Lieberman/Lamont: It's Called 'Democracy'

Well today's the big day in one of the year's most talked about contests.

[Note: Updates added at the bottom]

I must say that I have enjoyed following this campaign. It has been a rare campaign that did not- for the most part- devolve into a mudslinging smear campaign... but has actually been debated on the issues and the merits of each candidate.

That is refreshing and gives me some hope for November (of course, one must never underestimate the power of incumbency and of uninformed voters who will show up and select the name they recognize most).

Despite that, conventional wisdom on the Connecticut Democratic primary- ie. not average Americans, but the type of people who've been in DC too long- seems mostly confused (though oddly enough, Newsweek's Conventional Wisdom section seems to get it). The narrative as a whole seems to center on anti-war radical and bloggers who don't appreciate the greatness of Joe Lieberman and want to hurt the Democratic party and drag it left... or something. The idea that Connecticut Democrats, or others across the country, have been unhappy with Sen. Lieberman for many years (predating the Iraq war, in fact) and simply have rallied around a solid alternative does not compute with them. Nor does the fact that Democrats, tired of losing elections due to inept and/or uninspired party leaders, might want to fix up their own house.

With that said, I thought I'd devote the bulk of this entry to quotes from some of Lamont's strongest online supporters, explaining what this is really all about... and complaining about why no one seems to get that.

First up, Christy at Firedoglake-

[W]e like to call ourselves "Democratic voters." Remember us? We live outside the Beltway, don’t spend all our time going to cocktail parties thrown by lobbyists and big campaign donors, and worry about such mundane things as making our rent, paying our rising energy bills, keeping our kids alive until they fulfill their military service obligation, and praying that our children don’t grow up in a world worse than the one in which we were raised. At the moment, we aren’t all that happy with how things are going.

You can call us "the American people" if that makes it easier for you.

Next up, Americablog-

It has been amazing to watch the DC-based punditry freak out over the campaign in Connecticut. Voters, real voters, actual people, are going to decide Joe Lieberman's future on Tuesday. In this election, voters are actually voting on issues and their beliefs. They're not being swayed by negative campaigns. They're deciding on the things that matter. What a concept. I think it's called democracy.

As Stephen Colbert satired last month, where some see an inquisition or an 'insurgency' in Connecticut, real people see... democracy. I will understand if it is hard to recognize at first.

Also, Americablog follows up with a retort to another piece of DC conventional wisdom-

I just heard Stephanopoulos start his coverage by saying the "anti-war movement" could send political shockwaves through the Democratic party on Tuesday (if Lieberman loses), and I don't like what I'm hearing. Worse yet it's the same kind of somewhat-lazy reporting we're hearing from every other reporter covering the issue.

Here's the problem... Iraq is the problem. Not "the anti-war movement." Iraq.

The implication is that I/we don't like Lieberman because we're all generically-anti-war flower-power peaceniks. Some are, many aren't - I for one am certainly not a peacenik. As my readers know, some to their great disdain, I have no problem using military force when I think it's merited and just...

The problem isn't that Joe Lieberman supported the Iraq war, it's that he still thinks the Iraq war is going well today. That's just nuts. But it's worse than nuts. Lieberman has gone out of his way to support George Bush's positions on the Iraq war - not just by claiming that the war is going well when it's clearly gone terribly wrong - but Lieberman did something much worse. He defended Bush and misled the American people about the war in a manner that directly attacked his fellow Democrats. And that is not acceptable for a variety of reasons....

Agreed. I know very few liberals who are actually 'anti-war' in the true sense of that word. We just understand the difference between justified and unjustified ones. And even with the justified ones (ie. Afghanistan), we understand that good intentions mean nothing if not met with sound plans and policy (respect for human rights and international law is also always appreciated). I support a strong foreign policy. I don't support a reckless one. The attempt to paint Lamont's supporters- and more broadly, all those who've been opposed to our Iraq invasion- as weird, crazy hippies is the most cliche and lazy of critcisms. The views on this war expressed by Lamont and those that support him are those held by- yep- the majority of people in this country. The people who are the fringe are not us, but Sen. Lieberman and his far-right supporters (Limbaugh, Malkin, Kristol, et al).

Finally, Glenn Greenwald tackles the larger effects of the race in the Salon War Room-

...It is not hyperbole to describe a Lieberman defeat as an earthquake for the political establishment -- which is why virtually all members of that establishment, from both political parties and from its pundit class, have been enthusiastically supporting Lieberman. More than any other factor, what enables elected officials to be so unresponsive to the views of those whom they ostensibly represent is that their incumbency advantage effectively eliminates the fear of being removed from office...

...Beyond striking a blow against the Iraq war and the neoconservatives who are responsible for it, a Lamont victory would deal a hard blow to the power of incumbency and the entitlement mindset it has spawned. It would be seen, rightfully so, as a repudiation of the Beltway pundit and political classes that, from the start and with virtual unanimity, viewed the Lamont challenge with scorn, as a distasteful rebellion by the crazed, dirty, unenlightened masses. The most important impact of a Lamont win is that it would shake the foundations of a self-contained Beltway political structure that is as unresponsive as it is corrupt at its core.

And who outside of Washington DC could have a problem with that?

UPDATE: I just remembered another conventional wisdom talking point about this race that irks me... the idea that the left- champions of tolerance and diversity and the big tent- are now hypocrites and as close-minded as the conservatives they critique. Lanny Davis laments in the Wall Street Journal (after calling Lamont supporters McCarthyists) that "I came to believe that we liberals couldn't possibly be so intolerant and hateful, because our ideology was famous for ACLU-type commitments to free speech, dissent and, especially, tolerance for those who differed with us... Now, in the closing days of the Lieberman primary campaign, I have reluctantly concluded that I was wrong." To 'prove' his case, he selects a number of extreme blog comments he found (read: not actual blog entries, but random comments). What a tool; I could 'prove' that conservatives support ritualistic baby-killing if I dug through enough blog comments. More importantly, his larger point that the anti-Lieberman forces are not accepting of political diversity is a ridiculous, and lazy, argument. By that logic, it is 'intolerant' of Democrats not to just simply vote for Republicans. Party diversity is a plus for the Democrats-- having a member who openly undermines you for his own benefit is not. Again, the fact that there are good politicians and bad ones- and that many Democrats have long seen Lieberman as the latter- simply does not compute for the DC crowd.

UPDATE #2: It's noteworthy that the super-sensitive DC Dems aren't mad at Democratic voters for efforts today to to ditch loser Cynthia McKinney in her primary. Maybe she should've been nicer to the New Republic crowd. Adios, Cynthia.

UPDATE #3: Sen. Lieberman's website may have been hacked (or not?); uses the situation to control the media dialogue today (and the media is happy to speculate on this, rather than the issues). Lieberman insists on Lamont/blog conspiracy. I need an Advil. (Wonkette puts the faux-scandal in its proper context here and here)

Keep your fingers crossed- this one's important... and will be closer than people think.

[Related reading for reasons why Sen. Joe is in big trouble:
- (HuffPost): Hey Joe, Why'd You Put that Gun in your Hand?
-Daily Kos: 29 Reasons that Lieberman is In Trouble that have Nothing to Do With Iraq
-Glenn Greenwald: Why do neoconservative extremists love Joe Lieberman?
-Cliff Schecter (HuffPost): Quotable Joe Lieberman
-Americablog: Lieberman says Connecticut voters who oppose him have forgotten September 11 and are soft on national security]