As a demographic, the blogosphere has rallied solidly behind Ned Lamont's campaign for the Democratic nomination, both here in Connecticut and nationwide. Lamont is probably the second serious candidate (after Howard Dean in 2004) to receive a major boost from this particular group in the Democratic Party. The problem, as I see it, is that Lamont, like Dean, is a candidate lacking broad appeal outside the fairly narrow world of tech-savvy, well-educated Democratic activists. Unlike Dean, Lamont has a reasonable chance of winning both the Democratic primary and the general election (unless Lieberman decides to run as an independent). Still, even if Lamont can win, I'm not convinced that he should win. In other words, while Lamont might be able to win the battle for Connecticut, his victory would, I believe, do harm to the Democratic Party in the long run.
Now don't get me wrong, Lamont is not a bad candidate. He is not the wild-eyed radical some Lieberman supporters are making him out to be--although his shrillness on Iraq is grating. Lamont's background in business (successful, unlike the current occupant of the White House) augers well for his ability to play a constructive role in the debates about social security, the deficit, and so forth. Iraq aside, even on foreign policy, Lamont is fairly centrist and fairly sane. He even managed to get attacked by the lefty New Haven Advocate recently for daring to talk tough about North Korea's nuclear program. In short, Lamont would probably not be a bad senator.
For me though, this election is less about Lamont versus Lieberman than about competing visions of what the Democratic Party should look like. Lamont's supporters (moreso than Lamont himself it seems) represent a narrow, at times intolerant streak on the left that mirrors what the Christian conservatives have done on the right. If Lamont wins, it will be thanks to the bloggers and progressive activists of various stripes who have turned on Lieberman for the "sin" of believing in a big tent Democratic Party. If the Democrats ever hope to again become the majority party in this country, it will be because they can seize and hold vast swathes of the ideological center--including swing voters, independents, and liberal Republicans turned off by the GOP's extremist tendencies.
It isn't that Lamont's supporters are angry. Lord knows there's plenty to be angry about in this country. It's that this anger is misdirected. All the vitriol being thrown against Lieberman would be better spent on the Republicans. I wish all the energy and resources being thrown into Lamont's campaign were instead being used to sweep the Republicans out of the House in Connecticut.
The Democrats don't need this civil war in their midst, especially not now. Whether you love Lieberman or loathe him, the fact remains that he is (like Bill Clinton) a proven winner in a state that is not as blue as it sometime appears. The Democrats need people like Lieberman to appeal to the vast majority of the population who are not bloggers, who did not graduate from college, yet still feel excluded from the economically skewed and religiously intolerant society being built up by Bush and the Republicans. A Ned Lamont might win in a wealthy, well-educated state like have no chance in the Midwest, or nationally. And because the Lieberman-Lamont contest is being watched so closely around the country, its outcome cannot help but affect the way people in all 50 states view the Democratic Party.
Even if Lamont wins in November (which is certainly possible, given that Republican Alan Schlesinger is a weak candidate with a bit of a gambling problem), the damage to the Democratic Party will outweigh the benefits. In the long run, the Democrats cannot rely on the blogosphere and intellectual elite to re-establish themselves as the dominant party in this country. Lamont's supporters, by hammering on the theme of ideological purity, risk making the party seem intolerant and out of touch. The Democrats need people like Joe Lieberman in the party, and in the Senate, to offset the party's unfortunate image as a refuge for cranks (an image I am confronted with whenever I go back to visit my folks in the Great Plains). Bill Clinton proved (twice) that the Democrats can appeal to Americans of all stripes, if they are open and tolerant of dissent. Lieberman, Clinton's old pal from the DLC, is that type of Democrat. I don't know about Ned Lamont personally, but his supporters remind me more of the old McGoverniks. That is not the face the Democratic Party should be putting on to the country.