Sigh. Is it that hard to understand that this isn't about booting him from the caucus? That it's about his gavel? Or is that too fine a distinction for people?

Do you think that the Democrats will have enough votes to remove Lieberman from the comittee chairmanship in the full senate (and surpassing a filabuster that would probably require Leiberman's vote to break) to oust Lieberman from the chairmanship?  Keep in mind that once a comittee chairman is selected, you don't select a new one until a new congress, the chairman resignes, is expelled, or is removed by a vote in the full Senate.

Color me skeptical.

(nevermind the fact that it is incredibly difficult to get the democrats to act in unison in the senate to begin with)

Doing literally nothing for two years isn't stepping out of line with his gavel?  Here's a question: Is there anything at all that Lieberman could do that would suggest he ought to face even the slightest consequence?  Seriously, this is a committee that he did nothing with in the last Congress.  The offer is for him to keep his seniority, stay in the caucus, and chair something else.  This is the least possible consequence that could come from him a) failing to lead his committee in any way, b) endorsing the Republican presidential candidate, c) speaking at the GOP convention, d) campaigning for GOP Senate candidates (that is, campaigning against the majority he now wants to be a part of), and e) suggesting that the Democratic presidential candidate might be a Marxist.  Why should he take from this the message he better not use his committee against Obama, or else?

But truly Joe has not been doing the job in his committee.  He should be replaced by someone who has shown some interest in accomplishing something.

Personally, I loathe Lieberman and would love to see him kicked out of the chairmanship.  And I would argue that because of all the hard work I and others did to win more seats for Democrats, we should have a say in the matter.  

This is not about revenge.  This is about the fact that there will not be another opportunity to remove him from his chairmanship until 2010 at the earliest.  There is no way he loses it unless he has a major (legal) transgression and even then it's not likely that he gets cut off.

Furthermore, this is not about revenge, Leiberman will not support Democrats on many issues (not just on the war) so he will be in an effective position to harpoon Democratic legislation for change.

I thought we wanted to change the way things worked in Washington, and to overturn the terrible position that Bush Co. have put us in.  Allowing this man to remain the chairman of any comittee, but especially Homeland Security will do nothing but make it much harder to get anything done.  If dropping his chairmanship means that he leaves the caucus, so be it.  Even if a republican replaces him (as would be the case if he resigned and the Republican governor appoints another Republican), that person will not be in any chairmanship, and we will not be any worse off that we are with Lieberman who will vote against us and uphold a filabuster on many of the important issues.  Odds are that Lieberman won't even be given a leadership position in the Republican caucus or comittee assignments if he switches sides.  Any dream of Democrats getting a 60 vote majority is down the tubes as of now (no Leiberman does not count), and we will have to work in a bi-partisan way regardless.

The only safe, responsible thing to do is to strip him of his chairmanships.

Reid should have stripped Lieberman of his chairmanship the minute he endorsed McCain.

Reid should have stripped Lieberman of his chairmanship after Lieberman's disgraceful speech during the Repub convention.

Reid should have stripped Lieberman of his chairmanship because of his totally ineffectual job as the chairman.

So now, after all the above, we're worried that taking the gavel away from Joe is somehow viewed as vengeful?

Someone please tell me what political transgression would have been sufficient to remove Lieberman as chairman.

If we wait until Lieberman does something the party doesn't like, stripping him of his chair will be seen as revenge for Joe taking a principled stand.  And the Republicans and media will go nuts and deride the senate as not tolerating dissent, using strong arm tactics, etc.  If Lieberman is stripped now it can be explained as a reshuffling at the start of a new term, with more new Democrats.  An easy argument can be made that senior Dems should chair the major committees.