Joe's gotta' go.  Pick any number of reasons.

For me it IS the war.  Folks in Ct., Joe didn't care; the lies, distortions, the corruption.  Joe DID NOT CARE.

D'Amato was a total crook. He had run the insurance scam on Long Island for 20 years or more that I am proud to say one of my ancestors  actually invented and perfected there...you know, the "I won't take bribes because I am totally honest. But I WILL...or my brother will, anyway...sell you some insurance. LOTS of insurance" scam. Plus Javits was getting old.

And D'Amato was no ideological firebrand. He was a self-serving politician with ties to all KINDS of dirty dealers, and if he had thought that growing his hair long and joining the Weathermen would have gotten him what he wanted, he would have done THAT.

Bet on it.

Lieberman is NOT old yet. He still has presidential ambitions, fer chrissake. And Lamont is a small time businessman trying to swim with the sharks.

I am not saying that Lamont will not win. In fact, I think he WILL win. The primary. And then he will be defeated by an "independent" Lieberman in the election. Lamont will be run out of town by the PermaGov money and endorsements that flow towards Lieberman.

A primary of this sort is to a great degree an ideological vote.

Elections?

A whole 'nother horse race.

Lieberman by a neck.

Sad to say.

Unless BushCo goes down nationally to a STUNNING defeat.

I mean...they've certainly EARNED one. I just do not think that the media filter will allow that information to seep down into the level where tectonic voting shifts occur.

We shall see.

AG

P.S. By the way...Lamont is a weak candidate. No charisma, no campaign experience. Someone like Paul Hackett would have eaten Lieberman UP. As would have any really good pro.

Lamont?

If this were a poker game, he'd be winning on luck.
As any good poker player knows, in the long run luck is not enough.

Not NEARLY enough.

Goodness had nothing to do with it, dearie.-Mae West

Lamont can win this thing.

I have never been a big E.J. Dionne fan, but that has changed in the last year. I think he hits this right on the head, more so than even the NYT editorial. Joe Lieberman is the number one poster boy for post-(Bill) Clinton DLC centrism. That is why he is hated, and that is why it's a big deal if he loses.

To be clear, though, I think Arthur Gilroy is right that the forces of perma-corp politics will come out heavy for Lieberman. The question then becomes whether they will be effective in a place like CT, where more people than average make up their own minds rather than doing what they're told.

The more control, the more that requires control. This is the road to chaos. -Frank Herbert, The Dosadi Experiment

Now, what about the election itself? The Republican candidate is, as far as I can tell, a non-factor, so the two questions leading into the general election are:

1. Will the Democratic party support Lamont (assuming he wins next week)?

and,

2. Who is going to come out and support Liebermann?

To the extent that the Democrats and their organizations (the DSCC, the DNC, the DLC) support Lamont, the Democrats have a chance as a party. To the extent that Liebermann gets support from the Democratic party apparatus or prominent Democrats (e.g. the Clintons), we can discern that they are about the Status Quo and not about actually presenting any kind of effective alternative to the Republicans.

We'll see who's who and what's what.

By the way, does Liebermann even have a chance of running as an independent? Doesn't he have like eight days to come up with enough signatures to put himself on the ballot?

I for one welcome our new Twitter overlords. @Omir55

What will be most telling is whether or not Democrats like former President Clinton Senator Clinton and Joe Biden who are currently campaigning for Lieberman back the Democratic nominee Lamont in the general election.  I believe all have said they will support the Democratic nominee.  If that support is more than just token, then Dionne's analysis is given more credibility.  

All Progressives need to become ardent supporters of the Second, as well as the , First Amendment

Freed from the budget demands of the Cold War and confronted with a technology revolution, we had a president who led us to the best substantive wage gains since the 1960s and balanced the nation's budget for the first time in decades.

Now we face several challenges. Boomers at the edge of retirement whose needs we must meet. Education and health costs that grew far faster than inflation, but remain essential to our nation's growth and security. Globally organized terrorist groups using 4th generation warfare methods that our military has to adapt to to emerge victorious. A bold approach like the one that won the race to the moon, that will take us to fresh energy sources to break the deadly costs of our oil addiction, which include repetitive wars and the terrible consequences of global warming.

Only politicians looking backward gain from using worn out labels for yesterday's fashions. The nation, looking forward, seeks sensible solutions to modern challenges. We must evolve, we must progress, if we are to advance and succeed.

We can be conservative about using natural resources, thrifty in our budgeting, liberal in defense of our freedoms, and daring in pursuit of bold new initiatives to conquer the fresh challenges ahead.

We cannot get mired in the mud of old meaningless labels that defined a time gone by.Those are the wagon ruts of tired minds willing to accept the continental divide and global insecurity.

And the times demand the imaginations and dreams and investments and sweat equity of a nation eager to move forward. The opposite of progressive isn't conservative, because progressives respect many things that must be conserved. The opposite is cowardice and that can never be the American way.

- Kev - 'Don't question authority. Assume authority.'