[pollyannaish]

AH. So you can be AGAINST someone from a different state, but not supportive. Huh.

In any case, I will not be directly financially supporting Lieberman because we have a big enough job in my state getting Cantwell tossed and that is my job, while the Lieberman issue is for the voters of Connecticut to decide. We agree there.

That said, I find your responses intriguing since my original post to you was regarding whether the man was a sore loser or not. My bottom line is that this move is not indicative of poor sportsmanship, but rather a decision to stick to his values.

It would have been cheaper and easier for him to simply bow to his constituents and go all out anti-Iraq-pull-them-out-now if it was just about the job. It appears he chose the hard way based on principle. Or, from your perspective the hard way because....he wants his job which makes little logical sense to me, but you may be right.

In any case, no harm no foul. We just start from different perspectives on this one.

[Huck]

I'm just annoyed by the whole thing. The guy was a complete jerk in 2000. Worse than a jerk. He was party to a corrupt enterprise to fix an election. That corrupt enterprise had lasting damaging effects on our nation. It helped drive the moonbats to their present state of moonbattiness. He was supposed to be a reasoned statesman, but instead he was a co-conspirator in an ignoble, dangerous enterprise. It undermined the faith of our people in our election system, it undermined our president's ability to assume office, and it encouraged the moonbats to go completely off the charts, which is what has led to the extreme Bush-hating that has undermined the war on terror ever since. So don't tell me Joe's on our side. He guessed wrong and now he's paying for it. Good riddance.

[Jezebelle]

The most significant aspect of the CT primary tonight is that sticking to one's principles in the face of adversity is not a valued characteristic in the eyes of 'Rats.