Stupid Media- Lieberman is a Hack

There are a lot of stories out in the press explaining what a disaster Lamont's win is for the Democrats. Jacob Weisberg's arguments in his Slate article: "Why Lamont's Victory Spells Democratic Disaster" are destroyed by Digby here:

But it isn't just Iraq, of course. It's what people like Weisberg assume opposition to Iraq "really means." He beats the hell out of a leftwing strawman who thinks that terrorists are no threat:

The problem for the Democrats is that the anti-Lieberman insurgents go far beyond simply opposing Bush's faulty rationale for the war, his dishonest argumentation for it, and his incompetent execution of it. Many of them appear not to take the wider, global battle against Islamic fanaticism seriously. They see Iraq purely as a symptom of a cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11, as opposed to a tragic misstep in a bigger conflict. Substantively, this view indicates a fundamental misapprehension of the problem of terrorism. Politically, it points the way to perpetual Democratic defeat.

I'm getting really tired of this. I would really like to see some evidence. This assertion misrepresents the far more complex view that many of us have that challenges the the GOP's silly neocon manicheanism. If Weisberg wants to endorse Bush's absurd formulation that's his privilege. But it is not the only valid way to look at it.

Mike Allen from Time writes, "Why the Republicans are loving the Lamont win." Josh Marshall (who has started writing a regular column on Time.com) has a great response. He writes:

What's really sad is that the nexus of national press and political operative bigwigs really needs to get over itself a bit here. Because once they do, they may actually be able to get over Joe Lieberman.

Joe Lieberman is not a world-historical figure.

He's not fighting some long twilight struggle.

He thinks he's both. But he's not.

Chris Bowers from MyDD also has a great piece on why Lamont's victory should be making Karl Rove cry.