Iyow - in your own words

After the defeat of incumbent Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman by political newcomer Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary this week, some pundits are decrying it as the beginning of the end of The Democrats in this election cycle, again.

This theory is cock-a-mamie, and actually signals a deeper, more structural change – one I think that benefits the real political moderates. Why? Well, among other things…

Ned Lamont is not Howard Dean.

For better or worse, Howard Dean in 2003-2004 was ahead of the curve in questioning the war. (Full disclosure, I volunteered for Dean’s primary presidential campaign that year.)

But we are three years past that. Since then, we’ve invaded Iraq, agonized over whether we were misled by the President’s sixteen words in the State of the Union address, paid for skyrocketing record oil and gas prices, destabilized the region, and have mired ourselves and the Iraqis into a bloodier conflict – with little direct gain in our real war on terrorism.

There’s a lot of signs that the average American thinks we are headed in the wrong direction in Iraq, even if they support the war on terror. And other Democratic leaders are stepping up to demand alternatives.

‘NetRoots’ is the grassroots.

Lieberman’s site got hacked, and they want to flame the NetRoots.

‘NetRoots’ seem to be credited for anything beyond conventional wisdom, some fringe techno-wing of the grassroots. But surprise, the NetRoots is the grassroots. A poll from Pew Internet last year found that 68% of American adults use the internet. Sixty-eight percent is not a fringe movement.

There’s some whining from the Lieberman camp about conspired coordinated attacks, nice analysis from William Saletan of Slate. Not to be all BOFH, but internet security is an ongoing war for every computer operator where you can’t afford to lose any major battles.

Sorry you had to learn the hard way, Joe.

Iraq is not Vietnam.

The defeat is being tipped as the most significant defeat by an incumbent Democratic senator since the defeat of Vietnam War critic Arkansas Sen. J. William Fulbright. But that defeat was credited more to charisma and a changing of the guard than the Vietnam War.

Sen. Lieberman seems to have adopted a take-no-prisoners approach, trying to tie Mr. Lamont to potential catastrophe, of course distorting the more moderate official Lamont position. As they’re scheduled for another showdown in November, we’ll see how that pans out.

What else isn’t Iraq?

Iraq is not Afghanistan.
Iraq is not Al Qaeda.
Iraq was not terrorism – but now it is a civil war.

But we’ve chosen to make Iraq our central battleground in the war on terror. For better or for worse, that is where we’ve placed our stake in the future of the Middle East. Let Ned Lamont be the beginning of the New Guard to make that future work.

What’s with the conventional wisdom’s love affair with Lieberman? Dunno, as he’s come out on the wrong side of his last three elections. But Eric Bohlert at The Nation has some good theories.