The establishment would obviously like to do away with primaries. They would prefer to simply tell the plebes for whom to vote and just take their money. But, that's not the way it's going to work anymore. It's not just that politics have taken a parliamentary turn, which is quite true. It goes to the heart of why so many Americans don't trust Democrats to lead: the spineless factor. It's why the Democratic terrorists are going to take the radical step of trying to elect someone who doesn't publicly kiss George W. Bush on the lips every chance he gets.
-- Digby ["terrorists" is a takeoff on a Lieberman talking point]
Lovely. The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee head Sen. Schumer, my self-righteous senator, has decided that promoting the election of Democrats is not really that important. Yes, this is the latest in the Sen. Lieberman fiasco. Schumer has already played hardball by pressuring Paul Hackett, an Iraqi vet who honestly doesn't seem like the best candidate (his pretty close loss against a lousy opponent has been exaggerated), not to run against progressive House veteran Sherrod Brown.
That was understandable, but probably not an ideal situation -- does not sell well, especially to the base, who saw Hackett as an outspoken Bush opponent (ironically, Rep. Brown is probably more liberal). And, anyway, if left to his own devices, the lack of fundraising support (again, Brown is not exactly someone the base would dislike from his anti-NAFTA stance down) might have led him to drop out of a Senate race anyway.
Why do the Democrats have a chance -- no gimmee by any means so stop salivating -- to regain control of at least one house, or at least make significant gains in the gerrymandered (symbolically in the Senate, clearly in the House) current Congress? Well, the fact BushCo is in such shambles is a major reason. Another is a clear shift in mind-set as well as true passionate opposition by various groups. BushCo is bringing out sure to fail measures this month to appeal to a base, a base who needs to passionately support them in order for them to win. Smear and b.s. only goes so far. And, the other side's base is riled up as well -- in fact, they actually have reason to hope, not despair. Various progressive candidates underline this emotion, some challenging Democrats. Thus, conservative Democrat lifer Rep. Harman had to deal with competition.
Such competition will generally fail, but the hope is that the attempt will be worth it. Sometimes, however, these sort of primary upstarts actually win ... giving the Congress some hope for a shot of life. Progressives are just dying for such an inoculation this time around, and the "enemy" are not only Republicans. This puts the leadership in a tricky position at times, such as in Rep. Hyde's seat where the progressive might not have been the best candidate in the fall. Thus, rising establishmentarian Sen. Obama endorsed the party candidate over the local activist who ran a good campaign two years ago and thought she had the party's support this time around as well. I found that a bit questionable, but so be it. It crosses some line, however, when the Democratic Primary apparently does not even mean anything.
Rep. Harman's opposition lost ... she is not planning an independent run. This very well might play into the hands of the Republicans, but anyway, she is a loyal party activist. Sen. Lieberman is not. Ned Lamont is a longshot, but he is putting the scare in the Lieberman camp. Thus, Lieberman has not counted out running as an independent if he loses the primary. This would be fitting -- running against the Democrats is sort of his claim to fame now. Still, it is a tad bit disgusting his colleagues are blatantly supporting him in this fashion. Bad enough that when Sen. Boxer was questioned about the race at the YearlyKos convention that she thought it was just an anti-war matter. But, now the DSCC head does this. It's all about winning, huh? The end justifies the means.
How lovely. The matter is even more ridiculous in that again Lamont probably will lose -- that would be a betting man's guess, though surely I hope he wins. [Sen. Clinton might have a primary opponent too, but he's clearly more of a symbolic candidate, who she has no reason to fear -- go ahead Hil, say you will support the winner of your primary.] Thus, the net effect is that you piss off your base for no apparent reason. Anyway, if Lamont actually does beat Lieberman, it would suggest major support for the guy. I don't see the strong Republican candidate that would beat such a riding the wave upstart. So, again, putting aside the coward nature of the move, it probably is not even in any way necessary. If anything, there is a decent chance it is somewhat counterproductive.
We need divided government in Washington D.C., and President Bush is not leaving office quite yet, so the way to get it is by Dems winning Congress. Still, that is not all we need. And, this chickenshit move underlines the point.