Lieberman loses despite late anti-Bush strategy

It's not just about the war or Bush, Lieberman just isn't all that good, period, and he has certainly shown his very ugly true colors these last few weeks.

WorkingForChange-Lieberman loses despite late anti-Bush strategy:

WASHINGTON -- It is a sign of the deep anger in the American body politic that a popular 18-year Senate veteran would lose a Democratic primary because he was seen as being too close to a Republican president and his unpopular war policies.

The victory of anti-war businessman Ned Lamont over Sen. Joe Lieberman on Tuesday says much about the low esteem in which President Bush is now held. But so does the way in which the incumbent almost managed to survive: Lieberman nearly closed the gap once he realized, too late, that he, too, had to run against Bush.

Republican supporters of Bush and the Iraq War were claiming even before the primary that a Lamont victory would signal a dovish takeover of the Democratic Party by activists organized by anti-Bush bloggers and show that there is no room left in Democratic ranks for moderates.

The most over-the-top version of this argument came from William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard. 'What drives so many Democrats crazy about Lieberman is not simply his support for the Iraq War,' Kristol wrote. 'It's that he's unashamedly pro-American.'

This charge of extremism enrages Democrats, including many who supported Lieberman in the primary. It's absurd to attribute Lamont's victory primarily to bloggers who were his prime supporters three months ago, when he registered less than 20 percent in the polls. Something happened in Connecticut that went well beyond the blogosphere.