Decision Day

When Ned Lamont decided to challenge Joe Lieberman (I'd link to his site but they can't seem to back up their servers properly or pay their bills on time) for the Democratic nomination in Connecticut, I was not paying attention. I knew that Lieberman was quick to enable Republican frames and to publicly bash Democrats, and I wondered why his "bitpartisanship" always involved compromising on Republican issues, but never getting Republicans to compromise on Democratic ones.

But it really wasn't on my radar screen. There was a lot of work to be done to take back Congress in November, and I didn't understand how devoting resources and effort into a safe Dem seat would further the goal.

But that was back in February. And while I still haven't contributed to Lamont, I have written quite a bit about him. And I now understand that his fight to take back Connecticut for the people of the state is emblematic of the progressive movement's opportunity to make the best chance of standing up to Republicans and making long-lasting gains. This race has inspired 10,000 Connecticut citizens to register Democratic. It has brought a month's worth of national coverage, where both sides are touting their Democratic bona fides and discussing core Democratic issues. The war is extremely important, but we've seen national coverage of issues like health care, energy, Social Security, end-of-life exigencies, education, and more. It's been refreshing to see these messages get this kind of exposure. That is beneficial for Democrats who are going into a favorable environment in the fall midterms. Those 10,000 extra Democrats will vote in hotly contested House elections in Connecticut, against Chris Shays, against Rob Simmons, against Nancy Johnson. Those news articles with positive Democratic frames will be remembered by voters who maybe aren't believing the spin anymore that Democrats don't have any ideas.

But more than that, this battle between Lamont and Lieberman is a battle for a true politics of contrast versus a politics of mushy-middle capitulation. The Republicans have been playing for keeps for years. Anything that contributes to the downfall of the Democratic Party is a good thing to them. So why, WHY then, as Chris Bowers has noted, hasn't any conservative come out against Lieberman? Indeed why are they all coming out (Kristol and Hannity, to name a few) in support of him? Do they all suddenly want the Democratic Party to succeed?

Of course not. Those guys aren't stupid. They know that Lieberman's fascination with being a "maverick" hurts the Democratic brand; they know that his willingness to provide bipartisan cover helps get their agenda passed. Indeed they know that his loyalty to his own power over Democratic unity is a great victory for them. And they support that. Just look at its house organ:



(h/t Kos)

I agree that this is already a victory for the progressive movement, not just blogs but all aspects. An 18-year Senator who was completely unresponsive to the needs of his constituents had to go back to Connecticut and sweat it out for a month. The establishment in Washington has taken notice. In Rahm Emanuel's case, they've adopted the frames, saying that Lamont's success means that closeness to the President will be punished in November. We in the blogosphere want to work together with the Establishment to promote Democratic causes that will help this great country get back on its feet. We believe that this is the best strategy: provide contrast, never capitulate, and understand the rules of the game as they're played by the other side. We know that Lieberman has his own agenda, which has served this country very poorly.

The establishment didn't want the people of Connecticut to decide their representative to the Senate. They didn't want democracy to flourish in the Northeast Corridor. They wanted to play the game the way it's been played for decades.

We are putting a stop to that. I wish Ned Lamont all the best. This is from a newfound supporter who was converted during your campaign.