If anything, Joe Lieberman is a perfect example of why the Senate should be abolished,
When the Constitution was being thrashed out, the smaller colonies insisted on a legislative body that would give them some parity with the larger states. In their opinion, the House was not enough because the more populous states would have larger delegations. Senators were given 6 year terms to keep them from being swayed by outside influences.
Obviously that hasn't worked.
Perhaps the idea behind the Senate was a good idea in 1787, but it's a terrible idea now. The power that Senators exert for six years just makes re-election all the more expensive. Which makes Senators more willing to accept huge campaign funds (read bribes) from corporations.
And the Founders never expected a filibuster rule to contest a simple majority.
The problem is obvious. Why should one senator, such as Joe Lieberman -- who represents a state with a population of roughly 3,500,000 -- be able to hold up or kill legislation that could impact a state like California, with a population of roughly 30,000,000. Or, for that matter, why should that same Senator have the power to hold up or kill bills that could affect the whole nation for the better?
As the British Parliament shows, a House of Representatives is sufficient.
Of course, the Senate would never enact legislation calling for the states to ratify an amendment abolishing their own body.
So it looks like we're stuck with them forever. Blue Cross will be very happy.