The "netroots" corps are happy Joe Lieberman was defeated last night in his Senate primary, but bloggers are having a hard time accepting Paris Hilton's reclaimed virtue.
Lamont Juste: Sen. Joe Lieberman vowed to continue his Senate re-election bid as an independent after losing to upstart Ned Lamont in Connecticut's Democratic primary. Meanwhile, Lamont has emerged as the bankable darling of the anti-war left. While liberals are clamoring for Joe to bow out of the general election gracefully, conservatives argue that it ain't over yet.
Markos Moulitsas, the blogosphere's leading Lamont cheerleader, remembers the moment DailyKos went into deep swoon mode: "You know why I liked Lamont, what sold me on him? He had hints of insecurity. In politics, you realize that every politician just about oozes ego. You can smell it across the room. But here was a guy who didn't think the world revolved around him as he plotted the most efficient path to the White House."
Self-critical conservative Andrew Sullivan says Lieberman got what he deserved because he "appeared more interested in becoming Rumsfeld's successor than in getting re-elected in blue-state Connecticut. And it's worth recalling: many Republicans have been more critical of the Bush administration's war decisions than Lieberman. … I'm not crying any tears. Do you know anyone who is?"
Progressive Ezra Klein at Tomorrow's Media Conspiracy Today minds the returns gap: "If this gets spun in the next few days as a microscopic margin so infinitesimal as to be mere statistical error, try and keep in mind the towering mandate the media agreed Bush had after his three -- not four -- percent win over Kerry. Lamont beat that spread by a point. I'd love, in fact, to see if Lieberman made any comments about the president's mandate in the days directly following the 2004 election. If he bought into the hype then..."
John at lefty AMERICABlog rolls up his sleeves for a showdown with the newly minted independent: "Fine, Lieberman wants a fight with Democrats, he's got one."Though fellow liberal Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly's Political Animal blog politely reminds readers that Cynthia McKinney's simultaneous defeat in Georgia proves the Democratic Party is not casting itself over a "wild-eyed lefty peacenik cliff." Nor is he sweating Lieberman's chances for a November comeback: "The party apparatus is going to fall in line strongly behind Lamont (Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer lost no time in announcing their support this morning) and this will persuade some of Lieberman's loyalist Dem supporters to switch sides. In addition, Lieberman himself is likely to become ever more shrill as time goes by, alienating some of his less dedicated followers."
But conservative John Podhoretz at the National Review's The Corner is not so sure: "Independents constitute a huge portion of the Connecticut electorate. Ned Lamont has shown he can win 146,000 votes. Getting to 800,000, which is what Lieberman scored in his last election, is a different story. Meanwhile, Lieberman can count on getting 136,000 or so, which is what he received last night. No doubt Lamont will get a big polling boost from his victory, but he isn't the frontrunner yet by any means."
At the blog of the NDN, a progressive foundation, explains how Lamont's win should be seen as pragmatic rather than ideological: "The conservatives rise to power, and their utter failure to govern responsibly or effectively, requires a new progressive politics of confrontation, not accommodation."
However, Ron, in the comments section of right-of-center respublica, believes an unmoored Lieberman will be a good thing: "[H]e can speak out on issues and other democrats will be less likely to criticize him. a good sign for the country, if more candidates ran as independents and were not obligated to the party bosses. prediction! look for mccain/lieberman ticket in 08."
Responding to the hiccup that Lieberman's Web site went black on Monday (supporters have blamed the pro-Lamont camp for coaxial mischief), Rotophonic has five theories as to the cause and concludes the most likely was a traffic explosion.
And Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice has an impressive catalog of blogger reactions.
Paris in winter: Celebrity heiress Paris Hilton has announced to British GQ that she's giving up sex for a year (she's been with only two guys, wouldn't you know it.) Oh, and she feels Diana's paparazzi pain, doesn't know what Tony Blair looks like, and says Austria's worth loving for a cool $1 million.
New online gossip rag Gabloid goes right past the famous-for-being-famous sediment and dips into core character: "Paris likes to claim that her public persona is nothing like her behind-the-scenes persona, in which her voice is deeper and her mind far less scattered. Fingers crossed we'll get to see that behind-the-scenes persona a little more once the plastic surgery starts taking its toll."
Braincandy site Mental Floss wonders if maybe now that Paris is chaste, she won't get bright, too. Listing famous figures who gave up sex in pursuit of genius, the anonymous blogger adds: "So, just how smart is Paris going to get if she stays celibate? I'm predicting if she can keep with it, she'll be making great strides in advanced calculus and economic theory within the year."
Read more about Paris' vow of celibacy.