A lot of buzz in the blogosphere about the NYT's alleged endorsement of Ned Lamont. As I see it, it's pretty craven, as are any endorsements from major politicians coming after July 1. They know Joe Lieberman did himself in with a crappy campaign, and they don't want to be seen as supporting a loser.
It doesn't mean that they give a rat's ass about Lamont, or place any stock in the issues of the primary contest. They see "Loser" written all over Holy Joe and are stepping away. In an odd way, I have a lot more respect for Bill Clinton than for the slavering maniacs screaming for Lieberman's ouster. Clinton was involved in Lieberman's first campaign, and has been a personal friend of Lieberman's for years. He's standing by a friend when opportunists have sidled over to Lamont to kiss up. I do not think Lieberman should be in the Senate, but I'm not going to condemn anyone for supporting him. At this point, it takes no guts to side with Lamont.
What I'm interested in now is to see who is the next candidate targeted by the Naderite Netroots. They have a method which they copy wholesale from the right, which is to make a loser out of an incumbent through loud, 24/7 character assassination. Unfortunately for Lieberman, he has the judgment of a rock and has made every bad move possible (indeed, even inventing a few), stepping into every turd they left strewn along the road. Insofar as one of the requirements of a politician is to know how to seem, Holy Joe has done himself in. I'm not cryin' any tears for him.
I'm concerned, however, that the main theme of the netroots is "throw out the traitors" and punish perceived apostacy from the "liberal" cause. I'm concerned that the replacement candidates are usually white, male, upper class, pro-military, with deep pockets, unacknowledged business connections, and undefined stances on social issues and domestic policy. I'm concerned that "because I'm angry" is accepted as a valid reason for supporting or opposing a candidate. I'm concerned that we're developing our own ayatoallahs, as narrow and dogmatic as the preachers on the right.
The Lamont - Lieberman contest has catalyzed the blogosphere, and not for the better.