that he still doesn't get it goes right to the heart of his problem: he's a "zelig", changing shape and personality, depending on who he's standing next to at the time. he has no substance of his own.

So Sparky, tell us, since you are so brilliant at telling us what matters and what does not, how long before we are out of Iraq?

Where does Hillary stand on troop withdrawals?  Does that make her irrelevant?

You blab a lot and never really say anything.  You do not provide an ounce of analysis so I do not think you qualify to be an commentator, and your posts are so bare they would embarass a freshman reporter.

he's a man with no sense of himself, he has no basic, core principals, that he doesn't deviate from. whichever way the wind is blowing, look for him there. that he's not a democrat was crystalized in the primary, when he lost to lamont, an almost total unknown.

that he then chose to run as an independent tells you the nature of his arrogance: he's so compelling, the senate can't do without him. not!

his demographic is old people, a majority of whom will be departed, when next he runs for re-election. lamont will have gained recognition ground, in that time.

if he wants to play the game, he gets to play by our rules, not his. bear in mind, it will be dems who controll all the committees, not republicans, in the house. this would include all the appropriation committees. that's where the money is.

as well, i bet you there's going to be a couple of republican defections in the senate. that will make joe even more irrelevant than he already is.

"if you grab a man by the balls, his heart and mind will follow."

  Far from having to accept whatever "rules" the leadership might like to impose upon him, in reality he can simply cause new rules to be promulgated if he is pushed too far.

  EVERYONE who matters recognizes that. They also recognize that they can't use pork to  single out Lieberman for punishment in any event. Connecticut might be unlikely to go Republican for President in 2008 even if the Democratic leadership punishes the people of the state to get back at Lieberman but there other races there  where we want Democrats to win. I'd rather be Lieberman playing martyr than a Democrat explaining why my Party punished my constituents for electing Lieberman.

  Face reality. When you pick a fight you  either win and benefit or lose and pay the price. Picking a fight with Lieberman may well have been justified but the fight was lost in no uncertain terms.

  It would be a lot wiser to accept that and stop trying to put an absurd spin on what happened. That just keeps the spotlight on him even brighter and makes him even more relevant than his victory alone.