Thirdparty already has a diary on this subject, but I have to pile on here. Seriously, for an election analyst, Stuart Rothenberg does not seem to actually like elections very much. Look at this passage from his column today (emphasis mine):

Lieberman's crime is that he hasn't always toed the party line. He's decided for himself what's right and wrong, even -- and here is the most shocking thing -- used his own values, judgment and intellect to decide where he stands on issues and how he'll vote.

Lamont's criticism has resonated with some Democrats around the state and online. The war is unpopular with Democrats in Connecticut, as it is elsewhere, and many voters are unhappy with Lieberman's general support of President Bush's Iraq policy.

It doesn't seem to matter to those angry Democrats, or to Lamont, that Lieberman is widely respected for his thoughtfulness, integrity, civility and intellect.Rothenberg praises Lieberman for using his own judgment and voting his conscience. However, just two paragraphs later, he criticizes Democrats in Connecticut and elsewhere who are using their own judgment and conscience in deciding that they do not want Lieberman to represent them. Instead of being allowed, and indeed respected, for using their own judgment, values and intellect in turning away from Lieberman, they are supposed to vote for him because other people (such as Fox News talk show hosts) supposedly respect Lieberman for his "thoughtfulness, integrity, civility and intellect."

This is downright elitist and undemocratic. Everyone, not just Joe Lieberman, is allowed to use their own judgment when voting, including the many people in Connecticut who have decided to not vote for Joe Lirberman. Rothenberg continues: Everyone has his or her opinion about the worthiness of each of these challenges, and there is no right answer about when a Member of Congress has proved to be so "independent" that he or she deserves to be defeated in a primary. But there certainly ought to be a place in our political system for someone like Lieberman. His defeat, unlikely as it may be, would be a sad, sad chapter in American politics. Rothenberg is just flat wrong when he says there "is no right answer about when a Member of Congress has proved to be so "independent" that he or she deserves to be defeated in a primary." The right answer, for anyone who believes in democracy, is never. No one ever has the right to hold office simply because he has voted a certain way, or because s/he has demonstrated a certain level of independence. The only reason anyone has the right to hold any elected office in America is because s/he was elected to that office.

Stuart Rothenberg is supposed to be a political analyst who does not take sides. However, in this case, he clearly has taken sides, both against Ned Lamont and against democracy. He repeats tired old lines about the left being "angry," and about Lamont challenge in Connecticut being based almost entirely on the war. Like so many other pro-Lieberman pundits, he continues to ignore that one of the main reasons behind the primary challenge to Lieberman arises not just from his many conservative views (pro-CAFTA and NAFTA, pro-bankruptcy bill, pro-energy bill, anti-emergency contraception, etc), but also from his willingness to repeat Republican talking points about Democrats in major news outlets. In fact, Ned Lamont told me personally that the straw that broke the camel's back when he was deciding whether or not to run was Lieberman's November 2005 diatribe in the Wall Street Journal that directly implied anyone who criticizes President Bush on the war was hurting the troops. That article was perhaps the best possible demonstration of why so many Democrats are using their own intellects, values, judgment and voting rights to support Ned Lamont. Democratic primary voters have values too, and we also have self-respect. We do not like electing people who write opinion columns in major right-wing news outlets supporting a war that we do not want to see continued and then telling us that making our opinion public on that matter is damaging to our soldiers. If we liked that sort of thing, we would be Republicans, and it is our right as Democrats and as Americans to discontinue voting for elected officials who regularly act in such a manner. However, as much as Stuart Rothenberg would like it to be otherwise, Joe Lieberman has no right to continue to hold office simply because he is willing to give the middle finger to the same people who elected him in the first place.