Everyone is… okay, some people who are interested in politics are… all atwitter at the loss of Joe Lieberman. (I think the SF Chronicle had it as the lead story.) The incumbent senator was defeated in the Democratic primary by Ned Lamont, a political newcomer and anti-war candidate backed by the far-left blogosphere (among other supporters). What does this mean for Democrats? What does this mean for elections in the future? Jacob Weisburg seems to think that it spells doom for the Democratic party, that Connecticut’s embrace of Lamont shows that Democrats are ready to repeat their anti-war obsession with Vietnam, alienate mainstream voters, and ultimately lose elections. Many Republicans are busy spinning it the same way. While I agree that many Democrats do not understand the War on Terror (or, even better, the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism), that’s not what I want to discuss, and I will leave it for a later date.

You know I think? I don’t think Lieberman’s loss is a bellwether of any sort. Weisburg admits Lieberman can be “cloying and sanctimonious.” That’s a perfectly good reason to not vote for him. Besides, here’s an election you probably did not hear about. Another incumbent was knocked off, but it was a Republican candidate. Yet, you don’t see everyone pushing the narrative of the Republicans being forced to the right by crazies.

I feel alone, though. Do you agree? Apparently, Kevin Drum believes the landslide defeat of Cynthia McKinney, who thinks George Bush was behind 9/11, shows that Democrats, in general, haven’t gone over the edge.

I don’t live in Connecticut, so I have no idea why they didn’t vote for Lieberman. Nonetheless, my best guess is that this probably means not that much for the general midterm elections and the next elections in 2008. The liberal blogosphere is not the wave of the future, but just another interest group/constituency that you gotta listen to.