But since he didn’t “take it like a man” he took it like what, exactly?

No. This is not true. We thought highly enough of Joe L that he would take it like a man and not run as an independent. Second, the weakness of the Republican Candidte was unpresidented and frankly a bit of good luck for Joe. Third, no one could foresee how easily Joe would be able to tap into Rove’s machine through his friendship with Cheney and an independent donor base whose main concern was keeping a Israeli Hawk in the Senate.

The numbers of registered Democrats in Connecticut conpared to the number of registered Republicans indicated that this blue state should be a lock for the official Dem nominee.

Had the Netroots been truly interested in success for the Democratic Party they could have found a way to abide a conservative Democrat in CT. … I read several commenters at DailyKos who were willing to forego control of the Senate if it meant defeating Joe Lieberman. That is not wisdom or courage or activism; that is stupid.
Joe Lieberman is not that conservative. It has never been his “conservatism” that made him a target. It was his constant disloyalty to the Democratic Party that made him a target. They guy could not open his mouth on television without slagging the Party. How does it make political sense to keep a man like that? Nelson does not do that. Byron Dorgan does not do that. Mary Landrieu does not do that. Only Joe did that. Only Joe went on Hannity and Meet the Press to build himself up as the great bi partizan Pooh Bah, by tearing down his own party’s image. Not acceptable or politically efficient.

The Netroots failed utterly in its first mission; to elect Howard Dean, and it failed again in its second, to drive Lieberman from the Senate.

Some Utterly. Some Failure. Give us many more failures like this and the Democrats will have an electoral lock on America for the forseable future. It is a measure of the man the after having his character assisinated in the media he chose to continue to serve. Dean is a DNC chairman like no other. He has made Democrats competitive in every state of the union and destroyed the RNCs ability to concentrate their ressources in a few races.
As for Lieberman his behavior since returning to the Senate vindicates the judgement of those that wanted him out; he covers the Bush administrations ass as part of his electoral devils bargain while the county cries out for oversight; shame on him.
In 2008 the Dems will have a plurality in the Senate and we will finally be able to remove this thorn from the Democratic Party’s Paw.

Yes, Republicans were allowed to vote for whomever they wanted in the general election in CT. What about this surprises and confounds you? Anbody with an IQ over room temperature recognized Joe was popular among repugs, and they would elect him given the chance. The Netroots seem clueless about this.

Cranky-

I thought you Netroots people said it was Howard Dean who taught us to challenge Bush! Now it’s Lamont? So it wasn’t Dean after all?

Rubbish! It was neither. Dems have been the party of peace and stability—who challenged Republican orthodoxy about war—for more than 100 years. Neither Dean nor Lamont invented anti-war activism. Both glommed on to the anti-war angle only after it became apparent it was a good political move for them.

In fact, in January of 2003 Howard Dean said, “I would be surprised if Saddam Hussein didn’t have chemicals and biological weapons.” When asked about this later, Dean said, “Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tend to believe the president.”

Where was Ned Lamont when Bush was ramming this contry into a war of aggression in Iraq? He was nowhere to be seen or heard.

The Netroots and their odd little candidates did not teach the rest of us to challenge the war. They did, however, show that some politicians will exploit it, even some Dems.

Challenging (and defeating, IIRC) Lieberman allowed many other Democrats throughout the United States to start talking openly and honestly about Iraq – something which had been prohibited by both party and media before the primaries ran their course.

I believe CT is now changing the law that allows a person to run twice in the same election, also, so that is a good thing as well.

Cranky

The Netroots tends to take credit for nearly any Dem who wins, so long as the candidate’s name crossed the front page of DailyKos at some point. They are cocks convinced their crow caused the sun to rise.

The Netroots went all in for Dean and Lamont; no question about it. Both failed in a big way. And both efforts were insurgencies against the Democratic party. If the Netroots ever concentrated that much energy WITH Democrats AGAINST Republicans, it may become a meaningful enterprise.

The leaders of the GOP mandate ideology, and everyone has to hop on board. So long as they satisfy certain constraints mandated by their base (lower taxes and anti-abortion) they can get away with pretty much anything. The blogosphere OTOH is inherently bottom-up.

Discussion about the Rightwing Noise Machine (RNM) and the Leftwing Noise Machine (LNM) should acknowledge this difference. The RNM is centrally controlled and relies on traditional media outlets, while the LNM depends more on the internet and “new media”. While it is important to worry about demagogues and the power of the majority to suppress minority opinions, the nature of new media makes it far easier for those in the minority to voice their opinion without fear that they will be “silenced”. How can you silence a blog?

the netroots were also championing Sens. Webb and Tester’s campaigns, not to mention a few others. Some were successful, some not. As significant as the two examples you cite are, they’re not the whole story by a long shot.

Nor is it fair to just say, “It seems more driven to justify and flex its own power than to advance any coherent set of strategies or policies that will benefit the Democratic Party and the Progressive cause” because the debate going on within it working towards just that.

It was apparent to every serious political observer that Joe was unbeatable in CT; even if he lost the primary the peculiar election laws in his state would allow him to easily remain in the Senate…. But not as a Democrat. I saw it, Harry Reid saw it; everybody except the Netroots. Challenging Joe put the emerging Democratic majority in the Senate at real risk.

Had the Netroots been truly interested in success for the Democratic Party they could have found a way to abide a conservative Democrat in CT. Pragmatism is the lifeblood of politics. But instead they focused their efforts on the largest mobilization yet of Netroots power, and they failed. As all astute observers predicted, Joe is back in the Senate in spite of them.

After the Primary election the Netroots dumped Ned Lamont like yesterday’s news. Contributions dried up, resulting in Lamont needing to put nearly $20 million of his own cash into the losing campaign. The goal of the Netroots was not really to elect Lamont, but to embarrass Lieberman. Indeed, I read several commenters at DailyKos who were willing to forego control of the Senate if it meant defeating Joe Lieberman. That is not wisdom or courage or activism; that is stupid.

There are many other Senators who cast the same votes for which the Netroots vilify Lieberman, yet they give the others a pass. It was not really about Joe’s politics, it was about Joe’s mocking tone toward Howard Dean back in 2003. It was vengeance against an enemy who Ralph Nader said was venal.

The Netroots failed utterly in its first mission; to elect Howard Dean, and it failed again in its second, to drive Lieberman from the Senate. It seems more driven to justify and flex its own power than to advance any coherent set of strategies or policies that will benefit the Democratic Party and the Progressive cause. When the Netroots finally loses some of its gee-whiz narcissism, it might do some good.

Seth – there is something in what you say. But I think it is also liable to exaggeration. To put it this way – most of the stuff that we talk about here, or on BdL, or wherever is likely not to be very interesting to more activist types (or only accidentally interesting, to the extent that a particular activist’s interests and our non-political interests coincide). I don’t see much at all in the way of a change in the wonkosphere blogs to make themselves more interesting to the netroots. In fact, as I’ve argued before, I think that the opposite is true, and that there should be more dialogue.

David – I’m not too upset at the use of rude and vigorous language (sometimes it is not only appropriate, but necessary). Like Belle, however, I am however pissed off by the tendency by many blog commenters to describe people like Michelle Malkin in racist and sexist terms. Race-baiting sexist bullshit is race-baiting sexist bullshit, however you cut it. Reprehensible people should be attacked for their reprehensibleness, not for their skin colour or sex.

homais – there may be something to what you say – certainly all of us have a strong predilection to believe that what is ideologically convenient is also true. But I don’t see (perhaps I’m missing it) any evidence that the netroots are worse than any other strongly motivated group of people that you would care to mention. Certainly, they aren’t guilty of some of the stuff that their right wing confreres were and are guilty of in terms of out-and-out dirty tricks (read that Rick Perlstein piece I link to above). Also, I think that your criticism is very different from the “don’t understand what the term intellectual honesty means” shtick that the Chait piece presents.

Josh – I had a similar experience to yours. I can remember when Bush got elected the first time (I wasn’t in the US then) being pretty pissed off about the way it had happened, but not too worried about Bush himself as a president – I expected a few years of mediocre Republican rule (which I thought would even have some upside; there’s a reason why we need alternation of power between political parties in office). I was very badly wrong. I then looked on horrified over the months following Sep 11, and didn’t see anyone important in the mainstream media, apart from Paul Krugman, who seemed willing to articulate an alternative account of what was happening that matched with what I was hearing from my friends in foreign policy and economics circles. I think the country owes him a hell of a lot.

jillian – I don’t see any evidence whatsoever that Chait’s take on the netroots is motivated by his take on Israel, and in the absence of such evidence I think it’s irresponsible to throw around the kind of accusations you’re making.

Various – when I say that I think that Chait is a pretty good journalist, I’m not doing it just to hide the shiv. It’s true. He’s done some damn good work. Obviously, I don’t think that his work on the netroots is his finest hour. Nor his stuff on Iraq. But I’m still hopeful that either he or George Packer (the two journalist/intellectuals on the pro-war side who seemed to me to be the smartest and most thoughtful) will do a piece one day talking about what actually went wrong, and why they all drank the Kool Aid). I’ll go further – given the specific intellectual role that he wants to carve out for himself – I think that it’s probably necessary for him to do this at some point, and the sooner the better, if he wants to be true to his vocation.