Lieberman Loses, Fights On
Joe Lieberman lost the Connecticut Democratic primary last night, but not by the wild margin that many people thought. Ned Lamond won 51-48--with Lieberman getting well above the 40% needed to support a run as an independent. Lieberman will run as an indepenent, and judging by the latest three-way poll--will easily win.

Base10 loves the way the media is handling this. This was supposed to be the "netroots" taking back the Democratic Party. Check out this self-important article in the NY Times, curiously titled, "A Referendum on Iraq Policy":

The victory of Ned Lamont over Joseph I. Lieberman, a three-term senator and former vice presidential candidate, was a vivid demonstration of how the Iraq war is buffeting American politics and of the deep hostility toward President Bush among Democrats. It also suggested there are stiff anti-status-quo winds blowing across the political landscape as the fall elections approach.

A referendum? Doesn't that imply it was open to all voters and not just one party? If Lieberman wins in the general election will that be a referendum for the war?

How about this snarky comment from Andrea Peyser in the NY Post:

The voters have spoken. But Joe Lieberman isn't listening.

I hope he knows what he's doing.

It was the quickest concession speech in modern history, and the strangest. Last night, Sen. Joe took the stage in a hotel here and admitted, sort of, that he was a loser.

He'd lost the Democratic primary for the Senate seat he's held for 18 years, but you'd never know it.

John Podhoretz, also in the Post, has more sensible views, albeit not particularly pleasant:

The Lieberman loss ends the bipartisan consensus on the war in Iraq.

You read that right. I said "bipartisan consensus." There has been one, though you probably missed it.

Yes, I know polls have said for two years now that Democratic voters are overwhelmingly opposed to the war. Yes, I know Democratic politicians - with the exception of Joe Lieberman - never miss an opportunity to go after President Bush for his decision to go into Iraq and for his handling of the war.

But the weird little secret of the past couple of years is that when push comes to shove, Democrats in Washington have assented to the continuation of the war on Bush's terms. They have voted to fund it.

House Democrats voted against an immediate withdrawal. Senate Democrats even voted against a set timetable for withdrawal.

That's over now. The Democratic Party officially became the antiwar party last night.

Base10 wishes Lieberman well, and would vote for him if he could.
- posted by Base10 @ 10:51 AM