...I can already hear the pundits gassing on about how it shows "strength" - by "standing up to the left".

Damn, I may have to lock up the hardware, or I'm liable to be replacing some video monitors.

I'm sitting hear laughing, literally, reading your response, because it makes me feel just that little bit...

WORSE.

...The Democratic cave on Lieberman is about far more than one traitor. It's about the Democrats' overall lack of backbone. It's about, as one swing voter said to me in 2004, if the Democrats aren't willing to defend themselves how are they going to defend my kids. And the thing is, I'm not sure I have an answer any more. Democrats aren't willing to defend themselves. A lot of them really don't have a spine. Don't like to fight, even when the cause is just. Even when the cause is necessary. You can walk all over them, beat them silly, and they'll come back for more, with a big stupid grin on their faces.

Kiss the 60 vote majority goodbye. I hate to say it, but it appears that no Democratic Senator has anything to fear from Harry Reid or any other Democratic leader. Do whatever the hell you want, is the message Democrats are sending out today. Join with the Republicans, vote with the Republicans, plot and participate in our downfall with the Republicans, and we'll welcome you back, no questions asked. Screw us to your heart's desire and everything will be okay, and then some. There is simply no reason that any Democratic Senator should worry ever again about voting with Harry Reid and their fellow Democrats. It simply doesn't matter. The Democrats have no spine. You won't be punished, ever.

It's a horrifying and saddening thing to admit, but our party, at its core, may actually not have a spine. Our fear of confrontation, our vacillation in the face of obvious truths, is the root of so many failures in the past. I used to always think it a lie when Republicans would say that Democrats are weak on defense. But the truth is, Democrats certainly are weak on defending themselves.

I'm unclear on the timing, but Glenn's post (this one) is on the top of Salon's front page, summarized thusly (I'm thinking it might catch people's attention a bit, hence a sudden influx)

Why Democrats won't boot Lieberman

Rather than punish Lieberman for his support of Bush's most radical policies, Democrats plan to reward him the powerful Homeland Security chairmanship

But I feel this interview was one of her weakest. She could have easily shown Bayh's arguments ("need him for 60", "might get a real Republican if he steps down", "he'll be MAD at us if we do it, WAAAAAH!!") as the utter bullshit, ttoally lacking in substance, they are.

It baffles me, why she didn't. Very disappointing.

Did you catch NOVA earlier this week? Mandelbrot/fractals was the topic du jour. It might be a little too "consumer-friendly" for you, my 10 year-old loved it. As did I.

And everybody else should try to catch the FRONTLINE episode on Lee Atwater. He merits my usual malogy.

The Artist sports a massive grin after I showed him your missive. I actually hoard his stuff, and almost resent it when he occasionally gives something away. He has a far more generous spirit than I, and he keeps me young(er).

I'm glad it accomplished its intended purpose. 8')

Is there a way to delineate multiple linkys embedded in one blue-highlighted phrase?

This para. contains 6 linkys (and a typo) but it only looks like 4.

Here, X = "eavesdropping on Americans with no warrants," and "tortuing detainees," and "destroying evidence relating to investigations," and "interfering in criminal prosecutions for political purposes." Those are crimes -- felonies -- in every sense of the word, not policy differences. And they are all actions in which Bush officials have clearly engaged.

...generated by some fair War Crimes trials followed by some speedy hangin's at The Hague.

But maybe that's just me.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/sen.-dodd-wary-of-lieberman-punishment-2008-11-13.html

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've seen Dan Savage (on Colbert, and debating Tony Perkins on AC360) recently, and I like his "in your face you freakin' bigot" media style. Beats the Rethugs at their own game...

Now that you mention it...

Apparently I haven't been "invited" to read it.

Or, more precisely, I've been disinvited?

I'll wager if he sees your post, he'll figure out something's changed...

What have been the consequences for him? His former buddies talk badly about him now? WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!

Actually, Glenn, you're making yet another argument to prosecute their sorry asses. Or better yet, let Bush issue his steenking blanket pardon, and let the Hague take over.

That ranch'll be sold ASAP. It was only a prop. Indications are the chimperor will move to Dallas.

Jeez, I truly hope I never meet that assh*le in person.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Dorgan_Lieberman_actions_not_acceptable_for_1116.html

or click sig for linky

But check the money quote, IMHO

Sen. John Kyle (R-AZ) told Chris Wallace that Republicans would welcome Lieberman into their caucus.

"If he came over to the Republican side and organized with us, I don't think it would change the way he votes," Kyle said.