One Last Thing About Lieberman

Much has been made of the lefty peacenik leanings of last week's Lieberman defeat by Ned Lamont, and what that could mean for Democratic candidates this November (i.e., they'll have to take a hard swing to extreme Stalinist leftism to appease these fringe voters). Michael Tomaskey over at Slate throws cold water on these hyperventilating prognosticators (many of them Republigoons licking their chops at the possibility of an injured gazelle). First he notes that if this were a full-on anti-war movement within the Democratic party, the other seven Democratic Senate incumbents who voted in favor of the Iraq who are seeking reelection would be having some troubles. But that ain't so:

Remember the shock you felt back in June when Dianne Feinstein was defeated by that lefty nutjob in California? Or the fervid chants of "Bring Them Home!" ringing out from the Omaha night when Ben Nelson lost to his anti-war challenger? Didn't think so. That's because Feinstein won renomination with 87 percent of the vote, and Nelson didn't even face an opponent.

But here's the meat of the matter:

Four of the seven (Clinton, Feinstein, Carper, and Kohl) represent blue states where anti-war fever is running high. Why aren't they fighting for their political lives?Because the Connecticut primary was about one man and one state. It was about Lieberman's excessive fawning over the president. It was about Lieberman's voting not only against the showboating withdrawal resolution introduced by Sen. John Kerry, but also against the moderate and reasonable resolution introduced by Michigan Democrat Carl Levin, which merely urged the president to "expedite the transition of United States forces in Iraq to a limited presence and mission." (Lieberman was the only blue-state Democrat, except inexplicable retiring weirdo Mark Dayton, to vote against Levin.) It was about anger ... at the notion, widespread among the commentariat, that national-security "toughness" demands support for the mendacious and ruinous policies of the Bush administration in Iraq and elsewhere.

[...]

But Lamont is only one man, and his primary victory over one uniquely annoying incumbent hawk scarcely means the end of moderation in the Democratic Party. Here, a second octet is relevant: the eight Democratic Senate challengers to GOP incumbents who are within striking distance of unseating them (or in some cases ahead in current polls). I've written on this in the American Prospect, so I won't belabor the point, but the long and the short of it is that if the Democrats manage to retake the Senate, their caucus will in all likelihood be more moderate and have more red-staters than the current one.