I don't remember Shap getting this worked up when the Republicans suggested/forced/allowed that Senator from Vermont to leave their 'large tent'...you know....the 'big top' that it requires to encompass that large spectrum of political thought and opinion that makes up the Republican Party of the 21st Century?
The situation with Jeffords was entirely different. He wasn't forced out by the Republicans, he left the party of his own volition in order to hand majority control back to the Democrats. Republicans urged him to stay with the party, despite his liberal leanings. His goal was to prevent a Republican majority in the Senate, and his departure provided that (for two years, until the next election cycle cemented that majority). That is far different than the situation the Democrats have shown us with Sen. Liebrman's rejection. Sen. Lieberman has been persona non grata
in the Democratic party for some time, because he has shown an unwillingness to help polarize the Congress. It is indeed interesting that this is the man the Democrats supported as the #2 man in the country just six short years ago.
Shos attempt to blame Nader points up another issue with Democrats. They say the President is unwilling to admit a mistake, yet they cannot come to grips with the fact that they simply lost the election under the rules that are in place. It's always somebody's fault. Somebody cheated, somebody lied (besides them), somebody else is to blame. Even after six years and another electoral loss, they cannot accept that they did not win in 2000, or in 2004. The lost the Presidency, the lost the Congress, they lost the Senate, they lost a great number of Governorships, they lost a great number of State houses. All of this, but it is somebody elses fault. The Republicans cheated. Karl Rove. Election fraud. Voter suppression. (despite the fact that most convictions regarding proven instances of this have been Democrats).