"What's happening to Lieberman can only be described as a liberal inquisition. Whether you agree with him or not, he is transparently the most kind-hearted and well-intentioned of men. But over the past few years he has been subjected to a vituperation campaign that only experts in moral manias and mob psychology are really fit to explain. I can't reproduce the typical assaults that have been directed at him over the Internet, because they are so laced with profanity and ugliness, but they are ginned up by ideological masseurs who salve their followers' psychic wounds by arousing their rage at objects of mutual hate."-David Brooks, writing in TimesSelect.
I really don't know which horse to back in the Lieberman/Lamont war. On the one hand, I've never been a huge fan of Lieberman's, since I find him a sanctimonious and unlikable personality, going all the way back to his support for movie censorship. That sort of stuff has turned me off big time, especially since on most of the issues I'm a natural supporter of his.
But on the other hand, Lamont looked unprepared and totally in over his head in their televised debate last week. And even more importantly, a Lieberman loss would not only give power to the Daily Kos community- something which would not be good for the Democratic party at all- but it would send the message that centrists and liberal hawks are not welcome in what should be an inclusive, big-tent party. This entire fight, after all, has exposed a huge rift in the party at a time when the Republicans are especially weak. And that rift, which has only widened since September 11, must be repaired before the Dems can assume power again.
But all this, of course, is for the voters of Connecticut to decide.
Posted by Stephen Silver at July 12, 2006 12:48 AMtest
Posted by: test at July 12, 2006 03:27 AM