And while we're linking to NY Times articles...

...via Avedon, I found this one talking about Joe Lieberman, and how all us crazy liberals hate him because of that whole war thing.

"George Bush's favorite Democrat," they call him. "Republican Lite," they sneer. But liberals are no longer just venting on Internet blogs and talk radio programs about their centrist nemesis: Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut.

Now, from across the nation, a determined alliance of antiwar activists is working overtime online and on doorsteps to defeat Mr. Lieberman, whose political moderation helped him earn the Democratic nomination for vice president six years ago. Their goal is not only to punish Mr. Lieberman for staunchly supporting the war in Iraq but also to protest what the activists consider the Democratic Party's willingness to accommodate President Bush.

...

Although Mr. Lamont's challenge appears to be a long shot, it is roiling some quarters of the Democratic Party, just as the party is trying to regain control of Congress this year. Many Democrats assert that the vigorous challenge to Mr. Lieberman is overshadowing the governor's race and taking money and attention away from three closely contested House races in Connecticut that many strategists consider crucial to the Democrats' majority hopes.

"It's absolute Democratic cannibalism," said John F. Droney, a former Democratic state chairman in Connecticut.

Wah. But if you keep reading, you actually get to the crux of the matter:

On Tuesday, the National Organization for Women's political action committee endorsed Mr. Lamont, in part because he said, unlike Senator Lieberman, that he would have supported a filibuster to prevent confirmation hearings for Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court.

Senator Lieberman was also endorsed this week by the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group. But some Democrats who have voted for him for years are reconsidering their support.

"He won't stand up and fight," Jim Boorsch, a retired lawyer who voted for Mr. Lieberman in his last three races, said at the Sunday fund-raiser. "He wants to be a friend to everybody and he can't be."

Yes, Lieberman's war posturing really really pisses us off. But a lot of Democrats supported the war (most of them, actually). If you bother to pay attention, you see that it goes a little further with Joementum. He's the leader of the "Can't we all just get along?" school, but it's been obvious for going on 12 years now that no, we can't get along. Not in this environment. And the longer you try to ignore that Republicans are allowing you to go on Fox News and complain about Democrats because it serves their own purpose, not "the country's", then the further your support will erode. As berlin has been posting, being a "centrist" is not a good thing when one side of the spectrum keeps pulling the center further and further to the right. At some point you have to pull back.

But then there's this:

This weekend, the 1,607 delegates to the state Democratic party convention will nominate a candidate for the Senate, and Mr. Lieberman is expected to win the nomination handily. But Mr. Lamont will get his name on the ballot for the Aug. 8 primary if he wins 15 percent of the delegates, which many party leaders think is likely. "If he gets 25 percent, that will be sending a real message to Lieberman," said Leland Tolo, a West Hartford delegate who said he would back Mr. Lamont.

Oh? And what if he gets 33%?