In an op-ed in the Courant today, former Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill Curry all but tells Lieberman to cut and run from the party, somehow arguing that in doing so it will change the tone of the debate:

Reporters love to write about political strategy. Their current obsession is whether Lieberman will limit his options to an increasingly competitive primary or opt for an independent spot on the November ballot, where he still enjoys a wide lead....

Polls say Lieberman leads among likely voters. But if he calls them in early July and finds them not home, he'll likely take out his petitions. It will be an opportunity to move the debate to higher ground and to the issue that gives the race its rationale, the failed, bloody and seemingly endless war in Iraq.

This is not about "political strategy." This is about political loyalty. If Joe won't stay a Democrat, why should any Democrat vote for Joe? And if Joe is willing to leave the party just because he's facing a "inconvenient" primary challenge, to sell out his constituents for his own personal gain, isn't that a warning sign about how he'd act in the senate in the next six years?

Plus Curry's logic is frustratingly circular: Joe refuses to rule out leaving the party, that causes the debate to be about meaningless "strategy," and so in order to fix this problem he should leave the party in order to "move the debate to higher ground." Nevermind that if Joe - like Ned - would simply commit to remaining a Democrat, the debate would immediately move to "higher ground."

This is the most "obsessed" about issue now, because Joe himself has made it so, and continues to make it so.