Unwilling to bow out of the race for one of Connecticut's seats in the US Senate after losing the Democratic Party primary this week, incumbent Joe Lieberman, a staunch supporter of President George Bush's foreign policy, said on Thursday he would stand as an independent this fall against Democratic nominee Ned Lamont. Lieberman was heavily criticized by many Democratic supporters for seeming too close to conservative Bush. Lamont won by attacking his ardent support for the war in Iraq and his defense of many of Bush's policies. Lieberman said he would not bow to pressure from within the Democratic Party to step aside: "I'm going forward because I'm fed up with all the partisanship in Washington that stops us from getting anything done."

German newspapers on Thursday were divided over whether Lieberman's ouster was a sign of a significant leftward lurch in US politics -- and whether that would be a good thing or not.

Business daily Financial Times Deutschland is clearly concerned the Democrats might be leaving Washington's middle ground, calling the election outcome a "victory of unreasonableness." The editorial says "Joseph Lieberman deserved more respect." His "political death sentence" was his support for the war on Iraq. But personal fate aside, "for the opposition Democrats, Lieberman's defeat could turn out to be a disaster," since the successful attack on him "marks a shift to the left in the Democratic Party concerning one of the biggest topics -- America's security." And chances are that conservative Republicans will run with this and portray Democrats as "cowards" come election time this autumn. "If the Republicans turn the election for Congress into a referendum about who is better fit to protect America from terror, the Democrats will lose." And the paper believes it will have been the same Democrats who ousted Lieberman who would be responsible. But the danger for the Republicans is to feel too safe too soon, since this election also shows how strongly the people feel about Bush and the fiasco in Iraq. If the Democrats succeed in making the elections about Bush and the war, the party may stand a chance after all.

Left-wing daily Berliner Zeitung writes about a "deadly kiss" which Lieberman received and identifies it as the reason for the outcome of the election. "A main point in the preceding debate was the photo of an event where President Bush hugs Lieberman and kisses him on the cheek -- as a thank you for his support with the war on Iraq." But now this photo is backfiring on Lieberman. The Connecticut election may be an indicator for what will happen to those politicians who supported the President's "war adventures" in the past. One of them is Hilary Clinton. But, the editorial is quick to point out, "Bush probably is not inclined to kiss the wife of his despised predecessor. And she will now do anything she can to not give him the chance to do so."

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung sees the blame squarely on a disorganized Democratic Party. "America's Democrats are experiencing a grass-roots riot within the party." In response to their opponents' failure, the Republicans now get started on "using (Lieberman's) fall to their own advantage." The outcome of this election seems to be an indicator that the Democrats are shifting to the left, which means they cannot be an alternative for disappointed Republican voters. And even if the majority of the public turned away from the conservatives, "a democratic appetite to start anew cannot be felt anywhere in the country." The editorial describes the Democrats' image as "despicable and distressingly discordant" for lack of a clear direction on the situation in Iraq. The current Middle East crisis shows that Democrats don't necessarily disagree with Bush's opinions per se, but "if clear, realistic politics are nonexistent, unfocused protest will waft about." And, the paper is certain, "Lieberman will not be the last person to experience this."

Conservative newspaper Die Welt sees the election as part of wider problem with American politics. In an editorial it calls for a new "New Deal" that would restructure what it sees as a faltering country. "America's capitalism needs a Democratic victory," the paper writes, but not a victory of today's Democrats, stumbling and with restricted vision. By painting itself as an anti-war party like in the Conneticut primary, the Democrats will keep the United States from what it should be focusing on, namely "reforming of its technical and social infrastructure." And the editorial points out, "the Democrats could achieve this, if they wanted. But they don't want to." In light of lacking health care and a shaky social security system, the country's economy is at risk. However, instead of creating a new vision, the Democrats focus on pointing out President Bush's mistakes -- which is, of course, the duty of the opposition. "But those who only perform their duties don't do enough." This election was about the war and both parties continue to move in this direction. But, the paper points out, "America is bigger than it's professional army, bigger than its war on terror and it is much more than the sum of Bush's foreign policies and homeland security issues." The country needs "a change of power." And the victory would be the Democrats' if they "created projects to modernize and reinvent Anglo-Saxon capitalism instead of barking at Bush like dogs at the moon."