Democratic neutrality.

several races are in contention for primary battles.

Two races in particular is our Governor's seat and the well-publizied senatorial race in Connecticut. As characters; lamont/lieberman is very different cast the Davis/Smith.

First; their are few pundits that to sound so belicose in our home state about the contest.
No one is saying 'this is for the soul of Democratic Party' or any such nonsense. I havent decided whether that bodes ill for the party, either candiate or both could use more media exposure before the primary and definately as a prelude to the general election. The other party is gaining important pressheading from the primary battle between the two strongest candiates. This is not something to be over-looked as a advantage.

Second; niether of our candidates is a being endorsed by the GOP's talking heads like Hannity or Glen Beck. Niether candidate plans a 'independant' run due to some sort of entitlement to position.
While i understand the nuetrality stance by the party officials as needed for the decorum in races such as Mr. Davis/Mr. Smith...it has bothered me that the obvious ploy of incunbent support(and perhaps further) has been used with such blinders to the true intention of the candidate after the party registered voters have spoken. It makes a mockery of the process and a cheapening of the Democratic officials going to campaign for a person willing to turn against the party wholly simply to keep a seat of power. For the record, both candiates for our general election spot have said that they will support the other. Florida may not be 'blue' or 'genteel' enough for the washington d.c. crowd's tastes...but with examples like the one in Connecticut, really who needs a that sort of binding that allows such gross display betrayal to take place?


*I will edit statements made by the two races as examples a little later on the day.