Sen. Chris Dodd (D) warned Thursday that Connecticut would be unfairly penalized if Democrats seek harsh retribution on his home-state colleague, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I), for his attacks on Barack Obama.

Dodd would not say whether he supports allowing Lieberman to remain as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. But he said that he and "many" of his fellow Democrats "would like to create an opportunity, if Joe wants to come back and be a part of the Democratic caucus."

"I don't want to see my state penalized for a political choice that my colleague made," Dodd said. "He was elected by the people of Connecticut. And while no one has a right to certain things, our state ought not be penalized for political choices, either."

Dodd said he is in talks with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to work out an agreement to keep Lieberman in the caucus. Lieberman has said he would refuse to caucus with Democrats if he loses his gavel, though doing so would give him even less influence since Democrats have an expanded Senate majority next Congress.

Dodd's move to vouch for Lieberman is the latest saga in their relationship. In 2006, when Lieberman lost to Democrat Ned Lamont in the state's Senate primary, Dodd campaigned for Lamont even though Lieberman was running as an Independent. Lieberman later said he was hurt by Dodd's move.

And Lieberman decided to support Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) presidential bid when Dodd himself was running for the Democratic nomination, even though supporting home-state senators from the same party is typically customary. Lieberman didn't call Dodd to tell him that he was backing McCain; his staff did.

But on Thursday, Dodd went to bat for Lieberman.

"I'd remind people, but for Joe Lieberman's vote, I would have been in the minority for the last two years and been the ranking member of [the Banking] committee, not the chairman of it," Dodd said, referring to the 51-49 majority Democrats have in the 110th Congress because of Lieberman's decision to caucus with them. Dodd added he's been told by leadership that Lieberman has voted with Democrats on "every single" cloture motion to end debate, and that his staunch support for the Iraq war and McCain shouldn't "disqualify Joe" from serving in the caucus.

Next Tuesday, Democrats will likely hold a secret vote on whether Lieberman should continue to chair the committee, which would give him broad power to influence Democrats' agenda. Momentum seems to be growing to keep Lieberman in his chair, but his fate is far from certain if it's put to a secret vote.

"We want to ask Sen. Lieberman some real questions about his support for this administration before we make a decision," Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said Thursday. "I want to know what he has to say about Obama's leadership and Obama's agenda on everything from domestic and national security, including Iraq."

Brown said his answers would weigh into his considerations before he votes on Lieberman's future next week. Lieberman said after the election that he wants to work with Obama, despite calling him dangerous and unprepared on the campaign trail and at the Republican National Convention.

Democratic Sen. Bob Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania was still frustrated with Lieberman, but said Thursday that he wasn't sure whether to retaliate against the senator. Democrats are also mulling taking away his seniority on other committees and a subcommittee he chairs on the Armed Services Committee, while allowing him to stay as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

"I was frustrated when I listened to him to undermine Barack Obama, but we're going to have to think carefully on how that frustration plays out in the interests of getting things done," Casey said.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) said Wednesday that Democrats would keep a short leash on Lieberman, but if they take his gavel away he would become "embittered" and may not side with Democrats on close votes. He supported allowing Lieberman to stay as chairman, but said the senator should issue a "sincere apology" for his campaign tactics.