Joe Lieberman is really creating a splash

And for Joe Lieberman, that is saying something.

There is all sorts of buzz in the media regarding the effect that Mr Lieberman's campaign is having on the Democratic Party, and whether he will, (if elected), be entitled to keep his seniority in the Senate, as well as the prerogatives that accompany his standing.

What's the big deal here?

Mr. Lieberman seems to be a victim of some rather ugly, if not extreme, ostracism from his own party over the fact that he has broken ranks with the ideological line on one issue, (granted, it is a very important and significant issue), that being the ongoing prosecution of the war in Iraq.

Senators and Congressmen routinely break ranks with their parties over lots of issues, it seems that this one is the one that the party in opposition will propel them back into power, and they will simply not tolerate any deviation from the party line.

bullshit.

The Dem's need to apply a little of the political finesse that they are known for in looking at this issue. As I see it, the war was a mistake, but it is now a fact of life and needs to be dealt with.
For the party to punish any member who does not at least appear to toe the line of immediate withdrawal illustrates a serious disconnect with mainstream America. That course of action may well be the correct one, but it is not clear to me as a voter that that is really the case. Much time, money, lives and national prestige and reputation have been invested in this effort, to simply walk away and leave Iraq to become another suburb of Iran, (along with Syria and Afghanistan), is unthinkable. Like I said, we may have to, but that is not yet clear.

The Democratic Party needs to learn a few things from this experience. One is that a Democrat who is a pragmatic centrist has a lot of appeal, even to registered Republicans; another is that this conflict, though similar, is not Vietnam, and needs to be seen, and talked about, in a clear, non-ideological light. The party that does this best, (or, simply does it), will win. In the absence of any clear illumination of the issue(s), the party that is best seen as promoting national security, (even though it is the preservation of their own interests), will take the prize.

I hope somebody picks up on this.

update 1:

the Seattle Times see's it a bit differently.

they may be right. the most important point that they make in the article is that a moderate in Connecticutt is not necessarily a moderate in any other state.