I think that some Dems are being drawn into this right wing/media talking point.
When the Repubs and fawning media use this framing, it is a win for them.
Implicit in saying that America is "safer but not safe" is that the status quo is the right course and those in charge (the Repub party) are doing a good job and that they just need more time to keep staying the course.
When Dems are asked that question, we often answer with this: "Well, in some ways we are. Or, "it depends on how you look at it" etc. and then comes the vague and/or equivocating answer.
These are the WRONG answers.
The correct answer is this:
"NO!!!" We are not safer and I'll tell you why....(then go into the wrong decision on Iraq, the incompetent management of that decision, creating ill world around the world, more terrorists, not spending our money wisely on American soil instead of in Iraq to SECURE OUR BORDERS - moderates and indys love that one - etc.)

We must always remember the short attention span of Americans and what they TAKE AWAY from any interview is usually the first thing they hear and not much else.

So, lather, rinse, repeat.
This REpublican adminstration and REpublican Congress has NOT MADE US SAFER!
This REpublican adminstration and REpublican Congress has NOT MADE US SAFER!
This REpublican adminstration and REpublican Congress has NOT MADE US SAFER!

(The RE-publican is used because they always RE-peat their SAME MISTAKES RE-peatedly!).

The Lieberman "independent" bid in the general election threatens our democratic system.
Here's why: It completely undermines the primary system. It completely undermines the party system. It is a slap in the face to "real" independent candidates.
Very few people would have blamed Joe if had not run in the democratic primary preferring to take his chances as an independent in the general election.
However, his having his cake and eating it too philosophy should anger every American.
Should Joe win the general election, what signal will that send to other potential candidates and to the electorate?
Some states do not allow for candidates to do what Joe is doing by allowing a defeated candidate to run twice for the same office in the same year.
None should allow it.
This is a slap to every person who has ever voted for a democrat, republican, green, libertarian, or member of any party. There is a reason that people vote for members of a party. There is also a reason that they vote for a true "independent" that does not embrace any party.
There is also a reason why people work for candidates of parties by volunteering their time or giving money.
Bill Clinton's slogan that all primary voters should "fall in love, then fall in line" in the general election has real merit. Those of us who work in campaigns realize this. We operate under this system. If this system is abandoned, then nothing short of political chaos will ensue. Don't like that your candidate lost in the primary, then make them run as an independent in the general or just refuse to support your party's primary winner in the general (just "sit this one out").
The only LEGITIMATE argument that those who still support Lieberman have (in my humble opinion) is that they think that the primary system is antiquated and should be dispensed with. Otherwise, if you believe in the primary system, if you believe in party labels and party distinction, then you must oppose what Lieberman is doing. It is simply UNAMERICAN! As Republicans are so fond of saying, "elections have consequences" and that should include primaries. Joe, unfortunately, doesn't believe that truism applies to him. Giving him this "do-over" is a very bad precedent to set, no matter how you feel about Joe as a Senator or about Ned Lamont or any political candidate.