The strange importance of Joe Lieberman

It's flat amazing a Connecticut primary election has been spun into a national democratic referendum on the Iraq war. Fox News and CNN will be bringing us the tingling coverage tonight, with the outcome sure to produce a blizzard of stories on what it means.

But the national media is really just along for the ride. The real orchestra leaders are sprinkled in the hinterlands of the party:

Your vote will determine the national headlines tomorrow: 'Connecticut Democrats show support for war, President Bush' or 'Democrats in Connecticut foreshadow national call for accountability in Iraq.' Your call."

So said Ned Lamont, who could be Wile E. Coyote as far as grassroots dems care, as long as he's for getting out of Iraq.

Poor Joe. Not only was Joe the VP nominee in 2000, but ran for president in 2004. He's clearly a social liberal with a strong belief in national defense (similar to many great democrats of the past) and has a long career of service to the party. His opponent is a no-name millionaire from one of the richest bedroom communities in America, Greenwich, Connecticut. When exactly did hell freeze?

The public support from both Bill and Hillary and people like Max Cleland and other stalwarts strongly suggests this move wasn't a consensus from the movers and shakers in the party. However, there's still a possibility Dean and company are scapegoating Joe at the expense of a political experiment, a clever stunt designed to help point the direction for November. Joe can always run later as an independent.

Lamont tried to explain, saying:

"the eyes of a nation are upon our efforts," he wrote that today's vote will determine whether Americans are "ready to change the course in Iraq" and channel the money being spent there to domestic issues instead.

Which is basically stock lefty boilerplate, where Iraq is treated like reproductive choice, something we can simply abort with no long-term consequences.

But Lamont's position is taken by most vocal democrats today, just check the blogs. Here's one that might help to explain. The Guerilla Women are probably typical of the far left democrats in the heartland, and when this post went to press eleven of their first thirteen stories were hit pieces about Lieberman.

Lanny Davis and other moderate democrats are worried that a Lamont victory based on the war along might produce a kind of McCarthy-esque litmus test for future democrat races--a 'only John Murtha dems need apply' kind of thing, which might very well be another poison pill for them come November if history repeats.
Hey, what's Rove been up to lately anyway?

DEMOCRAT RESPONSE 8/9/06

I care more about what democrats are saying about the Lieberman loss than republicans. Here's an example from this morning's HuffPo:

The message has been sent. Get back to the middle. Get back to your voters. Get back to the principles we believe in. Stop cowing down to the Republicans. Otherwise you will have to answer to us. There will be a day of reckoning. Lieberman's day was today. And it felt great.

The best thing we can hope for the next time a vote like Sam Alito's filibuster or the Iraq War resolution comes up again is for the Democratic Senators to think, "Well, I don't want what happened to Joe to happen to me." Mission accomplished!

What's quite amazing in this type of mob rule philosophy is the scorn for bi-partisanship, a tenet most democrats used to hold dear. Honestly I don't think Joe's bipartisan argument works too well in our polarized world, where the dems have traded terrorists for Bush as public enemy number one. It's pretty sad.

Here's another opinion, this one from a guy at TPM Cafe (with the obligatory juvenile advertisements bashing Karl Rove)

I am at Lamont HQ in Meriden Connecticut, there is bounce, there is joy, there are smiles. The Rev. Jesse Jackson was here, arguing that Lamont represents a moral center, against the far right.

And Lieberman, according to this new Dem group-think, is immoral only because he doesn't support leaving Iraq immediately. Hillary should be taking notes.

Schumer said the election was a referendum on George Bush, which is pretty silly. It was only a primary and we've known since 2004 where most democrats stand on Dubya and the war. No, it was probably more a test-case to see where certain candidates need to focus in the fall.

MOORE 8/9/06

Big Mike has threatened the democrats who refuse to board his bus (and republicans, too). He wonders aloud:

To Hillary, our first best hope for a woman to become president, I cannot for the life of me figure out why you continue to support Bush and his war.

Here's a possible hint, Michael. And here's another.