Democrats pleased that Joe got whupped

I agree. Thanks for posting this Shava! I am pleased Liberman was knocked out.

That's right Kelly disagree with the left extremists' and you can no longer play in the Democrat's sandbox. Lets all join you in teaching the moderates in your party that if you deviate even just a little bit, BAM your history. Great way to raise our children, don't you think Kelly? I may not always agree with McCain but I want him in my sandbox.

um. I think 72% of the Democrats can't possibly count as "extreme."

Bruce, your Dem history is really out of date. For many years, it's been the progressives being told by the moderates "get out of line, progressives, and *bam* -- you're history." The DLC has run the party since a bit before Clinton's first election, and been losing hearts and minds among the party faithful every year since.

The progressives are going to give people who are truly moderate, and not just kissing up to the neocon agenda, a fair shake.

I thought in 1999 that Liberman was the second worst thing about Al Gore's run -- the worst thing being how the DLC "handlers" told him that "passion isn't presidential" and turned him into cardboard.

It's not just the anti-war vote, and it's not just the Bush "kiss of death." Those are symptoms. I like bipartisanship, but I don't like people who run as Democrats in blue states because they feel they have to, to win.

We have plenty of those in Massachusetts, too.

I want to see people who are not afraid to embrace and reify the tag "liberal," to reframe it, to make people remember what a good thing that is.

I am also pleased that Joe has been replaced. It makes a clear difference between Dems and Reps for an independent voter like myself.

Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"

Well, except, Ben that Joe's running as an independent. So as an independent, does it make that much difference to you, when you still have a choice between Ned Lamont, Joe Lieberman, and a Republican who likely has a snowball's chance?

I wonder if it's that clarifying from that point of view...?

Bipartisanship, Shava is fast become extinct. The extremists are taking over, soon the only way to know what a Moderate is, will be from history class.

I don't know. It seems to me that bipartisanship is becoming extinct because the Republicans control the process in government. You can show effort after effort on the part of the Dems in Congress to deal across the aisle.

If the Republicans like it, they frame the process as their idea, often warping the whole thing so badly as to be unrecognizable from the original (i.e. NCLB, which started as a well-funded bill and better designed plan from Ted Kennedy).

If the Republicans *don't* like it, they stonewall. Hard to have bipartisanship if the other side has forgotten what give and take is about.

If you think that the Democrats might punish someone for being too Republican, look what happens to Republicans who break party lines even issue by issue. It's not pretty.

It only takes one side to make a wall.

What we need is to encourage people, from all parties, from all walks of life, to embrace the idea that democracy is built on compromise, but strong on principles.

It does us no good at all to have a Republican dominated government strong on unity, and weak on crafting good compromises.

I have a lot more faith in Democrats' ability to work compromises out -- we have to do it within our own party, and we just don't tend to doctrinaire that way.

Shava, I am sorry but I just don't buy it. The Republicans learned to stonewall from the Democrats. The new trick is the need for a super majority to get anything passed. And if the Republicans lose this election, look for a come back of that trick, and watch the Democrats scream bloody murder.

Well, if you believe "that governs best that governs least" maybe gridlock is a good thing on some fronts. I would rather see gridlock except on issues where good compromises can be forged, than a supermajority for either party.

I guess I'm just a radical, huh? :)

I don't know about Radical but it was nice to have a disagreement with you. Thanks

I'm honestly not sure what to make of this. My first reaction is that it seems like the dems are kind of eating their own -- and damn gleefully.

I tend to think that the further left the party pushes itself the more it decreases its chances for meaningful gains. But I acknowledge that it's hard to know at the moment. The whole country is just so divided over everything that it's difficult for me to tell.

The London Terror Plot is an interesting example of the division over, and politicization of, absolutely everything. It seems that instead of just being happy about foiling an attempt to murder 3000-4000 innocent people, many can't resist the urge to make the incident evidence of the correctness of their own political agenda -- whatever that agenda may be.

I'd have to agree with Shava that it's bipartisanship that is taking a backseat. As people become more aware and involved, it simply has to. The public has been answering to the government for too long. It's supposed to be the other way around.

I think a younger man just took an older man's place.

Not a choice for me, Shava. I don't vote in CT so I can't chose any of them. But the CT Dem primary outcome will help me to decide how to vote in Florida.

Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"