I understand the frustration. In the year that anti-war Dems finally took the reigns of control in DC, this guy jumped ship. Because of his treachery, the Iraq war has not - and will not - come to an end in the near future. That blows.
The arguments against Lieberman, however, are that he should've been a man and given up when he realized his own views were not the same as the liberal base of his party. (Of course, when GOPers disagree with their base, they're evildoers for not speaking out...) Libtards also are incensed that he's allowed to even participate with the New Democratic Majority in the Senate.
THAT MAJORITY HANGS ON ONE SEAT: LIEBERMAN'S!!! If the caucus kicked him to the curb, he'd join the Republicans and the Dems would LOSE their precious majority.
I'd like to think that libtarded activists would be the one subset of American everymen who would get the basic details of coalition management. Y'know, a majority in the 100-seat Senate requires, er, 51 seats.
Having 50 seats means, um, oh gosh I know this! ... The Vice-President Whatsizface casts the tie-breaking vote! Yeah, that's right.
Please people, think before you rant.
(Perhaps I should take that advice.)