The Video Revolution

"Have you been following the left blogosphere's reaction to the Lamont-Lieberman primary fight in Connecticut? The poisonous hatred directed at Lieberman has passed beyond the point of the political into the realm of the psychological. They hate him for keeping his Senate seat in 2000 rather than going down with the ship. They hate him for his modulated voice. They hate him for his attention to ethical issues. They hate him for what they themselves at any other time would have regarded as his virtues as for his political unorthodoxies.

"It's a hatred reinforced by repetition and intensified by echo-chamber unanimity. It's a hatred ungrounded upon any clear foundation of reason, undirected to any political purpose. I can't remember ever seeing anything like such an angry excommunication of one Republican by others in my political lifetime - although perhaps the hatred felt by the Goldwaterites for Nelson Rockefeller comes close. But there at least the two factions were separated by real ideological disagreements. Not so in Lieberman's case. He remains one of the most liberal members of the Senate: The American Conservative Union rates him as more liberal than Debbie Stabenow, more liberal than Barbara Boxer, more liberal than Hillary Clinton, more liberal than Russell Feingold - and equally liberal as John Kerry and Barak Obama. Rating is not an exact science of course, but you get the idea.

"I'm inclined to think that Lieberman will squeak through the August primary, but what do I know? But I am sure of this: the outburst against Lieberman reveals something very real, very important, and very ugly about today's Democratic party. And whether he wins or loses, it reminds us of the reasons why - and the how - that party has rendered itself unfit for and incapable of wielding political power."

Lieberman must be the right's favorite Democrat, for the NYT's David Brooks is also weighing in on his behalf:

"What's happening to Lieberman can only be described as a liberal inquisition. Whether you agree with him or not, he is transparently the most kind-hearted and well-intentioned of men. But over the past few years he has been subjected to a vituperation campaign that only experts in moral manias and mob psychology are really fit to explain. I can't reproduce the typical assaults that have been directed at him over the Internet, because they are so laced with profanity and ugliness, but they are ginned up by ideological masseurs who salve their followers' psychic wounds by arousing their rage at objects of mutual hate."

The New Republic's Michael Crowley sees a new Joltin' Joe:

"Who knew Joe Lieberman could be so tough? After weeks of being on the defensive, Lieberman whacked Lamont repeatedly. At one point, he accused Lamont of insincerely exploiting the Iraq war politically to win a Senate seat. (Two other prevailing themes from Lieberman: that Lamont frequently voted with Republicans as a city councilor; and the notion that Lamont has a squishy, inconsistent and thin record, summarized by the refrain, 'Who is Ned Lamont?') Lamont got some licks in, to be sure, tormenting Lieberman over his potential independent candidacy, ripping his vote for that (awful) 2005 congressional energy bill, and, after one Lieberman interruption, retorting (somewhat awkwardly)'"We're not on Fox News, sir.'

"Still, Lamont's attacks are mostly familiar by now. Lieberman's were a bracing departure from his typically Solomonic style. A key question is how Democrats will perceive such tough tactics from a senator known around Connecticut (my native state) as a consummate nice guy.

"But mainly what I'm wondering is: Where was this Joe Lieberman back when the stakes were really high?"

Maybe the stakes are never so high as when your job is on the line.

Arianna doesn't want her California pals helping Connecticut's senior senator:

"What the hell is Barbara Boxer thinking?