I think some people misunderstood my post from yesterday. Frankly, from some of the comments I received, it appears as though a number of my critics didn't even read my post. I'll try and restate this all in other terms.

Today, I've been thinking about the honorable Senator from Connecticut, Joeseph Lieberman. Although he is the man that liberals love to hate--God forbid there be a hawkish moderate within the Democratic party--I think he is another example of the type of centrism that I believe is necessary for healing our political process. Though in an ideal world, my more ideological side would tell me to scream at his sometimes conservative actions (yes, a part of me wishes all of the Senators were a little more progressive), I think Joe is on the right track a lot of the time. If liberals expect any progress, they will need the help of moderates and conservatives (I cannot imagine there being 60 true liberals in the Senate any time soon); to get this help, they too must be willing to cross the aisle like Senator Lieberman.

At this point I'll also go back to my short discussion on Arlen Specter, a moderate, but from the Republican Party. Now do I think that the state of Pennsylvania deserves Democratic representation in the United States Senate? Certainly. Do I think that Spector has at times been a poor Senator? Of course. Would I like to see a Democrat like Joe Hoeffel replace him? That's where it gets a little trickier.

Joe Hoeffel is a great Conressman and would make an even better Senator. The people of Pennsylvania would be well served to elect him, and the nation as a whole would benefit. What is more, there is little I could ask for that would please me more than a Democratic Senate. Then why, one might ask, am I not wholeheartedly a Hoeffel supporter?

The fact is that it will be an uphill battle for the Democrats to regain the Senate. With so many southern seats to defend, the non-partisan Charlie Cook Report gives the Republicans a 60% shot at retaining control of the body. With this in mind--along with the fact that Spector is leading Hoeffel by a large margin in the polls right now--I don't necessarily think it's the best idea to fight for Spector's defeat. Why do I write this?

Arlen Specter is slated to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in January if reelected (and Republicans retain the Senate); if he loses, though, and the Republicans still hold the Senate (which Cook predicts), the Committee goes to the uber-conservative Jon Kyl, a truly scary thought. When I think of the Judiciary Committee in the hands of the pro choice, Spector, I don't worry too much; although he might back some bad nominees, he wont allow a radical anti-lifer to take a seat on the Supreme Court. A Jon Kyl chairmanship, even with a Kerry Presidency, would be a disaster for Women's rights, among other things. He is very, very conservative, to say the least.

So once again, you might ask where I'm going with this. The point that I'm trying to make is that although we'd like for there to be a large Democratic Majority, particulary a liberal majority, this isn't going to happen any time soon (don't call me a naysayer--I'm just living in the world of reality). Moreover, a moderate, pro choice, pro labor Republican chairman is highly superior to a radical, anti choice, anti labor chairman. As a result, I think we should at least think of the possible consequences of a Spector loss before pouring money into Hoeffel's campaign.