Teddy Kennedy on Joe Lieberman at the Democrats' 2000 convention:

Earlier Tuesday night, Sen. Edward Kennedy strode to the podium to make comparisons between his brother, President Kennedy, who received the Democratic nomination in Los Angeles in 1960, and Gore. "How proud (John Kennedy) would be of Al Gore and our party and the new barrier of bigotry we are breaking down with the choice of Joe Lieberman as the next Vice President of the United States."

Jesse Jackson at the same convention:

In an evening dedicated to not only carving out the Democrats' positions, but introducing voters and viewers to Gore, Jesse Jackson praised the vice president for his selection of a running mate.

"The long arm of justice reaches neither for the political left nor the political right, but for the moral center," Jackson said in his measured cadence, running through a list of traditionally Democratic issues and heralding Gore and Lieberman as "America's dream team of the Democratic Party."

Jackson noted marked distinctions between the Gore-Lieberman ticket and the their Republican rivals, Texas Gov. George W. Bush and former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney.

"In selecting Joe Lieberman, Al Gore has brought the sons and daughters of slaves and slavemasters, together with the sons and daughters of Holocaust survivors. He raised the moral chin bar. When a barrier falls for one of the locked out, it opens the doors for all."

But hey, that was then, and this now. BDS changes all:

Lieberman’s senate colleagues are wasting no time throwing their combined support behind Lamont, in a move they hope will stifle Lieberman’s independent ambitions.

“I pledge my enthusiastic support for (Lamont) in November,” Sen. Edward M. Kennedy said in a statement. “Ned is fighting to take our country in a new direction, both at home and abroad. His victory last night was a clarion call for change. Connecticut voters turned out in record numbers to change a failed policy in Iraq, to call for health care for all Americans, to fight for a truly independent judiciary and much more.”

As for Jackson:

"We're campaigning across the state for a big turnout on Tuesday," Jackson said, referring to Lamont's Democratic primary against incumbent Sen. Joseph Lieberman. "What is at stake is the direction of our country and its priorities."

The event turned into a full-fledged political rally, with supporters for both Lamont and Lieberman chanting for their respective candidates. Lamont shook hands with the Lieberman crowd as well as with his own constituents.

Recent polls show Lamont has a slight lead heading into the primary. The race has garnered national attention, with some prominent Democrats upset with Lieberman's backing of President George W. Bush on the Iraq War.

Jackson called Lieberman a good man, but said he had wandered away from the principles of the Democratic Party.

"His embrace of Bush's position before the war was a challenging one, but his continued embrace is incomprehensible," Jackson said.

"The idea of Iraq was based on the false premise of weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaeda connections, and the threat that never was the case. Now we've lost lives, and money, and honor. The price we're paying for the war in Iraq is that we no longer have the resources to invest in Hartford, Middletown, Bridgeport, New Haven. We are losing abroad and suffering at home."

Jackson complimented Lamont's dedication to a comprehensive medical plan, universal pre-kindergarten education and "big ideas that make sense."

Uh-huh. David Limbaugh puts it all into perspective:

But these Democrats, perhaps unwittingly, are just reinforcing what we've been saying about them: They have no constructive solutions and no policy agenda other than to oppose and trash President Bush and "his war." Reid and Schumer admitted as much when they essentially dismissed Lamont's role in the election, saying it was "a referendum on the president more than anything else."

Liberal Slate magazine confirmed this Democratic mindset in an article following the July debate between Lieberman and Lamont by conceding that "Lamont is less a candidate than he is a conduit" for the expression of displeasure against Lieberman for supporting Bush on the war.

Hopefully, Democrats will continue to glean the wrong message from this election and believe they can rely exclusively on an anti-Bush wave to carry them to victory instead of resuming their long lost role as a credible party offering an alternative agenda. Such ill-begotten and delusional smugness is exactly where we want them to be going into 2006.

We'll see. But along with this, in the meantime, I can't help but wonder what Lieberman thinks of his "colleagues" today.

Update: Related thoughts from Ed Morrissey.

More: Jonah Goldberg writes that "Lieberman fascinates political junkies because he's an outlier, like an albino rhino or the last of the Mohicans. And his loss doesn't usher in a new reality so much as confirm the familiar one":

Sure, Lieberman's 52% to 48% defeat was a very big deal politically. Looking at the dozen election cycles prior to 2006, political scientist Larry Sabato points out that among about 400 separate Senate races, only three incumbents were felled by primary challenges. That one of them was the Democratic Party's vice presidential nominee just six years ago is amazing. But Lieberman's loss is a bit less dramatic given the Democratic Party's evolution over the last quarter of a century. Lieberman was always sui generis — a hawkish, culturally right-of-center Democrat from a blue state.

As many have noted, the only reason he could get away with his Bill Bennett-esque sermonizing is that he's an Orthodox Jew. For many liberals, when white Christian politicians talk about God, it's scary. When Jews do it, it's quaint. No Christian national Democrat has talked so openly and sincerely about God and traditional values in decades (a point acknowledged by the Democrats' so far insufficient efforts to re-energize their evangelical outreach). President Clinton came the closest, but liberals could overlook it because they suspected that he really didn't mean it.

As for Lieberman's hawkishness, it seemed anachronistic — and just plain odd. He supported Bush on the war more forcefully than many Republicans, justifying his refusal to criticize the president on grounds that politics should stop at the water's edge, particularly during a war. That's sweet, but rumors that such restraint is a respected American political tradition are greatly exaggerated. It was a lack of such restraint by Sen. George McGovern that created the latter-day Democratic Party, from which Lieberman sticks out, sore-thumb-like, today.

Read the whole thing. (As the fellow would say who probably sent you here.)

Another Update: Duane Patterson has some thoughts of his own on the cold shoulder Lieberman will be facing from now until November:

You've got to wish you were a fly on the wall in the Senate offices in the upcoming weeks and months, especially on the Democratic side.

As expected, virtually all of the Democratic Senators have dropped their "good friend" from Connecticut like a bad habit. Makes you wonder how the next three months are going to play out. Can you imagine Ted Kennedy passing Joe Lieberman by in the hall and immediately looking down to see where his feet disappeared to? Or John Kerry riding up the elevator with Joe and just staring silently at the floor numbers?...or even waiting to make sure he catches the next one instead?

The Senate has now become a microcosm of old Europe, and in this example, Joe Lieberman has become Israel. I'm not talking about the Senate in an anti-Semitic way, mind you. I'm merely saying the public attitude of the Senate towards Lieberman is going to be polite, cordial, and generally supportive where necessary, so long as he is in office. But behind the scenes, just like in old Europe, many Senators are going to be grumbling amongst each other and wishing that Lieberman, like old Europe feels about Israel, would just go away.

Newsbusters writes that the news media isn't immune to a rush of Nedrenaline, either:

It's fascinating how fast the roles have switched in the DNC Media's take on Ned Lamont. Today's front page in the WashPost printed the headline "Democratic Leadership Welcomes Lamont." Next to that, a promotional headline: "Will Lieberman Hurt or Help Democrats?" They're not asking whether Lamont as a Democratic poster boy will hurt or help Democrats. Overnight, Lieberman has gone from party stalwart to independent pariah in the wilderness. You might expect the Democrats to switch horses like they're changing socks like party politicians. But it ought to be more surprising that the "objective, mainstream media" follows suit (or sock) so slavishly.

Why?

Update 8/11/06: Add another "old friend" of Joe to the list of those who are now cutting and running on him.