What Democratic majority?

I usually leave the political commentary to the experts, but today Mark Schmitt raises an interesting and timely question at TAPPED, one that I haven't seen discussed in a while. That is, why not let Joe Lieberman leave the Democratic caucus, ending the "Independent-Democrat" charade he's been keeping up since the last election? After all, given the rules of the Senate, a 51-member majority with a united minority party and hostile executive is not going to get much done if the opposition wants to be obstructionist, and the Republicans have been doing their best. Very few bills that pass the House are getting through the Senate (except those with broad Republican support, which are no good). And yet, while the Democrats have the majority, the GOP and the media are also somewhat successfully putting this failure on their shoulders. Since we're basically in a holding pattern until Nov. 2008 anyway, giving up such a slim majority may be a shrewd move that would expose the fact that Republicans are the ones blocking popular legislation and bring home the fact (relevant to voters in 2008) that the Democrats do not yet have an effective majority.