There are an editorial and an op ed in today's Boston Globe which do a good job of putting Lamont's victory over Lieberman into the proper context. I am going to urge you to go read both. To encourage you to do so, I will provide some snippets from each (within the bounds of fair use) below the fold.
If you want to go directly to the two pieces, let me save you the time
The editorial is entitled Tarring the majority and the op ed is by centrist Scot Lehigh and is entitled No leftist purge of Lieberman.
Let's deal with the editorial first.
The beginning paragraph clearly sets the stage:
EVERYONE IN Washington supports democracy -- until they don't like the results. US Senator Joseph Lieberman's defeat by the antiwar challenger Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Democratic primary this week has provoked a dark response from prominent Republicans, who have gone so far as to say that it could encourage America's enemies.
Then, after quoting from Cheney and from Lieberman's non-concession concession speech the Globe clearly delineates the difference:
The difference is that Lieberman's angry comments came at an emotional moment of personal defeat, while Cheney's are a cool political calculation to paint Democrats as soft on defense
The editorial then goes to Tony Snow's recent over-the-top comments, and follows by noting and concluding
Never mind that the weakling-in-chief who failed to oust Saddam Hussein in 1991 was not a Democrat but the first President George Bush. And never mind that most Americans -- that pesky majority again -- believe the war in Iraq has made the world less safe. The White House just can't resist blurring the lines between Al Qaeda and Hussein.
Statements that demean the choice of 52 percent of the Democratic electorate -- along with Lieberman's insistence on a do-over -- only serve to discourage voters, reducing turnout in elections and further polarizing results. This may be what some Republicans are aiming for; a government paralyzed by partisanship reinforces the belief that government is the problem, not the solution. Still, the system works best when the vast middle participates, not just excitable fringes .
Democracy is messy. But it's still the best system yet devised. If it is good enough for Iraq, it's good enough for Connecticut.
And now Scot Lehigh. He actually spend time with the Lieberman campaign, and also talked extensively with Lanny Davis. He begins simply asking
DID TUESDAY really mark the rise of the rabid moonbats in our national politics?
He then talks about how the Republican have been trying to spin the primary since Tuesday, but then asks us to look at the facts.
For starters, Lamont is neither a radical leftist nor a single-cause campaigner. Why, he's not even in favor of the domestic issue that often separates lefty true believers from pragmatic progressives: single-payer healthcare. Instead, he's an employer-mandate man. If it's true he is largely a political neophyte, he's also a successful entrepreneur and a personality type comfortable for Connecticut: the gregarious prepster.
Lehigh notes that Lamont did make opposition to the Iraq endeavor the centerpiece of his campaign, but immediately continues
But does it really follow that hyperpartisan single-issue zealots rose up in unforgiving fury from the vastly deep of the blogosphere to purge the Democratic Party of a courageous free thinker?
Hardly. What actually happened is that everyday progressive Democrats became alienated by Lieberman's strong support for the war and by a general political posture they judged too accommodating toward an administration whose excesses they believe call for sharper opposition.
Lehigh is blunt: Lieberman did not respond to his political peril until it was too late, after the Q poll showed him 13 points behind. And he reminds us of the following from the exit polling:
Yes, 62 percent of self-identified liberals chose Lamont, according to a CBS News/New York Times exit poll. But Lamont was also the choice of 39 percent of moderates and 35 percent of conservatives. Further, though Lamont got the support of 60 percent of war opponents, 39 percent of that group stuck with Lieberman.
That simply doesn't add up to a leftist purge.
I want to focus on one thing in the exit polling data that could represent a caution:
Now to the case of the incompetent incumbent. Here's the seminal fact: Those who decided their vote in the campaign's closing days chose Lieberman over Lamont by 54 percent to 44 percent.
That's significant because it was only on Sunday that Lieberman finally gave a conciliatory speech addressing voter discontent with his Iraq stand -- and then began airing a television ad on the subject.
That would explain the margin as being narrower than polling early in the week, but I think the damage Lieberman has done to himself since - the clearly false charges about a denial of service attack, his refusal to accept the results of the primary, telling the voters he will not let their decision stand, etc. - will counter any gain he might have made by his acknowledgment of the voter discontent.
Lehigh goes on to offer some comments of Lieberman's good friend and strong supporter Lanny Davis, who acknowledges Lieberman's stubbornness. Lehigh comments for himself
When I followed the candidates last week, it was clear that Lieberman was running an inept campaign as he tried to sidestep an issue much on voters' minds.
Lehigh has to be "even-handed" and puts in a gratuitous dig at Lamont for having Al Sharpton stand behind him on election night. But then he does return to the reality of the situation. He notes Davis insists Lieberman remains popular enough to win the general election as an independent. Lehigh then concludes:
Perhaps. Still, whether or not Tuesday's defeat spells the ultimate decline of Lieberman, let's be clear about one thing: No matter how much conservatives repeat their mantra, Ned Lamont's victory didn't signal the rise of moonbats -- much less their conquest of Connecticut.
I thought kossacks and casual visitors would find these two pieces far more balanced and accurate on key aspects of the primary and reactions to it than most of the coverage they would have seen elsewhere.