"...Time and again, he’s been there when we’ve needed him."

The flat and immediate denial of any action against Senator Lieberman is nothing short of appalling, and it calls into great doubt the leadership of the Democratic Party in the Senate (doubt that has been commonly held here since this Congress was installed in January '07).

Senator Durbin, according to the frontpage diary by Kos, made a statement that needs to be closely scrutinized, for it reveals him either to be (a) disingenuous or (b) a complete fool.

Consider the following:

"We have one difference of opinion, maybe two with Sen. Lieberman," said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a prominent supporter of Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) presidential candidacy. "As a whip, I can tell you time and again, he’s been there when we’ve needed him."

Lieberman's supporters, both in the media and the Senate, have flogged ad nauseum the notion that Lieberman is essentially a liberal, with the sole and high-profile exception of the war.

At one point, that might be valid, although even that notion makes the fundamental error of presuming all policy positions are created equal, and ceaseless cheerleading for the war was somehow equivalent to opposing agricultural subsidies.

That all changed in December of 2007. Lieberman took his apostasy to a new level by endorsing John McCain over his two Democratic Senate colleagues. At the time, I made the argument that Senator Reid ought to expel Lieberman from the Democratic ranks.

In the comments to that diary (one of my first to hit the rec list, which was rather heartening), many people assailed my call for retaliation, saying it would be reckless, given the peril of a Lieberman party switch.

That argument (a weak one in any event, I believe) does not bear fruit in 2009. Democrats will almost certainly have a larger Senate majority in 2009. Even if Lieberman were to defect to the GOP, it would not impact Democratic majority status.

But that's neither here nor there. Lieberman's actions in the past four months (since I wrote that diary) have turned his explusion from the Democratic caucus in the Senate from a justifiable punishment to a MORAL IMPERATIVE

Senator Reid and Durbin--we have been incredibly patient with you. We have received almost NOTHING that was promised to us in 2006, when we worked like hell, donated millions of dollars, and voted en masse to give you the keys to the U.S. Senate.

We have endured the disappointment of inaction, because we have been told by you and others ad nauseum that the true barrier to progress and action is an obstructionist president unwilling to compromise or meet you halfway.

Well, gentlemen, one of the men in your caucus is working round the clock (forsaking his day job) to give that obstructionist president a proxy third term. If Joe Lieberman is successful in his tireless efforts to elect a Republican president, nothing will change in 2009. Your majority, already characterized by its almost painful timidity, will be rendered completely inert.

And your collective and stubborn refusal to hold Lieberman accountable for his apostasy speaks volumes of your own character, sirs. You would rather keep the inside-the-beltway sewing circle intact than take a stand that might cost you a colleague, but gain you a working majority, rather than the paralysis we suffer through today.

Shame on both of you. Absent a major change in direction on this issue, I would not expect progressive Democrats to write many checks to the DSCC. We are learning the true value of a Democratic Senate majority under your "bold" leadership.