Jonathan raises the possibility that by giving Lieberman a pass, Obama could be operating on the assumption that he'll "have an easier go in forwarding his legislative agenda in the Senate with Lieberman beholden to him than Lieberman weaker, but mad at him."

First, there's really no evidence to support an assumption that Lieberman will feel either constrained or in debt now that Obama's allowed him to keep his gavel. Why? Because given his past actions, there's no reason to imagine Lieberman will finally start operating in good faith. For example, after Obama campaigned for Lieberman in his primary against Lamont and then stayed almost completely out of the general election, Joe certainly didn't act like like he owed his seat to Obama. Quite the contrary: Lieberman proceeded to endorse McCain and smear Obama throughout the Presidential election.

I also don't agree that "Lieberman could make Obama's life more difficult as an angry gadfly (a Tom Coburn, as it were) than he would as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee." Had Lieberman been stripped of his Homeland Security chair, he would not have bolted to the Republican caucus (where he'd have less power). Rather, it was only an empty threat meant to sidetrack the traditional media. There's simply no way Lieberman would have started voting like a Republicans on more issues than he does now. But he would have been without subpoena power.

As I and others (including Josh Marshall and Jane Hamsher) have argued, the best governing decision would have been to replace Lieberman as chairman, since he's actually done a pretty awful job. Instead, Lieberman's record was ignored, and his dirty, gutter political tactics were condoned.

Sounds like someone missed a few hugs:

Asked what it would mean if Lieberman kept his chairmanship, one Senate Democratic aide said bluntly: "The left has been foiled again. They can rant and rage but they still do not put the fear into folks to actually change their votes. Their influence would be in question."

This "aide" volunteered a fairly profound confusion about why he believes we oppose Lieberman keeping his gavel; they seem to think this is just about being a reactionary pain.

Politics is not a game. And the opposition to Lieberman remaining chair of Homeland Security is grounded in a belief that the Connecticut independent will continue to abdicate his responsibility and undermine our party if he keeps his gavel.

But the substance of the disagreement is ignored.

Confusing your friends with your opponents is one of the worst mistakes you can make in politics.

And the sun will rise in the morning:

According to sources familiar with negotiations, Democrats are expected to vote in favor of letting the Connecticut senator keep his chairmanship and seniority, but give up the gavel on a subcommittee he chairs. The vote happens tomorrow morning by secret ballot.

The tide turned in Lieberman's favor, sources say, after two events in recent weeks.  First, President-elect Obama told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that he wanted Lieberman to stay in the Democratic caucus. Later, in a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Lieberman told him it would be "unacceptable" for him to give up his gavel. That was considered by some as a veiled threat that Lieberman would jump to caucus with Republicans if he was forced to give up the gavel.

Obama tipped the scales in Lieberman's favor, one source said. The source essentially explained it like this: If the wrath was directed at Obama and got over it, shouldn't the Democratic caucus do the same?

If this happens, Joe Lieberman will walk away as the most clever politician in all Washington. He played a game of chicken and won.

Tomorrow, Democrats will vote on whether Joe Lieberman should remain chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs - the Senate's major good-government investigative body.

The case for removing Joe is sober and obvious. But keeping Joe as chair requires resorting to the type of political game-playing Americans are ready to move past.

But given his record, playing politics is Joe's only hope.

Lieberman's actually been a lousy chairman. Booted from the Democratic party during the 2006 Connecticut primary, Lieberman ran and won re-election in as an independent - in part on a promise to investigate Bush Administration conduct, such as the horrific response to Hurricane Katrina. But he didn't, abdicating his committee's investigative responsibility.

Then, this election cycle, Lieberman viciously attacked Democrats and Democratic policy.

Stump with McCain in competitive states throughout the country? Yes. Lie about Obama's record in his RNC speech? Yes. Defend Republican Senator Norm Coleman against challenger Al Franken? Yes. "Fear" for his country if Democrats reach 60 Senate seats? Yes. Is Obama a socialist Marxist? It's a "good question," answered Lieberman.

Taking Joe's gavel is a no-brainer. He's certainly free to caucus with Democrats, but there's just no substantive reason he should remain chair of such a powerful committee. Remember, Lieberman is chair of this committee solely because of the seniority he enjoys from the party he smeared.

So Lieberman is desperately playing politics in an attempt to maintain his position of power. He's framing the debate as party retribution, cravenly accusing his fellow Democrats of holding a grudge against him for doing, ostensibly, what he thought was right. Lieberman calculates that if he can turn the tables and dishonestly accuse everyone else of playing politics, he might just save himself.

It's garbage. It's Lieberman who exploited partisanship. His actions blew past the line of what's acceptable after he lied to his colleagues about how he'd behave during the election. Senators Leahy, Dorgan, and Sanders have all said what we know is true - Joe's conduct was unacceptable, and he knew what he was getting himself into.

As Greg Sargent noted last week on Talking Points Memo:

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.

Senators shouldn't bow to Lieberman's threats - how Democrats govern going forward it too important. Relieving Lieberman of his Homeland Security gavel is a logical, responsible remedy; letting him remain chair only perpetuates the kind of fictitious political game-playing the American people voted to end on November fourth.

It's not all that surprising, but apparently a recent Wall Street Journal article that said Obama is "unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies" was, well...wrong.

From Obama's interview on 60 Minutes last night, (via Thinkprogress):

   CBS: There are a number of different things you can do early on pertaining to executive orders.

   OBAMA: Right.

   CBS: One of them is to shut down Guantanamo Bay. Another is to change interrogation methods that are used by U.S. troops. Are those things that you plan to take early action on?

   OBAMA: Yes. I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that. I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture, and I'm going to make sure that we don't torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world.

As Obama transitions from campaign to governance, there will be plenty of speculation about what he will or will not do as President. And often, stories will blindly cite "advisers" or "aides" as sources to confirm his intent. And while sometimes the stories will be accurate, this example certainly serves as a reminder that sometimes they won't be.

Technically an independent, Sanders caucuses with the Dems. And doesn't hedge (via email):

"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 said.

"Appointing someone to a major post who led the opposition to everything we are fighting for is not `change we can believe in.' 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."

Sanders commented after Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, responded to a question about Lieberman during an appearance on the Vermont Public Radio program "Vermont Edition."

The Village can wring their hands, but relieving Joe of his chairmanship is a meaningful, important remedy. Maybe people are still in campaign mode, but not everything is one-dimensional political theater. This is governance.

Update [2008-11-14 17:53:18 by Josh Orton]: Greg Sargent, who's been right on top of this, makes a great point:

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.

A big step: Leahy, chair of the powerful Judiciary Committee, has come out against Lieberman keeping his gavel atop Homeland Security (via TPM):

"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."

Leahy nails it: in any normal world, it makes perfect sense for Lieberman to lose his chairmanship of such a powerful committee. But this is Lieberworld, where comity always comes first, and bad faith is ignored willfully.

Remember - Lieberman is chair of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs committee specifically because of his seniority in the Democratic party. Does it really make sense for him to continue enjoying that same seniority in the party he attacked? And atop the committee whose subject matter he used as ammunition?

And on her show last night, Rachel Maddow delivers the succinct argument for why Lieberman probably can't be trusted with subpoena power:

Marc Ambinder rolls his eyes at us:

This is a fun distraction, but isn't the bloggy left having a major overreaction to the idea of keeping Lieberman in his current position?

It's true that he'll have subpoena power over the new administration, but the idea that he'll be a serious political player in the coming term is frankly laughable.

If Joe Lieberman wants to wage a one-man crusade against President Obama, he can certainly do so, but it's hard to imagine him winning such a fight, or even making himself look good by losing.

Most likely, Obama will bring Lieberman back into the fold graciously, and he'll vote with the Democrats, and occasionally go on Meet The Press to express his disappointment about something or other.

He seems to enjoy being a scold, but there's no evidence he has the the belly to be Ken Starr.

It's amazing: even after Lieberman's operated in bad faith for years, there are still some who insist on pretending he'll start acting differently.

It won't happen - Lieberman has spent the last two years positioning himself as a contrarian power-broker, and he's not going to stop now. In fact, if the Democratic caucus ignores what Joe did during the election, it might embolden him more. Why wouldn't it? Lieberman smeared Democrats up and down this cycle, and yet anyone in a position to notice insists on jamming their heads in the sand.

And by the way - no one's saying that Lieberman is the next Ken Starr. But it's undeniable that Joe waged a full-frontal assault on his party's credibility, and yet he'll return to his gavel and subpoena power under the seniority he enjoys in that very party.

Anyone that assumes Lieberman is as classy as Hagel - i.e. someone who expresses "disappointment" without acting maliciously - is in denial.