Lieberman openly talks about party switch over Iraq

If there is any Democratic party member who reads this blog and still thinks Joe Lieberman in on our side, please revise your view. Here's The Politico (via MyDD):

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico on Thursday that he has no immediate plans to switch parties but suggested that Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind.

Here's a big "I told you so!" to all the prominent Democrats who supported Lieberman over Lamont. Lieberman has drunk the Kool-Aid on Iraq, as much as Bush and McCain. He is a major obstacle to getting us out of that occupation. He lied about his Iraq opinions to win the CT Senate election. He is a big part of the problem.

I still think Lieberman won't swtich, because in 2008 the Dems will likely take the Senate back with or without him, and he'd end up in the minority. And the Senate organization won't change, because the way they set it up the rules were set at the start of the session and would require more than a simple majority to change.

UPDATE: Sirota thinks it wouldn't be such a bad thing if he did switch:

I hope Lieberman switches because A) it would be advantageous for Democrats in the long-term B) it wouldn't hurt Democrats or progressives in the short-term, if Senate Democrats developed the spine to filibuster horrible nominees (admittedly an "if") and C) while he already is politically irrelevant in terms of actual power, Lieberman's switch would, finally, make him widely perceived as irrelevant, meaning that he would cease to have any effect on the national debate and that his melting, Emperor-from-Star-Wars face would stop appearing on my television set and freaking out my dog, Monty.