I can't be Eric in his absence, so I apologize for those accustomed to detailed, well-researched essays on the culture war. All I can offer at the moment is a few thoughts, and one that's been bugging me for awhile is the demonization of Joe Lieberman.

My best friend has always voted Democrat but has become increasingly radicalized in recent years. Sometime after September 11th he saw a Muslim on a street corner preaching anti-American propaganda. He became incensed, something I didn't really understand, and visibly showed his anger to the man. He found a police officer and harangued him to arrest the Muslim, growing more incensed that the officer didn't do anything.

I've never had a problem with enemies who exercise their rights in the open. I relate it to criminalizing racism. If shop owners, for example, were allowed to be racist, they'd quickly lose their businesses. That, or the racist character of whole towns would become clear. As it stands, you may be lining the pockets of someone who thinks you less than human because the law tells him to smile and keep quiet.

Repressing it doesn't make it go away. It just makes it harder to see.

So if a militant Islamist wants to stand on a street corner, I'm glad -- I know where he stands. When he smiles in passing and secretly wants to see the end of my way of life, I'm a naive fool.

This same friend now forgets that incident and ascribes that kind of reaction to theocratic Republican fascists. He's told me three times about a mutual acquaintance who was harrassed by an ex-Marine because of anti-war slogans on his car, in order to illustrate that kind of mentality. How quickly we forget.

He loves Howard Dean for having the courage to stand up to those lying Republicans, and listens to AirAmerica religiously.

And now, with as much anger as he showed to that Muslim on the street, he hates Joe Lieberman. The bitterness when he told me this was disturbing. How dare he run as an independent? He's dividing his party! That's not what a real Democrat would do! He's not even a Democrat! He's really a Republican!

He was incensed by the notion that Lieberman would run after losing a primary. That's what primaries are for!

Which seems to me exceedingly un-democratic.

The anger clearly arises from the fact that my friend and others who drink at the trough of Howard Dean know that Joe will win because the majority of people in Connecticut want Joe to represent them. These people are blinded by party allegiance. All they can see is that their narrow definition of a Democratic candidate won the primary and that Connecticut trends Democratic.

But don't the voters deserve the Senator they want, and not simply one narrowly selected in a primary thanks to the coordinated efforts of the most radical elements of the party. They say turnout was higher than normal for a primary, and I had expected that considering the way radicals turned the primary into a battle for the soul of the party.

People like my friend feel that Joe Lieberman is robbing them of their hard fought victory, that he is somehow stealing the votes of moderate Democrats who otherwise would have to vote the party line and support the national agenda.

Though I prefer not talking politics with friends I asked my friend that wasn't the prerogative of Connecticut voters, to elect Lieberman if they want to.

He said that they don't want to. His own party rejected him! That's what primaries are for!

The elitism is thick. The Party knows best, not the individual voters. And even if Lieberman is a better representative for all voters in Connecticut, he's evidently not the kind of Democrat that we want. It's not about representation any more: it's about pitching ideological battles regardless of state or congressional district: these aren't senators and representatives, but pawns in game of chess.

What matters is that we have more men of the right shade.

FOLLOW-UP: Commenter William Corbin (Billy? Is that you?) makes a claim:

You talk about one person. One single, person. So this is how all Democrats feel or think? ... But your implication is that this is a Democratic error in thinking--silencing people.

This is a common error, confusing one's own misreading with another's implication. In fact, what I talked about was one person who's representative of a faction of radical Democrats. Clearly the implication was that at least half of the Democrats who turned out to the polls were not part of this faction.