A harbinger...

You missed the point. Please re-read.

Anyway, Lieberman has basically told the Democratic voters of Connecticut to fuck off.

A Democrat who does not abide by a primary result is in no way, shape or form loyal to the party or cause. Running as an independent is, in this case, about a self-centered and power-mad as it gets.

I would think that all the SportsJournalists.commers who have been crucifying Hillary Clinton for these alleged qualities will be on this thread to indict Lieberman any second now, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

So loyalty to the party and cause is paramount?

 

Wofford was appointed after John Heinz died in a plane crash and had never faced the voters of Penn, so no, I would not.

 

In this case, party loyalty is defined as respecting the will of its voters.

Anti-war Democrats are the fringe? Sorry, find another script. Opposition to the war is the mainstream opinion in this country.

 

I know Wofford was appointed, but I also thought he had to run against Thornburgh to serve out the remainder of Heinz's term and won pretty handily.

 

I don't think so, D-B. Depends on what you mean by "opposition."

Do you mean opposition to the entire idea in the first place? Or opposition to the way it's being prosecuted? There are some people who aren't happy because we're not hitting it hard enough, not because they don't think we should be there in the first place.

I would imagine, however, that the vast majority of Dem opposition to the war is because of the latter belief, not the former.

 

I don't know, Lyman. None of the polls seem to make the distinction. If you find one that does, link it. (I think someone who was against the war to begin with would answer "No" to "Do you approve of the way the Bush administration is handling . . ." regardless of how they felt about the actual execution.)

I hated the war in the first place, AND I feel that it has been conducted improperly, in a half-assed way.

I don't know what category that leaves me in, but I'll bet a lot of Democrats feel the same.

(See, you and I can have a civil chat about current events. Pretty nice, huh? )

 

If we can get along civily, there might be hope for Israel and Hezbollah ... well, that might be a stretch, but ...

I haven't seen such a poll. I'm just going by anectdotal evidence.

Getting back to tonight, I really don't see how this helps the Dems at all. I would think the GOP now might want to see if it can find a cleaner, higher-profile candidate to run in Conn. If they don't, I suspect Lieberman will win the general election, because he's going to get substantial GOP support and probably a good 40 percent of the Dem vote.

Without a strong candidate, I think most in the GOP will vote for Lieberman. If that changes, however, all bets are off.

 

I read somewhere that with the GOP now thinks it has a chance in the race with a good candidate, but they need the current scumbag on the ballot to officially drop out of the race. They can't replace him by fiat and he refuses to go.

 

Maybe they can pay off his debts to Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun. Under all of his assumed names.

I wonder what percentage of Dems who voted for Joementum will now back Lamont. Joe must think that: 1) his primary voters will stay loyal; 2) no one in the GOP will take their candidate seriously; and 3) the 65% or so voters in Conn. who are not Democrats will support him by at least the same percentage that Lamont got in the primary. Not a bad strategy, but for the whole burning of bridges thing.

How much did the recent Israeli conflict help Joe?

Joe sounded awful whiny in his interview on Today this morning.

 

28,000 people in CT registered as Democrats just for this election. Fox News reported 14,000 of those were Republicans who registered as Democrats just to vote for Lieberman.

Those 14,000 are votes Lieberman will be getting in the general - they're accounted for.

 

If that's true, and Lieberman still couldn't win, the elephants should be very worried about what's going to happen nationally this fall.