It's hard to find better writing - or reasoning - on the left than in The American Prospect. One of the questions Democrats have been openly discussing is, "What if Lieberman wins?" It might be far more than a need for "healing" within the party, argues Terence Samuel:

With a career prolonged by re-election, his self-righteousness vindicated and his credibility burnished, Lieberman emerges as the living expert on Democratic pathology: He becomes the go-to guy on what's wrong with Democrats -- their ambivalence on national security or problems with people of faith, their consuming partisanship, and their unfitness to govern the country. He'll be the darling of the conservative commentariat, and who can deny the dazzle of a new romance?

That is why the Lieberman race is so critical to Democratic fortunes this November. Polls show him either leading or in a dead-heat with Ned Lamont. With the Republican candidate in the race barely registering any life in the polls, Lieberman becomes the choice of Republicans looking for something to vote against, and the usual scramble to the middle to attract independents after a tough primary battle is, for Lieberman, not even a two-step shuffle.

This fall, for the Democrats to achieve anything resembling success, they will have to beat Joe Lieberman.

Read the whole column at the link above.

He has a strong point. An energized and liberated-by-reelection Lieberman could actually be both parties' worst nightmare, as he could seek "bipartisanship" at the side of John McCain, if McCain is rebuffed in the Republican primaries. McCain-Lieberman would form the most formidable independent ticket in American history.

Remember, Ross Perot actually led in the early polls in May 1992, before suddenly withdrawing and reminding voters of his tenuous grasp on reality - and he still pulled 19% in the general election after an embarrassing return to the race. A three-way contest in 2008 could be the most competitive and unpredictable Presidential race since 1824.