Here’s a related bit from the AP:

Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent who nearly won the vice presidency as a Democrat in 2000, says there’s no way he’ll be Republican Sen. John McCain’s running mate should McCain become the party’s presidential nominee.

“No, I’d tell him, ‘Thanks, John, I’ve been there, I’ve done that. You can find much better,”’ Lieberman told the Associated Press during an interview Tuesday in his Senate office. “I’m not seeking anything else.”

Good to see, but there is always the coyness of politicians…

From a Feb. 29, 2004 Associated Press article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-02-29-kerry-edwards-poll_x.htm Kerry, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, said he’s not prepared to talk about running mates “and I don’t think John Edwards is prepared to say he would run with me.”

Edwards agreed. “I think there’s no way to say that. We’re still in a fight for the nomination.”

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is an anxiety disorder that can develop after exposure to a terrifying event or ordeal in which grave physical harm occurred or was threatened. [1] It is a severe and ongoing emotional reaction to an extreme psychological trauma .[2] This stressor may involve someone’s actual death or a threat to the patient’s or someone else’s life, serious physical injury, or threat to physical and/or psychological integrity, to a degree that usual psychological defenses are incapable of coping….

The four dissociative disorders listed in the DSM IV TR are as follows: Depersonalization disorder (DSM-IV Codes 300.6 [2] )- periods of detachment from self or surrounding which may be experienced as “unreal” (lacking in control of or “outside of” self) while retaining awareness that this is only a feeling and not a reality. Dissociative Amnesia (DSM-IV Codes 300.12 [3] )- noticeable impairment of recall resulting from emotional trauma Dissociative fugue (DSM-IV Codes 300.13 [4] )- physical desertion of familiar surroundings and experience of impaired recall of the past. This may lead to confusion about actual identity and the assumption of a new identity. Dissociative identity disorder ‘( DSM-IV Codes 300.14 [5] )- the alternation of two or more distinct personality states with impaired recall, among personality states, of important information.

Interesting, although I think you are jumping a bit too far with your assumptions:

“-would steal the Jewish vote from the Democrats.”

The Jewish vote has become less and less cohesive over the years (dissimilar to the African-American ). Two noticeable factions that have arisen are the hawks who base their foreign policy leanings as “pro-Israel” and the liberals who still hold on to the economic populism (ahem, they used to be the biggest socialist block in the nation… makes me a proud Jew). Lieberman has sufficiently pissed off the latter, so I doubt his VP nomination would signal a vast shift in the Jewish vote.

“-would turn Connecticut red for the presidential race.”

Highly specious… especially if the Dem nominee is Obama. The voters of Connecticut do not like this war and are becoming, as a whole, skeptical of him. He only beat Lamont in the general by 10 points in the general WITH the support of nearly all republicans. Obama is not Ned Lamont, and this is not a senate race.

“-Everyone who isn’t on the anti-war left (that would be me), still likes Lieberman (I wish he would go away).”

I really question this. The man has shoved aside the Democratic party with his foreign policy stances, and now his support for a Republican for president.

“The Jewish vote has become less and less cohesive over the years (dissimilar to the African-American ).”

Very fair point, but I think this could change if there were a viable Jewish candidate on the presidential ticket. Having done some personal (very unscientific and unacademic) research of rich political donors, I’ve noticed a trend among those who happened to be Jewish. Many supported Lieberman’s run for president in 2004, but then switched over and donated to Bush after Lieberman dropped out instead of supporting any of the other Dems. I think it’s fair to say those would fit into your former camp of hawks. Of course, this is all stereotyping and it means nothing really, but it makes me wonder if your latter group would vote for Lieberman even if he were on the Republican ticket.

“The voters of Connecticut do not like this war and are becoming, as a whole, skeptical of him. He only beat Lamont in the general by 10 points in the general WITH the support of nearly all republicans. Obama is not Ned Lamont, and this is not a senate race.”

Also a very fair point, and you may be right. But, again, similar to my above point, this would be a favorite son on the presidential ticket, even if it is a Republican ticket. And, he’s more liked by his home state’s people than Al Gore is in his. The Dems will of course vote for Obama, but the ones who aren’t fired up and ready to go might like the hometown boy better.

“The man has shoved aside the Democratic party with his foreign policy stances, and now his support for a Republican for president.”

I disagree. The Democratic Party shoved him aside when he stood his ground on the war unlike the rest of the Dems who voted for the war. When he lost the primary to Lamont, what choice did the long-term incumbent have other than to run as an independent or fade away. Keep in mind, I wish he had faded away, but you really can’t blame the guy for sticking to his guns. And, since he is no longer a “Democrat” he isn’t tied to party loyalty and can back one of his long-time moderate friends from the Gang of 14 running for president instead of the most liberal senator.

“The Democratic Party shoved him aside when he stood his ground on the war unlike the rest of the Dems who voted for the war.”

Point taken on the spineless who refuse to admit how wrong they were, but the Democratic party DID NOT shove him aside. The Democrats of the state of Connecticut, despite support for Lieberman from the national party, voted him out. Fair and square.

OK, OK, so the Democratic Party of Connecticut shoved him aside, not the national party.

Pardon me for considering the citizens as those who make up the party and not the party leaders, you elitist Beltway lobbyist.

Pffft, elitist nothing. His core constituents gave him the heave-ho from the party that gave him his first job in politics. There’s nothing about inside or outside the beltway regarding this.

Sorry for jumping in so late, but I hadn’t noticed this rash of comments…most likely because (as a CT-born liberal) I didn’t realize Leiberman still comanded any real attention at this point.

Basically, I think you have to realize that McCain is already fighting his “moderate” label, and wouldn’t even think of actually choosing another moderate as his running mate. Huckabee’s got a better chance (and unfortunately, he’s actually got a legit chance!) than Leiberman. Sure he might draw a few more aging Dems (or aging Jews, as per Mike W), but he’d piss off his whole party in doing so.