The analogy between Lieberman's defection from the Democratic Party in 2006, and track record of working fiercely and recklessly against the party's presidential nominee, on the one hand, and a few votes by other Democratic senators that happened to displease the party's progressive base, on the other, is not at all a tight one.

The most important thing to remember is that Lieberman is no longer a Democrat, and hasn't been since 2006. Why is he being rewarded by the Democrats with committee chairmanships of any kind? Barack Obama is planning to work very constructively with reasonable Republican leaders in Congress, as is his wont and appeal. But I haven't noticed anyone offering to give those leaders committee chairmanships.

As I noted in a comment on one of MJ's posts, many people at home and abroad constantly look to the US president and the leadership of the US government for signs of strength and signs of weakness. Failing to punish Lieberman for such brazen and egregious acts of betrayal would be a clear sign of weakness. It would tell wavering moderates in the middle and wavering progressives on the left that the Democratic Party lacks the commitment and leadership to enforce even the most elementary forms of party discipline, and will roll over even for people who attack the party and its entire agenda frontally and dishonestly. No one would have any confidence in the ability of the Democratic Party-lead Obama legislative coalition to hang together during tough times.

I can imagine such wavering politicians saying, "I simply can't trust you. I remember that a guy who was once in your own party (i) abandoned your party, and ran against and defeated your party's Senate candidate, (ii) opposed your presidential candidate and campaigned against him, (iii) appeared and spoke at your opponents' convention, (iv) suggested your presidential candidate might be a Marxist, (v) suggested your opponent might be a secret Muslim, lying about his religion. And I remember that you then rewarded this fellow with a committee chairmanship! How can I trust you to defend me when my opponents stick a bayonet in my back when you won't even defend yourselves when someone sticks a bayonet in your back?"

This whole situation is quite absurd. Why is there even a discussion about Lieberman? He didn't just cross party lines to vote with Republicans on a few votes. He actively campaigned against the Democratic presidential candidate, who represents a mainstream Democratic agenda, and campaigned for his opponent, who represents a mainstream Republican agenda. And in doing this, he did not adopt a classy Powell-like position of respectful dissent, but lent his support to some of the sleaziest and most demeaning anti-Obama tactics that were being employed. What further evidence is needed to demonstrate that this guy is just not on our side. This goes way beyond a FISA vote or an Alito vote. He cast a vote for an entire competing agenda!

Obama called for Lieberman to stay in the caucus, but rather notably did not call for Lieberman to keep his chairmanship. That was quite telling, and to my mind sent a pretty clear message about Obama's preference.

For the sake of the success Obama administration, Lieberman has to be demoted from his chairmanship. If he is not, the failure to do so will send a very powerful and dispiriting signal of abject Democratic weakness and dependency, and will threaten the Obama agenda.

Dan:

I think your passage which I quote below crystallizes the issue which leads me to the position that Senator Lieberman should be removed from his chairmanship, even though I have vascillated on whether allowing him to remain would be a smart political move in the long-run. You write:

"Why is there even a discussion about Lieberman? He didn't just cross party lines to vote with Republicans on a few votes. He actively campaigned against the Democratic presidential candidate, who represents a mainstream Democratic agenda, and campaigned for his opponent, who represents a mainstream Republican agenda".

As you write, this is not about Senator Lieberman's voting record per se, which is really in line with the voting records of most of his Democratic colleagues--apart from the Iraq War which I don't mean to discount by any stretch of the imagination. Other than Iraq, however, I would venture to say that, for the most part, his voting record on Israel is probably pretty much the same as Obama's was, and, more importantly at least in the short-run, his voting record on front-burner domestic issues like the economy and healthcare are much like his Democratic colleagues, including Obama's.

Still, I think I am becoming more and more convinced that the Democrats need to remove Leberman from the chair of the HSC for the simple reason that he campaigned to defeat the Democratic candidate for president, and he did it in a way that impugned the patriotism of his Democratic colleagues, including Obama, and the base of the Democratic Party. I think the Democratic Senators need to send a strong message under these circumstances that they are not afraid to make tough decisions. Of course, it means nothing in the long-run if those same Senators retreat to do-nothing mode in the next session.

I don't agree that allowing Senator Lieberman to maintain his chairmanship sends any kind of long-term message to people around the world about how strong Obama is because President Obama will have plenty of occasions to show the world that he is a strong leader. But I think Senator Lieberman has crossed a line as you describe above and, even though it might eliminate some of the good will among those to the right of President-Elect Obama sooner than some of us who are into the unity shtick would like to see, the reality is that the good will on the right side of Obama is unlikely to stick around for the long term anyway.

Here's one centrist, pragmatic hack-like Democrat who sees merit by a whisker and a little more in unseating Senator Lieberman as chair of the HSC.

Bruce

P.S. Gotta get back to work AA. Sorry for steering this a bit off topic, which I understand to be whether Obama's 2005 Kos post on judicial appointments is a guidepost for this whole Lieberman thingie. Some might argue that it did not serve as a guide for Senator Obama himself even with respect to judicial appointments, because Obama voted against the appointment of Judge Roberts to serve as chief justice.

I don't think anybody, by virtue of an election or anything else, is entitled to the "benefit of the doubt" with regard to a lifetime Supreme Court appointment, anytime, any place. That's just horseshit, I don't care who said it. Roberts is part of the Federalists, people who believe that only the government should have rights to sue over anything involving "the commons". If this doesn't alarm you find out what "the commons" means in legal terms, and then it will alarm you. Neither Alito (scalito) or Roberts should ever have made it onto the Supreme Court, EVER.

Add me the chorus to strip Lieberman of any Democratic Party committee chairs. I even support going further and stripping him of any committee assignments.

He refused to accept the results of the Democratic primary in Connecticut and probably owes his reelection as an independent to Republicans. While I can understand (but not accept) the rationale for letting him retain his chair after that, he should have been booted when he began actively campaigning against the Democratic presidential nominee.

He is and will continue to be a problem for the Democratic caucus as long as they let him. How many favors has he already called in? How many can he have left?

Thank you for posting OBama's comments and for the link to the full discussion on Kos. It is amusing from this perspective to read the comments from some Kossacks instructing our President-elect on why his approach won't work.
We still have a lot to learn from this man.
The essence I think comes down to a decent respect for the American people. We sometimes mirror the right's division of 'real America' and 'unreal America'; we use different words like 'unenlightened' and 'low information' but the corrosive effect is similar.
As for Lieberman, he chairs a sub-committee that has seldom met and that there is no requirement for any critical legislation to pass through. He'll vote his conscience, however troubled that may be. We should do no harm to him or his position beyond what he has already done to himself. We don't need to waste that energy.

Surely there is a difference

I am not at all sure Obama sees much of a difference, to the contrary, I see much evidence that he looks at it the same way.

Obama wants Lieberman to stay with Senate Dems
By ANDREW MIGA – 2 days ago:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Obama has told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid he's not interested in seeing Democrats oust Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman from their ranks over his endorsement of Republican John McCain.

Obama told Reid in a phone conversation last week that expelling Lieberman from the Democratic caucus would hurt the message of bipartisanship and unity that he wants for his new administration, a Senate Democratic aide said Tuesday. This aide spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions were confidential.....

Obama says he won't get involved in the fight on Capitol Hill over whether Democrats should take away Lieberman's chairmanship of a key committee to punish him for backing his close friend McCain for president.

"We aren't going to referee decisions about who should or should not be a committee chair," Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said in a statement Tuesday. "President-elect Obama looks forward to working with anyone to move the country forward. We'd be happy to have Sen. Lieberman caucus with the Democrats. We don't hold any grudges."....

Lieberman Watch: Obama Says Keep Joe
By Christopher Keating on November 13, 2008, Capitol Watch, Connecticut Politics @ courant.com:

President-elect Barack Obama wants embattled U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman to remain in the Senate Democratic caucus, according to sources who have spoken to www.washingtonpost.com and www.huffingtonpost.com...

Andrew Sullivan, Daily Dish, Nov. 10 (reminder: Sullivan's a self-described conservative who likes Obama, precisely the kind of person Obama always aimed to get into a "new politics" coalition):

A reader writes...I was dead set against dealing back with Joe Leiberman. Now, I find myself thinking, well, this is what BHO might actually mean by conciliation, compassion, political-pragmatic smarts...Keeping him in the the Dems caucus indeed would signal the new politics. So, as has happened so often, Obama's temperament and judgement trumps the knee-jerk reaction.

What he really doesn't appear to want is all the attention being given to some kind of public condemnation of Lieberman. Evidence suggests to me that he thinks this way: he doesn't want revenge or vindictiveness public, I suspect he thinks that making it public is what does the most damage, as he says in the my final sentences from the Kos post (the one which gasket hates :-)) He doesn't like this kind of thing to include a big public shaming because he thinks it harms the discourse and hardens party divisions, which he wants to break down. Evidence suggests to me he thinks that kind of approach "misreads the American people," and is no way to be successful as to goals in politics.