I've seen an awful lot of pissy comments (and a few diaries, too) here of late, complaining about all the attention that's being paid to the Lieberman-Lamont contest. Now, before you hit the "back" button or click on the "home" link, let me get a few points out of the way up front.
Yes, there are absolutely other races being contested this fall. And yes, we should be doing everything we possibly can to win as many of them as possible.
None of that means, however, that we should just ignore the Connecticut Senate race. It sure as hell doesn't mean we should stop talking about it, whipping up enthusiasm for it, or chipping in our spare time or spare change for it.
I'll epxlain why on the flip.
The people who complain we're spending too much time on Connecticut all seem to be of the opinion that nobody here can walk and chew gum at the same time. And wouldn't you know it, that attitude is starting to spill over into the
Zeitgeist. Just this morning on "Morning Edition," Steve Inskeep asked Juan Williams (sitting in for Cokie Roberts) whether all the attention being devoted to the Lieberman-Lamont contest was going to be a distraction for Democrats.
I don't think that's going to be a problem--but if we keep talking like it will, it just encourages the traditional media to spend its time doing "horserace" stories instead of focusing on the actual issues. Horserace stories are good for Republicans (and Republicans in sheep's clothing, like Lieberman). Stories on the issues, on the other hand, will help get Democrats elected this fall.
Then there's the fact that this is a historical situation. I don't remember anybody other than Lieberman trying to get a mulligan after losing a primary election. So of course it's going to attract a fair amount of attention, and it's right that it should.
Plus, who cares about a win in the primary? That's just the prerequisite for getting into the advanced class, to use a metaphor appropriate for this time of year. Did we stop campaigning for Kerry after he won the nomination in 2004? (And if we did, does that election result not suggest that we were wrong to do so?) The war isn't over until Ned Lamont is sworn in as the new junior senator from Connecticut.
But the main reason we've got to keep talking about this race, and doing what we can to win it, is because our main goal wasn't to elect Ned Lamont--it was to get rid of Joe Lieberman. If this were a normal election cycle, we'd have accomplished that already: Lieberman loses in the primary, he makes his concession speech, licks his wounds in private for a spell, and then starts working to get the primary winner elected to replace him.
But this isn't a normal election cycle. Lieberman isn't reading from the script--and neither is anybody else in this game. Have you ever heard of a Republican president refusing to endorse his own party's nominee before? I sure haven't. And what about the RNC's decision to start raising money from Republican donors for Lieberman's campaign?
Joe Lieberman is not a Democrat in anything but name. He's the conservatives' favorite go-to guy whenever they want to look bipartisan. Why else is he the only Democrat they ever put on Fox? He's the Bushies' best enabler. He never met a Bush initiative he couldn't support, and they know they can rely on him to stab his own party in the back at every opportunity. Of course they want to keep him in the Senate! And that should be all the reason we need to make sure he doesn't get sworn in for his fourth term next January.
If that means that something like half the front-page posts or the recommended diaries here have something to do with Lieberman for the next 11 weeks, so be it. I think it's better than the alternative, which is having to talk about how we're going to get rid of Lieberman for another six years.