This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The reversion is all wrong. The original article was a reference to the term being used by the Jr. Senator from CT in 2006 when he indicated that he was going to potentially drop out of the Democratic primary because he faced defeat and would lose his 18 year cushy job to a real Democrat. In response to his continued voting with the GOP (his votes with the GOP on cloture and then against the GOP when his vote didn't count on the 50/50 vote)as well as his continued support for Bush's policies (he was the only Senator in New England, Democrat or Republican, to vote for the Cheney Energy [Company Bonanza] Bill) and his standing up to support the Iraq war and to disagree with Democrat attempts to get a plan for withdrawl of US troops from Iraq on GOP time (with Warner and Santorum using his support to bash Democrats) he has coined a new term for a Democrat who works against the party and it's principles and decides to run as an independent candidate against a Democrat in an open election, while attempting to hold on to the image that he is a Democrat.
In other words, the term is an oxymoron as you can't be a Democrat and then NOT stand up and agree to abide by the decisions of the voters in a Democratic primary and to run against the Democrat the voters pick in a general election.
It was shot thru with mistatements, misleading info, and a fact that is at best out of date -- and, if it wasn't recklessly mis-stated, has changed in a fashion that would itself be noteworthy.
...thus assuring Senate Democrats that they would hold the 51-49 majority they won in that year's elections.
Lieberman caucus status didn't & doesn't "assure" shit. If there is anything that is assured by someone being in a caucus, it's not generally considered notable. The two main Congressional caucuses presumably get budgets that include staff, and those numbers probably eventually fluctuate as a result of members joining or leaving, but a caucus is a tool for organizing votes, not something that can compel them rather than try to influence them.
... officially listed as an "Independent Democrat" in U.S. Senate records ...
"[O]fficial" is misleading; the editor seems to have justified this by finding info in www.senate.gov. The corresponding page does point to a "Content Responsibility" page that says
The information on this Web site is compiled under the authority and direction of the Secretary of the Senate, Washington, DC 20510.
But actions of the Senate (appearing in the Congressional Record) that its rules attribute to the body as whole are what i think of first, and the content of the rules a close second. JL said he told the Secretary how he wanted to appear and that was all it took. He officially said it, i 'spose, and the Secretary officially (i.e., as a function of their office) published it, but that makes it personal, much more than it makes it official in a sense of interest here.
Further, it suggests that his party designation is something of official concern to the Senate, while in fact it is more likely added on the Senate & Congress pgs (especially since it, as opposed to who he caucuses with, is irrelevant to the Senate's business) as a courtesy much like that of including his year of birth (as his bio page does); it serves for identification (and occasionally avoiding embarrassing situations -- Reed/Ried, Kerry/Carey -- where a voter mistakenly says something to a member of party X that they'd only knowingly say to a member of party Y).
'...listed as an "Independent Democrat" ...'
Well, he's not, or at least not anymore: he's listed as "ID - CT". I believe that is derived from either "Independent Democrat" or "independent Democrat", and intended to convey at least one of those to those who are anticipating at least one of them. But neither correctly identifies the content; nor does what was described in the article convey the lack of explicitness in what is now listed. It may be that it used to say either "Independent Democrat" or "independent Democrat". (And if it has indeed changed, as the editor implicitly asserts, that is a significant fact for this article: it permits no conclusion in itself, but invites inquiry as to whether the change is a coincidence, or was intended to undercut the air of officiality of JL's claim to be something that relevant others regard as different from merely "an independent".)
This is distinct from Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is officially listed as an Independent (not an "Independent Democrat"), but also caucuses with the Democrats. 
I grant it is distinguishable, but the difference is indistinct. And its mention here is off-topic, and probably precluded by SYNTH: in the context in which i found it, it does not serve to inform about the term "Independent Democrat", but to insinuate that JL is more of a D than that damn socialist. A passage before the examples, appropriately sourced with what qualified historians have generalized about the use of the term, may be of some value, but a head-to-head comparison with the only other current impurely-associated partisan is quite tangential to this topic.