It is quite telling that the Times, much like the bloggers who have been trying to purge Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party, failed to acknowledge any of these accomplishments and stands - or to explain why they were not relevant to your endorsement process.

Nor do your editors acknowledge the fact that Senator Lieberman has opposed the Bush Administration on most every major domestic policy initiative.

Or that Senator Lieberman has been endorsed by groups as diverse as the League of Conservation Voters, the Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood and NARAL, the Chamber of Commerce, the Realtors, and Connecticut's police, firefighter, and building trades unions.

Or, not least of all, the Times editors did not acknowledge the consequences of losing Senator Lieberman's seniority for the people of Connecticut and for many of the progressive causes the Times has long championed.

That is probably because you long ago convicted him of not being ideologically pure enough and of not being reflexively hostile enough to his Republican colleagues.  You clearly wanted another finger-pointer in the Senate, and Ned Lamont wins that contest hands down.

I recommend you read the whole thing.  This kind of mean-spirited polemic was only sent for one reason, and that's to explain to anyone who opposes him that he is going to be incredibly vindictive.  I did notice that Lieberman, in the letter, claims that the New York Times "clearly overlooked all the signs that Senator Lieberman was listening and that his views could and did evolve."  This is his first acknowledgement that he changed his position on the war.

This is weird behavior.  Lieberman could simply float above the fray, acting like a Senator cruising for reelection.  But he's not.  He abhors being challenged in any way shape or form.  He hates it, just hates it.  Here's Cliff Schechter showing just how corrupt Joe has always been.  Perhaps it's this record of immorality that hangs on his conscience that he doesn't like seeing thrown in his face.

While Lieberman was once quoted by the New Yorker saying "some of my best friends are neocons," the same can't be said about veterans.

In 1997, Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond offered a motion to kill an amendment authored by Minnesota legend Paul Wellstone that would have required the secretary of defense to put $400 million into veteran's benefits the following year. Lieberman joined the Thurmond assault on veterans. He also opposed efforts to increase health care spending for veterans by $13 billion over five years in 1996 and an amendment offered by Sen. Tom Harkin to transfer $329 million from defense accounts to the Veterans Affairs Department for health care programs.

He has, however, continued to find billions of dollars to support missile defense programs that have shown as much promise as Tucker Carlson on "Dancing with the Stars."

Finally there is Joe's famous "morality." The first man in his own party to criticize Bill Clinton because his "morals" compelled him to do it, and eventually to sponsor censure for the president for his private behavior, the divorced and remarried Lieberman doesn't often walk ten steps without burping out his supposed moral righteousness. And of course when he's too busy to sing a song about his own honesty, there is always the Bush administration to step in and bloviate about Joe the Man of Rectitude. The problem is that his record doesn't comport with this image.

In 1995, Lieberman opposed a gift ban on lobbyists that might have put a dent in the activities of all the little Jack Abramoff wannabes wandering around Washington with their gelled hair and power ties. Lieberman also opposed a limit on gifts of $100, and voted against another bill in 1995 to prohibit candidates from using campaign funds for personal purposes. He also never saw an increase in congressional pay he couldn't summon the courage to get behind.

And now we have the coup de grâce. The case of the missing $387,000 in "petty cash" from Lieberman's campaign account during his primary loss to Ned Lamont, even though no more than $100 is ever supposed to be used for the kind of things petty cash usually buys. Something tells me 3,870 times that amount found its way into securing votes the old-fashioned way.

And don't look now, but the slush fund issue is rearing its head, once again.  Public Campaign Action Fund, which is one of the more innovative good government groups most responsible for taking down Tom Delay, wrote a letter to Joe Lieberman on his all cash undisclosed election slush fund.

Your voting record on matters of campaign finance reform, lobbying and ethics reform, and disclosure has been strong in your 18 years in the U.S. Senate. I applaud your recent signature on the Voters First Pledge to clean up Congress, which is a pledge supported by Public Campaign Action Fund and several other national reform organizations, to clean up Congress.

Unfortunately, this commitment to reform and to open government is now being called into question as a result of your campaign's lack of publicly acknowledging how it spent some $387,561 in petty cash in the primary election.

....

Yet we believe that this issue, if left unresolved, will not simply impact this election, but also elections to come. No other Senate campaign that we know of has ever left undisclosed to the public a sum as large as this. The Federal Elections Commission does not require that you provide a line-by-line accounting of this for public scrutiny. But in the interests of fairness and protecting the public trust, we urge you to make an accurate accounting of these expenses available for the public to view on its own. That way this matter can be put to rest.

Earlier this year, you were quoted in a newspaper article saying that "history shows that money in government has a way, like water, of finding points of vulnerability. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to strengthen the points of vulnerability so the water can't get through." Before you set a historically significant precedent of opening up a serious breach in the campaign finance disclosure laws, we urge you to account for your campaign's undisclosed spending.

You may wonder why I'm writing on the one race that is somewhat depressing for progressives this year.  We should know what we're up against.  Joe Lieberman - and the Democrats and Republican Beltway insiders who support him - is an incredibly formidable and dishonest opponent.  He or his ilk will be with us for years to come, sending other parents' kids to die in unjust wars so they can feel tough.  I consider supporting such wars evidence of moral leprosy.

It's our job to convince the voting public that courage means standing up and taking responsibility for this country, and voting to stop the war in Iraq and the immoral turn our leadership has taken.  Politicians pander to voters too often by pretending like voters have no responsibility in the political process, that we shouldn't be held accountable for our leadership.  You know, like it's not our war, it's not our system, it's their war, their system.  Well, not quite.  We each have our choices to make, and we all know that the courage of our convictions is the only thing that can end the reign of Nixon's dead hand on the rudder of our country.