An editorial cartoon from yesterday’s Hartford Courant:
And from the Sunday NY Times Magazine, here’s the umpteenth article I’ve seen about how the Democrats have no core ideals: “What are the Lieberman foes for?”
If history were to repeat itself, this outpouring of new liberal passion would portend trouble for the party's establishment candidates in 2008 (especially one possible candidate whose last name happens to be Clinton). But there is at least one crucial difference between insurgents of the 1970's and today. When [Jeffrey] Bell ran for the Senate in 1978, he was so obsessed with his plan to slash taxes that he went to the extraordinary length of bringing in Arthur Laffer, the renowned conservative economist, to draw his famous Laffer Curve at a news conference in Trenton. By contrast, Lamont's signature proposal as a primary candidate - and the only one anyone cared to hear, really - seemed to be the hard-to-dispute notion that he is not, in fact, Joe Lieberman. He offered platitudes about universal health care and good jobs and about bringing the troops home but nothing that might define him as anything other than what he is: an acceptable alternative.Which explains this:
Of the 11% of likely voters undecided in the US Senate ballot, 57% have a favorable opinion of Lieberman and 43% have an unfavorable opinion of Lieberman, and 4% have a favorable opinion of Lamont, 41% have an unfavorable opinion of Lamont, and 55% are aware of Lamont but do not know enough about him to have an opinion.He’s not Joe Lieberman! Geez. What more do you need to know?