Yes, if Lieberman leaves of his own volition it's vastly different from being kicked out. Remove his chairmanship, and leave the choice up to him.

Actually Obama can keep his mouth shut and maintain his self respect. No one like Lieberman would have fucked with Bush or Cheney if the roles were reversed. Obama needs to send out word quietly to strip this moron on his chairmanship but give him the option to remain in the caucus.

No wonder the Democrats keep losing the media narrative. It took a major fuckup on the part of the republicans for Obama and Co. to get the default credibility in the media. Watch them piss it away with soft action like this.

I sure hope this is Obama's strategy to keep himself above the fray. But he wouldn't have lost any PR value if he actually had his people say that "Since Lieberman has openly said that his outlook on the war and related matters is very different from the Democrats, it is time to give a chance for someone who shares the same outook the position of chair of Homeland Security. Lieberman is free to stay with us in the caucus and we will not take it personally if he chooses to do otherwise."

I was about to say, the upside is that Joe OWES Obama.

I don't really follow this logic.  It's like saying that if your kid misbehaves, you're better off NOT punishing them, because they'll instinctively know that you COULD have punished them and they'll be terrified to misbehave again.

Look at this from Lieberman's perspective.  You actively campaigned against the Democratic nominee, you told everyone the country would be less safe if he were elected, you palled around with people who said Obama would be the death of Israel.  And for all that, they let you off with a warning.

Are you seriously going to be living in fear that the first time you go against these people on a vote, they're going to cut your balls off?  They gave you a chairmanship in 2006 after you left the party, they refused to do anything to you in 2008 after you went around the country smearing their nominee.  You're not going to be fearful, you're going to be emboldened.

It's probably true that Obama had to say something like this in order to avoid the impression that he's personally vindictive, but if the Dems do in fact let Lieberman off with no consequences, it's wishful thinking to believe he's going to act like he's on a short leash from here on out.  You give him carte blanche, he's going to act like a guy with carte blanche.

If there is a hit to take for ousting Joe, let Reid take the lumps.  Unless Obama is now subscribing to the unitarian executive philosophy, there is no reason to sully himself by taking sides.

You have it in a nutshell. Joe is playing chicken, even though the Dem numbers are not likely to get to 60 anyway.

Joe's bluffing, because going Republican will definitely kill his potential for reelection on the next round. And there will be better candidate than Lamont around to oppose him.

Actually we do not need him in the caucus. We already have the majority. The 60 vote thing has nothing to do with caucus membership and Lieberman is on the record supporting filibusters against the Democrats.

There are issues where Joe's neocon status will cause trouble, I'm sure.  I'm not sure Joe "Israel Above All Else" Lieberman is the guy I want investigating possible radical Islamic terrorist cells within the US.

Actually Lieberman is not obligated to vote our way on Iraq or similar issues even if he caucuses. It will be easier to get a repubvlican to crossover on a war related vote than lieberman.

Leiberman could use the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs to perform the kind of aggressive 'oversight' of Obama's administration which he completely abrogated in respect of Bush's:

Lieberman didn't want to hold Bush accountable, but he seems exceedingly anxious to keep the committee that would go after Obama with a vengeance, effectively becoming a Waxman-like figure -- holding hearings, issuing subpoenas, and launching investigations against the Democratic president.

Lieberman doesn't care about "reconciliation," he cares about going after a Democratic administration. Why else would he fight diligently to be chairman of one committee instead of another?

Steve Benen - The Rationale Behind the 'Begging' Washington Monthly 7 Nov 08

An unequivocal criticism of Lieberman's intentions but not an unreasonable one, under the circumstances.

It hasnt stopped Lieberman from being disloyal in the past. He has still not learned anything.

I think I would have agreed with all of that, unless I saw Lieberman's RNC speech.

Many of us could care less in which caucus that idiot is in. Like you, many of us just want him to be not chair of any committee.