Matt Stoller spotlights a potential "Sister Soulja" moment for Barack Obama, allowing him to kill two birds (Al Sharpton and the loonier elements of the blogosphere) with one stone. A twofer like that doesn't come along every day. Sharpton is one of the more toxic political elements in New York politics, and a huge reason why New York City hasn't elected a Democratic mayor since 1989. The netroots are good for energy and money, but are impossible for a serious campaign to manage, as Ned Lamont found out when his campaign was flushed down the toilet after one of his bloggers drew Joe Lieberman in blackface.

And it's not like either constituency is going to vote Republican, or stay home, in 2008. Obama has been particularly good at counterpunching, as Hillary Clinton and John Howard can attest. Responding to an attack by Sharpton or one of the uberbloggers should be like shooting fish in a barrel for the Illinois Senator.

One of the things I despise most about the blogosphere is the notion that anyone who disagrees with you isn't simply wrong, but evil. Bob "Al Gore is a f***ing god" Somerby has already become a parody of himself with his incessant sycophancy towards the former Veep, as well as his banal attacks on any who dare criticize his Noble Friend from Harvard, and his bizarre take on Richard Cohen's column attacking John McCain's shift to the hard right (Cohen unfortunately thought that McCain was still a decent person) seems to have all the subtlety of a Jane Hamsher post on St. Joseph. If anything will ensure the election of a McCain-Lieberman ticket in 2008, and perhaps tens of thousands more Americans dead in Iraq, it will be the overheated prose of the blogosphere "making the case" against their enemies.

Meteor Bowl: In college football parlance, a "meteor bowl" is any game between two schools you hate, with the optimal result being that a meteor crash into the stadium and destroy both teams. For a USC fan, it would be Notre Dame-UCLA; for an Aggie Fan, it's Texas-Oklahoma; Auburn fans view the Alabama-Georgia game with that sort of venom.

For me, it's the Senate race in Connecticut. Each time I feel a sense of schadenfreude at the collapse of Lamont campaign, and the hubris of the netroots and the a-hole bloggers, I remember that there are real issues involved, issues concerning a war that Lieberman has publicly backed, and that St. Joseph's true colors have been revealed this year. His sense of entitlement to his Senate seat, his pompous sense of betrayal that his Senate colleagues would actually endorse their party's nominee after the primary, and his whiny outrage that Connecticut Democrats would actually want to hold him accountable for the thousands of deaths resulting from the war for which he has cheerled, reminds me why, in spite of what an empty, Mike Huffingtonesque suit that he is, Ned Lamont still must win, and why his incompetent campaign since winning the nomination is so painful.

The anger and hatred of Lieberman and his blogger foes has spiraled into a clusterfuck of unfathomable proportions, with each side surpassing the other on a daily basis. Better for the Democrats to pick up five seats on Tuesday than six.

"Lieberman Is a Broken Man": Three completely over-the-top, mouth-breathing posts on the "imminent demise" of St. Joe, here, here, and here. Why this race continues to draw so much blogospheric (oops, sorry, I meant to say "netroots") attention, as opposed to, say, the closer race in Arizona (you know, the one where the Democratic nominee might actually win) escapes me. I would vote for Lamont in a heartbeat, but the biggest reason he's losing isn't that the national party "stabbed him in the back," but that he's the liberal version of Michael Huffington.

Nothing in the blogosphere is as tedious and banal as the post accusing some villain de jour (Bush, Lieberman, Rather, etc.) of "lying." It is to the discredit of the medium that we so wilfully confuse disagreement with dishonesty, and in so doing, cheapen the epithet.

But Jim Ryun is a liar.

What is it about Joe Lieberman that turns the lefty blogosphere into the world's most petulant W.A.T.B.'s? Hat's off to Saint Joseph, if he ends up winning this thing; he's turned the anger and rage of his enemies into his greatest strength (although this is a nice ad). It helps, obviously, to be able to campaign against an opponent whose an empty suit. Expect to see more post-primary rematches in the future, especially in solid Blue or Red States.

The always fun-to-observe Rasmussen numbers now have St. Joseph up by only two over Ned Lamont. Rasmussen has consistently had this race closer than other polls, so take this with a grain of salt.

UPDATE [9/20]: An ARG poll has the same margin. Lieberman is losing slightly among independents. The Republican candidate is drawing less than 5%, so any improvement at his end can only help Lamont.

Another poll has Lieberman with a comfortable lead in Connecticut. As I've said before, unless Ned Lamont can make a case for why non-Democrats should vote for him, he won't deserve to win. And right now, he clearly hasn't....

I wonder how many of these suckers endorsed St. Joseph of Ingratius in the primary.

50-49-1: That is a not-unlikely partisan breakdown in the Senate that we might see the morning of November 8, 2006, should the Democrats pick 5-6 seats. With the one independent (Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who will probably breeze to victory) certain to vote with the Democrats, this margin would make control of the Senate dependent on the whims of one Senator. Right now, the focus has been on Joseph Lieberman, who continues to hold a narrow lead in the polls running as an "independent Democrat," potentially holding the tiebreaking vote.

But has anyone considered the possibility that Chuck Hagel of Nebraska might be a more likely fly in the ointment? Hagel is clearly estranged from the GOP on a whole host of issues, ranging from the Iraq War to his lukewarm support for some of Bush's more extreme nominees, and has evidenced an intent to run for the Oval Office in 2008, possibly as an independent. In fact, he has been far more likely to buck his party on important issues than Lieberman has with the Democrats, and he wouldn't be as far out of the Democratic mainstream as his Nebraska colleague, Ben Nelson. Is anyone in the Democratic leadership on the Hill putting out any feelers, just in case they need his vote? If not, why not?

With Lieberman taking a comfortable lead in the initial post-primary polls, the important question becomes whether he would vote with the Democratic caucus when the next Senate convenes in 2007. This whole notion of whether progressives should mau-mau the party leadership to strip him of his seniority really would be comical were the consequences not so enormous. Who cares if he attends a committee hearing the rest of the year, or what his place is in the pecking order right now.

If the Democrats take six seats this November from the GOP, then of course whoever wins the general election, Lamont or Lieberman, should be embraced by the party's leadership in the Senate. If we don't, or if the Democrats pick up seven or more seats, and Lieberman wins, then we can tell him to screw himself, and tell him to caucus with the other side. But lets get a majority before we start to act all vindictive and everything.

Damascene Rage: Kevin Drum makes a solid point, whilst riffing on a Josh Marshall post:

And just recently I've been thinking about what a genuinely profound story this is, one that the mainstream media ought to be more interested in. Instead of writing incessantly about "angry bloggers," they ought to be asking why so many mild-mannered moderate liberals have become so radicalized during George Bush's tenure. It deserves attention beyond the level of cliches and slogans.

The inability to acknowledge this phenomenum is what has doomed Joe Lieberman to what appears to be political oblivion. Other than the Iraq War, there doesn't seem to be a single issue that has riled the lefty blogosphere in any substantive sense. Frustration over the obsequiousness of the nominal opposition in our country, as manifested in a timid punditocracy and "centrist" Democratic leadership in Congress, seems to have created a rage on the left that has typically been the province of right wing talk radio and sites like LGF. Lieberman is certainly not the most conservative Democratic Senator (he's not even the most rightward Democrat running for reelection in a Blue State this year), but he got caught on the wrong side of history.

Another pundit sees fit to blame the "McGovernites" for the defeat of St. Joseph. Thomas Edsall writes in the New Republic:

In a quick and dirty analysis of the difference between the Lamont and Lieberman voters based on income, education, and other demographic data from across Connecticut, Ken Strasma of Strategic Telemetry found that Lamont's strongest support came from areas with high housing values, voters with college or graduate degrees, and parents with children in private schools. Lieberman's votes, in contrast, came from the cities, renters, blue-collar and service-sector workers, and those receiving Social Security benefits.

There is nothing wrong with upscale liberals or downscale renters; a vote is a vote. The problem for the Democrats is (and has been for more than a quarter century) that liberal elites are disproportionately powerful in primaries--where they turn out in much higher numbers--and in the operations of the party itself. In presidential campaigns, these voters have nominated a succession of losers, including George McGovern, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry. The power of this wing of the party is easy to see in battles against Republican Supreme Court nominees, when Democratic opposition concentrates on such issues as abortion and sexual privacy to the virtual exclusion of questions of business versus labor, tort law, and the power of the state to regulate corporate activity.

With all due respect, I'm not sure that's an accurate breakdown of the votes. The exit poll done by CBS/New York Times showed almost no divergence in the vote based on income; Lieberman barely won among those who made less than $50k, and Lamont barely won above that total. Lamont did win a clear majority of votes, according to the exit poll, among those two "elitist" voting blocs, union members and African-Americans. Lieberman won among Catholic and Jewish voters, and among voters who never attended college. There was no gender gap to speak of. In short, this was a fairly typical intramural battle between two Democrats, and not some bellweather repudiation by Brie-snorting elites against the working class.

Lieberman Concedes !! But only for tonight...huge turnout provided the difference. Kos finally gets a real notch on his belt. There will be intense pressure on the Senator to act graciously in defeat in the next few days; I doubt that he's gonna hold most of the 48% of the Dems he got tonight.

UPDATE: Marc Cooper says it best about the Senator's independent run:

I already heard KOS on Air America hyperventilating against this move, mumbling something about some request he plans to make to Harry Reid to expel Lieberman from the Democratic caucus.

I have to scratch my head and wonder what makes some people so phobic about democracy. What is ever gained by restricting access to the ballot? I've already written about how I think Lieberman is a putz. And I'm pleased he lost. But moaning and bitching about him running as an independent seems ridiculous to me.

The way you keep people from gaining elected office is by beating them in elections -- not by keeping them off the ballot. That is, if you believe in democracy or unless you are Fidel Castro.

Beating St. Joseph in the general election will send an even stronger signal about the public's anger over the war, since it won't just be a rejection from Democrats, but from Independents and Republicans as well. And it's going to happen. Bring It On !!

Election day in Connecticut. One thing that interested me about yesterday's poll was the class breakdown. Lamont, the more progressive of the two candidates, is routing Lieberman among wealthy and upper-middle income voters, while the incumbent has a slight lead with voters of below-average incomes. Since people with means tend to be more likely to vote than people without, that's a good sign for the challenger, although I'm somewhat skeptical about the Democrats appealing to Luxury Box Liberals as our way out of the political wilderness.

Senator Joseph Lieberman, in his own words. For all the Beltway claims that this challenge is motivated from some "elitist" contempt by progressive and liberal bloggers, Ned Lamont wouldn't even be close if St. Joseph hadn't been so conspicuously contemptuous of the party base during his Senate tenure. This isn't about making bogus claims that Lieberman is a "vichy Democrat", or that his vote to invoke cloture on the Bankruptcy Bill meant that he secretly supported the measure, for example. It's about his unwillingness to use his bully pulpit to take the battle to the Republicans.

51-45: Lamont's lead is cut in half in less than a week. Perhaps the most fascinating thing about this poll is the gender gap: the challenger has a comfortable, thirteen point leed with men, but Lieberman is keeping this close by tying Lamont among women. So much for the Alito cloture vote having any importance...six points is the trigger, I think. If St. Joseph finishes within this margin, then I think he claims Joementum and runs through November (and probably wins). Anything worse, and he has to look in the mirror and salvage some dignity from the rout by conceding.

The normally reliable Stuart Rothenberg, on one possible consequence of a Ned Lamont victory:

Some Democrats fear that a three-way contest could encourage Republicans to find a way to force their nominee out of the race and replace him with a much more serious Senate candidate. But a Lamont victory would not seriously threaten the Democrats’ hold on that seat unless the Republicans were to find a stronger nominee.

Lamont’s victory, however, would not be without its downside for Democrats, since it would only embolden the crazies in the party, a consideration not lost on other Democratic elected officials and strategists.

Lieberman’s defeat is likely to add to the partisanship and bitterness that divides the country and Capitol Hill, and to generate more media attention to grassroots bomb-throwers who, down the road, are likely to make the party less appealing to swing voters and moderates. (emphasis added)

Last time I checked, it was the "crazies" in the party that unquestioningly supported the Bush Administration's policies in the Middle East. After three years of abject failure and lowered national prestige, those in the Democratic Party who continue to back the Neocons' Grand Adventure are certainly more nuts than anything Little Green Firedogs might be blogging about this week.

54-41: That's the lead Ned Lamont now has over Senator Joe Lieberman in the race to be the Democratic Senate nominee in Connecticut. It's become increasingly clear that St. Joseph's announcement that he would run as an independent should he lose on Tuesday was the dumbest of a series of really stupid tactical moves in this campaign. He seemed churlish and contemptuous of the voters within his party when he made that announcement, and his support cratered; even voters who were skeptical of Lamont now had a free pass in the primary to vote their conscience on the Iraq War, since the incumbent would still be on the ballot in November. But a rout next week will thoroughly discredit any independent run, and make it more likely that the GOP will try to find a more credible standardbearer for November, further cutting Lieberman's base. [link via Daily Kos]

Send In The Clown: Who is the genius in the Lamont campaign who thought this association was a good idea? Was Mike Tyson not available?