I understand what you're getting at and to some extent I agree with you, but I think a few of your thoughts are a bit out of line with the reality of the situation.

Working backwards, you pointed out that the time to deal with Lieberman is during the election... Only true to the extent that the people of the state of Connecticut are the only arbiters of Senator Lieberman's fate. And that's just not true. After all, Joe was a Democrat until a few years ago when he ran in and lost a Democratic Primary. When Connecticut's Democrats spoke their minds through the system available to them, Joe didn't like the answer and adjusted accordingly. He opted to run as an Independent in the general election and accepted the comfort and support of Republicans along the way. He was democratically elected by the people of Connecticut and he serves as their representative, but that doesn't mean that he earned the right to caucus with Senate Dems or to serve as a Committee Chair. He left the Democratic Party and endorsed the Republican Nominee for President! Technically speaking, he doesn't deserve to be a Committee Chair on the grounds that his party isn't in power in the Senate. Short of attempted expulsion (which no one has suggested he deserves), he really doesn't have any room to complain about whatever happens to him. Our actions have consequences.

"Personally, I think stripping him of his chairmanship will have few positive consequences and will probably cause the republicans to dig in and man their trenches in preparation for a partisan congress."

They're going to do this anyway. That is what makes them "more effective" as an opposition party than Democrats will ever be. Setting aside the few GOP moderates left in Congress, the folks that are left have no qualms about being downright obstructionist, and if the media is unwilling to call their tactics a filibuster by name, it is up to the Dem Leadership to spotlight this behavior. But make no mistake about it, if you look at the leadership transition taking place in the GOP right now, their response to the election is to move further to the right. They'll kick and scream and cry "partisanship" from here to January 20th, and then spend the next 4 years calling Barack Obama a hypocrit and a typical politician. They're writing his legacy right now: Empty promises. Naive. False hope. Status quo. Changed by Washington. It will be up to Senator Obama and the Dem leadership to get things done and deliver. It will be up to his supporters to mobilize and be vocal in supporting that change. Allowing Lieberman or the GOP to hold us hostage with threats of crying Partisanship is a foolish trap. Obama could achieve every single goal he ever set out and the talking points on the right won't change. Good governance that gets results is the only shield against them.

"He is a sitting senator and America has, honest to god, real humongous problems to deal with. Time to grow up and realize that every vote in the senate should be courted with frantic zeal, especially those that aren't already under the democratic umbrella."

There is something to be said for the lost art of creating a good agenda, drafting coherent legislation to support it, and making a case directly to the American people. I agree that our challenges are daunting. I agree that it will take some hard work and some strenuous effort and some compromise and some bending over backwards to make it happen in the current political climate. But if Barack Obama or Harry Reid has to spend the next four years kissing Joe Lieberman's ass to get enough votes to pass a bill or to invoke cloture, what the hell were the last two years about? What happened on Tuesday? What does any of it mean? If Joe Lieberman has any commitment to (upper AND lower-case D) democratic ideals, he will support the policies he believes in, vigorously oppose the ones he doesn't believe in, and let the chips fall where they may. But he made the choices he made for a reason. Either he thought John McCain was the best person for the job, or he thought McCain was the most likely to get elected. Maybe both. But either way, he went beyond voting for McCain, beyond supporting him, beyond endorsing him, all the way to directly attacking Barack Obama, speaking at the GOP convention, and campaigning for McCain and down-ticket Republicans. When you add that to the fact that he set aside the will of his Democratic constituents in the service to his own interests, I don't think the man has any room to do anything but take his medicine. Life cannot be lived without consequences.

My initial post may have left a few question marks on the table as to how I see the future of Lieberman in the senate. I am by no means advocating that the democratic majority submit itself to the mercy of Lieberman or the republican party. In fact, the democrats have a golden opportunity to not have to water down their legislation by some "middle of the road" compromise that does little in terms of problem-solving.

"Your post and thoughts reveal a basic lack of understanding of politics and represent a naive approach to a very serious problem. To ignore Lieberman's behavior and actions in how he labled our president as dangerous, reckless and a threat to our security is to accept politics as usual. He certainly can say and do what he wants but he must be accountable for these actions."

Pick your damn battles. He has no leverage as it is. If he doesn't want to play ball on something, cut him loose and get the votes you need somewhere else. But there is no reason to go on some righteous crusade against him just out of spite and pride. The fact that you consider Lieberman a serious problem negates any condescending nonsense you threw my way. Your inflated indignation at something that has been apart of the political process (even though it by no means should) speaks for itself.

What do you gain from shaming Lieberman for his obnoxious and insulting comments? I guess you set an example that such behavior is unacceptable under the democratic standard. I am myself not sure whether such a statement is worth going after Lieberman for. Maybe it is, but it is downright stupid to do it on the grounds of reclaiming lost pride or whatever.

Again, I am in no way saying that Lieberman should get any influence in the senate apart from what he already has with his one vote. It is foolish to throw that vote away if all you gain in return is some fleeting feeling of having been avenged. Now I, as the commentator above said, would hope that Lieberman votes for what is right without care for his own status but he has shown himself to be rather gutless.

He should lose his position as Chairman of that
committee but offered a less important one. Put another way, there should be a consequence for his behavior but not driven from party. If he decides for himself to cross the aisle so be it. But if he wants to stay and behaves himself there should be a pathway back to his former level.

Do we really need a paperweight that size?