"There's gonna be a civil war soon!"
Essentially that's the messege coming out of the Punditosphere.
Not about the War in Iraq.
But about the Democratic Party.
The first I heard of it tonight is from Howard Fineman on Countdown. I'm sure it was mentioned on Hardball, but I put Hardball on mute.
In a way, it's pretty insulting, to our intelligence, and in general, to call the situation with Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont the thing which will cause a civil war in the Democratic Party.
(more under the fold)
Basically if you go along with the pundits line of reasoning, there'll be all sorts of bloggers waiting to take out other Democrats after Thursday.
Never mind that there's not any other serious challenges to real or imaginery pro-war Dems.
There seems to be some feeling, at least from the Punditosphere that if one group of people is not totally united on an issue like Iraq, that is a bad thing.
Maybe they shouldn't be blamed. Maybe they were just fooled into that mindset by watching how the Republicans handle Iraq PR.
I'm confident that there'll be a difference in how Iraq is handled if Democrats are given the House and/or Senate in 2007. It may not be everything on your wishlist, or our wishlist, but it's going to be different from what the Republicans offer.
A civil war? Not in this party. Anyways, in a time when people are dying in Baghdad for being Sunni or Shiite, calling what is happening with Joe Lieberman a civil war is a ball of ignorant and stupid.
I know that a lot of pundits will miss Joe Lieberman, but they'll move on and find somebody new. Maybe they'll fall in love with Chuck Hagel or somebody else.
I could really use a chip on my TV that blocked out pinhead pundits.