The Lieberman saga has triggered an odd switcheroo, hasn't it?
The people trying to make a Democratic Party nomination actually mean something are the netroots folks backing Ned Lamont, while the guy who's saying that a lawful state primary is more like a, you know, nonbinding suggestion, is Joe Lieberman. If the DSCC joins Lieberman in this role reversal, then the biggest enemies of Party discipline, the most corrosive opponents of the meaning of Party membership, will ironically turn out to be the Party establishment itself.
If this goofball and transparently self-serving stunt ultimately cascades into a major political realignment, redrawing the map of which Parties exist in America, and what they stand for, the Incumbent Protection Society will have only itself to blame, and not the new 'net-powered activists, who amazingly turn out to be the small-c conservatives in this fracas.
In the meantime, Lieberman is coining a host of Orwell-worthy synonyms for sore loser. Independent Democrat, petitioning Democrat... I dunno, I'm not sure those adequately signal to Joe's base what he stands for. Instead, how about Republican Democrat?
UPDATE: BranfordBoy at My Left Nutmeg, via kos, excerpts the relevant statute: a petitioning candidate can't incorporate the name of any major party. So if Lieberman can't be a Republican Democrat, what's left -- the Joementum Party? My guess is that he's toying with something like Radical Centrist Party, or maybe Neo-Nutmeggers for America... just about anything, really, as long as it avoids the words "Bush" and "butt-boy."