So. It's been a full day since Ned Lamont defeated Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary. The pundits are on overdrive, interpreting, analyzing, speculating, prognosticating and pontificating about the significance of the race's outcome.
Here's a summary:
- It was a referendum on the war.
- It wasn't a referendum on the war.
- It was a key victory for Democrats.
- It was a mandate for Republicans.
- Close finish: good for Lieberman.
- Close finish: a Lamont coup.
In a stinging indictment of Lamont and the anti-war left, Republicans are saying they are good for this country because they've been offensive. No, wait. Because they've been ON the offensive. They point out that we haven't been attacked since 9/11. True enough, though we've sacrificed a few thousand Americans in Iraq with no end in sight. I would also point out that I have had no fruit flies in the kitchen for the past five years, and I wonder if the Republicans would care to claim credit for that, too.
The Nation declared that the bellwether tolled for Joe Lieberman. Lamont said that "a lot of people around the country are looking to Connecticut to see what course they want for this country." All along the way, he focused not just on the war, but on foreign policy, our broken health care and education systems, and American interests and values.
Ah, but Dick Morris tells us that "the democratic primary in Connecticut is an affair that could be conducted in a good sized phone booth." He goes on to say that Lieberman will "strongly attract" independent and GOP voters "plus moderate Democrats who weren't energized enough by the Lamont challenge to vote in the primaries." I would respectfully submit that anyone not energized enough by the Lamont challenge should have their vital signs monitored.
There's more! A New York Times editorial takes on the matter of who is more Democratic than whom, i.e., the Lamont/Lieberman partisan thing, and thus internal to the Democratic Party. (Side note: This piece also notes that Internet organizations and political bloggers have had a significant impact. These "counter-Bushies" are driven in large part by "the president whose singular talent it is to drive them to paroxysms of rage." Pretty much.)
So. There you have it. Some of it, anyway.
Coming soon: Barbara's breathtakingly astute analysis of the analyses. Y'all come back now, hear?