In all fairness, as evidenced by the quotes in the article, Lieberman is still identifying himself as a Dem. I don't quarrel with him running as an indy when he lost the Dem. primary, but he should at least own up to the fact when he speaks of himself publicly.

A further wrinkle to note is that "anti-war" Obama supported pro-war Joe against anti-war Lamont in the primary then made himself scarce when Lamont won. Let's see now, how does "party loyalty" shake out there?

I must confess, I find it strange that a progressive publication could accuse a fellow of betraying his party by refusing to support his erstwhile party's candidate yet fail to recognize its own "betrayal" of progressive causes by refusing to support the candidates that actually promote them. I suppose that one could make the claim that at least it's not supporting the opposition. (That is debatable). But when progressive candidates need all the support they can get, failing to support them, as Obama failed with Lamont, often amounts to the same thing

Mr. Lieberman made a choice, he went the way his heart went. I understand Mr. Obama supported him in the Senate Primary and then backed the person who won because of the Party machine.

If I got dissed by my party everytime I was not in lock-step, then I would have been out a long time ago...oh yes, he IS out...he is an independent as such has no "party" obligation to support Obama.

My hope had been, though I knew it would not happen because of Mr. L's stand on abortion, that he would be John McCains Running mate. That would have totally eliminated a BIG part of the Republican base though it might have energized more independents.

This editorial is a load. Unfortunately the democratic party is learning the wrong lesson from the Republican Party that it is acceptable to throw people out based on a single view. All the Blue dog democrats who gave the democratic party their majority are next I guess, blue dogs will join RINO's at outcasts who represent a majority of the country

what a mess

Lieberman was elected as an Independent. He abandoned the Democrats because he couldn't stand the thought of not being a U.S. Senator after losing the primary, but so what? Exactly why was he required to stay a Democrat?

The writer obviously would be pleased as punch if warmongering Joe rejoined the Democrats. Well, actually he'd still be welcomed with open arms. Obama isn't quite as bloodthirsty as Joe, but they both support the Iraq War (Obama keeps voting to fund it), a "defense" budget soaring past $600 billion dollars, militarism, blind obedience to the Israeli lobby, and American attempts to dominate the globe. Exactly why Lieberman isn't supporting Obama is a bit of a mystery, except perhaps he is getting back at the Democrats who wanted to vote him out of office.

Sometimes the rude and crude comes back to bite you in your own behind. Joe was trashed by his own party (the rump remainder in CT) and the Netroots. The incumbent Senator was booted for only being a 95% match to the party line. His was disrespected because he was right on the War, told the truth as he knew it, and would not tow the Party-line by placing Party above National Security. He showed true conscience and independent thought, not mob delusions and irrational assertions.

Sorry, but the Dems brought this on themselves through their own disloyalty and over-the-top rude attacks. Blackface photo got Joe re-elected. Repeating the same mistake now with the Palin Family. What happened to my party?

The author values Party over Nation, and gets it wrong.

Dem4McCain/Palin

Ever since Likud became terrified of Carter after Camp David, wealthy conservative Jews and neocons have tended to move to the Republicans, first having a big role in Reagan's foreign policy, and actually creating and botching the war in Iraq as, in effect, a proxy war for Israel, or at least Likud. Conservative Likud/Israel-firsters, I believe, have been in charge of BOTH Hillary's and McCain's campaigns. When Hillary lost to Obama, they became even more determined to destroy Obama by any means necessary using McCain, who has obviously, on the face of it, always been a ventriloquist's dummy for Lieberman (correcting him on "Sunni" vs. "Shia," in the most egregious instance), just as Bush II was a ventriloquist's dummy, in effect, for the Wolfowitz crowd that gave us the fiasco of the war. Thank God for progressive Jews in America who are still fighting the good fight for liberalism and the best Jewish moral and political traditions. Keep up the good work slamming the number one traitor to all the above in American politics today, Lieberman. I pray Obama and plenty of Dem senators come in in January and tell Lieberman where to go with his Likud-first worldview.

What loyalty does he owe a political party that abandoned him?
He is an incumbent and well-respected by many of his colleagues and constituents.

For a disagreement on a single issue, the Democrat party threw him out and then, tried to destroy him.

The voters didn't go for it, did they now?

Matthew, I'd like to ask you a question. You say Joseph Lieberman is a "traitor to his party, and to the causes that he has championed." How can he be a traitor to his party when he in fact is not a member of any party?

And Matthew, can you substantiate your claim that he has turned his back on the causes he's championed? On what, exactly? Other than the war. One disagreement with the "party" line and the "party" needed to destroy him.

Hmm... loyalty to "the party" more important than loyalty to one's country... now we know how patriotism is defined.

How do I get to be a member of the politburo? Isn't that where the real action is?