[jluetjen]

I don't know what the initial rant is about. It's purely a feature of our politcal system that in order to win a primary and get a party's support, a candidate has to appeal to their party faithful (in this case the liberal wing of the Democratic party), since that is where the numbers are within the primary. But in order to win the election they need to appeal to the center where the overall majority of voters are.

That's the quandry for any politician in this country. How to appeal enough to the party faithful -- without saying or doing anything that would burn their bridges regarding the centrists, independants and cross-over voters in the center. I'm not judging the system -- it's what it is. It does manage to allow the center voters to swing elections by swinging a little left or a little right. Overall, I think that this is a good thing compared to the other common democratic process which is the multi-party Parlimentary System (like Italy or Israel) which results in the smaller radical parties exherting an out-of-proportion influence on the system since they wind up being king-makers. I'd rather have the center being the swing votes then the extreme.

Back to Lieberman, he got screwed by the Democrats for not being Liberal enough. He believed that to get elected in Connecticut (where I was raised BTW), that he needed to run towards the center. So rather then the Democratic Party screwing Lieberman, I think that he taught them a lesson in how to get ahead in politics.

Personally I'd like to see more democrats like him swing towards the center rather then the left. The democrats would have a lot more long-term success -- especially in Presidential Elections -- if they put up more candidates like Lieberman and fewer like Pilosi.

BTW, My Dad is left handed, but I was never blessed with that gift.

PS: Romney's name is "Mitt" Romney, not "Mitch" Romney