Harry Reid and LBJ have some similarities.  Both were successful minority leaders before becoming majority leaders.  Both were considered conservative Democrats.  Both came from small towns and poor backgrounds.

Back in the 1950s, a two-thirds vote was needed to break filibusters.  So it was nearly impossible for anything on civil rights to get through the Senate.  Indeed, Johnson aligned himself with the Southern Democrats from the beginning.  And LBJ
supported the oil and gas interests in Texas.  

But Lyndon Johnson pushed through a very modest Civil Rights Act of 1957 by putting together a coalition of liberals and moderates in both parties (in those days the intraparty divisions in the Senate were as great as the divide between the
parties themselves), and overcoming a filibuster.  The Democrats had a narrow 49-47 majority back then.

There's more...

Paul Kane reports:

When Democrats gathered last week to decide the fate of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), a pair of senators-elect, Tom Udall of New Mexico and Jeff Merkley of Oregon, stepped up to offer symbolically important speeches.

[...]

But no one in the room knew, as Merkley spoke, that Lieberman had supported Merkley's opponent, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). Lieberman, through his Reuniting Our Country PAC, gave Smith's reelection bid $5,000 on Oct. 10, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.

[...]

Lieberman's support of Smith came the same weekend he wrote an op-ed in the St. Paul Pioneer Press defending Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) for his work as chairman of an investigative subcommittee on Lieberman's homeland security committee. The same day he wrote a check to Smith, Lieberman's ROC PAC gave $5,000 to Rep. Peter King, the Long Island Republican. In radio and TV appearances the final days of the campaign, Lieberman also frequently said that a Democratic majority of 60 votes, a filibuster-proof level, would be a bad thing.

Just as Joe Lieberman's support for the Republican Party greater than had previously been reported, so too is the Democrats' magnanimity greater in retrospect than it was even at the time of the vote too allow Lieberman to keep his chairmanship.

There's more...

From The Washington Post

Lieberman agreed to surrender his position on the Environment and Public Works Committee, leaving the panel and his subcommittee chairmanship there. But Lieberman will remain chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and head of the subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee that oversees air and land power issues.

[...]

The deal was negotiated by Sens. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), as well as Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.).

The Democratic caucus voted 42-13 to accept it. Those voting included the six incoming senators for the 111th Congress. Obama has already resigned his seat and Vice-President-elect Joe Biden (D-Del.) was not present.

[...]

In a more than two-hour meeting inside the Old Senate Chamber of the Capitol, where 19th century compromises were hatched, Lieberman offered apologies for some of his remarks during the campaign.

"There are some that I made that I wish I had never made at all," Lieberman said later.

It appears as though four in five Democrats in the United States Senate are content with their committee leadership including a member who actively campaigned not only for the Republican Presidential nominee but also Republican Senators up for reelection this fall. I knew the Senate was a collegial place... I just didn't know it was this collegial.

There's more...

A stunning rebuke of Joe Lieberman from the man who chaired his 2004 Presidential campaign:

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), a close ally of Sen. Joe Lieberman, said the Connecticut Independent should pay a price for his campaign attacks against President-elect Barack Obama.

"There need to be consequences, and they cannot be insignificant," Carper said in a Monday interview with The Hill.

Carper, a fellow centrist who was Delaware campaign chairman for Lieberman's  failed bid for president in 2004, said he and many other Senate Democrats are disappointed and even angered by their colleague's sometimes-inflammatory rhetoric during this year's presidential campaign.

[...]

Carper did not rule out stripping Lieberman of his coveted gavel running the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, or imposing other sanctions like taking away seniority on other committees or a subcommittee on Armed Services.

[...]

"I'm very disappointed as a friend and a colleague," Carper said.

Carper is exactly the type of Senator I expected to at least silently vote for Lieberman maintaining his chairmanship tomorrow, if not additionally speak out on Lieberman's behalf. After all, Carper, like Lieberman, has been closely associated with the Democratic Leadership Council and, as noted above, Carper served as Lieberman's campaign chairman just four years ago. Moreover, Carper even backed Lieberman after the he had lost his Democratic primary and had decided to run as an Independent back in August 2006.

If the Carpers of the Senate aren't in Lieberman's camp, how is he expecting to get a majority of the caucus on his side to keep his chairmanship?

There's more...

The Hartford Courant has the details:

Senate Democrats will decide by secret ballot Tuesday whether to take away Sen. Joe Lieberman's chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee -- a post from which he oversees U.S. security issues, as well as the operations of a wide segment of the federal government.

This cuts in one of two directions. On one hand, the secrecy of the ballot could serve to benefit Joe Lieberman. While there is a great deal of discontent -- and rightly so -- with Lieberman's conduct (not only campaigning on behalf of John McCain and in opposition to Barack Obama, but also campaigning on behalf of Senate Republicans in competitive or potentially competitive races against Democratic challengers), if the Democratic base can't figure out which Democratic Senators are voting to support Lieberman, accountability will be difficult to achieve. The Netroots can try to limit this by pushing individual Senators to come clean about how they intend to vote, or after the fact how they voted, though this would be an arduous process, and success wouldn't be assured.

Yet alternatively, and I believe more likely, the secrecy of the ballot hurts Lieberman. The Senate is a collegial place, largely because any one Senator can go to great lengths to hold up virtually any piece of legislation and thus no Senator wants to get on the bad side of another Senator for want of not having their own bills obstructed. It is likely a result of this fundamental aspect of the chamber that just a small handful of Democratic Senators have gone on the record in opposing Lieberman's bid to maintain control over the Senate's oversight panel. But as the vote on his chairmanship will be secret, and thus Lieberman will not know for certain who voted against him, Lieberman's ability to retaliate against individual Senators will be greatly curtailed.

In either case, we shall know very soon whether or not Lieberman will be able to hold on to his chairmanship or, if alternatively, he is given a consolation prize instead.

There's more...