On Joe Lieberman
Because it's not about the war. Or moderation. Or ideology at all. It's about partisanship.The lines are brightly drawn, but in unexpected places. You can support the President's war, but you can't protect him from criticism. You can vote with Republicans, but you can't undermine Democrats. You can be a hawk, but you can't deride doves.
The politics here are tribal, and Lieberman's developed too severe a crush on the neighboring chieftain to participate. I've tried to explain why that may be -- he gropes towards praise and recognition, and receives both more readily from the right -- but pop psychology isn't quite the point. And nor is ideology. Or the war.
For all the mockery Bush received, his assertion that "you're either with us or against us" was more widely applicable than he realized. Lieberman's actions convinced liberals that he didn't merely disagree with them, or fear the political ramifications of their positions, but that he was actively against them. And while they can withstand an impressive amount of disagreement, they won't stand for dislike.
It's gonna be a useful question for me. I can ask a Democratic politician "Lamont or Lieberman". If they say "Lamont" it will be a point against them. If they say "Lieberman, but if he loses I'm supporting Lamont in the general", it will be a point in their favor. If they say "Lieberman all the way" it will be two points in their favor.
Yours,
Wince
"If they say "Lamont" it will be a point against them"
If they say "Lamont" they'll be a Democrat. Who cares what they say if they say something else?
Wince:
Since when do you have a dog in that hunt?
Joe’s camp and his acolytes in the corporate media gave a tour de force this Sunday why no Democrat should vote for Lieberman. Their current narrative is that poor, old, loyal Democrat Joe is being savaged on the war by the radical left of the party, in particular the nasty left-wing blogosphere. The trouble with that load o’ crap is that, on the war, there’s nothing radical or left-wing about the position of left side of the Democratic Party or bloggers on the left. They. are. exactly. where. the. country. is.
So Joe and the corporate media aren’t just supporting disastrous right-wing policy, they are actively engaged in disseminating right-wing propaganda. That’s never a deal breaker for a Republican but it sure ought be for a Democrat or, certainly, a “journalist”.
Lamont's biggest problem may be that he was born too soon -- he's a tad bit ahead of his time.
Next time a Connecticut Senator (yes, that's you Chris Dodd) comes up for re-election, look out: the netroots will be ready for him.
But Lamont has already made an impact. He's opened a window and allowed some fresh air and sunshine into a campaign that Lieberman was otherwise going to have sleepwalked through.
Sounds as if you're despairing of Lamont's chances. I took all the pro-Jo blow as an indication that the playas thought he might actually lose.
Not despairing at all. Just trying to be realistic about his chances.
It isn't going to be easy for Lamont to win. Bloggers shouldn't think that their righteousness translates into an automatic win.
I like what the netroots has done, but we're a long way from sending Joe home to New Haven.
For Ned to win, the netroots have to get out from in front of their LCDs and vote on Aug. 8 -- and get lots of others to vote with them.
And that's just in the primary.
Once Lamont gets the nomination, the whole thing starts over again. And it'll be harder this time because Lieberman will still be out there mucking things up in a three-way race.