I've been trying to figure out why the liberal elite of the democratic party is so upset about Joe Lieberman's loss. I don't think it's the difference in his and Lamont's views on the war - Lamont is no different from Murtha and yet Murtha is hailed by the same people as a brave man.
I think what it is is Joe Lieberman is today's Adlai Stevenson. Adlai Stevenson was nominated to run against Eisenhower both times because the leaders of the democratic party (not the party bosses but the ones who "knew best" mostly located in Washington) knew he was the best person to be president. Note that the argument was not that he was the most likely to win - but that he would do the best job as president.
That is Joe Lieberman today. All of the top democratic operatives in Washington, the people who used to set the agenda for the party day by day, most of them view Joe Lieberman as one of the few who would make a very good president.
So what happen when "the people" vote against one of their anointed few? What is the human reaction of anyone in this case? You get pissed. Because voting out Lieberman is a direct affront to their anointing him as one of the few, it is a direct insult to their role as the ones who anoint the leaders.
But an article titled "how dare you not vote for my favorite senator" won't sell, instead there are all kinds of lame reasons why voting for Lamont was bad. But the arguments don't add up:
- Voting for a candidate who wants us to leave Iraq over one who wants to stay the course is the end of the democratic party. Give me a break! First off, the democratic party has always had a range of opinions from it's congresspeople on Iraq and every other war. A change in one senator is not a seismic shift.
- And stay the course is a failure so a vote for Lamont is a vote for trying something different. One definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different result. By this argument voting for anyone but Lieberman makes sense.
- The republicans are celebrating over Lieberman's defeat. Right. If Lieberman (called Loserman by the right wing in 2000) had won they would be celebrating that. It's called spin. And any democrat that lets the republicans set the spin of each event and then frame the debate - that democrat is setting the republicans up to win.
- I think Lamont winning actually scares them. This provides national press for a candidate who is fresh, articulate, and his whole story is that Iraq is a disaster. Stories about Lamont are stories about the mess the republicans have made in Iraq.
The whining from the punditocracy, conservative as well as liberal, is akin to the state constitutional amendments against gay marriage. Both groups can see the writing on the wall - they are going to lose eventually. But they are going to go down kicking and screaming fighting a rear-guard action as long as possible.
But keep in mind one provable truth - whatever the pundits say, it's almost certainly wrong.
And who do I think will win in November - Lamont. And it will drive the pundits crazy once again.
What do you think? Please comment.
trackbacks: DailyKos, Mudville Gazette, Thespis Journal
