| But I am not blaming Senator Joe Lieberman, either. If I were Lieberman, especially with losing a primary with still 48 percent, I would feel that I would clearly be better to represent the state of than Lamont. The fact of the matter is that with 48 percent of the Democrats wanting him above Lamont and probably all the Republicans, that would be more than 50 percent of the state, I would think.
Theoretically, that could be Lieberman's thinking- and it would be very valid. I wouldn't be surprised if it is just part of his thinking, either.
Some people are blaming Lieberman, though; and getting angry at him. They think that he is a sore-loser for wanting to keep his seat so much. We should not get mad at Lieberman for being ambitious and power-hungry. I think all politicians who get to the spot of Senate are at least somewhat that way. I think that is a fact of politics more than anything else. No ill will should go to Lieberman for that.
The results of this primary tell me that Lieberman is no longer the best fit for Democrats. If there weren't Republicans in Connecticut, then I would be angry at the thought of Lieberman trying to run again. But the fact of the matter is that the state isn't monopolized by the Democrats. If it were, we wouldn't have Nancy Johnson, Christopher Shays, and Rob Simmons in Congress.
The fact is that while we are the minority party, Democrats should have been happy with a Democrat in Congress. They seemed to have other priorities. If I were a man forced to bet, I would bet on Joe Lieberman winning the general election - and that would be one less Democrat in Congress, even if he votes Harry Reid for majority leader. There's no guarantee that he would do that, though.
I guess my point is that I don't understand why progressive activists would pour money into a campaign that might (though unintentionally) lose a seat for the more progressive party (The Democrats). I understand wanting our progressive party to be completely progressive on every facet of the matter, but if the party that is definitely NOT progressive has a monopoly on the federal government - then it does not matter how progressive the party itself is.
Democrats might still gain control of one of the houses of Congress this November. The Lamont-Lieberman distraction doesn't take away that possibility. But I would be more willing to bet on that happening if millions of dollars weren't forced into a campaign that Democrats were sure to win only several months ago.
I'm not blaming Ned Lamont. I'm not blaming Joe Lieberman. I'm blaming the influential progressivists who put lots of time, energy, and/or money into anti-Joementum. What they have done is not neccesarily BAD, but clearly there are more important things... |
