although what the Dem party is doing to Lieberman and the extreme shift to the left at play here scares me, I'm starting to think this would benefit the GOP in many ways, politically(Lieberman losing primary)

If Lieberman loses it will be because of his support of the failed, increasingly unpopular foreign (and other) policies of this administration. There are many other races nationwide that support this. You better duck, because that light you're seeing is NOT the end of the tunnel!

Groucho makes remarks, facts not in evidence. What failed Bush policies? Does the Taliban rule in Afghanistan? Is Saddam the dictator of Iraq? I invite Groucho and those who think like him to inquire of the Kurds or the women of Afghanistan as to the success or failure of Bush's policy. How many American women and children have died at the hands of the government, particularly in Idaho and Texas since Bush took office?

As a Connecticut state resident, I have gotten front row seats to this political circus. The truth is that if Sen. Leiberman cannot through front door in the primary, then he will get back in via the back door as an independent canidate.

I'm with jp on this. Lieberman beating Lamont in a nationally publicized general election could be a good thing.

At least it would show the rest of the nation how goofy some of the actors (Kos, Hamsher) that are trying to take over the Dem's are. And prove that democracy still works where the few extremists are not allowed to bully their way into power.

Some of you still seem to be of the misimpression that the CT primary is (1) driven by Liberal Movement bloggers, (2) all about Iraq. Actually, the bloggers have been most significant only in that they led Lieberman, his supporters, and sympathetic commentators (which was most of them) train their fire on the wrong target. They spent weeks attacking and responding to blogs and bloggers like Daily Kos that have negligible impact on the ground in CT, while Lamonts smart, savvy grassroots campaign ate their lunch.

As to Iraq, the Lamont mutiny has certainly been powered by it, but it is not an accident that none of the other Democrats who voted for the war are in trouble. Lieberman has made his national reputation by sticking his finger in the eye of base Democratic voters and some of their most cherished beliefs. Church and State, Clinton's sex life, Schivo's fate, Dean's fitness for office, school vouchers, CEO compensation, stock options, bankruptcy law, the list of places where he burnished his image at the expense of their assumptions is almost endless. This put him on pretty thin ice with his base, and the war was just the final straw - a catalyst for a reaction waiting to happen.

Which brings me to the last misimpression I've noticed here - that Lamont is a fringe lunny. As in all campaigns, his opponents would like you to believe it, but a look at his past, his positions and his rhetoric doesn't bear it out. Lamont is likely to be no more liberal then any other New England Democrat. And as Joe Lieberman would now argue, not that different from him 90-odd percent of the time.

Tilden'76 - very clever name you have there. ;)

History lover?

kind of like picking between HITLER or STALIN wich is worse?

Oh, surely Spurwing, er, Kagu, you know the answer to that:

BUSH!

BUSH!

(with Cheney and Rove right behind)

/Left talking points