So tell me, Democrats who oppose Lieberman's stance on the war and his creepy closeness to the administration in other ways should be quiet, suck it up, not express their discontent? Why? How will this help the party or the country? Why not just cancel the primary if the aim is to crown Lieberman and stifle dissent?

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

I was planning on voting against Lieberman in the Democratic primary, but now, even if Lieberman should win the primary, I will NOT be voting for him in the general election.

I also have a problem with this argument that a Republican in Democrats' clothing is better than no Democrat at all. Because Lieberman is, in name at least, a Democrat, he does give his party one more seat, but even if Democrats re-took the Senate there's nothing that would prevent him from attacking, filibustering, or defecting from his party if they decided to change course and take some hard, strong, anti-Bush stands. Rove and Mehlman may be happy about efforts to remove Lieberman, but I doubt they've done much to engineer it. Lieberman has contributed as much, if not more, to his own downfall as anyone. I'm half-convinced that Democrats will lose seats in November '06, or at least fail to take either house in Congress because even when they talk big they don't act. If getting rid of Liberman is the wake-up call that Democrats need, if it finally convinces them that standing strong will get them votes while "staying the course" will cost them, then so long Joe.

I don't know. I generally support bipartisanship which means that sometimes it's right for democrats to back republicans and (in fantasy land) vice versa. On the other hand, Lieberman's threat to bolt reminds me of the scene in Blazing Saddles where Cleavon Little holds the gun to his head and threatens to shoot the sheriff (or something to that extent) if the crowd doesn't back off.

"Meanwhile, Democratic activists in Connecticut continued to focus their political fury on one of their own, pushing the party ever closer to a repeat of the self-immolating 1968 nominating convention in Chicago...

One can only imagine all the celebratory BlackBerry messages bouncing back and forth between Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman."

I, too, take some issue with the implication of Scherer's tone that democrats drawing a line on how far their Senator can go in supporting republican policies is a mistake. Why aren't the messages between the republicans worried, about the problems for their favorite democrat who they have used repeatedly to call some of their policies 'bi-partisan'?

Yes, when a member of a party strays so far as to lose his primary, there are political prices for the result.

But Scherer here is blaming the victims, the voters who are standing up for their views, holding him accountable.

Nowhere do I see see Scherer's constructive view on what they should do, other than the implied 'unity for Joe'.

I doubt Liebermans's own PR staff would write something quite so one-sided today.

"Meanwhile, Democratic activists in Connecticut continued to focus their political fury on one of their own, pushing the party ever closer to a repeat of the self-immolating 1968 nominating convention in Chicago...

One can only imagine all the celebratory BlackBerry messages bouncing back and forth between Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman."

I, too, take some issue with the implication of Scherer's tone that democrats drawing a line on how far their Senator can go in supporting republican policies is a mistake. Why aren't the messages between the republicans worried, about the problems for their favorite democrat who they have used repeatedly to call some of their policies 'bi-partisan'?

Yes, when a member of a party strays so far as to lose his primary, there are political prices for the result.

But Scherer here is blaming the victims, the voters who are standing up for their views, holding him accountable.

Nowhere do I see see Scherer's constructive view on what they should do, other than the implied 'unity for Joe'.

I doubt Liebermans's own PR staff would write something quite so one-sided today.

I don't agree with many of Lieberman's positions, but this battle is not going to harm anyone but the Democratic party.

Since Lieberman will almost certainly win a three-way race it is doubtful that the end result of this effort will be to unseat him. Meanwhile, if he runs and wins as an independent he has every incentive to become even more closely aligned with Republican positions and possibly even switch parties, thereby eroding any advantage that Democrats win in the election.

Meanwhile, Democrats are spending precious volunteer hours and contribution dollars on an internecine battle that is not going to get us anywhere when we should be diverting those resources to competitive races that will help us take back the Legislative branch.

There is so much at stake in the election this year. This is no time for Democrats to be shooting themselves in the foot.

Seems like a shallow campaign. Because in the end no amount of black t-shirt populist rhetoric will satisfy the self annointed left blogosphere. What do they expect from Ned? Gasoline bombs tossed on the Senate floor? Armed resistance? Impeach everyone?

Sorry, but I don't think it will be a great tragedy for the Democrats to lose Joe Lieberman. On the contrary - nobody as Republican as Joe belongs in the Democratic party anyway. So don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out, pal.

Of course the breast beating about what this means in the "big picture" has already begun ("One can only imagine all the celebratory BlackBerry messages bouncing back and forth between Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman"), but I for one am sick of having my options hamstrung by fears of the Republican machine.

It's time for all of us to stand up and demand that "our" party speak for us. I say "our" party because, though the Democrats still claim to be the "party of the people" I, like many of my friends, have already abandoned it. It serves the same constituency as the Republican party, only it does so while claiming not to do so. Joe Lieberman is just the most egregious example.

If Connecticut Democrats are refusing to support Joe Lieberman then I may just stand up and cheer. It's way past time that rank-and-file Democrats stopped putting up with party leaders casting them as bastard children of the Republican party. It's way past time for Democrats to demand that their incumbents and candidates be what their constituents want them to be instead of the wannabe Republicans they've become.