O'Rourke used to be worthwhile reading because he was at least witty and wrote well. Alas.

As long as conservatives continue to assume that liberals are liberals because they are stupid, weak or lazy (or --- shhhh --- black), the Democratic party's renaissance will continue. Frankly, liberalism wouldn't have suffered 8 years in the wilderness but for a) Bill C's inability to keep his dick in his pants and b) 9/11 and the opportunity it presented for fear-mongering.

But hey, if the GOP wants to continue to argue like kids on the playground, instead of like adults who acknowledge that nobody has a monopoly on truth, morality or good ideas, let 'em.

I believe that Gore's temperment, as well as his personal objectives, would be much more suited to UN Ambassador. I don't think he'd see that as a step down, frankly, but as an opportunity to continue to make a global impact on the environment, with the US as leader, not obstructor.

Barone claims he was just trying to be humorous. That's a crock.

Clearly he thinks abortion is horrible (even many pro-choice advocates would agree), so how could he possibly have been mining the subject for humor? Of course, he wasn't. He was doing what the Right always does: falsley attacking the character of the opponent. It backfired, so he's backtracking.

Sadly, he'll be glorified in many conservative circles for perpetuating the myths that a) there is such a thing as "the liberal media"; and b) people who are pro-choice want to see a dramatic increase in abortions. These folks have been fed this tripe, and regurtitated it back, so many times that they really do believe it to be true.

I hate to get pedantic (actually, I kind of like it . . .) but let me give y'all a little help here.

First, for all you folks who insist that Lieberman's sword be broken and that he be banished to the desert, let me ask just one very simple question. Aside from satisfying your need to punish, name exactly one thing this accomplishes? (And if "teaching him a lesson" is what you come up with, go to the back of the class.)

Frankly, I'd LIKE to kick Joe's ass just as much as Durbin (and trust me, Obama, too) would like to do it. But the nice thing about the election turnout is that we now have adults running things. This means no more knee-jerk, reactionary "leadership" from the folks in Washington, but rather a well-reasoned decision made for the benefit of the country (instead of in satisfaction of some blood feud).

Second, the reality is that the majority CAN get to 60 on a few important issues, primary among them being SCOTUS nominations. Obama WILL nominate justices with pro-choice bona fides. You can also bet that a large number of GOP senators will NOT be happy with this and will see it as an opportunity to cement THEIR bona-fides with the Republican base by threatening a filibuster. There are, however, a few moderates among the GOP caucus who don't need to play to the base, and in fact would be in trouble if they did. They, along with Lieberman, will likely be enough to keep the filibuster from de-railing Obama's choices in that regard.

Now, it's entirely likely that Lieberman would have been with Obama on SC nominations anyway, but if he'd been drivin out of the Dem caucus, the GOP would have pressed him hard to show he had really become "one of us" by holding back his vote for cloture.

This is, of course, but one example of why it hurts nothing to keep Lieberman where he's at, but could hurt much if we give in to the bozos' cry for blood.

Thus endeth the lesson.

And here I thought one of the reasons we claim liberals are better than conservatives is that liberals are grown ups and not petulant little children.

Take to the streets with pitchforks and torches if you like, but burning the witch won't help anything but your bloodlust. Leave Joe the Schmo his chairmanship, but keep him on a tight leash. Use him only when you need him.

Save the concept of "punishment" for jack-boots like Boehner. The harder one tries to look strong and powerful, the weaker and less confident one winds up appearing.

The folks who insist that the Party should have kicked Lieberman to the curb are more interested in Politics than Governing. While I appreciate the sentiment, I've noted before that punishing the Senator could have been detrimental to governing (while acknowledging it may have helped "enforce party discipline" as some have argued).

But we need governing right now, not politics, and there are plenty of reasons not to punish Lieberman at this particular time. One poster asked if this could be re-visited after 1/20/09. In fact, this can be revisited by the caucus at any time, and may in fact be revisted down the line. Lieberman has demonstrated that his views viz-a-viz security issues are not wholly in step with the Party or the President-Elect. That in and of itself would be sufficient grounds down the line to strip him of the chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. But now is not that time, particularly with Senate seats in Georgia, Alaska and Minnesota still undecided.

Neither the Party nor the Government were necessarily harmed by today's action. The Senator gets to feel like he's still welcome among his Democratic colleagues. The only damage done is to those who want a pound of flesh, mostly for the sake of revenge. Again, this serves no current purpose. Revenge can be had when Joe runs again for his seat, when it can be served cold.