Couldn't happen to a more deserving politician.

Too bad he's not going to care. He's either going to be in the McCain Administration, or out of office by 2012.

......SO.WHAT! Please explain to me how this is relevant?

Lieberman has 3 to 3&1/2 years before he has to care . . . Then the banking industry will hand his Party of one a crap-load of cash and the people asleep in CT will vote to give him their guy for another half a decade plus.

Ain't Ah-merica grand.

What disturbs me is that Lieberman played the fear card this week stating that since there was an attack in Clinton and Bush's first year, we should expect an attack during the next president's first year.

But both of these attacks were BEFORE we supposedly declared war on the terrorists. Bush has had seven years to weaken the terrorists and make us safer. And nobody in the MSM seemed to even notice the inconsistency of Lieberman's threat--that Bush was supposed to go after the terrorists after the 9/11 attack.

By making that threat, didn't Lieberman in effect say Bush's war on terrorism didn't work, because he has been too focused on Iraq?

That threat by Lieberman made me so angry. The gall!

Frankly, Lieberman is admitting that all the spending in Iraq, for sure the taking ones eyes off of Afghanistan, the total ineffectiveness of DHS due to the sorry behavior of the Bush favorite, "Good Job" Brownie and of Chertoff after Katrina. McCain's buddy, Bush 2, has utterly flopped and cannot keep our country safe. Even with the expenditures of billions and billions of dollars, Lieberman admits his guy cannot keep us safe. What an indictment against the administration and Lieberman's buddy, John McCain. Lieberman is standing up for more years of the same. Hmmmm, I can hardly believe what is in store for us if it is going to happen or to see the embarrassment of Lieberman if it does not happen. But mark my word, Lieberman and Black have issued the invitation to the bad guys to come on over and attack us. God help them if it happens. for the problem this administration and their buddies are allowing to happen.

Remind me again why we can't get rid of Lieberman now? Can't we just swap him for a Chuck Hagel who chose not to run for election this year and will leave office in January? Seriously how much damage would this switch cause? I can't for the life of me think why we are keeping this imbecile around to actively campaign against the nominee and keep his vaunted chairman status.

I like the idea. The problem, though, is that Hagel probably won't vote with the Democrats. He's still a GOPer, even though he's utterly moderate.

With Lieberman in the Democratic caucus, Democrats hold a 51-49 Senate majority. If Lieberman flips to the Republican caucus, it's 50-50 - and Dick Cheney, as President of the Senate, would cast any tie-breaking votes.

I think Lieberman is trying to make as much trouble as he can for Democrats now, knowing that he's probably going to get kicked out of the caucus within 24 hours of the next inauguration, regardless of who wins the election.

As the New London Day tagged its walkback of their 2006 Lieberman endorsement: We Don't Know This Sen. Joe.

I wrote Olbermann and asked him to go after Lieberman for playing the fear card, and the fact that both of the attacks he used in his argument were before Bush's promised war on terrorism. I would love to see Olbermann do a special comment directed at that weasel.