WNPR interviewed Joe Lieberman this morning about his new book about the Sabbath. It was a predictable, yet still sad, cream puff interview by John Dankosky. Mr. Dankosky only permitted questions from listeners that were related to Lieberman's book, and with one exception only asked Lieberman about the Sabbath, and his views on religion. The interview was virtually devoid of tough questions: no question about why he sold out the public option; why he questioned whether Obama was a socialist; why he attended the Republican national convention and questioned Obama's commitment to America. Nada.
The only political question came at the very end of the program, and it was pretty tame: Dankosky asked Lieberman about his statement after meeting with Qadaffi in Libya that Libya and America shared common enemies, and whether the U.S. had intended to arm Libya. And it only left Lieberman a short period of time to answer. So no possible damage.
Is this ethical? Did Dankosky agree to limit questions only to Lieberman's new book? Is it non-profit public broadcasting's job to help Lieberman sell books? If Lieberman refused to come on unless the discussion was solely about his book, shouldn't Dankosky have refused the interview? Dankosky has done this before. A previous interview did not permit call-in questions.
Contrast this cream puff interview with Dankosky/WNPR's treatment of Lieberman's erstwhile opponent Ned Lamont during last year's gubernatorial race. Dankosky unilaterally declared that WNPR would be holding a debate on air, and if Lamont refused to show up, Dankosky would give the full hour to Malloy. He then proceeded to repeatedly lambast Lamont for not agreeing to participate, waxing indignant about the importance of public debate and the people's right to know. Of course, Dankosky had never demanded that Lieberman show up for an on-air debate with Lamont in 2006 when Lieberman refused to debate except for the one time. And he never raised Cain over the previous governor's refusal to even be interviewed on WNPR.
So it might be me, but there seems to be a double standard at play at WNPR. Let's be clear: WNPR has permitted exactly one Democratic commentator to come on their show: Bill Curry, while several conservatives have made appearances. No minority voices are brought on as rwegular commentators. Politics, Burgers & Beer refuses to bring on a Democrat to comment on Connecticut politics.
Is this fair and balanced? Was this sort of whitewashed interview with Lieberman really ethical? Should Dankosky and WNPR demanded that Lieberman answer questions about all aspects of politics, and not just served as a PR outlet to push book sales? I believe so.
I can't help but be nauseated by the fawning coverage of Lieberman's retirement. Perhaps Hearst's Brian Lockhart's article is the worst: "Lieberman's Legacy: Good and Decent Man."
Are you kidding me? Not a word about the more than 40,000 dead and wounded Americans from the senseless Iraq War that Lieberman helped lie us into; not a word about the hundreds of thousands more suffering from PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury. Nope. Instead, Lockhart adds a quote from Sal Liccione that "This whole war stuff really tangled him up." That's it? Just "war stuff" that "tangled him up"?
"Mr. Lieberman, as a senator, was best known for his centrist positions and outspokenness on issues of morality."
Is he serious? Lieberman a centrist? No mention of his rock-solid support for Wolfowitz, Bush, Cheney and the rest of the Neo-Cons' radical foreign policies that pushed us into Iraq? No mention of Lieberman's siding with the Far Right to kill the public option in 2009 by voting against cloture? No mention of Lieberman's support for the Far Right Sarah Palin? And just how "outspoken" was he on morality when he refused to condemn Linda McMahon's disgusting violent and sexist WWE business when she ran for Senate?
Think Progress does a far better job than the Connecticut press corps (naturally) in getting it right on Joe Lieberman. Here's are some of the things that our press corps really want swept under the rug:
Said progressive candidates would cower to terrorism: In an interview with Salon.com, Lieberman said, "I worry that whoever gets the Democratic nomination will have a hard time scampering back to assure people that they're prepared to take on the Islamist extremists and [any] other nation that threatens our security."
Suggested that Obama could be a Marxist: When asked if Obama is "a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case," Lieberman replied, "Well, you know, I must say that's a good question." [4/14/08]
Linked Obama's policies to socialism: "There are ways I suppose you can make an argument that there are some similarities between what Sen. Obama is talking about ('spreading the wealth') and classic, what used to be known as socialist theory...[but] I'm not going to use the name calling," Lieberman said. [10/23/08]
Praised radical right-wing radio hosts: "I'm real proud of you," Lieberman told Glenn Beck. "You're a good man," he said to Hugh Hewitt. [11/04/08; 5/21/08]
Feared a 60-seat Democratic majority: Lieberman made clear that he firmly opposes Democrats gaining 60 seats in the Senate, saying that he "fears" for the survival of the U.S. if Democrats break the filibuster threshold. [11/04/08]
Cited domestic priorities in supporting McCain: Lieberman claimed that the United States is going to "make progress on health care and the energy crisis and climate change" under a McCain administration. "John McCain is more ready to be president on foreign and domestic policy because of his extraordinary experience." [6/29/08; 8/03/08]
That is not the record of a "good and decent man." Good riddance.
As I watched the long hoped-for retirement speech of Joe Lieberman, I couldn't help thinking of my gratitude to Ned Lamont, the man who put an end to Lieberman's sanctimonious career.
It was that courageous man, Ned Lamont, who stood up against the war in Iraq, against Lieberman's support for numerous right-wing policies, who used his own money to run for Senate, who endured ugly attacks by the Far Right and grossly unfair treatment by our right-wing press, not least of which came from his own hometown Greenwich Time, and sparked the movement that led to the end of that war.
It was Ned Lamont whose courage and primary win emboldened Democrats across the country to stand up against the Iraq War, and who paved the way for anti-Iraq War candidate Barack Obama to win the presidency two years later. More than any other American, it was thanks to Ned Lamont that the last American combat soldier was withdrawn from Iraq last August.
Ned Lamont was savaged in the press by Dick Cheney, and right-wing talking heads like Bill O'Reilly and David Brooks. But it was Ned Lamont who exposed Joe Lieberman not only as a Neo-Con supporter, but also proved that he could be beaten, and should be defeated.
I would love to see Ned Lamont taking the oath of office on the floor of the United States Senate in January 2013. He certainly is qualified; he certainly has the guts. And he would destroy the North Carolina backwoods WWE peformer Linda McMahon. He's earned a run, and our votes.
Responding to my question on WNPR's "Where We Live" program today, Congressman Chris Murphy stated that, "I am seriously thinking about (running for the United States Senate)." He said that he will make a decision early next month. He also stated that he did not think that Joe Lieberman will be the Democratic nominee, and that if he (Murphy) is not that nominee, that he "would expect" to support the Democratic nominee, not Lieberman.
So we have two Democratic congressmen seriously considering runs for Senate. That means that we Nutmeggers are sending the DSCC and Harry Reid a clear and unequivocal message: "Butt out! No more pandering to the despicable Joe Lieberman!"
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) could have the power to decide who controls the Senate after the midterm elections.
Polling suggests Republicans could pick up as many as nine seats this fall, making a 50-50 split between the two parties a distinct possibility.
A nine-seat gain for the GOP would give Democrats the slimmest possible majority: a caucus of 50, made up of 48 Democrats and two independents, Lieberman and Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.). Vice President Joe Biden would become the crucial tie-breaking vote in the Democrats' favor.
But that one-vote majority would hinge on Lieberman continuing to caucus with the Democrats. Under that scenario, the Democratic Party's love/hate relationship with Lieberman could reach a critical juncture.
Lieberman is facing a tough reelection fight in 2012 and could be tempted to caucus with the Republicans - or switch parties outright - during the next Congress.
Meghan McCain was on NPR's Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me over the weekend, flacking her new book, when this exchange took place with host Peter Sagal.
SAGAL: ... You write in your book, you say that Joe Lieberman is the funniest and most charming man you've ever met.
Ms. McCAIN: He is.
SAGAL: Tell me, have you met any other men?
(Soundbite of laughter)
Ms. McCAIN: Be nice to Joe. Seriously.
SAGAL: I'm sorry, if I...
Ms. McCAIN: Seriously, in person, he is hilarious.
Ms. McCAIN: He is my favorite. He and Senator Graham are my favorite. He is hilarious and he's just - he was so sweet and so kind and he's just very charming. And, I don't know, I love him.
SAGAL: Because we have made fun of him for years. Can you give us - can you stand up for Joe Lieberman? Give us a great Joe Lieberman story. Can you do that?
Ms. McCAIN: A great Joe Lieberman story? I'm trying to - there are so many.
SAGAL: Oh, of course.
(Soundbite of laughter)
Ms. McCAIN: I mean one time we were on the back of the bus...
SAGAL: All right, no, here we go.
Ms. McCAIN: Okay. One time we were on the back of the bus. We were, like, in Ohio and it was really bumpy. And I was like, I get really car sick, I'm like a Chihuahua. Like, anytime in a car, like, I'm going to throw up, like, I'll have issues. And I was like, Joe, I'm going to be sick. And he was like just don't throw up on my shoes. And it made me laugh so much that I stopped thinking about that. I was like you just have like these great one-liners. And I was like, all right, as long as I don't throw up on your shoes, today's a good day.
SAGAL: He said just don't throw up on my shoes.
Ms. McCAIN: Yes.
(Soundbite of laughter)
SAGAL: I mean, I will grant you that he's a charming, wonderful, funny man.
My friend, Rabia Chaudry, an immigration attorney in CT wrote this excellent op-ed on Joe Lieberman's unconstitutional "terrorist expatriation" act and sent it to several media outlets, including the Hartford Courant. Unfortunately, they all refused to publish it except for the website, www.commondreams.org, which is a wonderful source of news.
Sadly, it appears that certain media outlets are beholden to political interests and will not
allow critical voices of certain politicians be heard.
It took the better part of a week to dig a nice large plot in my yard for a garden. When the last hunk of sod was yanked out, I realized that I needed to go purchase the organic fertilizer necessary for my project. That's when it hit me. A week after a Connecticut man was arrested for trying to blow up Times Square, I was planning on sauntering into Home Depot sporting a Muslim headscarf and buying around 20 bags of fertilizer. Did I mention I live in Connecticut? This was going to be tricky.
Times are scary for Muslims in America. Even the appearance of impropriety could set off a chain-reaction of suspicion. How many things in my life could look suspicious? Let me count the ways: I am a Muslim born in Pakistan - enough said. I own a book called "American Jihad". Its only a collection of stories of converts to Islam, but imagine that sound bite. I once volunteered with CAIR, a Muslim civil rights organization that, although never charged with any wrong-doing, has been blacklisted by the FBI as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the Holy Land Foundation money-laundering case. Speaking of the Holy Land Foundation, thinking they provided humanitarian relief to Palestinians, I may have given them a few bucks years ago. Reports by the neighbors of Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square bomber, say he did not like to go out in the daytime and that his yard was unkempt. I admit, I love to sleep in and if you saw the dandelion hell that is my yard right now, you might want to call the authorities too.
Now there is the added stress of Joe Lieberman's latest proposal. Last week Senator Lieberman introduced the Terrorist Expatriation Act. This Act would expand on existing legislation that strips citizenship from individuals for a number of reasons, one of which is serving in the armed forces of a foreign state that is engaged in hostilities towards the U.S. Lieberman proposes including anyone who affiliates with a foreign terrorist organization or "fights against our country".
The problems begin with the title of the Act. Technically, it should be titled "The Suspected Terrorist Expatriation Act" since the proposal would strip citizenship from anyone accused, not convicted, of having terrorist ties. Legally, this proposal is problematic in a number of ways. First, in order for the Department of State to determine that citizenship has been lost, the existing legislation requires that the individual's actions were 1) voluntary and 2) performed with the specific intention of relinquishing citizenship. But if a person such as Shahzad, a naturalized citizen, enters the U.S. with an American passport, clearly he is demonstrating that he has no intention of relinquishing his citizenship. It can be assumed that the "intention" provision will be modified to meet Lieberman's objectives. Then there is the question of what it means to "fight against our country". Would this mean that someone like Joseph Stack, had he survived his fiery attack on the IRS, would lose his citizenship? Would it include members of extremist white militias, like the Hutaree? Would it include the nutjobs who bomb abortion clinics?
Quinnipiac had LIEberman at 39% approval for all Nutmeggers with 54% disapproving. Just 27% of Connecticut Democrats approved of Lieberman, while 67% disapproved.
Let's repeat that: two and a half times as many CT Democrats disapprove of Lieberman than approve of him. Or put another way, fully two-thirds of all of us Democrats can't stand him. So why is Harry Reid rubbing our noses in Lieberman? Again? And in Ned Lamont's hometown, Jim Himes' hometown (who had the courage to oppose Lieberman and strongly back Lamont early in 2006)? And Nancy DiNardo is actually considering attending?
Just what does it take to make people understand that we Democrats despise Joe Lieberman?
An estimated crowd of 475 files out of Stamford High School to hold a candle light vigil outside of Sen. Joseph Lieberman's Strawberry Hill Ave. apartment building in Stamford, Conn. on Sunday, Nov. 15, 2009 urging to withdraw his opposition to the public option in the health care reform bill. The event was held by the Interfaith Fellowship for Universal Health Care. Photo: Chris Preovolos / Stamford Advocate
This has to send a potent message to Lieberman. The symbolism is simply stunning. Rabbis protesting outside Joe Lieberman's home in Stamford? Dan Malloy? Who thought they'd ever see this happening?
STAMFORD -- Quietly holding candles, hundreds of clergymen, congregants and reform advocates lined the sidewalks outside Independent U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman's Stamford home Sunday night in a show of support for universal health care.
"When we heard not only would he vote against it, but he'd use his power, his position as a swing vote ... to block it from coming to a vote, we had to send a message so he knows people who vote overwhelmingly favor the public option," said Rabbi Stephen Fuchs, of Congregation Beth Israel in West Hartford.
The vigil began at Stamford High School, Lieberman's alma mater, and ended at the senator's home, the Hayes House, across the street.
"In some sense, it's poetic," said Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy, who attended the vigil. "The place where Sen. Joseph Lieberman received his high school education, the place he visited upon his announcement to seek the vice presidency, a place where his run for the presidency began -- and it just so happens, a place across the street from where he lives."
Lieberman also says wants a probe of the Ft Hood "Terrorist attack", jumping to conclusions as ever. Lieberman said evidence indicates that Major Nidal Malik Hasan was probably a "self-radicalized, homegrown terrorist."
LIEBERMAN: A public option plan is unnecessary. It has been put forward, I'm convinced, by people who really want the government to take over all of health insurance. They've got a right to do that; I think that would be wrong.
But worse than that, we have a problem even greater than the health insurance problems, and that is a debt - $12 trillion today, projected to be $21 trillion in 10 years.
WALLACE: So at this point, I take it, you're a "no" vote in the Senate?
LIEBERMAN: If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote because I believe debt can break America and send us into a recession that's worse than the one we're fighting our way out of today. I don't want to do that to our children and grandchildren.
h/t Heather at Video Cafe for the video and transcript.
Maddow: What do you think those consequences will be though? One of the things that we have to think about is what happens in Washington, whether or not the Democrats and the Senate allow him to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee-there's also the question of whether he faces political consequences at home. He seems to be planning to run again.
Lamont: I believe-I probably wouldn't know-I'd be the last person in Connecticut to know whether he's going to run again but I can tell you this; there's an awful lot of folks here who are looking forward to the opportunity of challenging Sen. Lieberman. You know during our race a few years ago he said nobody wants to have a Democrat elected president as much as I do. He supported health care reform. Nobody wanted to get the troops home more than he did. Three years is a long time. I think there are a number of folks, independent, moderates, Republicans and Democrats who are disappointed where the words aren't matching the action and are looking for a change.
Maddow: Why do you think he doesn't just become a Republican?
Lamont: I think he's been a Democrat for an awful long time, but I think tactically he's probably looking at his options right now. I've got to believe when you walk away from health care reform, when you deny your fellow Senators the right to vote on health care reform, that seems to be somebody that knows he was elected in 2006 with overwhelming Republican support. I think that's his base.
In an appearance on Face the State just two weeks ago, Sen. Dodd answered a question about Sen. Lieberman by stressing how hard he worked for Lieberman in the 2006 primary, how he thought Lieberman was the best candidate for Democrats in 2006, how he made an "impassioned plea" to keep him in the party in late 2008/early 2009, how he anticipates that Sen. Lieberman will remain a Democrat in 2012, and how that "would help" him earn Dodd's support in the 2012 campaign:
Q: Let's talk about your friend Senator Joe Lieberman, who has unequivocally endorsed you for re-election this year. Does he have to be a Democrat in order for you to support him in his next re-election bid? If he's an independent, will you support him over the Democrat?
DODD: It would help if he'd stay a Democrat. And I suspect he will. I made an impassioned plea on his behalf at the Democratic caucus in January, in opposition to several in the caucus who took a different point of view. But I've known Joe for 40 years. He had a position that was not unlike other Democrats on the Iraq war. And unfortunately, as you know, I campaigned hard for him in that primary, and believed he would have been our strongest candidate. And Joe wanted to be back in that caucus. There were several of us that spoke on his behalf. He's very much a member of that caucus, and I suspect he'll stay such.
Q: So if he says, that I'm going to run as an Independent, will you support him against a Democrat?
DODD: Well, I'm anticipating he's going to stay a Democrat.
But Lieberman's fellow Connecticut senator, Democrat Chris Dodd, who faces a tough reelection fight in 2010, dismissed the idea that Lieberman would incur any retribution.
"No, no, no. People are going to be all over the place," he said when asked if Lieberman should be punished. "The idea that people are going to be reprimanded because somehow they have a different point of view than someone else is ridiculous. That isn't going to happen."
In fairness, this forgiving attitude towards his junior colleague been a consistent stance of Sen. Dodd's for almost three years now. Unfortunately, it has been a consistently wrong-headed and almost unfathomably misguided one, which, despite Sen. Dodd's crucial work on multiple policy fronts these days, continually calls into question his personal and political judgment in a very serious way.
Update: This was the official statement from Sen. Dodd yesterday on Lieberman's filibuster threat:
"Joe and I disagree on the public option," said Dodd. "I and many others support a strong public option because it will save money, and it will introduce more choice and competition into an industry that badly needs both. And I'm optimistic Joe will join us."
"Joe and I are good friends," Dodd told me, "and there's a difference on this and that's certainly his right to express it.... I'm disappointed we're not in agreement on this, but that happens from time to time on issues."
He did acknowledge the consensus on the public option: "I believe it brings down costs, I think it's going to save money as well," Dodd said. "And so I'm still hopeful that before we complete this process there'll be a lot more support for the public option, possibly even a good colleague and friend from Connecticut."
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), one of a handful of Senate wild cards in this fall's healthcare reform debate, says his concern about the Senate bill is based on the national deficit - not the insurers that dominate his state.
"Insurers aren't my biggest concern - I sued them once when I was attorney general, and I'm not afraid to end anti-trust exemptions," Lieberman said. "I am really worried about what this could do to the deficit.
One unlikely ally of Lieberman's is state GOP Chairman Chris Healy, who said he agrees with the senator's skepticism about the bill and that he sees few faults in Lieberman's support for home-state interests.
"What we have a lot of here in Connecticut is people in the pharmaceutical industry, biotech and physicians," Healy said. "They're the ones who can figure this out, not the government. Joe Lieberman, even though he's very liberal sometimes, understands that.
"I don't think the industry is going to have their feelings hurt if he's not waving pom-poms. They just don't want Congress to nationalize the management of risk. While I criticize him a lot, to me he's making the most sense out of all the Democrats on this."
Adding to speculation that he may be planning to retire at the end of his term in 2012, Sen. Lieberman has filed his October report with the FEC and reported raising only $4,100 in the third quarter (PDF). Lieberman now has $1.31 million cash on hand, down from $1.41 million at the end of Q2, continuing a downward trend in his bank account since the closing days of the 2006 campaign. He had raised over $70,000 in each of the previous two quarters of 2009.
Lieberman also seems to have secured his standing in the Democratic caucus until at least 2010 with a $50,000 payment to the DSCC on September 29th and a $4,000 payment to Harry Reid's campaign on September 25th. Seems like a decent rate for a committee chairmanship.
One of Joe Lieberman's unhappy constituents acts out:
It wasn't Halloween but just sheer disdain for a well known senator that led a Connecticut man to dress up in ninja gear and go on a warpath.
Garland Eastman, 30, of Vernon was charged Sunday with breach of peace after he allegedly waved nunchucks on the corner of Route 83 and Regan Road and threatened to beat up U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman. ...
Authorities brought Eastman to Rockville General Hospital for a psychiatric evaluation, where he was later released.
Mike Stark caught up with Sen. Lieberman in Washington D.C. yesterday and asked him if he would consider joining a Republican-led filibuster to deny an up-or-down vote on the public option and health care reform:
But now you're standing against a public option. Will you join with the Republicans in filibustering if it comes to that?
"I'm not sure. But I haven't changed. People around me have changed. I haven't decided that yet."
Depending on the calcium levels in the spines of Senate Democrats on whatever particular day the decision is made, this could be a very costly position for Sen. Lieberman to take.
Rachel Maddow reported on MSNBC last night that there may be movement in the Senate to strip gavels from any Democratic committee chairs who would support a Republican filibuster and deny an up-or-down vote on health care:
We can report exclusively tonight, that two major power brokers on the left have told MSNBC that they are encouraging a Senate strategy now, in which the leadership would revoke chairmanships and other leadership positions from any Democrat who sides with a Republican filibuster to block a vote on health reform...
Regardless of how individual senators would vote ultimately on the bill, committee chairmen or subcommittee chairmen who allowed Republicans to force a 60-vote requirement for passing health care... under this type of strategy would be in danger of losing their chairmanships.
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee has also gone up with a petition demanding that Senate Democratic committee chairs who do not vote to allow an up-or-down vote on health care be removed from their positions. It has 6,700 14,900 signatures so far, and they are now aiming for 10,00020,000 before delivering to Harry Reid.
As Jon K. notes below, if there's one thing Sen. Lieberman values in his professional life, it is his precious chairman's gavel - to be used, of course, only in political attacks against Democratic administrations, and never to investigate silly inconsequential events like Iraq or Katrina.
If Sen. Lieberman supports a Republican filibuster, as he seems fully prepared to do, that gavel may now now imperiled.
According to Daniela Altimari at the Hartford Courant, who picked up on similar sentiment in a Politico article about fundraising for Democratic Senators up for re-election in 2012, Joe Lieberman's $1.4 million cash-on-hand is a sign that he is "quietly amassing his own fortune for an election that's still 37 months away."
However, the quarterly FEC reports filed by Sen. Lieberman since the 2006 general election reveal something entirely different, and seem to point to different intentions for a Senator who remains continually unpopular and is increasingly politically boxed in.
Lieberman's current warchest was actually almost entirely amassed during the closing days of the 2006 campaign, when the since-revoked "millionaire's amendment" allowed him to raise cash from right-wing sources in 5-digit chunks. According to FEC reports, Lieberman used his predicament to his full advantage, raising an astonishing $3,368,680 between the dates of October 19th and November 27th, 2006 alone, and ended that period with $2.55 million cash on hand.
But since then, it's been all downhill:
At the end of 2006, he had $2.24 million cash on hand.
At the end of 2007, he had $2.08 million cash on hand.
At the end of 2008, he had $1.81 million cash on hand.
And his most recent FEC filing shows a total of just $1.41 million cash on hand.
Possibly more telling about Lieberman's future plans has been the lack of any effort to raise any money whatsoever since November 2006. In the last two quarters, he has raised $73k and $70k respectively, paltry sums for an incumbent.
But even those numbers pale in comparison to his efforts throughout 2007 and 2008, when, perhaps preoccupied with helping out his good friend John McCain (and with the almost certainly assured promise of a cabinet position should McCain have won), he raised an average of just $2,400 per quarter:
Sure, it is still 3+ years out from Election Day 2012. But these numbers certainly do not reinforce any notions that Lieberman is actually considering the "all sorts of options" he claims to be looking at for his dubious route to re-election.
If anything, they raise the opposite question of whether Senator Lieberman is trying to coast by on numbers that at a cursory glance might protect him from lame duck whispers, all the while seriously contemplating whether to call it a career and take the easy way out.
Yes, Ned Lamont may be the most important name in 2009 politics. Right now, it may be a more important name than Barack Obama. Let me explain.
The fight for health care reform comes closer than it has ever been before, and the Republican party continues to demonstrate that no compromise, not even tort reform, will draw a single Republican vote. At this point, the last thing standing between us and a strong health care bill is conservative or moderate Democrats. The progressive blogosphere has drawn a line in the sand. And I am reminded of 2006, and the Lieberman vs Lamont primary. I am reminded that when progressives draw a line in the sand on the most important issues to voters, they will follow through on holding politicians accountable.