So, Lieberman lost (did you hear?)
There are so many reasons to dislike Joe Lieberman. His support for the war in Iraq isn't sufficient to call him a "DINO." He represents to me the "soccer mom" wing of the Democratic Party - his campaign against violence in media of all kinds particularly rubs me the wrong way, and I'm honestly glad to see him go just speaking as a self-professed geek, independent of politics.
But more to the point, he has not just supported the war, he has made the claim that any and all dissent from the president during wartime is inappropriate, and THAT is why he lost his nomination - and that is why he deserved to. He was never really fighting for re-election, anyway. He's wanted to be Don Rumsfeld's replacement for a long time now, and I wouldn't be surprised if Rumsfeld "resigned" (and given a presidential medal of freedom, which is how Bush punishes rank incompetence) and Lieberman took his place.
This is a good thing for the Democrats - they need to run true blue Democrats in blue states. The Republicans run serious red Republicans in red states; they only run "moderates" in blue states, like Arlen Spectre in Pennsylvania. They only compromise when they have to, and the Democrats should do the same. That's the only way the US might join the rest of the western world in terms of social progress.