Wow. I’ve refrained from commenting on a race that’s out of my state, but I have to say that now that Lieberman has lost, it’s quite a gratifying spectacle.
The news coverage, often in subtle ways, manages to patronize anyone with an anti-war position, or anti-Lieberman vote. Take, for instance, the lede of Rick Klein’s piece in the Globe:
Antiwar fervor helped topple Senator Joseph I. Lieberman yesterday in his bid for the Democratic nomination for his Senate seat, with challenger Ned Lamont capitalizing on President Bush’s low approval ratings to pull off a once-unthinkable upset of one of the nation’s most prominent Democrats.
Fervor, clearly, is a loaded word. People complain that races aren’t competitive any more, or that voters are apathetic, or that issues take a back issue to machine politics. And then when voters do treat an incumbent’s race as a real one, with real issues to vote on, all of a sudden it’s a case of wild-eyed fervor.
Yes, the developments in Connecticut are surprising, and “once-unthinkable.” But how about taking for given that primary voters have every right, even responsibility, to decide, among other considerations, which candidate best expresses their views?
No comments have been added to this post yet.