[I]t will not merely be a defeat for a single centrist senator who supports the war. It will also be a win for a new Democratic mindset, one that displays the energy, enthusiasm and vision that the party will need if it intends to lead the country out of the wilderness of the Bush years.
-- John Nichols
Nichols, in an interesting article discussing Lamont's family history and so forth, is on the money here. Lieberman is now a symbol for all what is wrong with the Democratic Party, especially some parts of it. Vain, not respecting the interests of the voters, more concerned with winning than the soul of the party, not combative enough against a criminal administration and so forth. The fact that various liberal stalwarts are campaigning for this guy is sad and underlines the point. New blood is needed.
I think it is downright dumb to deny that when one person has to go, that is reason enough to vote for the other person, unless that person is particularly substandard. Thus, cries that Kerry was surely not all that and a bag of chips so I guess we need to vote for the rancid bread was so stupid. But, sure, we do want someone other than "not x" running against the person. And, Kerry was a poor choice as an "electable" suit that was generally many people's second chance. Thus, it's useful to underline that Lamont is an attractive candidate in various ways:
Why Lamont? Big and little things. He's genuine; he gets it, he listens; he cares that what we're doing is hurting people, he's willing to say that's not okay and not hedge it; he's not a jingoist and he's not afraid to say when we screwed up and need to change; he sees the connection between bad decisions there an inability to make good decisions here.
And there's the intangible stuff that we can't define but the folks here, from all over, look at this guy and see, Jeez, he's real, and we're ready to work our butts off.
Lamont is an ideal protest candidate and brings more to the table as well. It is downright amazing how such a longshot is now (knock on wood) favored to win. Remember the days when people though it was clear that he would either lose the primary or the general election? Now, people are talking about how it is obvious JL will drop out if/when he loses the primary, perhaps with a push from his pal Bill. Ah, how conventional wisdom changes. This alone is a positive -- such "wisdom" sometimes seems to silence the debate, making it that much harder for an alternative path.
A Lamont win will invite more "longshots," more people to challenge the status quo. Sometimes, primary races are necessary. Such challengers also often have an uphill battle, especially since the "CW" is against them. Remember Dean? Boy he was stupid to say the war was a bad idea. And, why don't we ever hear about his opposite number heading the Republican Party? Double standard alert!
Finally, there are going to be slips, especially by blog support -- blogs speak more freely, and are liable to cross the line sometimes. Still, let's not go overboard. Even if it seems like a good "gotcha" story, selectively played (other bloggers crossed the line in support of candidates; why aren't they focused upon as well?). But, yes, that was dumb. That's why she quickly took it down ... in fact, it wasn't even on her main blog, only in a guest post elsewhere.
I still can't believe that Lamont has a good chance of winning. It would be a valuable win for the good guys, for those who want some new blood, a chance for reform, and new life in the party and government overall. Sort of why I don't want any more Clintons running for national office ... in fact, a McCain would be old news as well. This might be too hopeful, but hopefully she does accept being the junior senator from New York (and the first previous first lady in Congress) is not a bad way to make her mark.
I will probably vote against your primary challenger, if he gets on the ballot, as a symbolic protest vote. But, you are doing a good enough job to be worthy of my vote in November. Unlike Lieberman. Go Lamont!