I think Team O is playing this just right. Why kick Lieberman now? All you'd get in exchange is some bad press from the Broder Section -- there's no upside. But pull Joe's nuts out of the fire now, and you can make a credible threat to put them back in later when you really need to -- say, when he's obstructing your plan to rationalize defense spending. I think Joe is as loathsome as the next guy, but kicking him out now when there's no strategic upside just isn't how the Obama team plays.

The Lieberman thing was gnawing at me, and I couldn't quite place my finger on what I wanted to have happen until Obama, as usual, caught my zeitgeist and ran with it (how does he do that?).

There's a strong inclination to punish the hell out of Joe; lord knows he deserves it with his sleazy campaigning for McCain, Coleman, and the RNC in general.  I get that and it would make me feel great to watch him squirm.

However, the election of Obama means that adults are in charge now, and we have to start acting appropriately.  Adults (who are acting like adults) don't hold petty grudges when it comes to business.  To folks like Obama and Lieberman, elections are business: they were both out to score a contract for their account, and Obama won it.  The fact that Lieberman misrepresented both his brand and Obama's brand is reason not to give him further contracts, but there's not much reason for Obama to specifically enact retribution: he won the contract and Lieberman's punishment of national humiliation and repudiation is enough for Obama Brand Presidency.

Now, Lieberman's industry colleagues very well may think less of him for supporting, frankly, unsafe and unpopular business practices and not throw new business his way.  Union boss Reid may even strip him of his privledges, but that has nothing to do with Obama (who is, frankly, too busy getting up to speed on his new client to even worry about it).

If he does retain his union status, Joe's gotta understand that, while the guy with the big contract would like his support when implementing industry changes because it reduces the amount of outside approval needed, it's not strictly necessary, and any purposeful interference with the big contract will result in loss of union privledges and an even more severely damaged brand.

In other words: a cowed Lieberman is better than a vengeful Lieberman.

I want to know who his source on Bill Clinton was.

As I argued in several places last night, Obama is actually providing the political leverage here to get Lieberman out of the committee chairmanship. By graciously accepting Lieberman's remaining in the caucus, even in the face of scurrilous betrayal, he has put Lieberman in the position of either recognizing that magnanimity by graciously accepting a demotion from the chairmanship in return for the invitation to stay in the caucus, or holding out stubbornly and arrogantly for everything - in which case it clearly won't be Obama's fault if the Dems dump him, and he will be seen as getting what he deserves. Obama has now established himself as the gracious and forgiving party, and the ball is in Lieberman's court.

Reid. Dont step on his toes.

This comment has been deleted by an administrator.

I am as disgusted with his sorry butt as anyone else, but I guess LBJ bight be right in this case - I'd rather havve him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.  

Still not happy.

Obama doesn't want to do the deed.  Hillary can't do more without looking like she's stabbing a former friend in the back.  Reid can't do the job alone.

So we need some senior Democratic Senators without strong connections to Lieberman but with serious involvement in and relevance of Homeland Security to lower the lance and go at his chairmanship.  That Committee has been a perfect joke under Lieberman.  On the one hand, the agency is an unhappy absurdity in that it can't possibly deliver what it promises- it is necessarily more a psychological prop for American air travelers than anything else.  On the other, it is perfectly emblematic of Bush government- internally corrupt, more for show than actual service, full of bungling and excesses and incompetence.

The top article at DKos is that Schumer and Durbin have decided to be the ones to do it, apparently.  Schumer seems to me the best possible choice.

Josh...

Use some logic for a second... Do you REALLY think Durbin... someone who mentored Obama in the Senate, who encouraged him to run and will be his hatchet man in the Senate... would say he favors booting Lieberman if Obama wanted Joementum to keep his chair?      

This is to keep Obama clean.  This whole think could be over if Obama says for Joe to keep his seat or boot him... if he says Keep then the netroots go apeshit... he says boot and the GOP attack him.   The neutral response keeps him protected from the GOP and sets up the Senate to take out Joe, which appeases the netroots.  HE gets a pound of flesh but without getting dirty.  

Could Durbin be playing "bad cop" on this one?

While I do want Joe gone, I do not want him gone while Obama looks like the bad guy.

But I do fear that Joe is going to be a mole if he stays.  I think he will basically turn into a 21st Century Version of Phil Graham.   If you remember Phil was a Democrat who spied on his own party to give information to Reagan and other Republicans in the 1980s.   It was only after he was found out that he switched parties.

I fear that Lieberman will be doing the same thing, if he hasn't already.  I am sure that he has been giving information to GOP leaders.

Just keep him off any security or foreign policy committee. Give him something to chair on domestic policy where he is aligned with the President and can't do any damage.

Obama's tone is exactly right.  Our folks in the Senate need to strap it on and get it done.  

I understand what a douchebag Joe Lieberman is.  But I don't see the benefit of starting a war within the Democratic caucus at this point.  I think Reid should give Lieberman a huge pass and tell the caucus that they all need to move forward together.  Privately, Reid and Lieberman could have a conversation making it clear that Lieberman is on a very short leash and that if he so much as dribbles some pee on the Senate toilet seat, he's gone.

Having Lieberman's fate be decided by caucus seems unnecessarily divisive for the Caucus itself right now.  This will split the Progressives from the DLC types and cause unnecessary frictions before the Dems accomplish one friggin' thing.

I think tha problem regards how many warning Lieberman has possibly already recieved.  Didn't Obama give him some discussion earlier in the Senate and Lieberman pretty much just gave him the bird for the rest of the campaign?  Sounds like Ol' Joe WAS on a short leach and thought he could do what he wanted and laugh.  I HOPE it is the laugh of a man about to get his head stuck in a guillotine...

And what harm can Joe do?  How about causing a huge ruckus AND spreading rumors, sensitive info, or outright lies on something like the closing of the Gitmo detention center for starters?  I could just see Ol' Joe having "grave concerns" over what Obama is doing?  As a chair, he gets to have a disproportionately larger voice than the Repugs, especially if he is spouting off their talking points.  He makes the Democratic Leadership look like they CANNOT lead because they cannot control him.  Eventually he can smear the Obama administration either by the power of his chairmanship, by his later removal (Like that woudl be LESS political if it was done later then sooner) or by just making the Democratic brand look worse (if for nothing else, poor judgement kissing up to him).

Nope, time for Joe to get a Time-out, just like you do with any misbehaving miscreant.  And to entice good behavior from him, offer him something positive in a year or two, but probably not a chairmanship.