Sorry, but there it is. For all his talk of liberalism, he's consistently opposed any progressive policies and consistently supported right wing agendas. Bush's war? Bush's tax cuts? You name it, Lieberman is right there pushing. His nadir came when he voted on cloture on a disastrous bankruptcy reform bill that will cause untold misery.

But even so, there are conservative Democrats. What makes Lieberman so objectionable? Very simply, he's always willing to attack his fellow Democrats and always willing to defend or excuse Republicans. Lieberman is Zell Miller without guts or personality.

Finally, and the truly sad thing, Lieberman has consistently shown the worst judgement of any major politician. Remember his Vice-Presidential run when he tried to restart the culture wars by attacking Hollywood... Yeah, that's all we needed. It was a non-issue before he came along, but Lieberman leaped like a pro-censorship tiger to attack Democratic supporters in the entertainment industry. Thanks a lot. Or consider his disastrous performance in the VP debate with Cheney. Or consider his handling of the post-election controversy, where he gave up the fight on illegal military ballots? The profound lack of judgement seen in his run shows up consistently through his political career. Joe picks the worst time, the worst targets and the wrong sides.

So call him a hypocrite, call him a backstabber, or call him a buffoon. No one in the Democratic party needs this guy.

All this worrying about just how far to the left or right the Democratic Party is keeps handing elections to Republicans. I live in Massachusetts where I must watch Kerry's frequent painful adjustments to find the exactly perfect spot on the left-right scale. In 2004, he lost an election to someone who is demonstrably incompetent and deceitful. Can we please stop all this adjusting? Can we please have the courage and intellectual honesty to take principled positions? If moderates were drawn to position-splitters, Democrats would be running the country.

Opposition to Lieberman is a matter of principle and it shows that the Democratic Party is not afraid of its platform.

"[insert party here] has succumbed to the extremist tendencies of their party. I lament the days when they were respectable!"

Dems say the same thing about Republicans these days. I don't know why people give credence to it. The Dems haven't moved left, the Reps haven't moved right, Lieberman is an ill-tempered jerk that is now finally receiving backlash for all the years he has spent criticizing and, yes, basely insulting individual members of his own party. Remember this guy in the 04' primaries? Even attacking Clark with the whole "I would like to welcome you to the Democratic Party... hehehehehehehehe." This guy, regardless of his views, has consistently dragged discourse within the party into the gutter, and as far as I'm concerned, the Republicans can have him.

Dem strategists need to realize there is no objective chart determining what's "liberal" and what's "conservative". It's wholly relative, it's wholly subject to the manner in which it is defined. Dems don't need internal homogeneity, but they do need principles.

As for the individual that suggested Dems should focus on crafting a 'coherent' domestic policy, I partially agree, but polls show that Dems already outpace the Republicans on these grounds. Iraq and national security are important issues, they will continue to be in 2006 and 2008, and of course, opposition to this country's biggest foreign policy blunder since 1812 is going to be a winning issue. The pro-war camp, however, if they want to win, need to realize that opposition to the war isn't based primarily on leftist ideals, it's based on common sense, and if you continue to condescend and insult the over 50% of the country that already opposes it, you're just going to be shooting yourself in the foot.

Writers above have noted, with some acerbity, that George W. Bush is not actually running for a third term in 2008. So what?

Republicans campaigned quite effectively in 2000 against Bill Clinton, despite his absence from the ballot. Working to make Bush unpopular is a good thing for Democrats. And running against him from now until 2008 is also a good idea. At the very least, it will lessen the advantage of having an incumbent campaign for his Republican successor.

As for the war in Iraq, it has been a partisan political tool for the Republicans from the very start. If Sen. Lieberman does not realize that by now, he should not be in national politics. If he does not care, he should not be in politics as a Democrat.

(Incidentally, this article is framed all wrong and gets the story exactly backward. Here's the correct teaser: "Republicans can count on Joe Lieberman to attack his fellow Democrats over the Iraq war. But is the Connecticut senator actually helping his party -- or is he simply carrying water for the Bush administration?")

First, I want to say I live in New Haven, Connecticut, that's the same city as Lieberman. I don't need to say I want to see someone else representing my state in the Senate, that has been said by others, and I want to add my problems with him originated long before the Iraq war. There are many good reasons to get rid of him.

But, what alternatives would be acceptable? Lowell Weicker, as an independant, is a good alternative, but remember he is 75 years old. What would people think about a liberal republican alternative like Chris Shays? Neither would count towards a Democratic majority. How important is the party itself, as opposed to the individual senator?

Liberal Democrats are furious at Joe. Why wouldn't they be, they're Liberal Democrats.... and Joe is not. As noted in the article there are lots of Dems who share some of his views and yet get none of the abuse. And if truth be told, many more Dems who are a lot more to the right. My gov. Mike Easley of NC is far more conservative than Joe. Former Senator John Breaux, once thought the future of the party is far more conservative as well. So it's hard to parse out precisely what Liberal Democrats are furious about apart from the obvious, that he's not a Liberal Democrat. In either case, as Bismarck said, 'Politics is the art of the possible'. And that seems to be something many Liberal Democrats have ignored or forgotten.