I sure as hell don't understand why Connecticut Democrats would want to reject an experienced voice in the Senate for a single-issue candidate whose only political job was on the New Haven town counsel.
Because change can be a good thing? Voting out a career politician in favor of an outsider sounds pretty positive to me.
I also don't understand why these voters would want to send a message to voters across the country that the Democratic Party is controlled by radicals, not pragmatists.
Not this again. (1) a majority of Americans take the "radical" position of opposing the war in Iraq, and (2) the vast majority of Americans simply don't care about this primary race.
This sends a disturbing message to potential Democratic voters and isolates others. The fact that our party won't tolerate someone who so much as disagrees with liberals on ONE issue signifies that perhaps we are not the all-inclusive big tent that many would consider us to be.
To quote BRTD:
"Gee, I'm really pissed at Bush and the Republicans and like Cardin/Webb/McCaskill/Brown/etc. but some guy in another state won a primary and beat the more moderate incumbent, because of that all Democrats are now completely tainted and I can't vote for any Democrat. I'm voting for the corrupt Bush rubber stamp."
It is
not going to have a national impact, as many Democrats for Lieberman perversely seem to want.