A quick survey of pundits commenting on the Ned Lamont victory shows that no one has a clue what it all means. Neither do I but I know what I hope it means. I hope it means that Democrats will wake up to the idea that the mainstream view in this country is that the War in Iraq has been a colossal mistake. It is not a fringe, extremist view or even an exclusively Liberal view that any good office-seeker would be wise to keep at arm's length...More Democrats need to stop hedging their statements in this area for fear of being accused of being branded unAmerican or pro-Saddam...I just think the Lamont victory legitimizes the majority view a bit more tonight and makes it seem more politically viable. At least, I hope that's what it means.
Original post: In case you haven't heard...
Apparently Joe Lieberman has been defeated in the primary. Good. Even Andrew Sullivan thinks-
The notion, advanced by Lieberman, that criticism of the president's war leadership is somehow inappropriate when the country is in danger gets it exactly the wrong way round, I think. It is precisely because the danger is still so great that criticism is so necessary. That's democracy's strength.
-and that was in the course of endorsing Lieberman (being a gay "conservative independent," Sullivan is, as you might imagine, a bit of a masochist). Here's what a supporter of Lieberman's opponent, Ned Lamont, had to say.
"People are going to look back and say the Bush years started to end in Connecticut," said Avi Green, a volunteer from Boston. "The Republicans are going to look at tonight and realize there's blood in the water."
One other thing.
Lieberman has said he will run as an independent in the fall if defeated in the primary. His falling poll numbers spurred some Democratic colleagues to make last-minute campaign appearances, including former President Clinton, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California and others.
At The Huffington Post, a "Business Futurist"/film and Star Trek fan named Steven G. Brant asks the good questions like-
"Will the Democrats build or destroy themselves based on this result?"
Will Senator Dodd now support Lamont? Will Senators Clinton and Schumer? Senators Kennedy and Kerry? What about Bill Clinton? What about Howard Dean and the Democratic Party?
-and says this to soon-to-be-former Senator Lieberman:
I say to Joe, "Learn from Al Gore. Retire to private life. And work for what you are passionate about from that place in society. Al has done pretty well for himself and for our country in that role, wouldn't you say? Do the same thing, Joe. Set an example by showing people that you can put your party...and your country...ahead of your desire to stay in power. Be a good loser, Joe. That's how you can keep 'the old politics of partisan polarization' from winning."
Me, I say this to Bill Clinton and Sen. Boxer: Mr. President, I'll always think you got a raw deal. Senator, I generally feel pretty good about having helped elect you that first time back in California. But you need to understand something. There's some new sheriffs in town and they don't like people who support the Iraq war or who apologize for the Bush administration.
When it comes to endorsing a DiNO like Lieberman...run and hide.
Incidentally, this page from CBS New contains a web-video report by a correspondent named Trish Regan. She suggests that Lamont's victory may lead more Democrats to come out against the war-and that Republicans will try to use this against them (soft on national defense, you know the drill.)
I don't know anything about Trish Regan but a quick trip to Yahoo! shows me that she certainly seems to aggravate the conservative blogs like "NewsBusters," which naturally makes me like her just a little bit more.
And she used to work in San Francisco,
which makes me like her a lot more. I suppose there are some who would tell you she is quite delectable to look at (A former Miss New Hampshire in the Miss America Pageant, apparently)-but I ask you-would I be that shallow?Meanwhile, since I opened this post by quoting someone on the short list of right-wing louts I could learn to like, I might as well close with another, the ever-wiley Joe Scarborough, who earlier tonight wrote a piece that begins:
The conventional wisdom for tonight's Connecticut primary seems to be that a Joe Leiberman loss will yank the Democratic Party so far left as to make other Democratic candidates unelectable this fall. The logic is laughable and similar to what I heard from Republican leaders in 1994.
That was the election year when the most conservative wing of the GOP took over the party and swept into power in the US Congress. None would have predicted that outcome just two years earlier.
Quote via Kos, who observes,
While one may wonder why Scarborough is so intent on giving good advice to Democrats, it bears noting that 1) his advice contracits that of every other "well meaning" conservative eager to defend the Democratic Party's good graces, and 2) it does line up nicely with his own experiences in 1994.
If nothing else, food for thought. Though I don't disagree.
No comments:
Post a Comment