Firedoglake and DailyKos have worked tirelessly in support of Ned Lamont, and evidence of their success is everywhere. Barring a miracle or, say, an assist from Diebold, Lieberman looks doomed in the primary.
Much as kos, Jane, Christy, and friends like to argue that this has much more to do with local CT people power than it does their blogofluence, most observers agree locals organized around Lamont partly because of the credibility lent him from the strong support of powerful national voices perceived to be on the cutting edge of politics. The Lakers and Kossacks made a Lamont challenge seem viable, and once it felt like a little more than pissing in the wind, people started getting involved.
I don’t presume to know what their motivations are for supporting Lamont so strongly. Maybe they just believe in this one race and care nothing else about the big picture, but I doubt it. And if they are motivated by bigger issues, I would guess they are one or both of the following:
1) To push the Democrats from center-right towards a more progressive agenda. The blogs have repeatedly recounted all the ways Joe abandoned the Democrats on progressive issues beyond just the war, implying Lamont wouldn’t do so. If Lamont wins, it shows the Dems need to lean a bit more to the left. Also, by holding Joe’s feet to the fire on the war issue, there seems to be a push to show Dems that they must stand up to Republicans — or else.
2) To demonstrate the growing power and influence of the left blogosphere on the political landscape. I don’t mean this in a sinister way; blogs are full of politically motivated readers and writers at the ground level, and while the left currently lacks a great organizing force of “people power” to rival wingnut churches and the like, blogs show signs of filling that role. If Lamont wins, the role of the blogs mobilizing for him will not be overlooked. The party will start looking to the netroots for answers.
I support both of these goals. I would love to see the Democrats grow a spine and start pushing a more progressive agenda. I would love to see the blog community with a voice in the party. Right effing on.
But assuming you think one or both of those goals motivates those working overtime to help Lamont, I think some bloggers have gotten so caught up in Lamont winning the primary they’ve lost sight of them. Unless things shake out perfectly, I think Firedoglake in particular has done those objectives a disservice recently.
If Lamont wins the primary and the general election, everybody wins. No harm done. This is the perfect scenario. Joe will have been run out of politics and Ned will be installed as a champion of progressives and bloggers. Most likely, the party will embrace both more fully.
But what if Lamont doesn’t win?
I’m sure someone somewhere will read that and make some kind of argument that such defeatist thinking is what holds the Democrats back, but that would be missing the point. If you work for Ned Lamont, that should be the last thing you think about. But if you don’t, then it’s okay to make sure you advance your objectives regardless of the outcome of one particular race. It doesn’t hurt to look at the larger picture, particularly if you want to help the party move left and/or listen more to its netroots overall.
Let’s say Lamont somehow loses the primary. Lieberman would be thanking his lucky stars that he made it out of the prelims alive. Maybe he’d think he was more invincible than ever and throw us all the bird, but I bet the scare put into him by the Lamont challenge might cause him to reevaluate his approach somewhat. He might realize he needs to stick a little closer to the left in the future, and he might also be inclined to reach out to the our community to make the peace.
Unfortunately, the olive branch would only be extended if the blogosphere left any room for conciliation. Totally demonizing Lieberman to the point of putting him in blackface ensures total alienation from our voice for the entirety of his political career. Even Jane admits she’s become his opponent du jour, following immediately on the heels of blogs in general.
There’s a certain amount of nastiness that all campaigns expect from same-party opponents in the primary period, and you can go pretty far without crossing the point of no return for a make-up kiss. While DailyKos has been hard on Lieberman, it hasn’t tried to completely destroy the man. But Jane’s work has attacked Lieberman so viciously his ears are closed to us now and probably forever. If he wins the primary, she may have made it impossible for him to move towards our politics and our community.
Now, let’s say Lamont wins the primary but loses the general election to Independent Joe. In truth, this will hurt us no matter what. It could easily be said that going progressive and listening to the netroots actually cost the Dems a seat in the Senate. Though that would be a ridiculous oversimplification, it might stick.
Still, there was a real scare put into an incumbent who nearly lost his seat and had to abandon his party to keep it. If the netroots had played fair the entire time, we could show those who want to remain a part of a party (you know, that thing that lets you chair committees and whatnot) we can and will run progressives at you in your primaries, and unless you’re as entrenched as Lieberman, you may lose your job. But because it got so nasty with Joe, I don’t think we can play the “this was a constructive conversation” card. We just look like assholes who lost, and again, I don’t think it does our goals much good.
There’s some real evidence this has become more about winning than the issues at FDL. For a while, there was a rumor that Joe was going to run an ad apologizing for his stance on the war. This is what Jane had to say:
I have to say I was actually a bit worried when I heard the rumor that he was going to film a mea culpa commercial regarding the war — he needs that kind of bold strike right now, though I doubt even that could pull him out of his current hole.
Worried? That’s odd. No matter how insincere, forcing the Dems’ staunchest war ally to come out against the war and _apologize_ for defending it would be a huge coup for both goals. Joe would have been forced to get in line with the progressives and the netroots would have been able to claim victory through discourse. Now, that wouldn’t mean we should stop fighting hard for Lamont, who probably will serve us all better, but this would have marked a tremendous shift in Lieberman’s politics and allowed us to achieve our objectives regardless of the outcome of the race.
I’m sure Jane would argue that she would be worried because it would be a lie, that Lieberman would recant his recantation as soon as he was elected, but I doubt it. If he had to reverse course just to eke out an election, I don’t think he’d suddenly feel empowered to go all maverick on us again. Even if he did, though, the whole party would have to take note of how important our positions and voices are in getting elected. In the long run, that matters.
Of course, Jane says:
An opponent who can’t keep his eye on the ball is just that much easier to beat.
And maybe he will go down and all will be well. If he doesn’t, though, I worry their win-at-all-costs flame war might set back our cause; even if the goals of moving the Dems left and encouraging them to listen to those of us speaking out on the web aren’t FDL’s objectives, they’re definitely some of mine.
It’s not just about the war. It’s about aligning those who oppose this war with terrorists. It’s about supporting the encroaching theocracy at every step of the way.
Lieberman is not someone who disagrees with progressives, he’s someone who hates us. Lieberman has towed the “you’re with us or the terrorists” line harder than many Republicans have.
Mm. Well, we’ll see.
Thing is, if indeed it does transpire that Lamont wins the primary and Lieberman runs as an independent, I’m gonna have a *real* hard time blaming anyone but Lieberman.
and at this point I don’t see much reason to believe that Lieberman would be “scared” by a near-loss into going more to the left.
I do think there’s something to be said for not alienating potential allies, and it’s true that the netroots can be kinda slash-n-burn that way. I do think that there is a difference between placating the right and being…well, politic. Or at least a continuum.
Lieberman, though…honestly, well. I haven’t been keeping up with the ins and outs of this, or of firedoglake’s work–but I find it hard to believe that it was possible to make him much more of a DINO than he was already. If he actually switched to I and wins with it–well, it’d suck, but unless it actually makes the difference between getting back enough seats to win, i don’t even see it as making much practical difference.
Lieberman sucks.
I know it’s more than the war. That’s why goal #1 isn’t about the war but a progressive agenda overall.
I am trying to play the realist here (since I am often accused of being too idealistic). Lieberman may well win a general election while running as an independent. It’s definitely possible.
Given that, do we really have to go any farther than kos does? Why do we have to go the blackface route? Can’t we stop just short of tactics like that, moves which deeply threaten our credibility?
If Lieberman wins, we maintain more credibility if we maintain the tiniest sliver of decency. It allows us the small hope we may also get through to him with this scare. It also allows us to claim the Lamont campaign as a success whether he wins or not.
…that said: okay, now I saw the blackface thing.
:headdesk:
um yeah, there’s a biig problem with that; and it has nothing to do with alienating Lieberman or his supporters.
wtf were they thinking? i don’t even just mean politically; what was that supposed to *mean?*
well, it’s too late now.
what i -really- think they need to do is apologize for that, stat.
Jane did apologize, for the most part. It was a little less complete than I would have liked, though — she apologized to those she offended but didn’t exactly express regret, either.
Why do we have to go the blackface route?
To be honest, I hadn’t seen that. The HuffPo link has removed the pic, thankfully.
Still, I think one can decry such idiotic and racist imagery without pretending Lieberman is someone we could ever work with. I really don’t see how anyone could accept an apology for saying those of us who oppose the war are aiding terrorists.
And I for one could never support someone who so callously belittled rape victims.
I’d like to see progressive blogrolls drop FDL until we get an acceptable apology, but the sheer tastelessness of that pic doesn’t change a single thing about Lieberman.
>I’d like to see progressive blogrolls drop FDL until we get an acceptable apology, but the sheer tastelessness of that pic doesn’t change a single thing about Lieberman.
Agreed and agreed. off to expunge now; it’s not like i ever read there anyway.
It was a brutally stupid thing to do. The right doesn’t accept apologies. They want groveling and preferably suicide. There’s no way out of this for Jane except an out and out, “Fuck what was I thinking?”, which would disarm the right because she admitted making a mistake without actually getting into refuting their disingenous assertions that she’s racist. Malkin—a genuine racist—knows damn well that Jane is not one of hers.
Yes; but of course the apology isn’t for the -right’s- sake, it’s for the people Jane (not Lamont or even the “netroots”) wants to keep as allies in future.
as per Lamont himself, i dunno how much hay the right will get a chance to make out of this before the actual primary.
sometime between the primary and the actual election, though, yeah, there’s gonna need to be a reckoning for that. especially if Lieberman does run as an independent.
Not for their sake but to get them off our backs so they can’t make fence sitters hate us. Which of course is the allies you speak of.
Honestly, I give fence sitters enough credit to realize that when it comes to racism the right has absolutely no room to criticize anyone.
The reason Jane needs to make a real apology is because we’re supposed to be better than them. Racism is a Republican value, and has no place in progressive arguments.
Well, and the fence sitters can say, “ah, fuck all y’all, I’m staying home;” it isn’t necessary to drive them outright into the arms of the right (as you suggest, not bloody likely if racism’s the issue)
we could show those who want to remain a part of a party (you know, that thing that lets you chair committees and whatnot) we can and will run progressives at you in your primaries
The political strategy nerd in me went “woowoo!” as I read that, because one of my discoveries over the past year has been the awesome power of committee chairs. The vast majority of bills die in committee, and they go down without any chance to make everybody vote on them. You can come up with all the wedge issues you want, but if you don’t control committees, you’ll hardly get any media attention because there will never be a big vote. And any Democrat counts towards giving Democrats total committee control, even if he magically turns into a pumpkin after voting Harry Reid for majority leader and never votes on anything again.
It seems that Rahm Emmanuel is absorbing and transmitting message 1 you’ve described above. Here’s his recent line on Lieberman/Lamont: “What’s playing out here is that being a rubber stamp for George Bush is politically dangerous to life-threatening.”
I haven’t seen the blackface thing, but Lieberman was horrified when someone had the nerve to oppose him and he hasn’t stopped alienating his would-be supporters since. He’s self destructed here. There’s no way that he would ever learn the lesson to hew closer to the left, our voice was entirely alienated long before this ad or anything from the blogosphere. It’s not the nastiness, it’s Lieberman’s arrogance and sense of entitlement, plus the fact that he probably believes what he says, that Democrats are dangerous traitors for not supporting Bush and all the erst of it.
As for how this will be spun, well. Remeber how Kerry lost, not because he was a squishy moderate who couldn’t articulate opposition to Bush, but because he was a flaming far out of the mainstream left winger? If Lamont wins, he’ll be portaryed as an extremist who led a purge of rational moderate voices in a party that caters to a hysterical minority, if he loses, which he probably won’t because of Joe’s self destruct button, he and his supporters will be portrayed as extremists who need to learn no one to the right of Ghenghis Khan can be elected in America. Yeah, they’ll use the blackface ad as an example of how nasty and extreme anti-war people are, but if it didn’t exist they’d say the same things. The script’s already been written here.
>Lieberman was horrified when someone had the nerve to oppose him and he hasn’t stopped alienating his would-be supporters since. He’s self destructed here. There’s no way that he would ever learn the lesson to hew closer to the left, our voice was entirely alienated long before this ad or anything from the blogosphere. It’s not the nastiness, it’s Lieberman’s arrogance and sense of entitlement, plus the fact that he probably believes what he says, that Democrats are dangerous traitors for not supporting Bush and all the erst of it.>
Word.
and you’re right that no matter what happens, even if the blackface thing hadn’t happened, Lamont will be painted as an extremist.
and obviously the blackface thing is hardly Lamont’s responsibility.
it’s just, you know, there’ll be other races and fdl was wielding some muscle there, and, oops, ick, duh.
“it’s just, you know, there’ll be other races and fdl was wielding some muscle there, and, oops, ick, duh.”
Yeah, that’s an excellent point. If this ad hadn’t happened the media would just pick up on something else, but still why hand them ammo over something stupid and unecessary.
[...] And so I have to disagree with Marc, we can’t fuck around thinking about, “well if this happens then he won’t want to play on our side anymore”, what do we do with evil people? [...]