George Allen, bully and bigot, ran up the white flag because he was fork tender. He doesn't have a gracious bone in his thick head. Screw him, deeply, with a large black member. This has no parallel whatsoever- absofookinlutely none- with Florid-dull in 2000, where Jews for Buchanan and tens of thousands of disenfranchised voters skewed a state where Jebbie Boy and Cruella Hair-ass (nice race, katie, you terminal loser) ran the mechanism under which the votes were not counted. No recount ever occurred. Bushit was appointed by the Krispy Kreme Kourt. You, bob, are full of shit, and are hereby encouraged to Bob for turds in a punchbowl. Get used to minority status, fascists. You peaked two years ago, and your turn is over. God Bless America, finally.

Lieberman voted with the Dems 90% of the time. That's pretty reassuring to me, the nutroots hysteria not withstanding.

Then who is the Katherine Harris character in Allen's story? And where’s the example of the U.S. Supreme Court awarding victory to the guy with less votes rather than the guy with more votes?

Gore lost under the rules (look at the joint papers' recount analysis, under the terms dictated by FL law). You may not like the rules. _I_ may not like the rules. But those were the rules, and he lost under them.

But the big difference between Gore and Allen is that Gore got cheated. Allen lost fair and square.

"I do not wish to cause more rancor by protracted litigation which in my judgment, would not alter the results," he said, adding, "I see no good purpose being served by continuously and needlessly expending money and causing more animosity."

This is how responsible adults conduct themselves.

"They've spoken in a closely divided voice."

Funny, when Bush took Florida (and thus the presidency) by only 500 votes, he had a mandate.

What happened?

Please show us a map with Virginia shaded blue because I can't picture this mind boggling image in my head.

Yes, Lieberman will caucus with the Dems. Why? Because he loses his seniority otherwise.

Bernie has agreed long since to caucus with the Dems as well.

What this means is that Dems will control the makeup and the chairmanship of the Senate committees, all of them, which means that they will completely decide what bills get to the floor.

This is arguably much more important than who votes on what.

From presidential hopeful, to defeat.

Earlier this year, Allen was considered one of a handful of Republicans with a legitimate chance to become the next president in 2008. His victory in this campaign was a given and no one had heard of Jim Webb. The Allen collapse is stunning for several reasons, not the least of which because the Republicans had been grooming him to be George W. Bush's neo-conservative heir apparent. Virginians were polled as recently as early summer about the prospect of two Virginians (Allen and Mark Warner) winning their parties' nominations in 2008. Now, neither will even be running, one by choice, the other because of failure.

The Allen collapse was largely (but not completely) self-inflicted and could go down as one of the steepest, quickest drops in American political history: from the top of the Republican hill, to the one-term Senate dustbin.

Yes, the two independents will caucus with the Dems, at least its been reported as such. And although Lieberman is pro-Bush, he is on the left for most other issues, so you could do a lot worse.

He is only one, and over the last six years more than one Dem has cooperated with the GOP, for one reason or the other.

Does anyone really expect that to end now? Dems have never marched in the lock-step the GOP have been able to maintain so well for so amazingly long.

Enjoy the moment. And then get back to work.

Is really a Pete Seeger song, which in turn (turn, turn) is from Ecclesiastes, one of the more hard-boiled books of the Bible. In it King Solomon laments the meaninglessness of a life spent in complacent consumption, distraction, and idleness. If Liberals and Progressives knew the Bible better than rock & roll lyrics they'd make more headway among religious voters. So says this secular humanist.

I believe the notion of "control" is referring to the selection of the leadership positions (Senate Majority Leader), which is done along party-line votes. Jim Jeffords of VT has caucused with the Democrats in this regard. It appears that Joe Lieberman is expected to do the same or abstain, giving the Democrats a 51-49 or 50-49 advantage in these leadership votes.

As loathsome as I find him, I don't expect Lieberman to caucus with the Republicans in Senate leadership voting.

I have a feeling his affiliation is up for sale. He'll sniff around and sees who is offering him the best deal.

I don't expect Lieberman to be a Democrat. However, that's only one issue, and it's not the biggest one -- there will be people defecting on both sides, in most cases.

The big issue is who will get to decide the chairmanships and majorities of the committees. If Lieberman sticks to his word, that means it will be the Democratic Caucus. Which means the Democrats will be able to control the agenda -- and also begin hearings, subpoaena documents, etc.

It will be very interesting to see how Lieberman acts for the next six years.

For what it's worth, this is a classy act by Senator Allen. Following Senator Santorum's concession, which was also well-handled, I wonder whether this electoral defeat will encourage some better manners in our politics. We sure could use some.

This may be a stupid or naive question, but does Lieberman count as one of the 51? If so, will he now blackmail the Dems to give him a chair of a committee? What happens if he switches parties? Is that likely? He must have "issues" with the Dems. that rejected him.

I'm dancing away for joy.

It's a new step -- called the Macacarena!!!!

In the words that so many of you graciously gave to me and mine in 2000 and again in 2004: now sit down and STFU.