Over the course of the last three weeks I've noticed that the blogosphere has decided that Joe Lieberman's position on the war is not enough to decide victory for Lamont. Or rather, it never hurts to add or pile on an argument that has already provided sustainable momentum.
It seemed to me his position on the war was how this started. His behaviour towards dems who criticized bush's handling of the war sealed his fate. I know Lamont talks about Lieberman during the Schiavo thing, and there certainly is other criticisms of Joe Lieberman but for the most part, I can't imagine this primary happening without the Iraq War. And I would be impressed to hear anyone make a convincing case that Lamont would be taking a commanding lead without the Iraq War as a backdrop.
All other criticisms of Joe Lieberman can apply to other democrats. All except one. I don't spend every day scouring every democratic party statement, but it seemed to me that the only criticism of Joe that certainly did not apply to any other democrat... cantwell, landrieu, feinstein, biden, clinton, nelson1 or nelson2... anyone at all: Joe stated his belief that Bush was handling the war appropriately.
To me, Joe was saying "you're doin' a heckuva job, Georgie," about Iraq and that alone only applied to Joe. Sure. It's a litmus test. But it seemed to me an appropriate litmus test.
It may come as a shock to some that this centrist does believe the big tent has it's limits. I believe if you believe Bush has done a good job in Iraq then you should not be in the Dem Party. I know that's not an especially brave statement. It's not meant to be.
And i know that the discussion of Iraq also pertains to the legality of the invasion itself and a lot of other things.
But there was Joe Lieberman on I-mus talking about what a great job Bush was doing in Iraq. It made me sick. So when I first heard about Ned Lamont, my first, gut reaction was "thank goodness. Go Ned!!" It seemed the one thing on which Kossack's and I agreed. A mutual disgust of Joe Lieberman's position on the war.
Now, presumably because the MSM is trying to tag us as a single issue group, or for some other reason, the blogosphere has tried to make the case that it's not just Joe's position on the Iraq war.
It's his reputation for criticizing other democrats. Which has turned this into a debate about loyalty, about what dems can and can't say about each other, and, more importantly, who can get away with criticizing their fellow dems, and who can't.
I don't know one thing about electoral politics, but it just seems to me this path may prove to be a mistake. the more we talk about loyalty the more we get bogged down in a hypocritical dynamic. Ultimately I end up becoming sympathetic to Joe cause on that count he is no less loyal than other dems who have accentuated themselves by being just as critical. Just on an issue we agree with.
The point is then. Stick to the issue. And the issue is the war. It's a big enough issue to hang on joe. He did -- to borrow from Hamlet -- make love to that employment. So he goes to it.
All this talk from the blogosphere about loyalty just well. In my opinion, it make us look opportunistic.