Martin Schneider writes:
Among Democrats, Joe Lieberman is one of the most despised politicians in America. How did the onetime VP candidate (Gore-Lieberman 2000) fall so low?
The war in Iraq did something to Joe. After 2003, as the Democratic Party (and the American people as a whole) slowly came to reject the war and occupation entirely, Joe became the most hawkish (pro-war) Democrat in Congress. He accused the Democrats of treason and supported both Bush and his close friend John McCain at every opportunity. He traveled with McCain in Iraq just a couple of weeks ago. He has also endorsed McCain for president.
Betrayal of this magnitude gets people's attention. In 2006, an anti-war Democrat named Ned Lamont challenged him in the primary election for Senator Lieberman's Senate seat in Connecticut. Lamont won the primary, allowing him to represent the Democrats, but Lieberman then declared an independent candidacy - and held on to the seat. During that campaign, he promised to caucus with the Democrats.
But since 2006 he has not behaved much like a Democrat. A recent poll (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/04/07/lieberman_popularity_fades_in_connecticut.html) shows that if that election were replayed today, Lamont would win by fourteen points. In other words, Lieberman retained his seat by convincing moderate Democrats that he would still support the party - he has lost those moderates now.
Two days ago (8.4.) Lieberman said "The Iraqi political leadership has achieved a lot more political reconciliation and progress in September than the American political leadership has. So we've got to give some credit for that." (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/lieberman_hooray.php)
Another outrage. Yes, America is in the middle of a heated political campaign, but the news has not reported incidents of supporters of McCain, Clinton, or Obama using mortars and bombs to achieve their political ends.