In all fairness, Joe Lieberman was a reasonably decent Democratic Senator. He could be relied upon to support many issues near and dear to the Democratic base, and for that he should be thanked. In many regards, his absence will be apparent and unfortunate.

Having said that, Lieberman had outstayed his welcome. It seems his elevation to Vice Presidential nominee in 2000 was the beginning of the end for Joe -- his service became less and less toward the people of Connecticut (and Democrats nationwide) and more toward "what's good for Joe." His nearly falling over himself to announce his "Independent Democrat" bid is testament to his self-serving nature.

During this primary campaign, so many people have been focusing on Lieberman's stance on the war and his many many troubling statements supporting the pResident's little Orwellian experiment in Eurasia as to why Lamont garnered so much support. But for so many of us who supported Ned, the real issue is this: Over and over again, Joe seemed to want the job for himself, and not for those who he represented.

Part of a Senator's job, like it or not, is to support his party. It's one thing to stand on principle for something you believe in, and another thing entirely to actively undermine your party colleagues. And for that reason alone, Joe had to go.

So, Joe, on behalf of many of my fellow Democrats: Please accept this heartfelt thanks for your many years of faithful service. Now don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

"I guess that's the real fear, that when they realize how unelectable Lamont is, they will have to step down or show themselves as the real spoiler."

You know what that is? It's pure DLC propaganda, meant to make you feel nervous about abandoning their triangulating ways.

That is utter BS. It's the same type of gamesmanship that brought us the Kerry candidacy over that of Dean. Everyone wanted to go with safe old Patrician Kerry rather than someone who has the guts to speak their mind and challenge things. I didn't buy that crap then, and I don't know. I see it for what it is: propaganda from the do-nothing egocentric "holding on to power is more important than doing what is right" wing of the Democratic party.

Well, Kerry was a terrible candidate who was more concerned with trying to put on a good manly national security face than he was with making a principled stand, and we know how that turned out. I think the ultimate proof of whether or not someone is electable is to put them in an election, but then again, I am not a paid political consultant, and we all know the success their advice have brought to the Democratic party.

Personally, I would rather see a Republican in office than continue to be manipulated by the DLC into running candidates who offer us nothing but the promise that the electorate will have to rip power from their cold dead hands?

I say if this is cutting off our nose to spite our face, let our nose be cut off! Take the long view, and even if the seat goes Red, maybe people will learn something for the next go-round.

Even if it's true that Lieberman voted 90% of the time with the Democrats on key issues, even if it's true that he has way more experience governing than Lamont, even if it's true that people completely misunderstand his record, one simple fact remains: Joe Leiberman isn't entitled to a damn thing, nor is any other politician.

If Democrats decide that the 10% of the time that Lieberman votes against Democratic issues is a deal breaker, then that's their right. That's the way the system works. I'm so disgusted with the whining and moaning of the entrenched powers in Washington that this is a bad thing. What's really happening is that it's scaring that establishment shitless to think that if an 18 year Senator can lose his party primary after being, in all truthfullness, pretty loyal to the party line, then they ALL can lose.

90%+ incumbency rates and two monolithic parties are destroying politics in this country. I'm torn over a Lieberman run as an independent. On the one had, we need more independents to run for office. On the other, this isn't really a run against the two party establishment, but rather a big, patronizing "screw you" to all the Democrats who decided they wanted to go in another direction. Lamont would be smart to point that out.

Wow, this is pretty frightening. Brazen lies in the US political culture have become so widespread that it's hard to even notice stuff like this anymore. "To unite, not to divide" - well if that was really your position why do you now divide your party, Mr Lieberman?

If there's been any doubt whether Lieberman should be removed it should be cleared-up now.

So Lieberman owes a "greater" loyalty to country, state, and party? It wasn't enough that the voters decided against him? What an arrogant egomaniac, as if the country simply can't make it without Joe Lieberman in the Senate. It can, as he will soon see.

Personally what pissed me off about Lieberman was how he presented himself as the moral superjew during his V.P. run. If I need someone from the Party of God, I'll call Hezbollah. I prefer my politicians secular.

Isn't it?

The thing that turns me off about Lieberman is that his wife is a lobbyist for Big Pharma. That's just sleazy. Thank heaven Lamont is a good candidate, the kind I would love to be able to vote for in my state.

Lieberman, the democrats, and the press ALL stand “unbowed,” as the apparent saying of the day goes. They do not get it. Every argument and explanation they have put forward with respect Lamont’s surge and victory shows not only complete denial, but also just how republican they have become. In fact, they have turned pure Rovian by joining with the right to insinuate that not voting for Lieberman is somehow anti-Semitic and down right unpatriotic because only our-man-Joe has the credentials to ensure national security. Sounds A LOT like the tired claims about how not supporting Bush is unpatriotic and that even questioning him is equivalent to giving comfort to all enemies- physical and metaphysical.

A second questionable claim is that people should vote for Lieberman because he, unlike Ned Lamont, knows how to run the government, i.e., vote for Joe because he’s a Washington insider and knows how to maintain the status quo. Well, last night’s results indicate that a lot of people are not really impressed with the way things are being run. Besides, this reasoning sounds more like a recipe for ensuring the 98% reelection rate that is plaguing our electoral system than a way of restoring responsive government.

Finally, Lieberman claiming that not voting for him sends the message that the democratic party is not inclusive to people who are strong on security is comical fiction. At this point in Lieberman’s career, constituents have enough information that they are able vote on his record as a representative of the people of Connecticut. Not voting for you means you failed on that count, Senator, and nothing more. Democrats of all stripes are just as concerned with security as any other members of society. This election only shows that a significant number of people think you, Bush, and the other armchair warriors do not necessarily know what constitutes effective security. The fact that a number of current and former military people are speaking out to this effect, and that some of these- including veterans of the Iraq war- are running for office as democrats rather than republicans by a ratio four or five to one lends legitimacy to those feelings that there has to be another way. It also renders your contention about party inclusiveness null and void.

Hopefully, after a brief period of introspection Lieberman will stand aside like a good sport. Certainly he’s confident that he can win in November by reclaiming a significant number of his current supporters and splitting the REBUBLICAN vote, but maybe he’ll decide to sit it out and run in the next cycle if the voters have a change of heart. Whatever the case, perhaps last night’s bold decision by Connecticut voters will encourage other American’s to drum up the courage to throw out a bunch of the established party wonks and begin to rejuvenate the world’s oldest extant democracy. Constantly reelecting members of a Congress with one of the lowest historical approval ratings make bring a sort of comfort in otherwise changing and uncertain times, but it is proving to be a false sense of security.