Ed Morrissey weighs in.
However, for some reason, Firedoglake, MyDD, and even the normally reasonable Middle Earth Journal all claim shock and anger over this development. The same voices who called for Lieberman's expulsion from the party earlier in the week and have worked to defeat him despite a solidly Democratic voting record now fume because the man they spent the summer reviling won't endorse their other candidates. None of them answer the obvious question: if you detest the man so much, why would you want his endorsement?No Ed, I'm not surprised. Joe is interested only in feeding Joe's hubris and ego.
Lieberman is exploring the many facets of independence in American politics, and the people who forced it on him still express surprise and anger over it. The only surprise here is that they're surprised.
Joe Gandelman also has a good post where he documents that Hillary is throwing even more support to Lamont than we originally thought and that others are joining her.
But it isn't only Hillary Clinton who's loaning one of her best people to Lamont: So is Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (who would like to be Majority Leader Harry Reid).Joe Gandelan also links to The Silverwood Institute where they point out the obvious, Lieberman can't be trusted to support the Democrats if elected as an independent. Their advice to Democrats, don't get fooled again.
This suggest that Democratic party elite leadership determination to
elect Lamont and defeat Lieberman is starting to solidify.
Immediately before the primary that saw Lieberman's defeat there was considerable speculation that top Democrats, particularly those such as Hillary and Bill Clinton who had been close associates of Lieberman's for many years, would either try and find an excuse to sit on their hands during the Lamont campaign or give it perfunctory support.
That conventional wisdom now seems erroneous, speculative ancient history that many who uttered (and wrote) it would like to forget.