The consequence is in the future, isn't it? Unless you think Kennedy hasn't resigned his seat as a result of the 2004 law, it's all potential consequences, right?

"But [the bank-breaking option] poses an unacceptable risk of destroying the world economy."

That's not my position, I think that's the Treasury argument, which they could make more persuasively. Hopefully Geithner's announcements today will help.

If he can successfully steer the remains of Merrill, the B of A investment banking division, back to profitability over the next few years, then he should be rewarded. But not now, with taxpayer dollars that he won't even use for their intended purpose.

We're already getting full-compromise, half-useful policies with a Democratic Congress and a Republican President. Let's wait till we've spent our political capital on real progressive policies before we start negotiating with the right.

I'm not sure that's true. Certainly, one can ask for a specific answer, but why should Obama give one? Reid, and by extension Obama, hold all the cards in this situation.

If Joe leaves the caucus, Joe and the caucus lose. Sure, he's a disgrace, but he's going to be a senator for a while and we could use his vote.

The President-Elect isn't thinking about punishing Joe for disloyalty - that won't accomplish anything. If Lieberman gets to keep his chairmanship, and stays in the caucus, who has more power, Lieberman or Reid? Maybe Reid won't exercise that power if Joe is out of line. But in that case I think the new President would provide some guidance in how to resolve such a problem.