"the best-known centrist in the party"

No way, unless you use the republicans' definition of a centrist democrat: A democrat who votes like a republican and often actively undermines the party while attempting to appear loyal.

A centrist republican might vote occasionaly with democrats, and he may even say something somewhat critical every now and then. But on the major issues, he will vote with the party. He never stands up on the Senate floor and denigrates a republican bill or amendment.

"Centrist" has come to mean something to the right of center, not the center. A democrat is never called a centrist if he votes to the real center or anywhere to the left of it.

Centrist dems don't get kisses from the jester-in-chief. You don't earn that unless you actively help the republicans ram their crappy plans down our throats with your votes.

Is Joseph Lieberman a TURD or a HEMORRHOID?

He certainly looks like a hemorrhoid, but he smells like a turd and his politics are shitty.

One of the GOP's greatest tactics over the last 50 years has been to move farther and farther to the right, dragging the political landscape with them. What was conservative 10 years ago is now "moderate" and what was conservative 20 years ago is now "liberal". See so called moderates Liberman and McCain for perfect examples of this.

John Mitchell was Nixon's attorney general (Nixon started the EPA - he'd be a flaming liberal hippy in today's GOP) and made this prediction: "this country is going to go so far to the right that you won't recognize it." In 1972. Before Reagan. Before the rise of the Religious Right. Before 9/11.

To get some balance back to U.S. politics, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro would have to immigrate here and run for Congress. I'm not kidding. Liberman, a centrist? Only if your definition is "one step to the left of Dick Cheney".

I use a line I lifted from Salon's own Andrew Leonard as the best one sentence definition of the political doctrine of centrism:

"A government's proper role is to mediate between conflicting interests, not to represent one particular interest against all others."

In other words, it's the belief that the proper role of governace is to balance competing interests in such a way that the greatst good flows to the majority of the people - Good old Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism comes to mind. It's the principle of checks and balances writ large: that no narrowly defined vested interests should be allowed to dominate.

I'd like to direct readers to http://www.politicalcompass.org/ which gets beyond the almost useless left/right dichotomy and uses an axis to place one's beliefs within the political continuum.

If Lieberman is a centrist, then Levin and Kennedy and Boxer are Leninists, and Feingold and Waxman and Stark are off on one of those 19th century utopian communes.

We're being pulled so far to the right that Mussolini might be classified as a moderate conservative.

At least someone is answering for his support of the Iraq war--but why oh why isn't it the President? The real issue isn't whether Lieberman sold out the Democratic Party. It's whether the President, Vice President, and their minions sold out the country.

Asking Lieberman, in a public forum, to defend his position is fine. If asking questions of war supporters (of either party) can serve as a training ground for asking questions of the executive branch leaders, that's OK. But the buck stops in the White House. Eventually, those same questions, and harder ones, must be asked in a way that demands real answers and real accountability.

Perhaps reflecting the heat of the Connecticut primary race, my description of Joe Lieberman as a "Democratic centrist" has raised hackles. Let me explain my word choice.

According to the National Journal's authoritative rankings of 2005 Senate votes, Lieberman voted on the liberal side of key votes 66 percent of the time. His ranking is virtually identical to that of New Mexico's Jeff Bingaman and West Virginia's Robert Byrd. Nor was 2005 an a aberration. In 2004, according to National Journal, Lieberman's liberal rating was 70 percent, a bit ahead of Indiana's Evan Bayh. That year Hillary Clinton, by the way, was ranked by National Journal at 71 percent.

Lieberman may annoy a significant group of Democrats with his position on the Iraq War, his efforts to work with Republicans and the tone of some of his public comments. But ire should not blind readers to where Lieberman actually stands on the ideological grid of the Senate and the country.

Remember a political label like "centrist" is a comparative. And I suspect that I would also get snarky letters if I started labeling Lieberman's ideological soul-mates in the Senate, like Bayh and Bingaman, "Democratic conservatives" or, to quote a letter-writer, "one step left of Dick Cheney."

Dear Walter,

After reading your reply to criticism of using "centrist" to describe Joe, I wanted to make a point about the statistics you quote. That Joe votes n% of the time with other Democrats is not the only point. I feel what really defines the current leftist dislike of Joe is that he bails out on the important issues. It is almost as if he "fakes it" most of the time so he can vote his Republican conscience when it really matters:

-> Social Security

-> Emergency rape treatment

-> War in Iraq

-> Alito

-> Endless Democratic criticism on cable

-> Kissing Bush

When the chips are down, Joe is on the other side.

Lieberman may be a pain in the collective tuchis of progressives everywhere, myself included, but Mr Shapiro is correct in calling the Senator a centrist. I'll take Lieberman, nasty warts and all, over a far-right wingnut anytime. Even a bad angel is preferable to a good devil.

I'd say he's more of a DINO... Democrat In Name Only. Furthermore, when I hear about Lieberman I figure that he's representing Tel Aviv and not Connecticut. We invaded Iraq at I$rael's request. I$rael is not the 51st state nor is it any kind of "sister" nation -- I$rael is a foreign country with an undue, even baffling, amount of influence over the US, particularly our foreign policy. A Democrat in favor of a "pre-emptive" war of conquest, coincidentally against one of I$rael's numerous enemies..? Who are we kidding..?