… did a generally piss-poor job of being a Centrist Democrat. He was too whiny, self-righteous, and too easily slotted as a running-dog dupe of the the Bush Administration.
Which is a shame, because, like Lieberman’s public positions, I both supported the invasion of Iraq and oppose an arbitrary short-term withdrawal date. I believe it’s possible to hold those positions and still hold in contempt the utter mismanagement of all the current Administration’s efforts in-between (derived primarily from a hubris and egotism unable to admit that there have been any errors, and therefore unable to act to correct them). But Lieberman, despite his political credentials, just felt like
a Republican wannabe, someone who was a fellow-traveler with the GOP. And I say that as someone who voted the Gore-Lieberman ticket in 2000.
And, frankly, his running as an independent is seriously no-class. And if he costs the Democratic party that particular Senate seat he will be (rightfully) sent into political Coventry.
It’s an interesting contrast with Hillary Clinton, who technically holds the same positions on Iraq as Lieberman, but who has never come across as a lackey of the Bushites (her credentials as the Most Hated Woman by the Right Wing help here). It’s possible to occasionally side with the Administration and still be a vigorous opponent of theirs, and it’s a tight-rope that Hillary has done much more effectively than Joe.
So how do I feel about Lamont? I disagree with him in some areas, obviously, and I think there are some tremendous costs that would result from following some of his policies — but if he and his positions serve as something that energizes the Democratic base to take back one or both houses of Congress in November, it’s a cost that I’m willing to see us pay. Because, frankly, the combination of ineptitude and authoritarianism of the present Administration makes practically anything that can thwart it worthwhile,
even if it’s the lesser of two evils.
UPDATE: At least Joe wasn’t alone.