Maybe it's in return for Lieberman promising never to vote against his caucus. A secret deal, which if broken would mean he immediately loses his chairmanship. At least I hope so.

Lieberman is going to go after Obama and when he does it'll be too late to remove him from his Chairmanship as it will look like Dems protecting Dems from an "independent" investigation. Why don't they see this? They're born losers.

The capitulation to Republicans has begun and the new Congress isn't even seated yet. Are the Democrats ever going to get Congressional leaders who aren't ashamed to be Democrats? Fuck!

Same as it ever was

Same as it ever was

Same as it ever was

Same as it ever was.

Why are the Democratic Senators in such a hurry?
Why don't they wait until the new Senators are sworn in, and then have the full new caucus decide who their Chairman's should be? The obvious reason is that the new Senators would vote to take the Chairmanship of the Homeland Security away from Lieberman. Just how undemocratic can you get!

If Lieberman keeps his chairmanship it will signal a continuation of the capitulation, impotency, and fecklessness that has marked the Democrats since 2006. It will sour the sense the of election victory, and set the dim-Dems up for years of mischief and back stabbing by the smarmy, sleazy, Senator from Jerusalem.

When will the Democrats grow a set of gonads? Never, I fear.

As kos said, simply not acceptable. Lieberman has been harming Dem interests for a long long time. From the Clinton impeachment to the Gore recount to all this recent crap.

Just very disappointing that the Dems remain so weak. "Strength through weakness" doesn't inspire me very much.

The democrats are whusses. LIEberman is a stinker and should be removed. He belongs in the GOP camp so send him there. His threat to "make a lot of trouble" for the Dems is laughable. What the hell do you call what he did during this election cycle? Heartwarming? Launch him.

The other thought is the threat by the GOP to filibuster Dems policies at every turn. The Dems are hoping to get the 60 votes to override the filibusters. How come, the Dems never used the filibuster when they were in the minority? The GOP never had the 60 Senators to stop it. Why didn't they filibuster FISA? Torture? The War Funding? Why? Because they are in collusion with their buddies on the Right.

I am afraid Obama isn't far behind. Allowing LIEberman to demand his own terms and winning is a slap to the face of every Progressive who gave $10 to Obama's campaign. A sharp stick in the eye. Way to go dems. Nauseating...

If the Democrats allow Lieberman to keep his chairmanship of Homeland Security, we will all come to regret it -- mark my words. The traitorous Lieberman is not yet done with his dirty work.

This is not why we voted in long lines for, in rainy and cold weather. This is beyond reasoning; there are no constiuent Democratic voters I can find that understand this caving in yet again. The matter is not one of wanting revenge; it's a matter of not rewarding this outrageous behavior of Liebermans. His lack of oversight over the years is enough; let alone the salt of on wound of his complicit involvement in the race bating camaign he McCain and Palin ran.
The sentiments run deep with voters against this man. We know the caucus has been wheeling and dealing and their fix is in. Though a secret ballot; we should vote those in the caucus out next cycle; those that don't proudly express their "no" votes on Lieberman. Those that fall back on the secret ballot must be voted out with Reid and Dodd.

Get rid of the turncoat bastard! Strip away his chairmanship and let him decide where his bread is buttered.
Dems are so loony about the 60 votes schtick. At the best (with added seats in Minn and Alaska), Lieberman will make 59. Once the White House and Biden are pushing, they will get their two GOP votes from across the aisle on any decent legislation, if they have to vote cloture.
This seems like such a no-brainer. Why coddle such a turd?

The idea that Lieberman will use the chairmanship to go after Obama requires you to believe that he has either a) a continuing obligation to the Republican party or b) a new, but firm set of principles. If 2008 is any indication, he can't get elected again as a Republican or even as an Independent. He has to tack left again. And principles? Who's kidding whom? He was a useful idiot to the Reps for the last two years, and he may well be one for the Dems now, you know, in the spirit of "coming together". I can't wait until the party elders fade away.

Obama is playing the magnanimous card full throttle. Hard to say if letting Lieberman off the hook is a smart play or merely proof his testicles are of the same withered, shrunken vintage as every other Democrat in the last decade. No investigations or prosecutions for torture and war crimes. Voted to renew the Patriot Act with a couple minor, unenforceable caveats. Cuts Lieberman a break. Next he'll be attacking Iran, dismantling Social Security, appointing Republican jurists to SCOTUS and taking part in helicopter wolf kills with Palin. Might as well have given Bush a 3rd term.

I'll tie this in with Hilzoy's post below: Holy Joe will ensure a return to the rule of law on Capitol Hill by immediately initiating investigations of the new administration.

Indeed, I would be stunned if Joe did not suddenly rediscover the oversight function of his committee. At which point Reid will be powerless to stop him and we'll have Obama's entire first term devoted exclusively to answering an unending stream of subpoenas from Lieberman.

Good move, guys!

Feh. Reid is even more of a liability than Lieberman.

And of course, Lieberman will remain in charge of a committee from which he can backstab Obama with so-called "oversight" -- not that Traitor Joe exercised any over Bush.

Again: Feh.

Lieberman has them by the - er, "pair"

I would hope that the Democratic leadership is quietly courting moderate Republicans, to try to get them to go Independent and join with them. If they can turn a few, then they can show Lieberman the door.

To get rid of the slimy toad NOW would just mean that the Republicans could continue to filibuster everything, then run on the "Do nothing Democrats" message yet again.

Although it's WAY past time for the Democrats to begin pointing this out to the news media...

Shameful, just shameful. When will the Democratic establishment change? We had a successful election that revolutionized how the president is elected, a president of the people. When do we get the Democratic Congress that we deserve?

DNC email? Hit the "It is spam" button

And the Dems hope that I will transfer my fiscal support from Obama to them?

LIEberman doesn't even represent the DemocRAT constituents of his own state. Republicans elected him after he lost the primary to a candidate that truly represented the aspirations of the DemocRAT voters in Connecticut. I commented before that, as a life long liberal Democrat, I donated money for the first time to my party. If LIEberman keeps his gavel, I will donate to whichever Republican runs against Harry Reid in his re-election bid.

Lieberman is going to have to announce that do to Homeland Security reasons the United States Government will take over operations of the auto industry.

Obama, now CEO.

Senate Dems proved they were cowards in the runup to the Iraq war, and pretty much every day since. Why would they change now?

It will be nice to not have Democratic leadership focused in the Senate for the next 4-8 years. What a bunch of losers.

Maybe it's in return for Lieberman promising never to vote against his caucus. A secret deal, which if broken would mean he immediately loses his chairmanship. At least I hope so.

I won't be the first to point this out but the fact is that this would be essentially an unenforceable deal. For one thing, it really isn't so easy, by Senate rules, to remove a committee chairman in the middle of session. But the other, more important thing, is that it would be much worse politically to remove Lieberman after he starts causing more trouble. In that circumstance it ends up looking like reflexive vindictiveness or an attempt to cover up some righteous investigation. This whole thing is unbelievably pathetic really but I guess its time we come to accept that this is just who Dems are. They just don't have it in them to show any toughness or discipline. Moreover, the idea that any of them would try to sell this action as a stinging rebuke is evidence that they carry very little respect for the intelligence of anyone outside their Senate chamber. For that reason alone, they don't really deserve our respect.

They are who they are. We are just going to have to find ways to somehow use their weakness to progressive advantage when we can and cull the weakest of them when we have the opportunity. What else can we do?

Yeah, I am sure there is a deal in place for Lieberman to vote. Deals with the GOP or independents work out so well for the Democrats. Why must we insist on being a party of losers. We are like battered wives/husbands who keep going back for more hoping it will be different this time.

This is a direct and unequivocal spitting in the face of the many thousands of volunteers and donors across the country who gave freely and enthusiastically of their time and money to help elect Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and hundreds of other Democrats at the national, state, and local level.

Inasmuch as the Democrats and Obama himself are eager to capitulate to an individual who was directly trying to harm my own interests, I consider my contribution to the Obama campaign to be a waste of money.

The question every democratic senator in the caucus should ask is this, why is the back-biting Joe Lieberman better to have in the caucus than Al Frankin? Holy Joe could have spun his support for McCain (until it veered off into the lies and smears at least) as his principled stand to help his old friend. It's weak tea, but it's something. When he started to campaign against other democrats running for office (like Al Frankin, for example) the supposed dividends that the support of Joe's independent run in 2006 against Lamont were clearly never going to pay.

Yes, I really don't get it. Does he have photos or something he can post on YouTube if they take away his power? I understand a lot of the senators 'like' Joe. Fine. Respect would be better, but of course they don't have that. From the outside it really looks like a very high wimp factor and a real protecting the clique move. Once the deal is done we will all of course call, write, send 'where are your balls' cards, etc. I think Joe is a traitor, plain and simple. He didn't just campaign for McCain he truly badmouthed our president-elect. He's going to be a fungus that spreads and weakens the Dems.

Is it time to start the refrain "oh well, at least they're not Bush?"

Way to reward your enemies and rebuke your friends. I will remember this in 2010, assholes!

If he keeps his chairmanship the Dems are the stupidest folks going around. Joey is in no position to demand anything at all. He should loose the coveted chairmanship - no ifs-ands or butts about it. They will lose alot of respect if he keeps it - dumb asses.

It's clear smolderin joe is knit into the money stream.
There is no place to get rid of him to without denting some action.
His whole money flow has to be re-routed around him.
Takes allot of cooperation.
When the whole senate is seated and can throw some punches without the spotlights on they could easily leave ol joe head of his own ra-ra club and then dismantle dhs. He would then be ......undjoelating.

Feh. Reid is even more of a liability than Lieberman.

This is ridiculous. Reid is the cart, not the horse. Obviously we can't know for sure, but it seemed like the leadership wanted to strip Reid of the chairmanship, otherwise why go on about it at all? What happened is they don't have the votes. Once they don't have the votes, they try to save face by proposing this stupid non-punishment, but the basic problem is the Democratic caucus, not the leadership. The Senate isn't the House. You can't whip people into line on stuff like this - or, at least, it's very difficult.

The problem is the Senate, not any individual Senator.

Reid is the cart, not the horse.

Hence his title, Senate Majority Leader, right?

This is a direct and unequivocal spitting in the face of the many thousands of volunteers and donors across the country who gave freely and enthusiastically of their time and money to help elect Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and hundreds of other Democrats at the national, state, and local level.

Word. And it's done like this: "I don't know if it's enough for the net roots, but it's enough to say we stood up as Democrats."

Shorter Democratic aide: What our Democratic constituency wants matters less to us than the desires of Traitor Joe.

But what can I do? I wasn't going to vote for Evan Bayh again anyway.

The caucus needs to approve chairmanships? My understanding was that Reid could have dealt with it himself, but being the worthless spineless wuss that he is, threw it to a vote, where it becomes understandable how such a worthless spinelss wuss became majority leader.
They really should just choose Lieberman to be majority leader, because they clearly have no interest in passing the progressive agenda that voters overwhelmingly want.

Obviously we can't know for sure, but it seemed like the leadership wanted to strip Reid of the chairmanship, otherwise why go on about it at all?

I assume you meant strip Lieberman, not Reid unless there is something even bigger going on behind the scenes than we suspect.

Oh, and a commenter above made a good point about how the newly elected Senators should be allowed to vote on this--but of course they aren't all buddies with Joe and might actually hold him accountable, and we can't have that.

Everyone has their particulat favorite song. Seems as though Reid's is "Roll me over in the clover".

Quit whining and start contacting your Democratic Senators. The vote happens today, but it has not happened yet.

I've already let my two democratic Senators know my feelings on the subject through fax and email. Perhaps if enough of you contact your Senators, Joe will be out.

'it's probably best to start lowering expectations'

Sounds like a theme. Let's hope the young people who made the Obama presidency possible, won't stand for it. Some young people have to start a third party soon. The greatest country on earth is a fuckin joke. I hope to be proven wrong; I also play the lottery.

"I don't know if it's enough for the net roots, but it's enough to say we stood up as Democrats."

Yes, you stood up and gave the shameless backstabber exactly what he wants, so he can undermine your newly elected president every chance he gets--well played!
I was wrong to say they should make Lieberman majority leader, that should go to Mitch McConnell.

If Lieberman is not held accountable, then why should anyone convicted of libel or perjury receive more than a $5 fine?

If Bush is not held accountable for ordering torture, why should the torturers be punished?

If Paulson can squander $700 Billion, why should any CEO be condemned for incompetence?

Only the little people have to follow the rules. The big guys are above the law. This is the motto of the Republican party and it is now the only law of the land.

As I've said before, I think there is more going on than we in the public are aware of.

There is nothing I can think of that Lieberman would have as leverage to keep his chair - unless there is something going on we don't know about.

I also think there is a reason Obama resigned his Senate seat this past week - prior to this particular vote. By resigning when he did, he won't be involved (at least directly) in deciding Lieberman's committee chair fate.

It will be interesting to know how Biden votes though.

I know many of us are very frustrated (I for one would like to see Lieberman not only lose his DHS Committee chair status, but removed from the Democratic Senate caucus) - but I can only speculate that Obama knows what he's doing and that there is going to play out for some time.

I know that isn't much comfort to the many of us who slaved, gave money, stood out in the cold, advocating for out point of view, our rights, and getting the Republicans out of office because we thought the Democratic Party was our best chance at fixing many of the problems in this country.

But having watched this election process over the last two years, and observing Obama and how he conducts himself, I can only guess that he's letting this happen for reasons we don't as yet know, and we can only wait and see.

You have a good point, Matthew, that Lieberman doesn't have any leverage we're aware of, and that something else could very well be going on here.

Agreed that Obama has proven to be amazingly canny, even while we doubted, and he's turned out to be right so far. This doesn't mean that he's not human, but I want to trust him and I hope and pray you are right.

i'm starting my list of senators up for reelection so i can save up for my contributions to their opponents.

Democrats are lucky there aren't any viable alternatives to them. Buyer's remorse and they ain't even sworn in yet.

"I don't know if it's enough for the net roots, but it's enough to say we stood up as Democrats."

If I wanted Republicans in control, I would have voted for Republicans. The Democrats should sit down until they are ready to move the country in a different direction.

I got a response back from Sen. Feinstein that said that a decision about committee chairmanships will not be made until the next Congress is convened. So does this mean that Joe will "keep" his chairmanship until the new Senators come in and they reshuffle all of the chairs?

And they wonder why I kept ignoring all those DSCC requests for money.

WTF, Senate Democrats? Seriously, WTF?

I got a response back from Sen. Feinstein that said that a decision about committee chairmanships will not be made until the next Congress is convened. So does this mean that Joe will "keep" his chairmanship until the new Senators come in and they reshuffle all of the chairs?

No. It means what you probably already suspected it does. It means that Dianne Feinstein is trying to deceive you. She knows quite well that the key vote is this week. Committee chairmen established now will be Committee chairmen in the new session. She is using a technicality to avoid making it look like she is making a firm decision now. I hope that you are not shocked by that act of political cowardice.

Forget Lieberman, it's time for Reid to go. My money goes to his opponent, primary or general, regardless of party.

We wouldn't be discussing Lieberman is Reid had even the tiniest drop of leadership in him. He doesn't.

Go to hell, Harry.

This kind of crap is why I am no longer a Dem but an Independent. I will never give money to the Dems until they get some spine (been waiting for decades now). I wrote and called my Senators and some others but what we really need is new leadership in the Dem party. Where is LBJ?

Let's see if Reid stacks the Democratic side of the Homeland Security Committee with members who won't go along with any Lieberman shenanigans, effectively putting the chairman in the minority of his own committee. Also, let's see whether some aspects of this panel's brief -- especially investigations -- are moved to other committees.

"Forget Lieberman, it's time for Reid to go."

Hope a Dump Reid campaign starts.

Maybe Connecticut voters will see fit to remove his committee assignments in 2010.

Democrats seem perfectly content with "more of the same" even assuming Obama isn't.