I think this whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. It's been portrayed as the first battle in a war for the Democratic party between the old high up corrupt politician, and the new, principled liberals. Joe Lieberman is a shitty senator and a great one at the same time. He is a wonderful representative for the state of Connecticut, but that doesn't change that his views are crap. Ned Lamont'll be just as bad, if not worse than Lieberman. If you think he sucks now, just wait until he's been indoctrinated into the machine.
So the end of the story is that Connecticut's gonna have a senator who'll do more bad than good.
And this isn't anything new. Liberal politicians who've been in the government for a long time (this isn't to say this just happens to liberals) get better in some ways, and get worse in others. They learn the importance of compramise in solving problems, which is fantastic, but they lose any sense of idealism that they brought with them, and they get caught up in all of the bullshit that goes on in Washington, and voila...we have Joe Lieberman. A fantastic statesman who doesn't believe in anything. So what do they replace the Joe Liebermans with? Young liberals who are raging against the machine, who don't give a **** about compramise, and want to fight for what they think is right, without ever pausing for a second to address their own falibility. It happened in the 40's, it happened in the 60's, and it's happening again. A war between corrupt but wiser old dudes and young dudes who have their ideals and intelligence, but don't have a ****ing clue how the world works.
Who cares how it'll end? It's like the remake of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, yeah it ended differently, but really who gives a ****?