Although a long-time subscriber to "The Economist newspaper (and one who values their foreign news coverage) it hasn't been easy reading the U.S. coverage the past few years. Especially with the rise of US-based reporters John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge into their hierarchy, their U.S. political coverage has consisted primarily of warmed-over GOP talking points. And so I was convinced that their post-Lieberman analysis would be dire.
But (after the jump) I was pleasantly surprised......
...it's not a totally good analysis - but much fairer than I might have thought. The article "Joe Lieberman's defeat is evidence of a startling political shift - an anti-war centre seems to hold" is behind a
subscription wall but here are some excerpts:
First, why did Joe lose? Because....
his opponent was rich, because his own campaign lacked sparkle and because, by promising in advance to run as an independent if Connecticut's Democrats rejected him, he seemed to put personal ambition above party loyalty.
They usually "have-it-in" for Daily Kos people, and while not being able to resist a potshot, they state that the Lieberman campaign....
"blames many of his troubles on anti-war blogs such as the Daily Kos, and even accuses left-wing hackers of bringing down his website the day before the election. They exaggerate. It is doubtful that many Connecticut Democrats were swayed by a blog, particularly one as indigestible as the Daily Kos. The site, together with others, such as Moveon.org, raised money for Mr Lamont's campaign, but that mattered little to a candidate who was prepared to spend so much of his own fortune.
And the money quote may be about perceptions of the war...
...gradually, though, independent voters have crept into the peacenik camp. An anti-war left has been joined by an anti-war centre.
In short, while being very dismissive of Ned Lamont, the article is unusually fair to our side, not always something that you can expect. Hey, if they're starting to catch on...then maybe.....