Hell, a popular second party candidate always screws things up (in the eyes of the other party). Let's just clean the whole thing up, go to one party elections and force everyone to vote. It's worked in parts of Europe, why not here?

I don't understand why people shouldn't be given a chance to vote for whom they want. The fact that it now looks like Lieberman is going to win this thing says something about who the people of Connecticut want representing them in the Senate. Isn't that what elections are for?

Lamont is a one-trick pony. It doesn't appear that there is much there. He captured the anti-war extreme of the Democrat left and rode that to victory in the primary. It appears that that may not be a winning strategy in general elections; at least in this particular general election.

If current trends hold, it will be interesting to see where Lieberman settles. Will he be brought back into the Democrat fold? Will he jump ship to the Rebuplicans? Or will he maintain his independent status, which could make him a mere sidenote in the Senate.

I think I understand. But it's not much of a point. He ran as a Democrat presumably because, over the years, either HE or the Democratic Party has moved. But when he ran, he was a Dem. Ever consider the possibility that he's been perfectly true to his ideals and the ideals of the Democratic Party as he understands them (as many Dems do) but that the Party moved away from him? And that for him to move WITH the Party away from his own principles would have been a form of self-betrayal?

And the whole "dissembling about his divorce" thing is probably the weakest link in the argument you want to make. Again, this is nothing but you making judgement calls you don't have enough information to make. It may seem to you that he's dissembling. But you actually have no clue. He could be 1000% sincere in his rationale and you would have nothing beyond mere speculation to challenge it.

Finally--is he really one of the people most responsible for us being in Iraq? More responsible than Bill Clinton, whose admin had planned (by his own admission and that of his aides) its own pre-emptive invasion of Iraq? More responsible than Hillary Clinton? More responsible than John Kerry who also advocated for it but then just bolted when it became politically inconvenient? More responsible than the world's intel agencies which delivered a consensus belief that SH had WMD programs?

There is no ONE to blame for our decision to go into Iraq. And every retroactive review of our decision to invade judging on the basis of what we know NOW is fundamentally flawed. Based on what we knew and thought we knew in March of 2003, invading Iraq was the right call.

I agree. Seems like there is always plenty of bemoaning that the primary process produces more extreme candidates. If he can win as an independent then more power to him. That is the republican (small "r") process.

Additionally, this is not a Ross Perot scenario where you are doing nothing more than giving the electorate your opposite by competing with an ideologically similar candidate. As understand it the Republican candidate is scandal plagued and has no serious shot. Conservatives, who have ALWAYS, liked Lieberman will probably back him now. A McCain v. Lieberman presidential election, for example (though unlikely) would be a hard call for me. Both so moderate it is hard to tell them apart. Maybe this country would be less polarized if either party could produce a moderate candidate. I has to tell you something when the democrats nominate John Kerry because the guy that had all the grass roots support was just too liberal.

I guess I'm not as cynical as some about the political opportunism here. If Lieberman wanted to take the most popular position he wouldn't be a consensvative Democrat trying to run in New England. He could just jump on the Kerry "I was Lied to" band wagon.

I for one hope he wins. As I have said before, I think this country needs to hear from democrats who are more than just anti-Bush.

1. I think he will win.
2. I think he will remain independent.
3. I think that independent status will enhance his power, not make him a sidenote, particularly in a Senate that may soon be even more evenly divided in terms of numbers.

Possibly, but I wonder. Isn't much of a Senator's power derived from committee assignments and rankings within those committees? Granted, a nearly evenly divided Senate gives him significant leverage, particularly at first. But as time goes on, doesn't that leverage tend to dwindle? I suspect he may have to show his hand fairly early. There must be a reason 99 percent of our Senators maintain party affiliation over the long term. Either way, this will be a test of his political skills and should be very interesting.

If he is as committed to his values as
 

many say he is he won't stray too far from the Dems on domestic issues. He is very pro-union, he was against the Bush tax cuts and he is pro-choice. Outside of his Iraq stance he isn't very Republican. Would he forsake all his stances just to spite the Howard Deans of the party? If he does than most of his values weren't all that firmly held.

It seems strange all the cougarboard Republicans and Sean Hannitys of the world are getting orgasmic over the guy, he is quite liberal.

He will be an independent like Jim Jeffords or Bernie Sanders is an independent.