This stance is a stark divergence from the Obama camp's policy well publicized aversion to drama within the ranks during the campaign.  If one thinks of the Democratic senators and representatives as part of a "team" the way a campaign is--focused on attaining an objective, then one would want to minimize drama at the top rung (committee chairmanships, majority leaders, and so on.  The Obama team certainly did this to wide acclaim during the campaign. Ant they are now saying they will be approaching governance with the same framework of energizing the electorate via the internet, and all the other innovative techniques they developed during the campaign. 

Contrast with the no-drama Obama approach to Lieberman's approach to Senatorial dialogue and debates over issues.  First, the undeniable: he looms large (for whatever reason) on the East Coast national newspaper/network/cable news coverage of the federal government.  Perhaps its because he makes it his business to be interviewed or appear on these shows multiple times a month. But expect him to be a dramatic anti-Obama administration presence on these shows beginning in January 2009.

What the Obama team seems to forget is Lieberman's history before 2008:  though there will be more powerful and potent Democratic committee chairs and congressional leaders, Lieberman has functioned as a one-person field of disruption ever since 1998, when he went ballistic on Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal.  Ever since then, he has been a constant presence on network/cable news shows, and thus the morning after newspaper headlines proclaiming his disdain of one Democratic position or another.  I've never seen him challenge a Republican initiative, whether foreign or domestic policy, other than in his disastrous run for Vice President in 2000.   Have you?  And even during that campaign, his opposition to the Republicans was incredibly meek.

So....if Lieberman is allowed to keep his committee chairmanship, and he will have another very prominent pedestal to proclaim his opposition to Democratic initiatives, and especially the Obama administrations attempt to develop a health care policy with or without the approval of the insurance companies.  Lieberman is deeply tied to these same insurance companies since a number of them are headquartered in Connecticut and are BIG donors to his campaigns.  Lieberman will fight tooth and nail and with every resource at his disposal to sidetrack health-care reforms that might challenge insurance company policies which focus on insuring the healthy and refusing coverage and payments to those who are ill and need care.

So why give him a bigger megaphone to proclaim his opposition to Obama's policies?  Why give him a base of power that he can use to investigate the new administration?