Lieberman has simply and rightly been caught up in the fundamental dynamics of Politics 2006, in which Democrats are doing their damnedest to unseat all the president's enablers in this year's elections. As well, Lieberman's broader politics are at odds with those of his fellow Northeastern Democrats. He is not being opposed because he doesn't reflect the views of his Democratic constituents 100 percent of the time. He is being opposed because he leads causes many of them find repugnant.Well Meyerson must be right because he was attacked at once by the über neocon currently dressed up as a Democrat Marshall Wittmann.
As early as December 2001 Lieberman signed a letter to President Bush asking him to make Saddam Hussein's Iraq our next stop in the war against terrorism. As recently as last month, he opposed two Democratic resolutions to scale back our involvement in the war. And just last week Lieberman characterized the progress of the war as "a lot better" than it was a year ago, adding, "They're on the way to building a free and independent Iraq."
So, why the surprise if Connecticut voters, listening to Lieberman and looking at his record, conclude that they cannot trust his judgment on the single most important issue of the day? That's not mandating purity; it's opting for a senator who pays more attention to the war on the ground than to the war in his head.
Joe Lieberman is overwhelmingly popular among the people of Connecticut. The only reason that he has to fight for re-election is that the national left mounted a challenge to him on one issue -the war.I guess we will see if Lieberman is "overwhelmingly popular among the people of Connecticut" or just overwhelmingly popular among the neocons with a D in the halls of the DLC. It's not just that "one" issue but even if it was the one issue is the most important one facing the people of the United States today and Joe Lieberman is out of touch in Connecticut and the entire US.