During a rain delay, the radio station had some news, including some of the latest Sen. Lieberman soundbites. The whole thing aggravated me, since it basically was sanctimonious b.s. I don't like the former, and the latter underlines how JL is a hypocrite. For instance, his talking point is basically that we cannot cut and run, even goshdarnit if it is the popular thing to do. If you try to oppose him, including in primaries, you are setting up an ill-advised single issue litmus test, one bad for the country to boot. Lieberman promotes himself as a national public servant, above single issue politics and divisions. And, a supporter of morality in public service.
The opposition is not on that one issue. [Litmus test: not serving as a Republican stooge ... staying loyal to the caucus overall ... being a Democrat.] And, he is twisting the true opposite sentiment. It is not just to take everyone home tomorrow. This is lying, breaking one of the ten commandments. It is not "moral," which he claims to be. Furthermore, and it has been noted that he used the same path to get his seat in the first place, Lieberman is for Lieberman. This includes dirty campaigning and smearing the opposition. Again, this is not very moral. Thus, the hypocrisy. Hypocrisy in the promotion of a good cause is problematic; hypocrisy in promotion of a bad one is even more so. Thus, it is a good thing to be against it.
How much? The fear is that Lieberman will be seen as the white whale, something that will blind people to the true battle -- winning Congress. Better him as an "independent Democrat" than a Republican Congress. It would be interesting if the Senate was tied -- since Lieberman would have won mainly from Republican votes, who would he vote with? The assumption is the Democrats. The situation really doesn't make this a slam dunk by any means. Anyway, how would Lieberman win? By basically stridently campaigning against the basic Democratic doctrine ... a strong opposition to Republicans (partisanship?), opposition to the Lieberman path on the war and certain other issues (mixture of church and state, weak on regulation of banking/insurance), and support of actual Democratic candidates. Finally, he divides party unity, which especially will be a problem in picking up key seats in Connecticut itself.
Lieberman serves as a national, FOX friendly, chain around the Democrats' neck. Simply put, it is not an either/or situation ... you can win the majority by opposing Lieberman, the oppose Lieberman and lose a chance for the majority in the process. The path to victory is a strong campaign that strikes at weaknesses of the Republican incumbents, more than one also a Lieberman problem. This is why national Republicans are supporting Lieberman -- they see his value. A core way to win also often will be respect for the people themselves, including their interests and concerns. "The people" especially here includes the Democratic Party. If the national party supports Lieberman, it is a big "FU" to the rank and file. This is what is wrong with the Republicans in many cases -- power and concern for the base over public well being. Want to join them?
Surely, he is but one candidate. The national nature of his campaign plus the fact he causes problems locally (and perhaps further, given some of his peeps in the party will campaign for him, dividing things further) suggests the Lieberman race is not just one of many. But, sure, there are a lot of other things to worry about. Unlike the proverbial stupid bimbo, we can chew gum and walk at the same time. Likewise, whining about overindulgence here is a bit misguided, especially when other fish can be fried. For instance, what about all those safe seats (like Clinton or the opponent of that joke candidate, Katherine Harris) with huge campaign chests -- wouldn't it be better to spend such money and resources elsewhere? And, are we really spending too much time on Lieberman?
I don't think so. Firedoglake is basically a pro-Lamont blog, sort of the unofficial Lamont blog. But, others concerned with politics focus on many candidates, especially those like Daily Kos. And, the Lamont race fits into the general themes: popular effort, fighting anti-progressive voices especially those iffy on core values that also sell well, and so forth. Anyway, Lieberman is a symbol for me of what is wrong with the party, what poisons it, and helps prevent it from doing what I want it to do. And, as a resident of New York, there is something of a local angle to boot.
Thus, I support Atrios over the Talking Points Memo member on this issue. See here for more on the problem with Lieberman, especially since overall it is an impressive blog.