Well, I think you're being too harsh. After all, Bill Napoli (R-State Senator) clearly does have concerns about exceptions to the ban, as this interchange between Napoli and Fred De Sam Lazaro Friday night on the PBS Newhour illustrates:

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Napoli says most abortions are performed for what he calls "convenience." He insists that exceptions can be made for rape or incest under the provision that protects the mother's life. I asked him for a scenario in which an exception may be invoked.

BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

Which I guess means if you're only severely raped, not a virgin, and not a Christian, you can't have access to the same healthcare as a religious virgin.

I think it's unlikely that Lieberman or his campaign could have been as Machiavellian as Klein seems to suggest. Not because they thought it was wrong, mind you, but because they probably aren't capable.

As for the "a little slack" response. Many in Connecticut remember Joe's moral indignation over the President's extra-marital affair, the refusal to give up his Senate seat in 2000, thereby guaranteeing that his butt was protected, no matter the outcome, his scolding of those who dare to criticize the President, and his health care plan for rape victims (it's only a short ride to another hospital in Connecticut). He's not getting much of a break from some voters because he hasn't earned one.

This summarized everything that has been simmering for a long time. It's not "just the war" (although even if it were, who cares? This war is the defining event for a generation, at least)--it's the moral rigidity, the obstinacy, the disdain, etc. Chimpanzees and humans have 95% of the genome in common. It's the other 5% that's important in distinguishing between us. Same for Joe's votes. He has voted Democratic a majority of the times. It's when he hasn't that is the problem.

This was a balanced description of the state of affairs here in CT. I voted for Lamont, as did the majority, and that's a big story, but Lamont had help from Lieberman's campaign, which was caught flat-footed, and never recovered. It's not just about the war, and most people said as much. And it feels stupendous, as McEnroe conveys, to finally win an election. Why is everyone so cranky?

The tubes of their Internets were clogged, and how meaningful is a "search" with clogged Internets? Why should Medina and Kornblut be expected to find a phrase uttered by Lieberman only about 15 times? It's just another case of the liberal bias inherent in the Times.

Maybe the reporters at the Times have other things to worry about besides factual reporting:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1025061pauley1.html

Joe truly is delusional. In his world, he's right, and anyone who disagrees with him his wrong. He was right last summer when he said he was sure that troops would have started coming home by now and he's right, now, when he's just as sure that the solution is more troops. He doesn't see the hypocrisy because he's delusional.

Let's hope Joe starts to slide towards irrelevancy, and we won't be subjected to any more lectures about how criticizing the policies of the White House amounts to treason.

And for all you who wish to blame Connecticut voters? Blame the "Independents" and blame the Republicans, who voted in boatloads for Joe. The Democrats went for Lamont, but got outnumbered by the Republicans (Thanks, Alan, for that outstanding campaign, and thanks to all of you D.C. Democrats who screwed the Democratic primary voters by doing nothing about Lieberman!)

Dick sounds like he's got "The Math" that Karl had in his interview with Robert Siegel. That's why progress is being made, and that's why the Republicans were going to win big in November. These people aren't devious, or hypocritical or even deliberately lying. They're DELUSIONAL.

Better than an illustration: a practice model for aspiring physicians?

Chuck Hagel may muse aloud that he has no political future, but anyone who saw him on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer last night might think differently. When asked about what he thought of Cheney's comment that the only thing that would cause us to lose is if Americans lose their will, Hagel let lose. It was lovely to see. Of course, it was offset by the joint appearance of Joe Lieberman.

McCain's going to try and appear "statesmanlike", and get the undeserved fauning of the mainstream press (see MSM coverage of the torture bill) but little will change, except maybe McCain's poll numbers. Consequences for benchmarks not being met? McCain will never agree to that. If he does, he truly is delusional, because he must know that the Iraqis aren't in any shape to meet any meaningful benchmarks, so why would he put himself in that position?

Why didn't anyone ask a botanist when the aspens "turn" out West? There isn't any one time when trees in a particular region of the country "turn". Trees "turn" in CT in mid to late October, but in Maine, noticeably earlier, so it doesn't make a lot of sense, calendar-wise, to talk about turning trees in the Northeast.

Good grief. Am I actually spending time thinking about Libby Scooter's purple prose?

Bush: I was wrong.

Cheney: I was really wrong. Things are a distaster, actually.

Reid: Up or down vote on the resolution.

I think the last is as likely to happen as the first two.

And AC? Learn how to spell and start paying attention to how Americans actually feel, and not how you'd like them to feel.