Jedi vs Sith on Lamont/Lieberman fallout

Both S.P.Q.A. and Wick o' the Bailey wrote on the implications of Ned Lamont's Democratic primary victory over Joe Lieberman ("The Democrats go Full Lamonty" and "The De Facto Republican?" respectively).
Jarod Armstrong at S.P.Q.A. placed special importance on the uncivil wing of the Democratic Party asserting power and downplayed the antiwar aspect of Lamont's victory. Jarod sees a potential political advantage for the GOP. He concludes, somewhat hyperbolically:

What we are seeing then is the end of the days when at least some Democrats didn't think the answer to Republican electoral success is lawsuits, the reply to any compromise from the Republicans is to take it and then immediately decry the evil heartless Republicans and demand more, who do not believe that every funeral, tragedy, hearing is a political event to be exploited, and who love their country more than they hate their political opponents.

"Barnum's Baileywick" of WotB, on the other hand, sees the Lamont victory combined with Lieberman's run as an independent in terms of political loss for the Democratic Party. Lieberman is likely to gain support from Republicans who have no candidate with a realistic chance to win in Connecticut. BB sees that as a factor in Republican turnout. "[T]he more support Lieberman draws from Republicans, rather than Democrats or independents, the more Republicans can be expected to come to the polls than might otherwise appear ..." BB sees in that combination a reduced chance to gain three congressional seats in Connecticut.

The analysis of each seems reasonable, and I would underline the importance of the overlap in their analysis. Jarod sees a Democratic Party increasingly willing to sacrifice the good of the country to their specific political ends. BB expresses concern that the Democratic Party will be less able to enact their political goals by throwing Lieberman overboard. As BB writes, "[A]lthough the Lamontians would be indirectly responsible for such a possible state of affairs, it is Joe Lieberman and Joe Lieberman alone who would be directly responsible, bucking the will of Connecticut Democrats and abandoning his party--with, no doubt, the best of intentions for Connecticutt and the country, but all the same with detrimental effects for Democratic policy goals in Connecticut and the U.S. Senate."

Now, Jarod's point presupposes that ensuring a stable democratic Iraq is for the good of the U.S. and with that I agree. Obviously, many Democrats would not agree that they are placing politics ahead of the good of the country; their politics are for the good of the country, in their eyes.
The big problem with the Democratic Party--and BB hints that it is a problem that he shares--is that they do not take the War on Terror seriously. This point I advance based on the lack of emphasis by Democrats on points of policy that promote victory in that war. Do Democrats truly believe that allowing Iraq to destabilize such that Iran may draw Iraq into orbit would be a positive step in terms of world security? The premise of Lamontian Democrats is largely that terrorism is a boogeyman created by the Right in order to sustain political power. The statements of the Iranian president, suggesting that an nuclear attack on Israel might well be worth considering, are among those that just don't appear to register on the Left. There seems to be a denial that an anti-Western ideology has spread in the world and that it is currently making war using means that have only in recent times been made possible.

That is the issue on which all elections in the foreseeable future ought to swing: Which party presents the best plan for waging the war?
Is the party that doesn't take the war seriously the one that should hold power?
Does that somehow offer an advantage in waging the war?