Not a doberman, a Lieberman.
One looks as being shopped, somewhat high milage but well cared for. Driven sparingly by old Arizonan. Here.
_________UPDATE________
I had expected there might be a comment on this post, but not so.
I believe Lieberman's status is a key remaining issue after the election where his essentiality as an "Independent" senator voting on orgainzing with the Dems and getting in return the committee chair he most wanted was strange, to say the least.
But he kept the promise when he was needed, and some say he exacted a price.
An interesting post, with even more interesting comments is here.
I have always had a hard time with Lieberman, style-wise, since he came to prominence when Gore picked him for VP. To me that was Gore's fatal mistake and it, along with vote fraud in Florida, cost him an election that was his to lose. He repudiated Clinton, probably because of prudery, but the Clinton economic record is something Gore should have run on but did not. Those who still are soreheads blaming Ralph Nader should get over it and blame Gore himself. For running an ineffective campaign, for picking Lieberman, and for turning his back on the Clintons.
Liberman's style, two words, supercilious and sanctimonious come to mind.
But the dynamics - support of McCain, worse, support of McCain-Palin (some speculating he envisioned a McCain-Lieberman ticket) is hard to excuse. As is his failure to recognize his neocon biases are no longer viable after having been proven divisive and flawed, in Iraq.
My question - why did Connecticut voters ever elect the man in the first place? Second question - why did they do so again when there was Ned Lamont as an alternative? Those voters are as flawed as the electorate in Minnesota's Sixth District, the DFL bosses in the Sixth, and the electorate in Anoka County where I live and where Dan Erhart was reelected.
My voters of the hour, the Pennsylvania voters - first last cycle they admitted error and dumped Rick Santorum resoundingly. Then this time they went Obama-Biden.
They are people who know what's in their best interests. Not fools, at least not the last two times. They did, after all, once elect Rick Santorum, they have that cross of shame to forever bear.
Back to the Lieberman question - what is the fate, actual and theoretically proper, for a gadfly in the strict two-party system we have in place, and have had in place since founding of the Republic, but with the actual names and makeup and policies changing, but always two parties, never a plurality of options?
If there is truth to Lieberman's both staying true to keeping the slim Dem majority intact so that committee makeup and such remained in Dem hands, but also exacting his price in terms of deference and attention beyond anything his conduct merited, is it "payback" time now that he's unneeded, or should his loyalty-of-a-kind still matter?
And with the GOP fractured along lines between the Maine senators, and Bachmann-Palin proud ignorance, where would Joe Lieberman fit into that strange circus? Perhaps he'd be more at home there, with McCain, then with Franken (once the recount is over and the real winner is known to all).