ON THE HILL: The Risks Of Becoming Lieberman

"To declare that the only test of a politician's commitment to reform is a willingness to break with unions creates a no-win choice for Democrats," writes EJ Dionne of the Washington Post (It's about education, not teacher unions). "They must either betray long-standing allies or face condemnation as the captives of special interests."

If this is the case -- I'm not sure I buy it entirely -- then reformy Democrats are putting a lot more pressure on their own party than the weakened Republicans have, potentially creating serious divisions within the part the likes of which we have not yet seen. 

They do this in the hope of pushing for accelerated reform efforts. But if they fail to win allies and show quick successes, they run the risk of having ostracized themselves from the core of their party.  And that's not a fun (or effective) spot to be in.  Just ask Joe Lieberman.

In reality, of course, few elected politicians have gone out as far on the reformy limb as Lieberman went on the war and other issues. Chatty and media-savvy as they may be, most of the reformy types are think tankers or nonprofiteers or (in the case of Duncan and Rhee and Klein) mayoral appointees. Comfy.  Safe. 

So first the reformistas need a Lieberman, and then they need to him not to pull a Lieberman. It doesn't seem likely that Bennet will be their man, though they'll be eager to cast him in that role.