Please correct me if I'm wrong: Joe Lieberman is explicitly NOT a Democrat. He is a CFfLer (Connecticut for Lieberman)-er or an Independent. Or god, if we must, an 'Independent-Democrat.' But not a Democrat.
The recent Time piece (see below) about Lieberman flirting with party-switching that as of this writing is the 2nd 'most popular' article on the website, works on the claim that Lieberman is a Democrat. But I thought he was not. He explicitly, deliberately rejected the Democratic party--he lost the nomination, and ran as an independent in his state in '06. He may caucus with the Democrats (like Bernie Sanders), but he is not a Democrat.
Am I mistaken? Is it more complicated than this? Because if I am not wrong, then the media establishment is, and continually repeats this inaccurate message. What should do we do about this continual media inaccuracy?
Update of quote:
He terrified fellow Democrats...The Democrats' 2000 candidate for Vice President is the only party member in the Senate supporting President Bush's Iraq policy...Lieberman says leaving the Democratic Party is a "very remote possibility."...So far, Lieberman is using his clout mostly in ways that discomfit his fellow Democrats...Lieberman, a lifelong Democrat...
Should the netroots just leave this well enough alone? Or should we fight it together? Or have we already fought it enough to no avail, so we should now leave this well enough alone?
I know I am not the first one to bring up this discrepancy. But every time I see (D-CT) next to his name in the media, it's like nails on a friggin chalkboard. And I think it does terrible disservice to Ned and everyone who worked their asses off on his campaign, not to mention the Connecticut Democratic Party, who rejected Lieberman. Whether you believe as David Sirota does that it would be good for the party and for Senate Dems if Lieberman caucused with the Republicons, or if you just think Lieberman is a lying neoconservative who dilutes the party position on Iraq in the media, should we try to fight this media narrative?
I'm no web designer, but should we somehow craft a very basic, no-frills sort of rapid response site/listserv to send letters to the editor of any outlet claiming Lieberman is a Democrat? Should we demand that he be called a CfL-er or perhaps an Independent, and labeled (CfL-CT) or (I-CT)? I would think even a core of 100 people writing very short, original, 3-sentence emails anytime we are alerted to the press confusing this would be a decent weapon.
Or am I wrong? Or is this all semantics? Or is this less important than other endeavors at the moment? Or is even bothering to acknowledge Lieberman's existence giving him more attention than he deserves? Because it seems to me that if an article repeating over and over that Lieberman is a Democrat is the 2nd most popular article on Time's website, he's going to get attention whether or not we choose to take this on.