Liebermania Run Amok

Desperation in politics engenders some pretty wild stuff.

Today Joe Lieberman, in a last-ditch effort to save his political arse, accused Ned Lamont's campaign of attacking his Web site Joe2006.com. Down in the polls, despite massive help from Bill Clinton and others, the campaign pulled out this desperate PR stunt to "campaign" as the victim on election day. As polls close, it's becoming fun to wonder what the Democratic Party would look like without Joe.

But first, let's consider this: who is Ned Lamont?

Races featuring incumbants are usually cast as referenda on the office-holder. But this primary campaign has been more about Lieberman's friends--namely how he can be so bipartisan that he might as well skip being a Democrat. Most of the talk is centered on Lieberman's unwavering support of the Iraq War and his willingness to give Bush the tools to wage it endlessly. Nobody is actually talking about Ned Lamont. Even the New York Times OpEd piece endorsing Lamont dedicated 11 of 12 paragraphs to Lieberman and why he's no longer right for the job. Apparently the only thing Lamont has done is allegedly hack a Web site--is this the future of the party?

So let's say Lieberman does lose (rather than say "Lamont wins"). Does this mean that pro-war Democratic candidates will have a tougher road ahead? Will voters be able to make real distinctions between pro-war Dems like Hillary Clinton (NY) and Maria Cantwell (WA), and their Republican counterparts? Has it really taking this long after the Kerry campaign to realize that you can't have be a Dem and have it both ways--pro-war and anti-this-war? Pro-ousting Saddam but anti-drawn-out-campaign? Pro-war and anti-instability? Pro-war and pro-peace? This is Liebermania run-amok.

We must take this one step at a time. We won't know what this primary election means for Dems in November until results from CT are released tonight. And there's no need to speculate about 2008 until we see what really happens in November.

But, for the first time in a long time, an established, powerful lawmaker is about to get the hook for his political views--and not for any scandal. I think that's a strong step in the right direction for figuring out what the Democratic Party should represent.

Good luck Ned!