So, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut lost his Democratic primary bid to Ned Lamont, 48 to 52 percent. Many have suggested that it was Lieberman's apparent "cozyness" with the Bush administration that did him in. I was never either a fan nor a detractor of Lieberman, but I thought that maybe he was not the best face for the party. In short, I felt that he had all the charm, excitement, and charisma of a bottle opener. Functional in certain instances, perhaps, but nothing to wrote home about. In any case, the people of Connecticut have spoken. But that, of course, doesn't mean that officials have to listen. In a post-primary CNN interview, Lieberman said that he would not accept the loss and vowed to fight on: "I'm carrying it on because Lamont really represents polarization and partisanship". I disagree. Lamont does not represent polarization and partisanship. That's been honed by the Bush administration and their allies (remember when GWB claimed in 2000 to be "a uniter and not a divider"? Funny how we seem to be more divided than ever). If anything, Lamont represents the people's reaction to an incompetent administration and their congress of fools, including one whose apparent approach to reducing partisanship was to simply roll over like a puppy. "Arf!", he said.
Jim, you are giving bottle openers a bad rap.
Lieberman has succumbed to the Republican irony machine. He blames Lamont for being a divider, and yet he intends to run as an independent and divide the Democrats. Why doesn't he just swap parties and become something closer to an honest man?
I think it's wonderful. Nothing like an electable independent. I'm in favor of anything that hurts the major parties. Time to really clean the slate. I'd rather have someone in favor of real change run as an independent, but you take what you can get.
The problem with JL is that he's not a real independent. He's just in it for JL.