The Obama team finally speaks, after a couple of days of supposed behind-the-scenes lobbying on Lieberman's behalf:
"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.
Cutter's comments are the first on-the-record indication of Obama's position on the politically fraught question of what to do about Lieberman.
"President-elect Obama looks forward to working with anyone to move the country forward," Cutter continued. "We'd be happy to have Sen. Lieberman caucus with the Democrats. We don't hold any grudges."
Greg Sargent seems to take this as pro-Lieberman. I see it exactly the opposite -- it's a generic, "Reid can do what he wants in his Senate" type of statement. Nowhere does Cutter say that Lieberman should keep his chairmanship, and nowhere does he demand that Lieberman caucus with the Democrats. Saying "we'd be happy to have Sen. Lieberman caucus with the Democrats" isn't any huge shakes because, quite frankly, no one is seriously demanding that Lieberman be kicked out of the caucus.
The question is whether he should keep his committee chairmanship, and on that front, Obama's team has punted.
What's more, 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."
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.
Update: More from 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.
The key is that the decision is back in Reid's hand.
Hamsher:
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.
Amen.