Maybe brohuha over Lieberman's fate is really a test of Harry Reid's leadership?

[Larkspur]

Kos has a diary, Obama team leaves Lieberman decision up to Reid, that makes me think that Obama and the Senate Dems are using Lieberman as a measuring stick to judge Harry Reid's leadership. If Reid does not punish Lieberman in some significant way, then Reid is basically saying that Democrats can trash Democrats and betray the pary with inpunity. Rewarding treachery by allowing Lieberman to retain his plum committee chair and act like nothing happened sends the signal that Harry Reid is no leader.

Here's the excerpts from linked articles in Kos' diary that make me think Lieberman is really a test for Harry Reid's leadership abilities

Obama's spokesperson

"We aren't going to referee decisions about who should or should not be a committee chair," Obama transition spokesperson Stephanie Cutter emailed me, in response to questions about Obama's stance on Lieberman's future.

here's Hillary Clinton

Two Clinton aides said she is not making calls on Lieberman's behalf. "Hillary isn't doing anything," one said. "She is leaving it up to Reid."

Kos: So Obama's team has left the decision up to Reid. Clinton -- who serves on the steering committee that decides committee leadership -- has left it up to Reid.

It's on Reid's plate. If Lieberman keeps his committee leadership, it'll be Reid's fault. Everyone has dumped the decision on his lap, and it should be an easy enough one to make.

More from Greg Sargent

My take: By taking no position, Obama is in effect throwing the decision over to Senator Harry Reid, making it possible for the Senate to take action against Lieberman. But his statement -- paradoxically -- could also give cover to those who want to do nothing about him, making it easier for him to hang on to the post.

And Jame Hamsher has the key analysis.

One point I think needs to be made. This isn't about Joe Lieberman maintaining membership in a country club as a matter of feel-good "bipartisanship." There's actually a job that needs doing here, and when Chris Dodd and Evan Bayh say that they want Lieberman to retain his chairmanship, they are saying that the extraordinary waste, graft, greed and cronyism that have built the Department of Homeland Security to a bloated, ineffectual taxpayer-funded behemoth under Joe Lieberman is just fine.

[TwilightZone]

1. I think it's simply good-cop, bad-cop.

By staying neutral, Obama can look like the good guy and the "uniter".

[Parche]

2. Just kick his a$$ to the floor

no pun intended


we dont need him anymore
he has been a repube whore
when he talks he is such a droopy dawg bore
I dont care what that fukwad would want
He should have lost his Senate race to Ned Lamont

:woohoo:

[asdjrocky]

3. And here's what LBJ said-

It's better to have your enemies inside the tent pissing out, then outside the tent pissing in.

PE Obama is a student of history and I think he took this LBJ quote to heart, and I think he knows exactly what he's doing. Also, I think Reid is going to take PE Obama's lead on this.

[Larkspur]

5. Lieberman can continue caucusing with the Dems. He just can't have his chair

in Homeland Security committee. Lieberman has not done the tough work of investigating the corruption of Homeland Security under Bush and most likely will not. If Obama really wants to save $ in the budget, Homeland Security should be his first stop.

[SoFlaJet]

4. Homeland Security

sounds so very Germany 1933

[AtomicKitten]

6. Strip him of leadership but let him stay in the caucus to vote with the Dems.

I think that's the best solution so as not to cut off our nose to spite our face.

[jobycom]

7. Good analysis. Two other points.

One, Obama does not want to start his presidency by calling for the ouster of a senior senator. The media would question whether it was revenge or justice and try to portray Obama as a vigilante who trucks no disagreement, and that goes against the image Obama has created for himself. He would lose political capital by taking a stand either way, so he stays out of it. Wisely.

Two, Reid is more worried about himself than Lieberman, and should be. There will be a power struggle in January in the Senate, whether or not it is public. Reid has to figure out who will side with the attack, which direction it is coming from, and how Lieberman fits in. He could make more enemies by retaining Lieberman than by ousting him, but by ousting him he could feed an opposition who might convince Lieberman to side with them. Reid has to juggle those two possibilities, figure out which is best for him, and choose.

And I think if he chooses wrongly, he's done as leader. So everyone is leaving this up to him. I think he has to oust Lieberman or he loses the party and the voters, so I think he's probably just making sure he has the troops to do what he has to do. And that will be difficult, because no one is going to commit until Reid does.

So, yeah, this is the test for Reid, and Obama needs to stay as far away from it as possible. IMHO.