If the filibuster-proof majority of 60 requires Joe Lieberman, it's not really a majority because Joe is as likely as not to vote with the Republicans. If he gets away with retaining his chairmanship, he'll be even more uncooperative than he already is. "I'll do whatever I want, and you can't stop me."

that the Democratic Party can count on Joe Lieberman to cast his vote with them ? Think he might be grateful? I'm not holding my breath.

I have donated to both the Franken and Martin campaigns. But I figure if Alaska still wants Stevens they'll say so. Yet I am glad to know the latest ballot count there.

Alex, Alex, Alex. That's a bit lazy. The Senate Dems aren't threatening to boot him from the caucus, only remove his chair. It's Lieberman's party that's been trying to confuse the issue of removing his chair with that of forcing him out of the caucus. One can only speculate as to motivation, but it seems that by confusing the issue, he can effectively spin any disaffection to the Republican caucus as being something the Democrats did to him rather than a continuation of his own petulance.

Than 60 with Lieberman holding his chairmanship position. Accountability has to start at home.

Of course 60 dems would have the discipline to all vote together. Forget it. The Dems would need like 70 seats for a majority.

Why in the hell is taking them so freakin long to count ballots, its been what 10 days and they still haven't finished counting??!! Is Sarah Palin counting them??

All the talk about sixty being some kind of magic mumber assumes that all members of both parties will vote alonfg strict party lines. Now it's true that under the Bush/CHENEY administration the Republicans did pretty much stay in lock step, especially in blocking the proposals of the new Democratic majority since the 2006 elections. But without that pressure from the White House, with an even larger Democratic majority and with an electorate that is looking for the agenda of change to be carried through and would not look kindly on obstructionism, to what degree will that still be the case? Surely there are at least a few Republicans who might be persuaded to cross party lines on significant issues, rather than be seen as preventing the measures that the new administration deems necessary to confront the economic crisis, among other things.

then they'd have to keep Joe the Schmo in line, not just in the caucus. That's no easy feat, unless you're one of his many friends in the GOP, evidently.

Lieberman will survive on the strength of Obama's call to forgive and forget alone, but the Dems will make him apologize and promise to run his committee in a more Obama-friendly manner, or else they'll strip him of the chairmanship later if he starts being too obstructionist. The Dems will have a caucus of 59, and some moderate GOP Senators to play along on most issues, which will be good enough about 90-95% of the time, so reaching the magic number of 60 won't matter.

Lieberman, in effect, will be on probation. He'll still caucus with the Dems. Other than on national security issues, he votes with them the overwhelming majority of the time. He's a reliable Dem vote on domestic social and economic issues. Why would they piss him off just out of spite? And why would Joe bolt to the weak GOP, a group that could offer him nothing and a move that would seriously endanger his seat in CT?

Burying the hatchet and compromise will benefit everyone in this situation. Lieberman knows he has a weak hand, and Obama knows he has him by the balls, more or less, so why force some ugly public party disownment during the transition? That would be bad PR that they all want to avoid.

Several things are getting conflated here:

1. Number of people in the Democratic caucus vs. number of votes on any given issue.

2. Lieberman being allowed to continue as chair of Homeland Security, vs. his continuing to caucus with the Democrats.

3. Lieberman's caucusing with the Democrats vs. Lieberman's voting with the Democrats.

For my money, there is no advantage for the Democrats in keeping Lieberman in his position as chair of the Homeland Security committee, and several advantages to ousting him -- such as replacing him with a competent chair for this very powerful committee. This is why I have written my Senators and urged them to join in ousting him from his chairmanship. Whether he caucuses with the Democrats or votes with the Democrats on any given vote is up to him. But he must not be allowed to exercise so much power over the Democratic leadership.

Grampa died last week

And now he's buried in the rocks

Everybody still talks about

How badly they were shocked

But me, I expected it to happen

I knew he lost control

When he built a fire on mainstreet

And shot it full of holes

Bob Dylan