Lieberman's loss: good or bad for the Jews?

My grandma's guiding principle was, is it good or bad for the Jews? Thus, in her lexicon, Roosevelt=bad, Truman=good. Truman aided the founding of Israel, therefore he was better for the Jews.
According to realclearpolitics, it's bad for the Democrats:

CT Senate Results Bad News For Dems

[I]f these numbers hold up (Lamont 52%, Lieberman 48%) it is just about the worst result possible for the Democratic Party. First, it almost guarantees that Lieberman will run as an independent.... Lieberman's 48% makes him the clear favorite in the three-way. Republicans Chris Shays and Rob Simmons have received a boost in holding on in their vulnerable districts, two seats the Dems have to win if they hope to capture the House. And as much as mainstream Democrats may try to downplay this result as a Connecticut issue, the rejection of a three-term Senator who was the party's VP nominee only six years ago will have repercussions throughout the country and they don't help the Democratic Party.

Yes, it's bad for the Jews. Why? Because it's bad for the whole country. The Dems just want to bring down Bush, even if the country falls down around their ears. That an honest man who stands by his principles should be defeated by a country club twit doesn't not bode well. For the Jews, the Dems, everybody but the Cindy Sheehan wing of the party.

It is most upsetting to me that Lieberman should be rewarded for his years of service by this treachery. The man who was his party's vice-presidential nominee to be thrown over like this! I hope the Democrats come to their senses. A good sound trouncing is what they need.

I must control myself--I have a big event this weekend. I'm going to Mel Gibson's bar mitzvah.

I hope his circumcision went well.

I understand that a couple of drinks makes the pain bearable. Get plenty of Manischevitz, Mel.