Shortly after Ned Lamont upended Holy Joe Lieberman in the CT SEN primary this summer, I noted a report by TNR’s Ryan Lizza arguing that Washington Democrats would steer clear of the race from there on, letting the blue-on-blue rhetorical violence work itself out. Two and a half months later, that looks eerily prescient. Lamont has fallen behind in the polls, and there’s little question that a victorious Lieberman would retain his committee assignments even if the newspapers called him (I-CT).
Also not looking too bad: My question at the time, about what the Lamont primary victory — then hailed by some as the first breakthrough win for a netroots candidate — about what this would mean:
Could it be that what seemed less than 100 hours ago like the first major gate-crashing will actually end up building more barriers between Beltway Democrats and the party’s online activists?
Keep that in mind as you read excerpts from yesterday’s Matt Stoller classic, “Senate Democrats and Bill Clinton Stab Us In The Front”:
Why did Lamont let Joe get away? Well there are a number of reasons, but among the most prominent is the total abandonment of Lamont by the party establishment. And let’s be very clear – this is not Lamont that they are abandoning, it’s the party primary voters that they are abandoning. …
Make no mistake, these DC Democrats are only our temporary allies. They have total contempt for the rules of the party, and they cheered Joe after he faced us in the primary. It is no longer reasonable for them to call for party unity, because they no longer have any legitimate claim to call themselves leaders of the party. They may be leaders for the next few decades simply due to inertia, but it’s very clear that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are liars who think nothing of insulting Democratic primary voters who play by the rules. …
The American people know this. They know that Democratic Senators aremoral lepers, weaklings, and that is the only reason we aren’t furtherahead when the Republicans screw everything up. The Democratic Senateleaders will sell us out at every opportunity, be it torture, Iraq, Alito, Lieberman, the Bankruptcy Bill, or stopping war with Iran. They aren’t poll-driven, they aren’t fear-driven, and they aren’t driven by strategic differences. They are simply driven to beat us down, their voters, by any means necessary. …
We can win this fight, as the polls are tightening. But it would be a whole lot easier without that knife in our back.
Leaving aside the obvious question of which side the Stollerites are supposed to be bleeding from, there’s enough hyperbole here to last until the first big straw poll.
As I’ve demonstrated previously, Stoller’s over-reliance on self-righteous anger and quick imputations of bad faith to his political opponents (even those ostensibly on his side of the fence) makes him seem less a sharp-tongued political street brawler and more like a circus clown exaggerating his act.
And as usual, the response in the MyDD comments is mixed. A contingent protests that Stoller is being unreasonable, but his sentiments are shared by a larger set. Meanwhile, Stoller’s hyperventilation obscures what is actually a pretty interesting question to pick apart: How did Lamont lose his momentum, and what explains Senate Democrats’ reluctance to join the netroots in the War on Lieberman? I recommend this thread, which includes MyDDer Chris G gamely trying to explain to the wounded ‘roots that it’s not all about them:
Dem leaders are not trashing Lamont, and they’ve expressed their support. but by “cutting loose” Liberman [sic], and trashing Liberman, as you suggest, they run the risk of the following: Liberman winning nonetheless, and organizing with the GOP.
Quite. Senate Democrats are too worried about being stabbed by Joementum in a 50-49 split to carry out any personal vendetta against the netroots. It’s not personal. It’s politics.
Still, as for MyDD, it’s a marked improvement from last week’s poll-frustrated Conn. voter-bashing thread:
A bunch of idiots do live in CT. What a fucking embarassment.
Now that’s what I call people power.
Another interesting thing about the philosophical and political differences between the Beltway establishment and Democratic-aligned bloggers is the split opinions about Barack Obama. If you don’t know that Obama ‘08 is in its ascendancy at the moment, then you must be in a persistent vegetative state. With Republican newspaper columnists Charles Krauthammer and David Brooks offering genuine praise of the freshman Democrat, it becomes all the more clear that his surge is a media-driven sensation. Though hyped excessively by celebrity-obsessed reporters, Barack Obama has demonstrated, potentially, a very broad appeal. Yet there is one group seemingly impervious to his charms: the netroots, of course.
First, note Stoller’s derogation of Obama above. It’s not the first time; Stoller has a long history of badmouthing Obama going back to the 2004 convention in Boston, where he was disinvited by Terry McAuliffe’s DNC from continuing on as a coordinator after writing that Obama hadn’t said “anything really interesting or useful.”
But also note the comments from others in the threads below the post. Here’s one, from a former Hillary Clinton supporter (somewhat rare among liberal bloggers in good standing) no less:
I do know one thing: I do not support Obama for any office. He has ZERO spine. He didn’t even want to filibuster Alito when even Hillary was among the first to advocate filibuster for BOTH Alito and the Alito-with-pretty-blue-eyes, Roberts.
And this one:
I wouldn’t go so far as to call Obama a liar, but he HAS been a major disappointment. He’s got one of the safest Senate seats around, having romped to a landslide victory in what was a dreadful year for Democrats nationwide, and he’s done next to nothing to advance Democratic values, choosing instead to scold Democrats for, among other things, not being religious enough.
Well, Barack, let’s talk religion, since it’s one of your favorite subjects. When the torture bill came out, where the hell were you? … Mr. Obama, I still have some hope for you, but your silence on the torture bill means that you have abdicated any credibility in lecturing ANYBODY on “moral values”. You’re not a whole lot better than Republicans in that regard.
Maybe Krauthammer and Brooks know something the MyDD crowd doesn’t? In any case, Obama is not without his defenders:
In fact, I would like to see in print where Obama promised to come to CT and campaign for Lamont. He has publicly supported Lamont, but just because he supports Lamont publicly does not mean he has to bad mouth Lieberman. … But please if you can provide written proof on where Obama has lied about CT, I would love to see. Until then, I have to chalk it up to your irrational dislike of the man.
In the meantime, you have to wonder: if Washington Democrats’ lukewarm support for Ned Lamont is tantamount to treason, what would the netroots say if Barack Obama actually got the nomination in 2008? Or Clinton/Obama?
P.S. It’s worth remembering that only a week ago, Stoller posted a comparatively thoughtful essay titled “Why Barack Obama Should Run for President.” Was he being disingenuous then or is he being exciteable now? It’s hard to tell, but I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that the answer is both.
Thanks Bill,
I agree entirely that Stoller’s political analysis is frequently infantile. He clearly has NO comprehensive understanding of the Lieberman situation. Thanks in part to his efforts, we will likely have a seat in the Senate go from D to I, but worse… Lieberman has been empowered. He isn’t beholden to any party and with a close margin in the Senate, can vote as he chooses, with no consequences. In this scenario, Lieberman will be one of the most powerful members of the Senate. Boo!
There is more going on here than the outcome of the election. To read Stoller, you would think political activity never extends beyond Election Day. The mark of a true dilletante… he can only discuss what is right in front of his face. He doesn’t have enough knowledge and experience to be a smart political strategist or analyst. No wonder he’s so desperate for attention – and childish negative attention at that.
-Neko
Terrible imnudeerstanding here! Joe is ahead becasue he has so much support from Connecticut Rep;ublicans! They do not support their Republican candidate. Now, the way Joe will perform if he wins is simple: whoever is mostly in power, the Dems or the GOP is where you will find Joe.
Not sure why this post refers to Joe as “Holy” Joe. If it is because he claims to be an orthodox Jew, then the name calling is out of place.
Fred, you’re certainly right about CT GOPers not supporting Schlesinger. That is a big factor.
“Holy Joe” is jsut a nickname, often used by his critics and probably meant to be disparaging. I think I’m using it a bit more ironically. And it’s a whole lot nicer than what Jane Hamsher called him this summer.
Can someone explain the difference between John Edwards and Barack Obama please?
To me they just look like pretty guys in suits, empty but good looking.
Or is it just me?
I have to disagree with the post prior to mine. Joe Lieberman has said he is a democrat and will remain one. He has said that he will caucas with the democrats. While I don’t trust many politicians, I do believe that Jo will do as he has promised.
“Can someone explain the difference between John Edwards and Barack Obama please?”
Four years.
Heh, Joe is winning because all the Republicans are voting for him. Ah, sweet irony! I bet Kos grits his teeth every time he thinks about it.
The really interesting thing, though, is that this proves the one issue Republicans really care about is national security: they’re ignoring virtually every other position Lieberman has taken because of Ned Lamont’s defeatist stance on the war.
James, I bet that one big difference between Obama and Edwards is that Obama actually shows up for work….
“Could it be that what seemed less than 100 hours ago like the first major gate-crashing will actually end up building more barriers between Beltway Democrats and the party’s online activists?”
You’re looking pretty prescient yourself there, feller. Nice work.
As an independent in CT I’ll be voting for Joe, for the second time.
I voted for him when he beat Weiker.
This is only the second time in my life I’ll knowingly be voting for a liberal.
and enjoying it.
But wait. Which is it? Is the left netroots too weak to stop Lieberman or are they so strong they pose a threat to Obama? Please make up your mind.
I agree with your first instinct. Stoller doesn’t have a good feel for American politics. And the hard left part of the netroots will not be able to stop Obama’s overwhelming appeal to rank and file Dem interest groups like minorities and municipla workers who provide the muscle in a Dem nomination contest. MyDD is no competition for them.
“Can someone explain the difference between John Edwards and Barack Obama please?”
One was a malpractice trial lawyer who exploited questionable science to sue for millions of dollars and the other practiced civil rights law and taught constitutional law at University of Chicago Law School.
To me they are polar opposites. Edwards is a political cliche; Obama is honest, very intelligent and comes of as genuine, sincere and thoughtful. He’s Bill Clinton with a conscience.
By the way, I think the last freshman member of congress to be elected president from Illinois was some guy named Lincoln.
“Obama is honest, very intelligent and comes of as genuine, sincere and thoughtful. He’s Bill Clinton with a conscience.”
He’d also be perhaps the most liberal person to run for president from a major party in at least a generation. In a country where twice as many people identify themselves as “conservative” than as “liberal.” Who got humiliated in a Democratic congressional primary less than six years ago, and who won his Senate seat because the guy he ran against turned out to be a borderline pervert to his famous wife.
The messianic hagiographies (and Lincoln comparisons. My goodness.) tend to leave that stuff out.
“Is the left netroots too weak to stop Lieberman or are they so strong they pose a threat to Obama?”
Interesting question, Justwinbaby. Not one I considered in this post, but worth considering. As others in this thread have noted, I tend to think they would have a very hard time stopping Obama, were he to run and catch on with other constituencies within the party.
The netroots bloggers never seem to realize that they are a constituency, not a cross-section. As long as they fail to recognize this fact, that will complicate their efforts to win over different factions of the party all the more.
I’d love to be able to vote for a Dem for President. However, Obama ain’t it.
Because he has zero zilch nada bupkis for National Security.
North Korea and Iran make 10 nuclear nations, these last with zero consequence for proliferation. In the next few years expect about 20 nuclear powers. Half of whom would easily nuke the US through a terrorist proxy.
WHAT does Obama have to say about that? The toothless, inept, corrupt UN? “Deals” that do nothing ala Albright and Lil Kim?
What does Obama have to say about the ongoing Muslim jihad against the West (Bush is right about that, if it’s not Israel it’s the Crusades, if not the Crusades it’s Danish Cartoons, if not that then Kashmir or East Timor or some stupid greivance). NOTHING.
With a near certainty of a US city being nuked in the near future Dems have absolutely nothing to say about national security, instead as the post quoted the nutroots passionately decry even the baseline consideration that Americans “deserve” security.
Don’t think Reps in the race won’t raise the question “Well Mr. Obama we saved American lives by waterboarding KSM, the 9/11 architect. How many American lives will you trade to make him nice and comfy?”
If anything the parallel between the gutless Euro response to Jihad in their own countries (Francafada, Londinistan) while average people get really pissed off and start turning to very scary right wing organizations or ad-hoc militias is strong with Dems. In both cases the “religious belief” in holding hands singing kumbayah or some such idiocy in the face of clear and present dangers is indicative of the ideological stranglehold that New Age nonsense has on these groups.
GWB and Reps are extraordinarily vulnerable to attack from National Security but that requires acknowledging: A. we face ongoing threats that cannot be bargained away; B. Action and force must be PART of the mix; C. The threat will not go away by wishful thinking; D. The threat is growing with nuclear proliferation and ballistic missile tech by formerly marginal nations.
To this most important question Dems particularly Obama have nothing. Don’t discount the effect of National Security (former) Dems like myself who agree with most of Lieberman’s positions, are liberal on social policy, but believe America deserves to be defended.
The nutroots also don’t realize that they aren’t granular. They can trash CT voters all they want. Come primary and general election day, only CT voters get to vote in CT. The nutroots can’t gerrymander themselves a district no matter how hard they try. They are nonjurisdictional and nongeographical.
Let them scream like toddlers…while Rove gives his Mona Lisa smile.
What was really shocking* about Stoller’s post and the kommentariat’s response:
1. not appearing to know the difference between a primary and the general election. A primary only advances a candidate for a party. (Did they skip government class in high school that day?)
2. swear-word utter contempt for CT voters. This reflects the left’s protestations that the voters were wrong because it wasn’t the result they wanted, therefore it was a dirty election and/or the voters are stooopid.
Infantile is right.
* I say shocking, because I haven’t read Stoller before; I was sent over along with the Instalanche.
I made a similar point this morning at http://drtaxsacto.blogspot.com/2006/10/netroots-should-grow-up.html
CT Republicans tend to be moderate. It’s not like the most conservative Republicans have decided to back Lieberman. Without putting in the personalities, but just boiling it down to a vague “place” along the liberal to conservative contiuum, Lamont was not too far left for the Democratic party, but is too far left for the whole state. Lieberman, being generally liberal but with a strong security reputation, is acceptable to many Democrats and those Republicans that aren’t too far to the right. In the few bluer states, it might have turned out differently. In purpler states, the Republican would have gotten more support, changing the dynamic further.
Sure there are all sorts of discussions one can have about netroots, personalities, betrayal, etc, but isn’t the simplest solution most likely to be true?
The first time I ever heard of Obama was in an article in my college’s alumni magazine (Occidental College–he didn’t graduate from there but attended for two years). After reading the article, I showed the cover page to my wife and said, “This guy is going to be president some day.” That was a couple of years ago. I’m a Christian from an evangelical background, but I don’t identify with the politics of the evangelical right. I’ll vote for anyone that I think has genuine integrity, leadership, compassion, and common sense. These past four years have been a disappointment. The crazy Internet Democratic far left is certainly a force pushing me away, but Obama and all he represents looks like a viable future to me.
“He’d also be perhaps the most liberal person to run for president from a major party in at least a generation.”
I have to be honest and admit I haven’t read either of his recent books nor do I live in Illinois, so I maybe totally mistaken about his ideology. I have read and seen a number of his interviews (Newsweek, Charlie Rose, Meet The Press… and yes, Oprah). My impression is that he’s methodical, intelligent and candid. I think the fairest criticism of him to date is that, so far, he has been noncommittal about the ‘big issues’ to a fault. He declares himself to be a believer in free markets, even favoring private sector solutions, he’s secularist who can communicate with the faithful without sounding condescending and he is honest enough, and confident enough to not run away from some of the elements of his misspent youth.
For me the bottom line is he’s intelligent and appears to be committed to finding middle ground instead of imposing his beliefs on the opposition. I don’t care whether he has 4 years or 40 years of political experience. I trust that on any issue he will do due diligence and arrive at sensible, equitable solution.
Maybe it’s just Bush fatigue, but I think Obama would be the best possible successor to the era of King George.
/libertarian
I wouldn’t worry too much about the left wing net crowd: They are very accustomed to losing. So far their candidates are something like 0 for 22 (Lamont was the first “win”).
Obama won’t court them and they know it, hence the pouting.