I'm not sure what your point is. There is nothing wrong with supporting someone who is not of your own party. Yes I'm mad a Lieberman but I'm actually pretty proud of the Dems sticking together (more or less) and not playing childish political games (at least the leaders). A few months ago Patrick E. had a post, asking each of us to name something we liked about the other party. Since I'm pretty much a Dem, the comment I made about the Republicans was that I liked the way they were unified (or something along those lines). Sure there are some wayward Dems, and I like that, too. Everyone has a voice and aren't lock-step behind the party leaders (like the Republicans in Congress were behind Bush).

Kicking Lieberman out of the Dem caucus causes more problems than it's worth. I think keeping him in is a great long term strategy. And what's more is that this shows that the Dems in Congress can disagree and won't have to fear losing their assignments or other political retribution. I'd like to remind point out that under Bush everyone was a “yes man” (or woman) and no one dared be a contrarian, lest they fall out of favor and be shown to the door faster than you can say, “lickety split”. We see where that sort of leadership got us….. one big mess after another.

If we want open and honest dialogue then the conditions need to exist to foster that environment. Obama is doing a pretty good job so far, and he hasn't even been sworn in yet. This is the change Washington needs. Not many people want the political bickering to continue.

But, Democrats also can't afford to alienate him, as they only have a short window of opportunity to get things done before voters start holding them accountable.

Because he's being held in high glory for cavorting with the Rovian pool of sharks, I smell dirty politics at hand…on the dem side of the aisle. In fact, you can use as a litmus test exactly who are wolves in sheep's clothing by who stands to support Lieberman's retention vs who is outraged by it..

“We're making a list, checking it twice..gonna find out who's naughty and nice..”

Also, the Democrats do not need Lieberman more than he needs them. The magic 60 numbers has to do with filibusters, not actual votes. The Maine RINOs will almost certainly oppose filibusters of Democratic bills – and blue dogs will never join in to filibuster Democratic bills. This isn't the old Dixiecrat gang. Lieberman will also not likely back filibusters of domestic policy bills.

But if Lieberman quit the Democratic caucus, he would have no authority whatsoever. And he'd get killed in Connecticut in 2012 if he became a Republican.

I think the Dems should work out a swap of some sort. They should give Lieberman the chairmanship of some other reasonably important committee (not subcommittee) and replace him on the Government Oversight committee.

Seems like I've heard that somewhere before…