There is a danger the Democrats will read the vote the wrong way...

[kentuck]

It is not just about the war. It would be a mistake for the Democratic Party to read the Lieberman vote as for or against the war. It is about much more. But, basically, it is about supporting a very unpopular leader when you should be opposing him. Bush has been wrong on every policy that affects the people of this country, from taxcuts to Social Security reform, from civil rights to the war. It is a disgrace that any Democrat would support him to the degree that Lieberman has supported him.

Lieberman could be said to be the first Republican to bite the dust. He is no Democrat. He played one on TV, and very cleverly, to convince those on both sides that he was "one of them". He was neither. He was a slick traitor.

[asjr]

1. I feel Lieberman left the track when he

became the VP candidate in 2000. He started believing in his own status. He didn't cause the Dems to lose the election (the SCOTUS did that), but he started thinking in terms of his career rather than terms of his constituents. Losing touch with the people who placed you in office is the beginning of the downward spiral. The voters of CT, up until now, have been very patient with him. We Democrats can put up with a lot of crap, but the time has come to say we are fed up and want something better. If it does not begin now we may have lost any chance to take back our country.

[billbuckhead]

2. Joe's "debate" with Cheney was like a job interview for Halliburton

Lieberman left this sociopath off like he was some wise old rich grandfather. Joe really is a Yankee Zell Miller, more beholden to defense contractors and banking interests than his constituents.

[asjr]

3. I must agree with you although

I cringe whenever I think of comparing anyone with Zell Miller. Zell is a throwback to pre-civil rights days. And a terrible embarrassment.

[billbuckhead]

11. You're right, they're not similar on civil rights

But I bet that both have similar views on Arabs and Muslims.

[Bonhomme Richard]

4. "the first Republican to bite the dust"

I love it!

[benddem]

5. Since "all politics are local"

I don't think that will be the case. There are a lot more complaints about Lieberman being distant, his support for credit card companies, big energy etc. than just the war. This is the mistake the pundits and repukes are making.

[Norquist Nemesis]

6. Elected Democrats have set themselves up with help from Joe

Those that went out and campaign for him, because he's a "Good Democrat" are going to be on Tim Russert's hotseat. Rove's going have a treasure trove of flip-flopping, white-flag waving, Liberal Extremists material for the 2008 races.

[WI_DEM]

7. I've already seen how the pundits will read it if Lieberman loses

Dems are energized they will say for '06 but are skating towards a "McGovern style" defeat in '08 becuz we are "weak on national security."

[gratuitous]

8. We can't dictate how others will react

We can just do the right thing, and elect people who are responsive to Democratic party principles. Politicians who do not endorse or practice party principles can either join the Republican party, or find themselves as primary campaign losers. But their reaction or the conclusions they draw are outside the power of the party and its members to control.

So if some uninformed pundit wants to draw the wrong conclusion without a careful examination and analysis of the facts, that's on the pundit, not me.

[jerry611]

9. Lieberman voted with Democrats 98% of the time

I guess that two percent makes him a Republican?

[ShaneGR]

10. Well, if you don't look at the war issue and at his record as a whole...

It has to be about his support for Bush. You can't find much wrong with his votes on choice, environment, civil rights, etc.

[WilliamPitt]

12. The title of my essay on this for tomorrow

win or lose for Joe, is "It Wasn't About The War."

[KoKo]

13. "Some DEMS" like Lanny Davis will "spin" the read of what happened

the wrong way as just a an "anti-war vote" ....but then those are the same Dems who didn't defend Clinton BEFORE MONICA...and the same who didn't defend AL GORE against the Florida Selection and the Supremes.

We have "insurgents" amongst us...who are meant on the destruction of NEW VOICES in the Dem Party. They work against us laying traps and mines to catch us into. It's worked for decades now...why should they change?