No, I think that you can say 'betray' legitimately here for the following reasons;
1) Senator Lieberman has been such a staunch Democrat that he was the Dem's chosen VP Candidate in 2000.
2) He was running as a standard-bearing Democrat in the Conn. Primary in 2006.
3) The standard process of the National Democrats in such cases is to squelch internal opposition and give money to the incumbents.
4) Senator Lieberman was denied almost all such support and his opponent was given that support in the primary based almost solely upon their respective Iraq War positions!
5) Senator Lieberman was re-elected as an alternate "Connecticut_for_Lieberman" candidate and was supported by independents and Republicans as well as non-radical Democrats.
To my mind he was 'betrayed' by the national Dimocrat Party based solely upon his refusal to cut_&_run from Iraq!
Ronald Reagan primaried Gerald Ford in 1976. Ford was such a staunch Republican that he had been elected House Minority Leader, and nominated and confirmed as a Republican Vice President. Yet Reagan still challenged him, and for good reasons.
3) The standard process of the National Democrats in such cases is to squelch internal opposition and give money to the incumbents.
Which they tried to do -- check the record. However, the guy challenging Lieberman was a billionaire.
4) Senator Lieberman was denied almost all such support and his opponent was given that support in the primary based almost solely upon their respective Iraq War positions!
That's simply not correct. Lieberman's loonybins opponent, Lamont, received zero party support in the primary, unless you consider a few moonbats like Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters to represent the entirety of the Dem Party. You're correct that his support was entirely due to the war issue, but he received no support from any big name Democrats until after the primary and many big name Democrats, including Obama and Clinton, campaigned for Lieberman in the primary.