Sad Day for Joe, Great Day for Democrats
I take no personal pleasure in seeing a man like Joe Lieberman be defeated like this. For all his faults, I believe that he is a decent person, and I hate to see someone beaten like this, no matter how defiant the media makes him out to be.
But, despite what you will read and hear for the next few days, this is the best possible thing that could happen to the Democratic party, and we may have just seen the first step in the long journey of taking the party to a better place.
I love Bill Clinton - really I do, some might say in an unnatural way. But, while it was great to have a smart, charismatic leader for 8 years, Bill Clinton so confused the party that it lost its way, and the Lamont victory is the first sign of the party regaining its core.
I believe Clinton won because of who he was, not because of his ideas. He was a truley gifted politician, and he would have won if he was the most liberal Democrat in the party, but many in the pundit class attributed his success to his "moving the party to the center." I believe that efforts among other candidates like Gore and Kerry and Lieberman to copy that strategy ultimately failed because voters felt there was something calculating and inauthentic about that. The Consultants in DC told those candidates and others that they shouldn't take controversial stands and they should play to the center (remember the lockbox?), and, well we've all lived through the results over the last 6 years.
It amuses me (well actually no, it really pisses me off) that the professional media in DC can on the one hand chastise the Democrats for not having a point of view and in the same breath talk about how the party shouldn't be too strident in its positions on things like the war. Well, Lamont went to the voters, who by an overwhelming majority feel that this war was a big mistake, and said just that. The electorate responded, judging by the 43% turnout during a primary in the middle of the summer, and they selected the candidate who was taking a stand.
And, you can be certain, as Kos points out, that this was the outcome the Republicans most feared. If Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity really saw a Lieberman loss as the Democrats' worst nightmare, then they would have sat back and watched it happen with glee. No, they realize that Democrats taking a stand that resonates with the public is the worst thing for Republicans, which is why they campaigned so hard for Lieberman.
So let's hope the party learns a lesson - this is a good start, as is this:
The way to win is to say what you actually believe. In this case, it just so happens that the majority of the country agrees.
But, despite what you will read and hear for the next few days, this is the best possible thing that could happen to the Democratic party, and we may have just seen the first step in the long journey of taking the party to a better place.
I love Bill Clinton - really I do, some might say in an unnatural way. But, while it was great to have a smart, charismatic leader for 8 years, Bill Clinton so confused the party that it lost its way, and the Lamont victory is the first sign of the party regaining its core.
I believe Clinton won because of who he was, not because of his ideas. He was a truley gifted politician, and he would have won if he was the most liberal Democrat in the party, but many in the pundit class attributed his success to his "moving the party to the center." I believe that efforts among other candidates like Gore and Kerry and Lieberman to copy that strategy ultimately failed because voters felt there was something calculating and inauthentic about that. The Consultants in DC told those candidates and others that they shouldn't take controversial stands and they should play to the center (remember the lockbox?), and, well we've all lived through the results over the last 6 years.
It amuses me (well actually no, it really pisses me off) that the professional media in DC can on the one hand chastise the Democrats for not having a point of view and in the same breath talk about how the party shouldn't be too strident in its positions on things like the war. Well, Lamont went to the voters, who by an overwhelming majority feel that this war was a big mistake, and said just that. The electorate responded, judging by the 43% turnout during a primary in the middle of the summer, and they selected the candidate who was taking a stand.
And, you can be certain, as Kos points out, that this was the outcome the Republicans most feared. If Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity really saw a Lieberman loss as the Democrats' worst nightmare, then they would have sat back and watched it happen with glee. No, they realize that Democrats taking a stand that resonates with the public is the worst thing for Republicans, which is why they campaigned so hard for Lieberman.
So let's hope the party learns a lesson - this is a good start, as is this:
Mr. Lieberman’s determination to remain in the race may soon collide with the will of many Democratic leaders in Washington and Connecticut, however. The Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, and Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, who is leading the effort to elect more Democrats in November, planned to announce this morning that they were supporting Mr. Lamont and that the party should unite around the nominee, according to Democrats close to both men. A spokesman for Mr. Schumer said a statement would be forthcoming, but declined further comment.
The way to win is to say what you actually believe. In this case, it just so happens that the majority of the country agrees.
posted by Bleeding Heart at
8:19 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home