So we now have an on-the-record statement from the Obama transition team, by way of TPM:
President-Elect Barack Obama doesn't "hold any grudges" against Senator Joe Lieberman for opposing his presidential candidacy, and will not take any position on the question of whether Lieberman should be permitted to keep his plum chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee, an Obama spokesperson just confirmed to us.
"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.
snip
"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."
...and then, after the fold, Greg Sargent proceeds to overinterpret this statement beyond all recognition...
"The move is all but certain to take the steam out of any efforts to dislodge Lieberman from the committee"
Greg (and kos, apparantly), are well on their way to a state of righteous indignation over what has not been said by the Obama campaign - indeed the position as stated by Stephanie Cutter above approaches the consensus of the netroots: Lieberman should not be excluded from the caucus.
Committee chair? They're not discussing that - it's a matter for the Senate Democrats to decide, but Sargent is quite ready to read anything out of white space.
To the extent that Obama should be involved in this matter, he is uniquely able to demonstrate that the Democrats are not going to strip Lieberman of his standing simply in a retaliatory manner. Whether or not doing so would be justified, it would not play well with the media. Moderates are anticipating a bi/non/unpartisan introduction to the new presidency, and avoiding the appearance of vindictiveness costs progressives/core democrats absolutely nothing of their agenda. If Lieberman is welcome within the caucus, but the Senate itself decides to shift committee roles - perhaps by elvating a high-profile name to Lieberman's chair as a reward and as a means of shifting the narrative from a chastisement of Lieberman - then we accomplish what kos and Sargent intend without the political fallout.
Why get angry over Obama not taking a position that so clearly fell outside of his narrative?
Why suggest that he is taking a position that he explicitly avoided? This is one way rumors gain immortality - when a halfway plausible story becomes a matter of interpretation rather than being soberly evaluated by fact. Greg and kos are presently stirring up the netroots to no positive effect against Obama. I hope that they change their target back to those deserving: call your senator and work to remove Joe Lieberman from his chairmanship.
-------------------
In a pleasant update: kos' perspective on this statement is similar to mine.