What we care about is defeating Joe Lieberman.
There are republicans who we would have supported before supporting Joe Lieberman.
Over the last few days, I've been waiting to see some diaries about Ned Lamont. Who he is. What he's all about. And all that. I've been to his website and it all sounds pretty decent. but truth be told, as far as i can tell he's not as direct about troop withdrawal as Murtha and Feingold.
I've been looking for something on the front page. The Ned Lamont vision!
The thing is, the guy seems genuine. on my 5th whiskey, but I really mean that. I don't say that because it's what i'm supposed to say. I say that because from what i've seen (the debate and some articles here and there), he seems, imo, to be a genuine person doing what he believes is right for the democratic party. in this day and age, that's pretty damn commendable.
I also think he's a little nebbish. A little timid. The blogosphere spin on that is he's new to the game. Which makes sense. He's not a self-made man. His fortune was indeed inherited but he's used it wisely. Smartly enough for me to believe that, had he been born poor, he would have still been pretty damn successful in life. And i, for one, don't thing there's anything wrong with being rich.
But i don't think we care about any of that.
What matters is defeating Joe Lieberman.
Earlier this evening A diary was posted about Ned Lamont:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
I've been suspicious that we don't really care about Ned Lamont for awhile now and the fact this diary did not make the rec list confirmed my suspicions.
Listen, i know we care about Ned Lamont. But i believe we only care about Ned within the context of defeating Lieberman.
This troubles me not because I want to call out the blogosphere on bullshit. (althought that does appeal to me.) what bugs me is that if we don't really care about Ned Lamont. If we're not well versed on his ideas. Once the specter of Joe Lieberman dissolves, do we really know what we'll be supporting.
The nullification of the "other" in this case is simple enough. But any 80s hack philosopher knows negating the "other" never solves any problems.
At what point does Ned Lamont become Ned Lamont, not so much a good excuse to get a latent neo-con out of the party.
the obviously confrontational question to ask is "why should i vote for Ned?" and in many ways that question, for our purposes, goes without saying. i know better than to ask a question like that.
and yet, if i was ned lamont and i saw the blogosphere attitude about the CT primary, in a private moment with me and my wife i'd have to admit to myself: this isn't really about me.
the following poll isn't a real poll.
it's a challenge. to get people to think differently about this primary. I know. a lot of people will look at at this and think that it's some sort of argument for saying why it's wrong to hate lieberman. there's nothing wrong with hating lieberman.
all i'm saying is this: Supporting Lamont is a great way to hate lieberman.
But what i get from the blogosphere is this: hating lieberman is a great way to support Lamont.