The Meaning of Lieberman's Defeat

August 10, 2006

Yes, Ned Lamont’s victory over Joe Lieberman was a referendum on the Iraq War.

It signals that Democrats will not abide by politicians who front for this war, especially in the shameless way that Lieberman did.

But it also signals the demise of the DLC, and the loosening of the stranglehold that the pundits, the strategists, and the $2,000 contributors used to have on the nominating process.

Now there are new powers on the scene, who are not beholden to big money and to the tiny circle of political consultants who had their say for so long.

And these are democratic powers, open to people with no clout or connections others than their own voice.

I’m talking about MoveOn and the legions of small contributors it was able to marshal on the Internet.

I’m talking about Progressive Democrats of America.

And I’m talking about an echo machine that progressives have finally managed to make work.

From the blogs like Dailykos and David Sirota and Huffingtonpost to the radio airwaves with Sam Seder and Randi Rhodes and Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller, the anti-Lieberman message spread far and wide.

It wouldn’t have worked if it didn’t resonate with people.

So Lieberman has no one to blame but himself.

And it wouldn’t have worked if Ned Lamont had not been a smart, attractive progressive alternative.

But the machinery is now in place to defeat or elect candidates from a grassroots, netroots base.

That’s the real news of the Lieberman defeat.

And it’s not only good for the Democratic Party. It’s good for democracy.