Peter Orszag, the nominee to become Office of Management and Budget chief under Obama, just elaborated a bit on the incoming administration's plans to instill transparency in the contracting process as they implement the economic stimulus bill.

Appearing before the Senate government affairs committee today, Orszag said:

We plan to create a Web site that will contain information about the contracts and include PDFs or contracts themselves, and also financial information about the contracts.

A welcome promise, and one that will surely be a gold mine for us blogger types. Plus, you've gotta love the response from Joe Lieberman (I-CT), chairman of the committee:

Define PDFs.

Today: The Georgia Senate Runoff
Today is the big day in Georgia: The runoff election pitting GOP Sen. Saxby Chambliss, who is considered the favorite, against Democratic candidate Jim Martin. The question is whether the polls that have shown Chambliss ahead by several points will have accurately modeled the turnout for the runoff, which is by nature very unpredictable. The polls close at 7 p.m. ET.

Obama And Biden Meeting With Governors In Philly
Barack Obama and Joe Biden are meeting this morning with the National Governors Association in Philadelphia. Obama, Biden, and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell will be making brief remarks to the press.

WaPo: Gates' Top Deputies Might Not Continue Into Obama Administration
The Washington Post reports that the retention of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense will not result in perfect continuity at the Defense Department -- many of Gates' deputies are now expected to quit their jobs, and be replaced by Obama appointees. It would seem Obama gets the best of both worlds here, with Gates staying on for a smooth transition while also allowing him to put his own stamp on a formerly Bush-influenced Pentagon.

Paterson: No Senate Appointment Until Hillary Resigns
New York Gov. David Paterson says he will wait until Hillary Clinton resigns from the Senate to announce who he is appointing to the seat. For her part, Hillary intends to remain in the Senate until she is officially confirmed as Secretary of State, which might not happen until after Barack Obama officially takes office.

NYT: Napolitano Will Preside Over Real ID Program She Has Opposed
The New York Times points out that Janet Napolitano, in her new role as Secretary of Homeland Security, will be in charge of enforcing the Real ID program -- which she has vigorously opposed as an unfunded mandate on the states, and she's even signed legislation to forbid Arizona from complying with it. "I'm hoping she will see this program from the federal government side and see it with new eyes," said Janice L. Kephart, a staffer for the 9/11 Commission, which recommended the program.

Lieberman Keeps Up Praise Of Obama
The Hill notes that Joe Lieberman is stepping up his praise of Barack Obama, after a campaign season in which he attacked Obama and declared that Democrats didn't take terrorism seriously enough. Lieberman declared in a statement yesterday, "the President-elect has begun to build an administration that can lead America forward on the world stage with purpose and principle."

This Morning: Another Obama Press Conference
Barack Obama is holding a press conference today at 10:45 a.m. ET -- his third presser in three days -- centered around the economy. As we posited yesterday, Obama appears to be trying to quasi-assume the presidency early, in order to provide the image of competent national leadership and calm down the uncertainty of the financial markets during the interregnum.

Report: Obama Taps Volcker For New Economic Board
Barack Obama will reportedly appoint former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker to head up a new President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, which will give economic briefings to the president and serve as a means for Obama to get advice outside of the usual federal agencies. Volcker is widely credited with bringing the inflationary spiral of the 70s and early 80s to an end during his tenure as Fed chairman, so this appointment might go a long way in reassuring the markets.

Minnesota Sec. of State To Candidates: Stop The Frivolous Challenges
Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie (D) says he is concerned about the huge number of ballot challenges in the Senate recount -- over 3,600 of them so far -- and has called on both campaigns to crack down on it. "The more challenges there are, the more work that the local officials has to do, our office has to do and the candidate representatives have to do to withdraw or back away from those challenges, so this is a cause for concern," Ritchie told Minnesota Public Radio.

Obama Trying To Keep BlackBerry
Barack Obama said during an interview with Barbara Walters that he is trying to keep his BlackBerry, and is negotiating with his staff on how he can stay connected while also satisfying the need to stay secure and keep detailed records. "Because, one of the worst things I think that could happen to a president is losing touch with what people are going through day to day," said Obama -- a stark contrast with George W. Bush's well-known habit of not reading newspapers or seeking outside information.

NYT: No Portfolio Yet For Biden, But Instead The Role Of Adviser
The New York Times reports that the Obama transition is still working out an exact role for Joe Biden in the administration. "I'm sure that there will be discrete assignments over time," said David Axelrod. "But I think his fundamental role is as a trusted counselor. I think that when Obama selected him, he selected him to be a counselor and an adviser on a broad range of issues."

Lieberman: Obama's Cabinet Picks And Other Decisions "Just About Perfect"
Barack Obama's post-election decisions are getting a thumbs-up from none other than Joe Lieberman. "Everything that President-elect Obama has done since election night has been just about perfect, both in terms of a tone and also in terms of the strength of the names that have either been announced or are being discussed to fill his administration," Lieberman said yesterday during a visit back home to Connecticut.

We hear from a Hill source that Hillary was one of the 42 Senators who voted for the resolution condemning Lieberman but allowing him him to stay as Homeland Security chair.

We're still trying to determine who the 13 who voted against Lieberman keeping the chairmanship are. Current tally:

For: Senators Clinton, Kerry, Durbin, Tom Udall, and Cardin.

Against: Senators Leahy and Sanders.

More in a bit.

Howard Dean says that he's "fine" with the Senate's decision not to kick Joe Lieberman off the Homeland Security committee and suggested that the Senate had acted in accordance with what Barack Obama wanted.

In a phone interview with me just after the vote concluded, I asked Dean if he thought the Senate should keep Lieberman. He said that the Senate had acted "in the spirit of unification, which is what the President-elect wanted."

"He called the shots, and that's fine," Dean said, in an apparent reference to the tone Obama has tried to set in Washington as he prepares to take power.

Dean also said he understood the natural human desire for "revenge," a description that will dismay many of Dean's allies in the liberal blogosphere, who maintain (as do I) that this wasn't solely about retribution.

"I think it's in every human being's heart to get revenge," Dean said, though he didn't say that "revenge" was the only motive driving the anti-Lieberman forces. He added that the time had come to "swallow hard" and "put aside that kind of stuff."

"It's pretty hard to run the country based on, `We're all working together,' if your first act is to strip someone who was your political enemy...of power," Dean said.

Asked if Lieberman should keep the chairmanship given his performance at the post, Dean replied that it was up to the Senate to evaluate the job Lieberman did. "The Senate will do what the Senate does," Dean said. "It's not my place to interfere."

"They asked Senator Obama's opinion and he gave it," Dean said.

Late Update: To clarify, Dean did not say that the only motive driving the anti-Lieberman movement was revenge, and didn't specifically target the liberal blogosphere in his comments. His point about Obama was that Senators took their cues from the President-elect's desire for a tone of "unification." I've edited the above to make that clearer.

Late Late Update: Jane Hamsher also interviewed Dean, and pressed him very hard on the niggling question of whether Lieberman is, you know, qualified for the post that Senate Dems let him keep.

John Kerry and Obama-ally Dick Durbin were among four Democratic Senators in today's closed-door Dem caucus meeting who supported for keeping Joe Lieberman as chair of the Homeland Security committee, a Democratic aide who was briefed on the meeting by a Senator who was there tells us.

The aide also offered these details from the meeting: Thirteen Senators voted against a resolution to condemn Lieberman but to allow him to keep the chairmanship. We don't know the full list yet, and will update when we know more.

Two Senators spoke out in favor of removing him: Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders.

Among the Senators who supported Lieberman keeping the chairmanship, according to the source: Kerry, Durbin, Ben Cardin, and Tom Udall.

We couldn't verify that on the record, and we're contacting their offices for confirmation and comment. We'll keep you posted.

Late Update: Senator Cardin's office confirmed that he voted to support the resolution to condemn Lieberman but to allow him to remain as Homeland Security chair. And Dick Durbin's office declined to comment.

Late Late Update: Just to clarify, the 13 Senators who opposed keeping Lieberman as chair voted against the resolution to condemn him but allow him to remain as chair. We've edited the above to reflect that.

Late Late Update: The Associated Press reports that Jeff Merkley, the new Senator-elect from Oregon, was among the 13 Democrats who opposed Lieberman keeping the chairmanship, and spoke out during the meeting.

Late Late Update: The AP has issued a correction -- Merkley apparently didn't oppose Lieberman, after all.

Senator Harry Reid just spoke to reporters after the private caucus meeting with Dems over Joe Lieberman's fate, and he confirmed it: Lieberman will not be stripped of his Homeland Security chairmanship, because the "vast majority" of the Democratic caucus wants him to stay.

"This was not a time for retribution," Reid said, adding that "we're moving forward."

Lieberman was removed from the Environment and Public Works Committee, a largely meaningless punishment since it's a topic (unlike Homeland Security) on which he has no differences with Dems.

Asked about liberal "anger" towards Lieberman, Reid said: "I pretty well understand anger. I would defy anyone to be more angry than I was."

But he added: "If you will look at the problems that we face as a nation, is this a time we walk out of here saying boy did we get even?"

"I feel good about what we did today," Reid said. "We're moving forward."

Lieberman himself, meanwhile, said he was able to keep his slot thanks to Barack Obama, whose recent statement said he held "no grudges" against Lieberman. Lieberman singled out the "appeal by President Obama himself" as a key reason he's staying.

So, Senate Dems will be allowing Lieberman to keep his plum spot despite the fact that he has been deeply awful in that role, and despite the fact that he endorsed efforts by the GOP to imply that Obama is in league with terrorists, suggested that Obama endangered our troops, and said Obama hasn't always put the country first.

Worse, Reid is echoing an argument he knows is false: That this is only about retribution. Reid and his fellow Senators have made the political decision to leave Lieberman in a job that he was a disaster at, rather than make the good governmental decision to remove him for the good of the country.

Late Update: A source briefed on what happened at the meeting tells us that John Kerry and Dick Durbin were among the Senators who supported Lieberman staying as chair.

Late Late Update: Heres' the video of the Senate Dem press conference after the vote:

Today: Senate Dems Vote On Lieberman's Chairmanship
Today is the day when the Senate Democratic Caucus will vote on whether to let Joe Lieberman keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The Dems are widely expected to let Lieberman keep the chairmanship and instead merely strip him of a minor Environment and Public Works subcommittee chairmanship, despite widespread outrage among grassroots Democrats over Lieberman's attacks against Barack Obama throughout the campaign.

WaPo: Lieberman Getting Rid Of McCain Bumper Sticker
The Washington Post reports that Joe Lieberman is in the process of removing the McCain bumper sticker from his car. On the one hand this is probably a good move going into the Democratic caucus vote on his chairmanship -- but on the other hand, it's only been scratched off halfway.

No Obama Or Biden Public Events Today
Barack Obama and Joe Biden will be holding private meetings in Chicago today, and do not have any public events scheduled.

NYT: Vetting Of Bill Clinton Intensifies
The New York Times reports that the Obama transition team is stepping up its vetting of Bill Clinton's foundation and speaking engagements, and could end up asking him to separate himself from all that work if Hillary is to be appointed to the cabinet. "It's not just what he does or says -- it's the fact that the foundation is involved with foreign countries, some of which might well be in conflict with U.S. policy," said Abner Mikva, an Obama adviser and retired federal judge.

Up To Four Million People Could Attend Inauguration
The Washington Post reports that the federal and D.C. municipal governments are preparing for as many as four million people to try to attend Barack Obama's inauguration in January. Officials are proposing opening up large section of the Mall and setting up extra JumboTrons in order to accommodate the potential massive crowd.

Hoyer: Expanded Dem Majority Won't Turn Left
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer will tell the National Press Club today that the new Democratic dominance on Capitol Hill will be approached pragmatically, instead of running hard to the left. "For the first time in decades, we are a true national majority party -- and if we want to stay that way, we must govern like one," Hoyer will say, according to prepared remarks.

Poll: GOP Sen. Martinez In Serious Danger
A new Quinnipiac poll finds Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) with some pretty lackluster numbers, with only 42% of Florida voters approving of him and 33% disapproving. In a match-up with a generic Democrat for his 2010 re-election campaign, the generic Dem leads with 40% to Martinez's 36% -- an abysmal showing for an incumbent.

When Senate Dems caucus tomorrow, the Democratic leadership is likely to propose that he keep his Homeland Security chairmanship but lose a lesser sub-committee chairmanship instead, according to a source familiar with the situation.

If it happens that way, Senate Dems will be allowing Lieberman to keep his plum spot despite the fact that he has been a disaster at the post, and despite the fact that he endorsed efforts by the GOP to imply that Obama is in league with terrorists, suggested that Obama endangered our troops, and said Obama hasn't always put the country first.

According to the source, the Dem leadership is expected to propose instead that Lieberman be stripped of his chairmanship of a lesser Environment and Public Works subcommittee, a comparatively meaningless punitive action.

The move, which is not unexpected and was reported earlier in Roll Call, comes despite the fact that Lieberman had lost momentum in recent days, with Senators Patrick Leahy, Bernie Sanders and Byron Dorgan all expressing strong opposition to him keeping the chairmanship. Even a Lieberman ally, Senator Tom Carper, said today that Lieberman should face consequences that are not "insignificant."

It remains to be seen whether stripping Lieberman of his environmental committee role will be seen as "significant "by people who think that Lieberman's actions show him to be completely out of sync with the values and ideas of the Democratic Party on some of the most pressing issues facing us.

Many Democrats believe that effort to oust Lieberman from the Homeland Security chairmanship were dealt a death knell last week, when Barack Obama said he held "no grudges" against Lieberman. Though Obama said he wouldn't "referee" the question over the chairmanship, Obama's statement had the practical effect of allowing Lieberman's allies to claim Obama's support and giving cover to those who want to do nothing about Lieberman's transgressions.

Now even one of Joe Lieberman's leading Senate allies appears to be turning on him:

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), a close ally of Sen. Joe Lieberman, said the Connecticut Independent should pay a price for his campaign attacks against President-elect Barack Obama.

"There need to be consequences, and they cannot be insignificant," Carper said in a Monday interview with The Hill.

Carper, however, would not say whether he favors stripping Lieberman of the Homeland Security chairmanship. Still, this is noteworthy, because Carper was one of the few Senators talking to other Senators about Lieberman's fate.

That an ally like Carper is calling for "significant" consequences after talking to his fellow Senators suggests he realizes that there's a depth of anger at Lieberman within the caucus that cannot be mollified without some kind of real action against him. One lingering question is whether Harry Reid will only ask for a vote tomorrow on the chairmanship, or whether he'll also ask for votes on other, lesser punishments or on some kind of compromise.

Meanwhile, Josh Orton makes a key point that's gotten lost in all this debate: The political thing to do here is for Dem Senators to vote for Lieberman to keep the chairmanship, while the good governmental decision is to vote to give him the push.

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

Just out from President-Elect Barack Obama:

"It has been one of the highest honors and privileges of my life to have served the people of Illinois in the United States Senate. In a state that represents the crossroads of a nation, I have met so many men and women who've taken different journeys, but hold common hopes for their children's future.

"It is these Illinois families and their stories that will stay with me as I leave the United States Senate and begin the hard task of fulfilling the simple hopes and common dreams of all Americans as our nation's next President."

Obama reportedly wanted to avoid what aides described as the awkward position of returning to the Senate to vote on the economic stimulus legislation being debated in Congress, though he will play a backstage role in moving the measure.

Obama will also not have to vote on Joe Lieberman's fate in the full Dem caucus meeting next week, though he probably would have avoided that in any case, since it's expected to be taken by the 111th Congress.

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.

The full Democratic caucus will vote on whether Joe Lieberman is allowed to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee at its caucus meeting next week, a leadership aide confirms to us.

Previously, Reid's office had held this possibility out but hadn't made a final decision on whether to throw Lieberman's fate to the full Dem caucus for a vote.

In the wake of Obama's statement today that he doesn't hold any "grudges" against Lieberman and his decision not to take a position on whether Lieberman keeps his chairmanship, I emailed a leadership aide to ask whether the vote would definitely go forward. His response:

"Yes -- this is a decision that will be made by the caucus next week. Absent a stunning series of events there will be a vote next week in the caucus on whether to strip Senator Lieberman of the chairmanship."

That would appear to make it official.

The news comes amid signs that Lieberman is losing support among his fellow Senators. The Huffington Post reports, for instance, that the Clintons are not making any calls on Lieberman's behalf. And Senators Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin are reported to be hoping that Lieberman is given the push.

Now it looks as if these Senators will have an opportunity to vote on his fate, though the exact mechanism of how the vote will work is as yet unclear. More when we learn it.

Late Update: Senator Ben Nelson appears to support Lieberman keeping his committee perch.

Late Late Update: Chris Bowers has a useful look at how each individual Senator is likely to vote. The key point here is that the decision to go forward with the vote offers the anti-Lieberman forces a key opportunity to ratchet up the pressure right now.

Late Late Late Update: How will Reid himself vote? Last week he was reported to be leaning towards stripping Lieberman of his chairmanship. A Senate Democratic aide now tells me that "nothing has changed since last week." This suggests he may vote to give Lieberman the push, word of which could send a signal to other Senators to do the same.

Still Later Update: Markos and Josh Orton make a key point: This isn't about expelling Lieberman from the caucus. It's about the committee chairmanship. The Lieberman camp wants the story framed as "poor Joe may get booted for the caucus by revenge-minded liberals," because then it becomes solely about retribution.

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.

Joe Lieberman, who is locked in a fight to hold onto his Senate Homeland Security Committee chairmanship, is lending his name to a lurid sequel of the documentary Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against The West. That film, which was distributed through newspaper inserts and mass mailings to 28 million swing-state households during the campaign, was denounced by religious leaders for painting all Muslims with the same broad brush and for its cartoonish portrayal of Islamic terrorism.

The new documentary, called The Third Jihad: Radical Islam's Vision For America, focuses on the "hidden war against the freedom and values we all take for granted" being waged by radical Islamists trying to take down America from within. Among other things, the film warns of the "subtle dangers of non-violent cultural jihad and its influence in America's universities."

The Third Jihad's backers plan to disseminate the film through TV licensing, free screenings, and DVD distribution, The Jewish Week of New York reported.

After Obsession was sent out in the run-up to the election, Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic described it as "the work of hysterics." One rabbi quoted by The Jewish Week called Obsession "the protocols of the learned elders of Saudi Arabia."

Read more »

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?