But Obama's statement -- whatever its intent -- has had the practical impact of lending Lieberman allies something they can use to claim Obama's support, and could also give cover to Senators who want to do nothing to oust Lieberman.

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers, such as Markos and John Aravosis are now pressuring Senator Harry Reid to signal more forcefully to his fellow Senators that Lieberman should go. "No one is going to challenge their leader if he says that he absolutely wants Lieberman out," Aravosis wrote. "But Reid won't say that."

It's true that if Reid issued a strong public statement declaring his preference for Lieberman losing the chairmanship, it would send a strong signal to Senators which way they should vote on this question when they caucus next week. In fairness, though, Reid has already signaled his private opposition. And individual Senators shouldn't need a public statement from Reid to do the right thing.

On Keith Olbermann's show last night, Howard Fineman dropped a bit of a bomb, reporting that Senator Dick Durbin is now moving towards keeping Joe Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security Committee -- because he has now heard what Obama had to say about it. Worse, Fineman claimed that Obama has "signaled" that he, too, wants Lieberman to stay.

Here's a transcript:

FINEMAN: Senator Dick Durbin is a key factor there and I think he`s moving toward allowing Lieberman to stay. Dick Durbin was somebody who was extremely angry at Lieberman for campaigning for John McCain.

But I`m now told after having gone through a horrible week or so, where he was mourning the death of his 40-year-old daughter to congenital heart disease, he`s come out of that and looked around and, also, heard what Barack Obama has had to say, and Durbin is now saying he`s willing to give Lieberman a chance.

I think that`s going to go to a vote next week but I bet that Lieberman gets to keep his committee chairmanship because Obama has signaled that he wants him to.

Did Obama really "signal" that he wants Lieberman to stay? The Obama team merely said that they wouldn't referee any committee chairmanship decisions. But they also added that they hold "no grudges" against Lieberman. As I argued here yesterday, this risks giving cover to Senators who want to do nothing about Lieberman.

If Fineman is right, Durbin, clearly, is taking it this way, only a day after he was said to be actively opposed to Lieberman staying. Seems like it's fair to ask Durbin's office for clarification as to what exactly he thinks and why he may be interpreting Obama's remarks as active support for Lieberman keeping the chairmanship.

Does Durbin really support Lieberman keeping his chairmanship after he insinuated that the first African American Dem nominee for president is pro-terrorist, suggested that he endangered our troops, and said he doesn't always put the country first? And that's not even getting into the awful job Lieberman did on the committee, either.

Late Update: Some of you are arguing that Fineman may have been referring only to the question of whether Durbin and Obama support Lieberman staying in the caucus. But I don't believe that to be the case. First of all, Durbin yesterday was said to be specifically opposed to Lieberman keeping his chairmanship, so Fineman's claims of a possible change of heart clearly refer to that. What's more, in the last paragraph of Fineman's quotes above, he's clearly saying Obama signaled support for Lieberman keeping the chairmanship.

So what's the significance of the statement we obtained from the Obama transition team saying that Obama holds "no grudges" against Joe Lieberman and won't take a position on whether Lieberman should be ousted as chair of the Homeland Security committee?

My take: By taking no position, Obama is in effect throwing the decision over to Senator Harry Reid, making it possible for the Senate to take action against Lieberman. But his statement -- paradoxically -- could also give cover to those who want to do nothing about him, making it easier for him to hang on to the post.

First, a bit of opinion from around the web: Steve Benen says that the statement is "deliberately vague," throwing the decision over to "the caucus and its leadership." Glenn Greenwald argues more broadly that the decision properly belongs to the Senate, and not Obama, in any case.

And Jane Hamsher notes that Senate leaders Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer may have privately signaled that they want Lieberman given the push, which could bode ill for him.

But John Aravosis argues that it shows Obama is "still making nice" to Joe and fuels the meta-message that Dems "don't like to fight." And MyDD's Josh Orton points out that Obama's statement, by including the line about not holding "grudges," helps Lieberman frame the argument as one that's all about retribution against poor old Joe.

It's probably not worth getting into a discussion about Obama's motives. I agree that Obama is right not to publicly dictate to the Senate what it should do, and this does signal to the Senators that they're free to jettison Lieberman. That said, the practical impact of Obama's statement could be to make life easier for those who want to do nothing here. It could allow the faint of heart to say, "hey, Obama isn't holding any grudges, so no need for us to punish Joe. Our leader has spoken."

The point is that while it's true that Joe's fate now lies in the hands of his fellow Senators, more noise may now have to be made to get them to act on it.

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

President-Elect Barack Obama doesn't "hold any grudges" against Senator Joe Lieberman for opposing his presidential candidacy, and will not take any position on the question of whether Lieberman should be permitted to keep his plum chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee, an Obama spokesperson just confirmed to us.

"We aren't going to referee decisions about who should or should not be a committee chair," Obama transition spokesperson Stephanie Cutter emailed me, in response to questions about Obama's stance on Lieberman's future.

Cutter's comments are the first on-the-record indication of Obama's position on the politically fraught question of what to do about Lieberman.

"President-elect Obama looks forward to working with anyone to move the country forward," Cutter continued. "We'd be happy to have Sen. Lieberman caucus with the Democrats. We don't hold any grudges."

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.

More soon.

Barack Obama is reportedly sending signals that he wants Joe Lieberman to stay in the Dem caucus.

But let's not get distracted. The question isn't whether Lieberman gets to "stay in the Dem caucus" if he wants to. That's what Lieberman wants you to think the question on the table is. Rather, the issue is, will Dems let Lieberman keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee?

The Lieberman camp has worked very hard to muddy the waters here. Lieberman aides have tried to persuade people that a vote to oust him from the committee is indistinguishable from a vote to oust him from the Dem caucus overall.

Don't believe it. Reid's people have made the situation very clear: The question of whether Lieberman remains in the caucus is up to him. He can vote how he wants, no matter what happens to his committee assignments.

But Lieberman's allies are using the Obama camp's claims that he wants Lieberman to stay "in the caucus" as a way of arguing against a punitive action against him that would entail stripping him of his current committee chairmanship.

So the question for the Obama camp is, Do they really countenance Lieberman, a colossal failure at this gig, to stay as Homeland Security chair? A lot is riding on the specific messages that come from Obama's camp on this question, and it's fair to ask for a specific answer.

Lots of people have already chewed over this article in the Hartford Courant, which reports that Chris Dodd is, disappointingly, suggesting that Barack Obama doesn't want a fight over Joe Lieberman's fate.

But I wanted to draw your attention to this little nugget buried in the article, in which the Lieberman camp makes a rather startling argument in favor of his being allowed to hang on to his Homeland Security committee slot:

"Sen. Lieberman prefers to remain in the Democratic caucus," the aide said. "However, he believes he should remain as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. ... He thinks that political retribution should not go ahead of homeland security."

Can the Lieberman camp really be arguing that stripping Lieberman of his committee slot is tantamount to putting politics ahead of our safety, because we're so defenseless without him there to protect us?

Never mind that Lieberma's performance as chair of the committee was just awful. Lieberman's camp is now sounding a kind of hollow echo of the same silly scare-mongering tactics that he used against Obama on the GOP's behalf during the campaign, only this time in service of holding onto whatever vestiges of influence he has left. It's a coda to this whole affair that's perfect in its desperation and unintentional self-parody.

Separately, in reference to Dodd's point that President Obama won't want to be distracted from governing by a messy fight over Lieberman's fate, one could argue that this is all the more reason to get this wrapped up now. Senator Reid?

Harry Reid ratchets up the public rhetoric on Joe Lieberman:

"Joe Lieberman has done something that I think was improper, wrong, and I'd like if we weren't on television, I'd use a stronger word of describing what he did," Reid told CNN's John King. "But Joe Lieberman votes with me a lot more than a lot of my senators. He didn't support us on military stuff and he didn't support us on Iraq stuff. You look at his record, it's pretty good."

As noted below, Reid's office has now publicly confirmed that he may ask the other Dem Senators to vote on Lieberman's fate at their full caucus meeting on November 18th. At this rate, Reid will be left with no choice other than to take real action.

Senator Harry Reid's office has just confirmed to me, on the record, that Reid is considering a new step: Asking all the Democratic Senators to vote on Lieberman's fate at their upcoming full caucus meeting if Reid and Lieberman are unable to agree on a way for Lieberman to relinquish his plum chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee.

"If Senator Reid and Lieberman don't reach an agreement, his future chairmanship may be put to a vote by the caucus as a whole on November 18th," Reid spokesperson Jim Manley told me, in response to my questions about the next step being mulled by Reid.

Manley's assertion represents the first public acknowledgment that this possibility is being seriously considered, and is a significant ratcheting up of pressure on Lieberman by Reid's office.

Manley said it was unclear as yet how precisely the mechanics of such a move would work, but left no doubt that it was likely to happen if Lieberman and Reid didn't resolve their impasse before the next caucus meeting.

The move would in effect put Lieberman's fate in the hands of his Dem colleagues. Top liberal bloggers -- among them John Aravosis, Josh Orton and Steve Benen -- are already mounting a pressure campaign, calling on their readers to contact Senators and get them to pledge to vote against Lieberman keeping his committee slot.

Others are urging readers to sign a petition calling on Reid to give Lieberman the push.

Late Update: Jane Hamsher also has a petition that readers can sign to press for Lieberman's ouster.

As I reported here yesterday, Senator Harry Reid is mulling an interesting option with regard to Joe Lieberman's fate: He's considering having the Dem caucus vote at their next meeting on whether Lieberman should be allowed to keep his plum committee chairmanship.

It's not precisely clear yet how that mechanism would work. What's clear is that it would put Lieberman's fate in the hands of his Dem Senate colleagues.

Now liberal bloggers are pre-emptively mounting a campaign to pressure those Senators to come out against Lieberman, should this vote happen.

MyDD's Josh Orton, a former Senate aide, is calling on readers to telephone their own and other Senators, particularly conservative ones and Lieberman allies, and ask them whether they still support Lieberman keeping his plum committee chairmanship.

And John Aravosis at AmericaBlog is pushing his readers to do the same. This is likely to snowball, and the advantage of this approach is that it provides people at the grassroots with many more targets to pressure for Lieberman's ouster.

Meanwhile, readers who think Lieberman should pay some kind of price for suggesting that Obama sold out the troops and hasn't always put the country first can always sign this petition urging Reid to give Lieberman a push.

The Politico has just posted a story on Joe Lieberman's battle to hang on to his plum committee slot, but Politico kind of buries the lede. The real story here is that Lieberman's aides are now openly threatening Senate leader Harry Reid by saying that Lieberman will stop caucusing with Dems if his chairmanship is revoked:

"Senator Lieberman's preference is to stay in the caucus, but he's going to keep all his options open," a Lieberman aide said. "McConnell has reached out to him and at this stage his position is he wants to remain in the caucus but losing the chairmanship is unacceptable."

That's pretty clear cut. Lieberman's aide is leaking the threat that he wants to remain in the caucus but that losing his committee slot is "unacceptable" -- meaning that he'll bolt the caucus if it happens.

In the private meeting today between Harry Reid and Joe Lieberman, Reid bluntly informed Lieberman that Dem sentiment against him had risen to the point where it would be tough for him to keep his plum Homeland Security Committee chairmanship -- but Lieberman pushed back and said he thought he should be allowed to keep it, a source familiar with the meeting tells us.

But Reid stopped short of saying outright that Lieberman would be stripped of the slot if he didn't voluntarily relinquish it, the source says.

"Reid did not say that he was going to strip it," the source says. "There was a discussion, however, about how many in the [Dem] caucus are upset and don't want him to continue on the committee."

Reid confronted Lieberman with some of the comments he'd made about Obama during the presidential election. "Senator Lieberman defended his comments and said he thought that he should be able to continue as chairman," the source says.

No agreement was reached in the meeting, the source says, but Reid apparently is looking at a coming caucus vote as a mechanism to resolve the standoff.

"If they aren't able to work something out satisfactorily, there will be a vote in the caucus," the source said.

It doesn't appear that whatever agreement is reached will be linked to the question of whether Lieberman is allowed to remain in the Dem caucus in a general sense. "That's Lieberman's decision," the source said of the question of whether Lieberman would continue caucusing with Dems.

Earlier today, Nico Pitney of The Huffington Post reported that Reid had offered Lieberman a deal by which he'd relinquish his plum committee slot in exchange for a lesser role on another sub-committee. HuffPo added that Lieberman hadn't accepted the deal. The source we spoke with couldn't confirm the deal offer.

In his public comments on the meeting, Lieberman refused to disclose what had happened, saying only that he was mulling his options going forward.

Harry Reid and Joe Lieberman just wrapped up a private meeting about what Lieberman's fate will be in the wake of an election where he campaigned aggressively for McCain, said the attacks on Obama over William Ayers were legit and said Obama does not always "put the country first."

The upshot of the meeting? No decisions have been made as to whether to strip Lieberman of his plum committee slots or whether to take any other action.

"No decisions have been made," Reid said, in a statement sent to us by his office. "While I understand that Senator Lieberman has voted with Democrats a majority of the time, his comments and actions have raised serious concerns among many in our Caucus."

"I expect there to be additional discussions in the days to come," Reid continued, "and Senator Lieberman and I will speak to our Caucus in two weeks to discuss further steps."

Meanwhile, in a statement to reporters that just aired on MSNBC, Lieberman called for -- you guessed it -- an end to "partisanship" and for unified action on the economy, adding:

"Those are the standards I will use in considering the options that I have before me."

In other words, Lieberman is already portraying himself as being in the driver's seat right now over what happens to him.

Late Update: Jane Hamsher speculates on what happened in the meeting:

Reid told him he can stay in the caucus if he steps down from his committee chairmanship (a campaign we started shortly after the 2006 election, thanks to everyone who participated with pitchforks and torches). I imagine Reid told him they'll wait to do anything until the other Senate races are decided, but that's the way it's going to go down. Those are the rather well-source rumors circulating, anyway.

Joe now goes to see if he can get a better deal from the GOP, knowing his chances of winning in Connecticut as a Republican in 2012 are about "zero."

And Matt Stoller suggests that you sign this letter urging Reid to give Lieberman the push.

Late Late Update: MyDD's Josh Orton reads the tea leaves and says Reid is in fact getting ready to punish Lieberman.