You know there are many things to dislike about this deal with Lieberman. But you know what, as much as we despise the deal, the Senate Democrats were entitled to do what they wanted. I would have preferred they made their votes public so we can know who to  boycott for donations. This diary is not about the stupdity or cowardice in rewarding lieberman with the chairmanship. This is about how the Democratic senators have been treating Joe and referring to him as a fellow Democrat. And how Democrats have made it tougher for a legitimate Democratic challenger who follows all the rules to beat Lieberman in 2012.

But Harry Reid crossed the line, my friends, when he referred to Joe Lieberman as a democrat. This is not a trivial statement. This is a lot more offensive than merely giving him the chairmanship when we needed him for a majority. That was a practical deal. Calling him a democrat on the heels of a shameless vote is going beyond practicality and actually shunning democratic processes. That is a slap in the face of all the democrats that voted against him the Democratic Primary. WHY HAVE A FUCKING PRIMARY IF YOU AS A PARTY ELDER HAS NO INTENTION OF RESPECTING IT? Lieberman got elected as a senator from CT and he is entitled to it as unsavory as that election was. But once he declined to honor the results of the Democratic Primary, he ceased to be a Democrat no matter who he ended up caucusing with. And there is a difference between a senator striking a deal with Lieberman for practical purposes and Democratic senators actually treating him like he is still a Democratic senator and he had to just overcome an additional hurdle which was something insignificant to them like the will of the Democratic party voters.

My question is this. It is widely known that most of the Democratic Party senators wanted Lieberman to win the general election against Lamont. People like Obama supported Lamont only because they didnt want to risk the wrath of angry democratic voters. If the primary only attracts fringe voters in the minds of these democrats (funny how they dont mind primaries when they are running as aspiring senators), why not scrap primaries when there is a democratic incumbent? Why not nominate challengers to incumbents only if the party elders dictate so and be done with the pretense that primaries mean something.

Making deals with Lieberman to invite him into the caucus doesnt invalidate a primary when you need him for a majority because the status of the inclusion is clearcut. But when you do it needlessly, you are getting closer. And when you make such comments on top of such a questionable move and combine that with behavior by the likes of Bill Clinton on Larry King(doesnt matter if it's lieb or lamont) or other senators giving him standing ovation during the lamont fight(pretty much saying "good ole boy, just find a way to get back here, and nothing will change, fuck the masses"), you definitely have achieved the same result as that of a primary having never taken place.

This is not just the lieberman issue. This is a warning to any Democratic voting block that they dare not fuck with a Democratic incumbent because they will ignore your vote and do whatever it takes to welcome future spoilsport incumbents.