What is wrong with being George W. Bush's fav Democrat? It should be an honor.

I am so tired of the usual right wing liars saying Joe Lieberman is in trouble because of Iraq. He is in trouble with his party because he has inch deep loyalties.

He said he'd run in 2004 even if Al Gore did. So, in 2000 Al Gore was the best American for the job, then in 2004 Joe thinks something has changed and he is the best? I think it is more that he was never loyal to core Democratic values in many ways.

Like the case with the woman from Florida that was in a coma. He argued to get the government involved.

The kiss from Bush? Does Bush kiss all the senators? I think he just kisses those that kiss up so much to him.

I want Democrats that stick up for our values. In a state like Conn. where Bush is less popular than meat on a Friday during lent in Vatican city it is hard to understand why this is where Bush looks for help, not accountability. It'd be like Ted Kennedy getting mad that rural Alabama wants a new senator.

Go Lamont go !

Thanks for the last poster for bringing up Ted Kennedy.

Many Democrats are trying to enforce a rigid ideology that doesn't have room for people who occasionally buck the party platform. All that does is expose the party as being out-of-touch with much of mainstream America that actually likes guys like Joe Liberman. And that is why the Democratic party is the minority party and will continue to be the minority party, even after the November elections.

The irony here is that Democrats (rightly) accuse Republicans of being blindly partisan and unified in a rigid ideology. But the truth is that Democrats are doing the same thing and have become the very thing they claim they despise.

Meanwhile the Republicans must be loving this whole Lamont-Lieberman fiasco.

The positions that Lieberman holds on a wide variety o issues differs than the large majority of his home state. In a democracy these things often match.

You can support the President when you agree, oppose him when you don't, and still work together without kissing the guy. Dubya doesn't kiss everyone. He doesn't kiss the Republicans. He kisses Lieberman. If Clinton had been such a buddy with McCain kissing him and making him his Favorite Democrat would Republicans really think about nominating him in 2008?

It is not his politics ( stands on issues) it is the fact that he doesn't seem to like Democrats ( Kissing Bush, not staying in the party maybe, not supporting Gore in 2000, hanging with the Faux News crowd,Alito, Impeachment for Clinton etc)

I agree that kissing GWB is not the most pleasant idea and probably not the best image you want if you are a Democrat running for office. But then again, so what? The thing is that Liberman might lose the primary but would most likely still win the general election as an independent. That means that the majority of his constituents support him (please remember that his constituents aren't just registered democrats). What that tells me is that those who are trying to drive him from the party do not represent majority, mainstream opinion. And it isn't exacly like Connecticut is a red state anyway. It isn't Lieberman who is out of touch, it is the hardcore liberals within his own party.

Bubba I don't know ho to convince you of this simple fact. I am not a liberal. I am a Democrat. I think Lieberman is an alright guy and a decent senator but that Conn. can do better.

It has nothing to do with how far left or right he is. It is his loyalty to anything greater than himself.

OK then. So if I take at face value that Lieberman is just an "alright guy" but that the party can do better, then I would think this campaign would be about the issues. But the reality is that Ned Lamont is running a single-issue campaign that attacks Lieberman's support for the war in Iraq and his alleged chummy relationship with GWB. Lamont is basically a politically unknown multi-millionaire who is supported primarily by left-wing activist organizations, such as moveon.org and Democracy for America. This whole campaign against Lieberman is being waged by those that want to purge the party of Democrats who don't stick to the DNC playbook, and that is demonstrated by the fact that they are willing to replace a former VP nominee with a political unknown. Nobody knows a thing about Lamont, so this has nothing to do with simply electing a better Senator, it is about purging conservatives like Lieberman from the party.

Bubba, I will try again. I am not a member of DFA or Moveon.org but I support Ned Lamont.

The Iraq war is not a bad issue to base a person's vote on. There is no more critical issue facing our nation than the wars abroad. I am sorry i am not enthused about tax policy, gun control, ANWR, The Estate Tax, and a host of other issues more than the wars.

Joe Lieberman wants to stay the course. 55 percent of Americans ( Rasmussen) want us out within a year. That means that Lieberman is actually out of the mainstream.

The DNC currently supports Lieberman as he is the incumbent. Are you suggesting that outside groups are fighting against The DNC?

Joe Lieberman has been solidly behind his party on issues such as affirmative action, the environment, a woman's right to choose, gay marriage, health care, social security, taxes, and labor. He also happens to be one of very few Democrats who support the war in Iraq. But the activists within his own party are unwilling to allow different points of view on the war in Iraq and their blind hatred of GWB is so strong that any Democrat that agrees with the president on any substantive issue earns the wrath of the party activists.

Ned Lamont is a multi-millionaire who is running a single-issue campaign that focuses almost exclusively on the Iraq War issue. He is an unknown and lacks any political experience. But the liberal activists would rather elect a multi-millionaire nobody than a veteran politician who stands behind his party probably 90% of the time. But since it isn't 100% he has to go.

That is what is called group-think. Liberal Democrats are trying to enforce ideological purity and drive the remaining conservatives from their party. They may get what they want, but it will only further marginalize them and keep them as the minority party for the forseeable future.

The Republicans are vulnerable on multiple fronts, but the left-wing looneys in the Democratic party will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by once again confirming how out-of-touch their party leaders are with mainstream America.

Bubba, there are more Conservative Democratic senators I would never oppose. It isn't his liberal or conservative or moderate record.

I don't know how you keep reading this and keep answering back that is is liberals and the looney left ( Good job calling names) that don't like him. On Tuesday I think you are going to find out it is the majority of the Democratic Party. And a majority of America is against his ( and I take it yours) stay the course position in Iraq so really you guys are the extremists.

McCain wants more troops. Hillary wants more oversight. Want does Lieberman want? More of the same and more of trusting Bush.

A few non-war reasons.

Lieberman is a moderate who leans to the right on some issues (death penalty, guns, taxes, Israel/Middle East) and to the left on others (civil liberties, women's rights, abortion, etc.) Therefore, he is a bit uncomfortable to deal with for pundits and those on either fringe for whom simple mindless labeling is a necessity of their discourse.

He also has the right to run as an independent if he wishes.

In the end, the only opinion that matters is that of the people of Connecticut and their judgment on how well he does - or does not - serve them.

I agree Garibaldi. I think that for all the talk about extremist bloggers this race has always been about Connecticut. Any predictions?

My prediction is that Lamont will win the primary. Liberman will then subsequently run as an independent in the general election (which is his right under Connecticut law). Liberman will ultimately win the runoff and be re-elected, albeit as an independent. Unfortunately for the Democratic party a Lieberman victory in the general election will only show that the party leadership is out of touch with mainstream views, even in a left-leaning state like Connecticut. In the end I think all this divisiveness within the Democratic party only serves to benefit the Republicans.

On a personal note, I like Lieberman. I don't agree with his position on all the issues, but I do believe that he has the courage to stand up for his convictions even when they might be unpopular. In the larger scheme of things I'd prefer to have politicians (from both parties) who are at least willing to stand for something rather than be push-button lackeys for their party leadership. In an era of overt corruption and influence peddling it is amazing to me that an obviously ethical and principled man like Lieberman is being driven from his own party. Lieberman is a good man who has represented his party and constituents very well over the years and what is being done to him is a discrace.

Bubba, will you say he served his state well if he loses the primary and the general? It would seem that would be a sound rejection.

I don't blame him for not following the party leadership. But why can't he instead be a party leader? He seems to start too many sentences with " The problem with Democrats..." and he starts these sentences on partisan shows like the Sean Hannity radio show. I am arguing he is too partisan, but as a Republican.

I was hoping before the election would cause him to reflect on what his voters and party were trying to say to him. But instead of listening, he threatened to bolt the party, run as an independent, then come back to the party if elected.

In response to Question for Bubba, Connecticut law allows Lieberman to lose the primary and still run as an independent in the general election, so I don't see why a decision by him to run as an independent should be controversial, especially if he might actually win. In my opinion it is the primary process that is largely responsible for producing the partisan extremes that we see in modern politics. If Lieberman runs as an independent and is elected by a majority of voters from all parties then I see it as a victory for truly democratic elections. It is a disservice to voters that we often filter out moderate, mainstream candidates in the primary in order to give voters the choice between a left-wing extremist versus a right-wing extremist. So if Joe Lieberman wants to run again during the general election I say go for it. Then all voters in Connecticut can choose the person they want to represent them in the U.S. Senate. There is nothing more democratic than that.

"Quick Question: If conservative pundits really believe that a Ned Lamont victory will destroy the Democratic Party, why hasn't a single major conservative pundit endorsed Ned Lamont?"

I predict Lamont wins but not by a landslide. Then Joe Lieberman will use that as launchpad and spin a loss into " I could win If" campaign.

It will turn ugly when the Democratic Party abandons him and supports Lamont. Then he can tour the state trashing the Dems for being extreme but I doubt that is a winning tactic in a big blue state.

A Lamont victory will not destroy the Democratic party. But the in-fighting within the party works against them in trying to defeat Republicans. If Democrats want to become the majority party they have to be willing to embrace differing viewpoints that can still be compatible within a larger vision and direction for America. But what I see is a party that is suppressing and even purging alternative ideas and driving away moderates and conservatives from within their own ranks. That is not a long-term recipe for success. Overall the Republicans are a disaster with both their domestic and foreign policy and they are serving up a softball for the Democrats to hit out of the park, but for some reason the Democrats keep whiffing and striking out because they just can't get their act together. Instead of coming up with a unifying vision and reaching out to mainstream America they are busy infighting and attacking their own. What is happening to Lieberman is very symbolic of what is happening to the Democratic party as a whole.

You might be right, Bubba, but I think there is more here:

1.) This is not a good year to be an incumbent up for re-elction. With no real leadership anywhere, the people are showing signs they are really disatisfied with the status quo. It could be seen in lots of places other than Connecticut.

2.) For all politicians, like all athletes, there comes a time to leave the game of your own choice or be cut from the roster. Joe has been there a long time and the general managers (voters) may think its time for an enthusiastic rookie with some huge potential instead of a weathered veteran player. Also, the longer you are there, the more mistakes ou make and they eventually catch up to most officials.

3.) Local issues and politics are the final deciding factors including jobs and general economic issues that politicians claim credit for when they are good, but do not want to be blamed for when they go sour - as they seem to be doing now with the outsourcing of American industry, war, oil, etc. Sometimes you can ride the tiger's back; sometimes you wind up inside the tiger's stomach.

4.) Connecticut has always had its own take on whom they want in the Senate and sometimes that has been a liberal Republican and sometimes a moderate Democrat.

In any event, it will be interesting to see what they want this year.

This election is over, but now it gets really interesting!

It's gonna be a hell of a ride!