Lieberman watch

Last night, watching Evan Bayh on Rachel Maddow's show, he kinda sorta had me convinced.

This morning, Steve Benan provides a useful correction.

This, in other words, would be a conditional chairmanship. There are at least two main problems with this approach.

First, it extends Lieberman a benefit of the doubt that he clearly hasn't earned. What makes Bayh, or anyone else, think Lieberman will suddenly start acting sensibly, especially after what we've seen of him over the last two years?

And second, I wonder what happens if, in six months, Lieberman starts launching partisan witch hunts against the Obama White House, and Senate Dems decide it's time to take Lieberman's gavel away. How's that going to look? An independent senator starts asking pesky questions of a Democratic president and White House allies decide to sack the one doing the asking?

The rumor swirling around Westchester, NY Republican circles is that fellow Westchester resident, Hillary Clinton, is going to lead all kinds of investigations into Obama's campaign financing. Why they believe that, I have no idea. After all, what would she gain? Revenge for not helping her unload her campaign debt?

Lieberman, on the other hand, has all kinds of incentive (ego, bitterness, anger at the party, etc.), and his perch on Homeland Security gives him incredible latitude.

Strip him of the chairmanship, but let him stay in the caucus and keep his seniority. If that generous compromise pisses him off and he leaves, fine, but I suspect he will stay and will begin focusing on his own reelection. If he wants to snipe at Obama and his fellow Dems -- again -- fine, as long as he doesn't have much power to launch witch hunts. Such sniping will get him on the Sunday Morning Idiot Shows. It won't help him get reelected.

And Bayh's fear that Lieberman would retire and CT Gov. Rell would then appoint a Republican just shows Bayh doesn't know Holy Joe very well.

UPDATE: And yes, Rachel Maddow is worthy of worship.