Not trying to split the difference. Guess it's the old "necessary but not sufficient" issue. On the "not sufficient" -- I agree with the Moose that playing defense on this score won't get the Dems where they want to go.Those that think they can drive the GOP out of the WH over SocSec alone need a remedial course in American electoral politics. On the other hand, I agree with you that there are some core items that are public "placeholders" for what it means to be a Democrat, and protecting the safety net is clearly one of them. There's been an awful lot of recent handwringing over "how do the Dems communicate what they stand for." If this item can't be communicated clearly via party unit, there's probably no hope for them. In the future, hopefully the argument for why and how the safety net and risk allocation need to be updated in design for today's and tomorrow's economy will be the next stage of the Democratic discussion. But that's an issue for another day. Right now, Lieberman is violating the "necessary" clause of the intra-party political contract. [Oh, and you don't have to be under 40 to find the Count amusing. One of those cultural icons that somehow permeates the social ether regardless of background or personal experience.]