Dean Barnett Dies

If you're a conservative blogger or a listener to the Hugh Hewitt Show, you probably know the name of Dean Barnett, formerly of Soxblog, later co-blogger at HughHewitt.com and fill-in host on the Hugh Hewitt Show. Lately he'd been blogging for the Weekly Standard.

Dean had been fighting a lifelong battle with cystic fibrosis, and sadly today, he lost that battle. Hugh offers his eulogy:

My friend and colleague Dean Barnett died today, and the world is a much poorer place for it. As anyone who listened to him on my radio show or read his work at Soxblog, here or at the Weekly Standard knows, and as everyone who had the great, great pleasure of knowing Dean will attest, Dean's combination of sparking intelligence and enormous good humor made him one fo the most memorable of friends. What too few people know, though, is what a kind, extraordinarily giving and compassionate man he was. Dean loved people and he loved this country and threw himself into every cause.

I last spoke at length with Dean on the night of the first presidential debate. I was driving from Ohio to Kentucky, and Dean and I spent close to an hour chatting about the presidential race and the country. Like me, Dean was a big supporter of Mitt Romney. Like me he had thrown himself into the effort to persuade folks that John McCain should win the general. But when he encountered those who disagreed with him, he never grew angry or bitter, only more determined to make good arguments about the good, which he did so well and with such obvious passion.

I was introduced to Dean through our mutual friend Jonathan Last, and not long thereafter suggested he join me as a blogger here, and then as a guest host on the radio program. Simply put, he had an accent for print, but his incredible intelligence turned him into one of the most sought after guest hosts for those of us unafraid of better minds than our own filling in for us while we are obliged to be away. But for his great love of golf Dean might have taken on full time radio work, but the combination of the opportunities allowed by new media and the regular guest hosting scratched his itch to participate in the great debates of our time. Had he had more time, he would have been one of the great influences on the GOP for as long as he lived, probably because he valued and used every minute he had.Dean told me early in our friendship that his disease had forced him to deal with the possibility of living too short a life and that he thus threw himself into everything. This ferocious desire to live well and fully is what I will always tell people marked Dean Barnett. That and the love he had for his wonderful wife Kirstan and his family and friends. His extraordinary story is told in his short essay, The Smart Spunky Kid with the Fatal Disease, and his example will long be an example to others battling with Cystic Fibrosis. I hope we can report some day soon the news that a cure for CF is in hand, and on that day toast Dean for all he did to raise awareness of the disease. I will also toast him whenever I hear smart, persuasive arguments on behalf of common sense conservatism and fierce attachment to the opportunities liberty bestows.

He is already deeply missed, and will be always by my audience, by Duane, and of course by me.

I exchanged emails a time or two with Dean and always found him to be a gracious host and mentor to other bloggers. He'll be missed. He was only 41 - young by most standards, but unfortunately old by cystic fibrosis standards. He lived the time he was given well, and my heartfelt condolences go out to his family.

Dean Barnett Update

I posted an item earlier this week about fellow blogger Dean Barnett, who at age 41, is in a fight for his life with cystic fibrosis. It's a disease that often claims it's victims at an early age, usually younger than Dean.

There's an update from Hot Air, and things are still pretty touchy:

Dean still in fragile state on a breathing machine in ICU. He is very willful and is fighting hard – the doctors are so impressed with him. His downward spiral stopped on Thursday, and we hope that with the continued prayers he will turn a corner this week end. He is in and out of consciousness.

Keep Dean and his family in your prayers.

UPDATE: Oct. 27 - Sadly, Dean has passed away.

Prayers for a Blogger Buddy

Thank, Laura, for the news:

Dean Barnett, a regular sub on Hugh Hewitt's radio show and a blogger at the Weekly Standard, is hospitalized in very serious condition.

Barnett, who is 41, suffers from cystic fibrosis.

Dean could use everyone's prayers today.

Dean used to write Soxblog, and then joined HughHewitt.com for awhile as well as filling in as a host on Hugh's show. I've exchanged emails with him a couple of times and he's a very nice guy.

UPDATE: Oct. 27 - Sadly, Dean has passed away.

Al Gore's Astonishingly Dishonest Speech

Al Gore is still fighting the 2000 election:

DENVER, Colorado -- Former Vice President Al Gore started his speech tonight by talking about how the world would be different had he ended up in the White House in 2000.

"Eight years ago, some said there was not much difference between the nominees of the two major parties and it didn’t really matter who became president," Gore said. "Our nation was enjoying peace and prosperity. Some assumed we would continue both, no matter the outcome. But here we all are in 2008, and I doubt anyone would argue now that election didn’t matter.

"Take it from me," Gore continued," if it had ended differently, we would not be bogged down in Iraq, we would have pursued bin Laden until we captured him. We would not be facing a self-inflicted economic crisis; we would be fighting for middle-income families. We would not be showing contempt for the Constitution; we’d be protecting the rights of every American, regardless of race, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation. And we would not be denying the climate crisis; we’d be solving it."

And how about this whopper:

Gore also compared Obama to Abraham Lincoln, saying that "before he entered the White House, Abraham Lincoln’s experience in elective office consisted of eight years in his state legislature in Springfield, Ill., and one term in Congress –- during which he showed the courage and wisdom to oppose the invasion of another country, that was popular when it started, but later condemned by history.

"The experience Lincoln’s supporters valued most in that race was his powerful ability to inspire hope in the future at a time of impasse," Gore said. "He was known chiefly as a clear thinker and a great orator, with a passion for justice and a determination to heal the deep divisions of our land. He insisted on reaching past partisan and regional divides, to exalt our common humanity. In 2008, once again, we find ourselves at the end of an era with a mandate from history to launch another new beginning. And once again, we have a candidate whose experience perfectly matches an extraordinary moment of transition."

The only problem is had Barack Obama been in Abraham Lincoln's shoes this country would be two countries. He would have fufilled John Edwards' notion of "two Americas". The hyperbole at this convention is striking. Democrats think you'll believe anything.

UPDATE: Dean Barnett adds this:

If were a man of means and could fund a 527, I would devote extraordinary resources to ensure that Al Gore could drone on endlessly in highly public settings about the climate crisis while supporting Democrats and positing that Barack Obama is the reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln.

MoveOn's Most Disgusting Ad

Just in case you think there's a possibility of moderation on the antiwar left, take a look at the ad being run today by MoveOn.org:

How clever. They made it rhyme.
Dean Barnett add this in his commentary today:

Iraq War Veteran Pete Hegseth, the executive director of Vets for Freedom and a good friend of the Hugh Hewitt Show, has an important little piece posted on the Weekly Standard this morning. Hegseth notes that Moveon.Org has taken the rhetoric that Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan have merely danced around and made it explicit. In an advertisement in yesterday's New York Times, Moveon.Org brayed in its headline, “General Petraeus or General Betray us? Cooking the books for the White House.”

As Hegseth points out, Moveon.Org works closely with the Democratic leadership. He takes note of this quote from Friday’s Politico uttered by a courageously anonymous Democratic Senator: “No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV. The expectation is the outside groups will do this for us.”

Byron York also comments on MoveOn and their embarrassing ads:

With its full-page “General Betray Us?” ad in the New York Times, MoveOn.org has once again put itself at the forefront of the antiwar movement. And if past patterns are any guide, a number of Democrats are embarrassed, and even angered, by MoveOn’s actions but are afraid to reveal the true extent of their feelings. MoveOn simply has too much fundraising clout — and a fear-inducing inclination to attack Democrats who stray from the MoveOn line — for many in the party to take it on.

Democratic leaders might be further embarrassed by a new email, headlined “Your dog can help end the war,” sent out by the leadership of MoveOn’s political team. The email asks members to attend a protest on Capitol Hill this morning preceding the testimony of Gen. David Petraeus. “Congress was fooled before by the White House’s ‘dog and pony show,” the appeal says. “We need to make sure they’re not fooled again. That’s why we’re hosting our own ‘Dog and Pony Show’ outside the Capitol Building right before Petraeus takes the stage for his testimony. We want to show Congress and the cameras that the American people aren’t buying the White House spin.”

“We’re bringing real ponies, signs and a big banner that reads, ‘CONGRESS: Don’t be fooled, AGAIN!’ Can you make it — and bring your dog if you have one?”

It seems unlikely that many top Democrats will be bringing pets. But the thing that should trouble party leaders is not that MoveOn is capable of silly stunts. It’s not even that MoveOn is capable of making slanderous comments about U.S. military officials. And it’s not that MoveOn is against the war in Iraq, which polls show many Americans believe was a mistake. Rather, MoveOn’s latest campaign is a continuation of a drive to oppose not just the action in Iraq, but the war on terror in general, and, in a larger sense, America’s use of military power in its own defense.

What a pathetic bunch.

UPDATE: Sen. Joe Lieberman, the only one in the Dem caucus with any sense when it comes to Iraq, denounces the MoveOn ad and puts the Dem leadership on the spot:

Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent who caucuses with Democrats, denounced a MoveOn.org ad in Monday's New York Times questioning the credibility of Army Gen. David Petraeus, calling on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to distance themselves from the attack as well.

“The personal attack on Gen. David Petraeus launched today by MoveOn.org is an outrageous and despicable act of slander that every member of the Congress -- Democrat and Republican -- has a solemn responsibility to condemn," Lieberman said in the statement.

“As a member of the Senate Democratic caucus, I therefore call on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to denounce Moveon.org in no uncertain terms for its vile attack on Gen. Petraeus," Lieberman said. "General Petraeus deserves no less."

Good for Joe.

A Cautionary Tale for Fredheads

I've been excited about a Fred Thompson campaign, but have become less so in recent weeks as the non-campaign to date seems to suffer setback after setback. Today they lost their communications director, and latest in a long string of high level defections or firings from the operation.

Dean Barnett at HughHewitt.com, admittedly a Mitt Man, says what a lot of us are beginning to think:

Here’s my big concern about Fred: I’m very worried about entrusting the most complex CEO job in the world to someone or anyone who’s never run anything bigger than a six person law firm. Thompson has no executive experience, and it shows in the way he’s run his campaign. The indecision, the lack of direction, the organizational incoherence – these are hallmarks of a rookie CEO. Anyone who’s ever run anything knows what I’m talking about. You get better at it as you go along, and there’s a pretty steep learning curve.

Unfortunately for Fred, POTUS isn’t an entry level CEO position. Nor for that matter is running a campaign for the presidency. If you look at the campaigns that have run relatively smoothly to date, all of the principals have executive experience. Mitt Romney was a governor and ran numerous large companies. Rudy Giuliani ran the world’s most complex city. Mike Huckabee ran Arkansas. Hillary Clinton has been running the Clinton family’s vast criminal enterprise for decades. (I kid, I kid.)

The poorly run campaigns, on the other hand, all have a principal who has never run anything more complex than a Fantasy Football League. Barack Obama’s campaign has more money than Croesus, yet constantly struggles. John Edwards can’t get his personal life to square with his political message, nor can he get his yappy partner to stick a sock in it. And Fred…

Today yet another wheel came flying off the Thompson campaign bus as communications director Linda Rozett befell the axe. I’m pretty sure this is something like the 83rd high profile departure from the Thompson campaign in the last two months. When the Thompson “campaign” announced that its pioneers would raise $4 million overnight and then never actually reported on their progress, I told you that it was a sign that the people at Thompson HQ had no idea what they were doing. It took Mitt Romney 18 months to lay the groundwork to raise $6 million “overnight”. It was arrogant, lazy and stupid for the Thompson people to not only think they could re-write the rules, but publicly crow that they would do so.

There's more here. If Fred doesn't absolutely hit a home run in his first week of the "real" campaign (which should begin next week), he'd done. The anticipation and excitement will vanish in an instant and my "I Blog for Fred" coffee mug will be a sad reminder of what could have been. The bar has been set incredibly high, and without a sterling performance, the nomination will be Rudy's to lose (sorry Dean, but Mitt doesn't have a chance - he'll never overcome the Mormon thing).

As I've said before, I can live with Rudy as our nominee. While I would prefer a more socially conservative candidate, I'm a big picture guy. I want someone who can win in November, and if Fred can't get it together well enough to make that run, then Rudy will have to do and he could be a formidable candidate against Hillary Clinton.

JetBlue Joins the Moonbats

If you got on an airliner and overheard someone describing President Bush as Hitler, another rejoicing over the recurrence of Tony Snow's cancer, and yet another wishing Dick Cheney's latest health scare had resulted in his death, would you feel comfortable flying on that plane? Not me, jack, I'm getting out of there.

And yet, that is the very crowd that JetBlue has elected to align themselves with by becoming a sponsor of the YearlyKos convention which is made up of the moonbat left that populates the DailyKos website. Dean Barnett from HughHewitt.com is not impressed:

The Daily Kos is not only political, but a political lightning rod. It doesn’t get more political than the Daily Kos. The fact that someone at JetBlue thought it was a good idea to hitch their wagon to Markos’ star is truly stupefying…The amazing thing about the JetBlue/YearlyKos thing is that people doing the advertising for JetBlue could be so ignorant regarding either the blogosphere or the nature of business. As far as business is concerned, you don’t attach yourself to an entity that not just alienates but also offends and angers half of your potential customer base. Of course, there is the chance that the people at JetBlue had no understanding of who or what the Daily Kos is before Bill O’Reilly gave them a crash course last night. If that’s the case, JetBlue’s new management team is off to a truly pathetic start.

The Kos Kids were also responsible for scaring Democrats away from any debate hosted by Fox News. While I agree that JetBlue has the right to affiliate with anyone or any organization they wish, I also have the right to avoid their airline because they might be carrying some of these moonbats on my flight.

Michelle Malkin has some interesting photoshops of JetBlue's new affiliates here. JetBlue has had their share of customer service problems lately. I'm not sure this sponsorship is going to help.

GOP Debate Wrap-up

I didn't watch the GOP debate but Dean Barnett did and he has a pretty good wrap-up on the event. Check it out here.

And Mark Daniels has a different take here.

The Stories of Virginia Tech

The New York Post has the story of one student who was wounded in the shootings yesterday but probably saved others with his actions in barricading the classroom door. You can read the entire chilling account here. The two paragraphs in the story which will be the subject of endless debate are these:

The German class started on schedule, at 9:05 a.m. What Derek did not know was that the deranged man had been running loose at Virginia Tech for two solid hours.

He fired his first shots, in a dormitory, at 7:15. Nobody made a big deal about it, and classes went on as usual. Every student on campus had a target on his back.

The calls are already being made to fire Tech's top brass:

Parents of a Virginia Tech student expressed outrage Monday at what they call an inadequate response by college brass to the worst mass-murder shooting in American history.

John and Jennifer Shourds of Lovettsville, Va. demanded the immediate firings of University President Charles Steger and Virginia Tech Campus Police Chief W.R. Flinchum who he said "screwed up" the handling of separate shooting incidents that left 33 students dead, including the shooter.

“My God, if someone shoots somebody there should be an immediate lockdown of the campus,” said John Shourds. “They totally blew it. The president blew it, campus police blew it.”

This is an understandable reaction, but one that is based on emotion and not a solid understanding of the facts, mainly because nobody at this early stage has a solid understanding of the facts. This shooting situation is unlike any other mass shooting that I can remember. Having incidents two hours apart likely could not have been expected or anticipated, even by law enforcement professionals. Dean Barnett has similar thoughts to mine:

A lot of people questioned the response of the Virginia Tech police department. The first two murders occurred at 7:15 in the morning. The next thirty murders happened at 9:40. A lot of people wanted to know why, with a murderer on the loose, Virginia Tech didn’t put the campus into lockdown.

That position didn’t make much sense to me. Virginia Tech has a student population of almost 30,000. Adding in the staff members, faculty, etc., the Virginia Tech community numbers over 35,000 people. If there was an unsolved murder in a city of 35,000, would the city go into lockdown mode until the crime was solved? Would the city authorities even consider going into lockdown mode? Given the facts that the authorities yesterday understood the motive for the initial killings and there was absolutely no reason to believe a mass murderer was on the loose, shutting down the campus would have been a bizarre reaction to the initial tragedies.

However, people will demand scalps and since the shooter is dead they'll have to find others to blame.

The Epitaph of Western Civilization

John Derbyshire, a Brit living in the U.S., has been highly critical of the behavior of Her Majesty's sailors and marines during their captivity in Iran. He's not much happier with their press conference today:

I have been reading the recorded remarks of some of the British sailors and marines. The more I read, the worse it looks—for Britain, I mean, now plainly in its last days as a nation.

"Some of the Iranian sailors were becoming deliberately aggressive and unstable."

Imagine—military personnel being aggressive! None of that in H.M. armed forces!

"The questions were aggressive and the handling rough, but it was no worse than that."

I guess that is what they were so effusively thanking Ahmadinejad for.

"We all, at one time or another, made a conscious decision to make a controlled release of non-operational information."

Some of us further decided to make appearances on Iranian TV, insulting our country and praising the Tehran dictatorship.

"She [the female sailor] is coming to terms with what has happened to her - and not only Faye and her family, but all of us are finding the press focus very uncomfortable, difficult - and we specifically request you give all of us the space and privacy we need, when we return to our homes."

The U.K. armed forces, you see, are not a military establishment at all—more like a 12-step program for self-discovery.

"The pressures that we were subjected to were quite diverse in the way it [sic] was carried out. It was mainly psychological and emotional."

They yelled at us and lied to us. Can you blame us for groveling to them?

"On arrival at London Heathrow, we were given the news that four UK servicemen and a civilian interpreter had been killed in Iraq. We would like to pass on our thoughts and condolences to the families of those who died serving their country."

Oh, I am sure those families appreciate your concern—given that their loved ones were killed by an IED very likely assembled in Iran and shipped across the border by Iranian soldiers, while you were yukking it up with Li'l Sqinty and his pals.

I cannot imagine how patriotic Englishmen feel about this. (Though you can get some idea from the comments posted to the web sites of UK newspapers like the Telegraph.) I am no longer a British citizen, having taken up UScitizenship 5 years ago. Even so, I am burning with shame at this disgrace to British honor. And from the Royal Navy—the Senior Service—of all places!

I shall watch with interest what happens to Britain over the next few years. I shan't care, though. However bad it is, they have it coming. Goodbye, Britain.

The one comment that Derb didn't mention, but I think is the most telling, is the comment by the on-scene commander that "fighting back was not an option". As Dean Barnett suggests, that may well be the epitaph of Western Civilization.

UPDATE: Read this Daily Mail editorial. This guy gets it.

The Late Arrivers

With the '08 race beginning so early, I think there's a good chance that the voters will get sick and tired of the current crop of candidates and will starting looking for something better come the fall. Three names are being bandied about: Newt Gingrich, Al Gore and Fred Thompson.

Dean Barnett discusses Gingrich and Gore here.

Captain Ed gives us some background on Fred Thomson here.

In my view, Gingrich and Gore don't have a prayer. Too much baggage on both of them. Thompson could be a very attractive candidate. He's been pretty consistently conservative, has a long history in politics and law, and is a pretty fair actor. His big stature, big voice and actor's ability to communicate make him a commanding presence - something that many voters might find attractive. He's not been considered as brutally partisan as many of the other candidates, and that could be important as the voters tire of the political wars.

A Great Man, a Bad Senator, and an Awful Republican

Thus ends Dean Barnett's ABC News column regarding John McCain's attack on former SecDef Don Rumsfeld at a recent campaign event. Dean thinks the attack was out-of-bounds:

John McCain is hitting the campaign trail, and he's doing so with a predictable thud.

On Monday, the ever-eager-to-settle-a-score senator appeared in South Carolina and pronounced Donald Rumsfeld one of the worst defense secretaries ever. He went on to elaborate, "We are paying a very heavy price for the mismanagement — that's the kindest word I can give you — of Donald Rumsfeld, of this war. The price is very, very heavy, and I regret it enormously."

Substantively, McCain's critique might not be entirely without merit. Still, his commentary bears the typical McCain signatures of being childishly hostile and simplistic.

In truth, Rumsfeld's management of the war in Iraq was magnificent. In three short weeks, Rumsfeld's Pentagon toppled a hostile regime that had menaced world peace for decades.

If Rumsfeld stumbled, it wasn't in managing the war but in managing the peace. After the three weeks that led to Saddam's fall, the American government collectively made several errors that have left a lasting mark on both our country and Iraq.

Barnett puts a lot of the blame for the post-war problems on the decisions made by Secretary of State Colin Powell and his State Department staff which were charged with transforming the new Iraqi state into a peaceful democracy. I'm sure there's blame enough to go around, but Dean has a point.

I believe that McCain's real beef with Rumsfeld is that he refused to go along with McCain's constant demands for more troops. McCain doesn't like to be ignored. In retrospect McCain may have been right, and if the surge works, he may be proven correct. However, if the generals on the ground were telling Rummy they didn't need more forces, I can't blame him for going with their recommendations over McCain's.

McCain's attacks on Rumsfeld at this point, long after Rummy is gone, is more of a cheap shot and an "I told you so" moment, rather than a constructive plan for Iraq. It seems a little childish, but certainly not out of character for McCain.

Doom and Gloom or Not So Bad?

The election predictions are starting to come in from various sources and you might want check them out for yourself.:

Weekly Standard (lots of doom and gloom for the GOP)
Jim Geraghty of NRO (three scenerios)
Dean Barnett is feeling pretty chipper

Bottom line - they're all over the place. The Official HolyCoast Predictions will be posted bright and early Monday morning (actually, they'll probably go up sometime Sunday night). I'm high on cold medication right now so there's no telling what I'll come up with.

Strange Definition of "Harm"

Dean Barnett (posting at HughHewitt.com) points out an interesting item from the NY Times coverage of the released Fox News reporters:

Here’s the New York Times’ lede in its coverage of the Steve Centanni story:

JERUSALEM, Aug. 27 — Two journalists kidnapped in Gaza were released unharmed on Sunday after being forced at gunpoint to say on a videotape that they had converted to Islam. (Emphasis added.)

Interesting locution there, “released unharmed,” no? This comes from the newspaper that believes that a Christmas crèche or a prayer uttered before a high school football game is a violation of the highest order. And yet being forced to adopt another faith at the point of a gun doesn’t rise to the level of “harm” in the Times’ judgment.

Hmmm.

Good point.

How to Have Peace in the Middle East

Dean Barnett, posting at HughHewitt.com, asks a couple of questions which provide the reasons why there is no peace in the Middle East:

1) What would happen if all the Arab nations and their terrorist proxies like Hezbollah set down their arms and gave up their ambitions to drive Israel into the sea?

There would be peace in the Middle East.


2) What would happen if Israel disbanded the IDF, junked its nuclear weapons and declared to its neighbors that she would do anything to live in peace?

Israel would be annihilated, millions of its citizens killed. The term genocide could be used to describe the ensuing holocaust, but since that term has been so hopelessly debased by American academics, a new term would have to be created like super-duper-mega genocide to really capture the nature of things.

I wrote a piece a week or so ago with a similar theme which basically says there will never be peace in the region. You can read it here.

Dean is also a little cranky about the war in Lebanon, and understandibly so:

3) You sound angry. What’s wrong?

Ehud Olmert has proven an utter failure as wartime leader. The world will be reaping the bitter harvest of his catastrophic weakness and vacillations for years.

I fear that Dean is right. Olmert's government may well fall soon after this round of violence stops. Thanks to Olmert's lack of fortitude, the violence will quickly return, this time from a newly rearmed and supplied Hezbo.

Sore-Loserman?

My favorite signs from the 2000 election debacle were the ones that took the Gore-Lieberman logos and turned them into Sore-Loserman. Seeing those signs waived around Florida was always uplifting.
A couple of conservative pundits think that Sore-Loserman is due for a return, and will be used to smack down Joe Lieberman's independent run in the general election. First Dean Barnett, writing at HughHewitt.com:

6) So you think Lamont might lose in November?

No. The Sore-Loserman thing will be too much for Joe to overcome. He’ll be way ahead in the first polls that will come out in the next ten days. By Labor Day, he’ll be losing and by Columbus Day (a really big holiday in Boston – forgive the obscure reference) he’ll drop out.

And from Byron York at National Review:

If you lose a campaign and then come around two, or four, or six years later to challenge the man who beat you, that’s one thing. If you lose a campaign and keep running as if you hadn’t lost, that’s another. From now on, every day that Lieberman campaigns, he will be reminded that he has already lost to the man he is running against. Lamont’s supporters won’t let him forget it, and Lamont himself will be happy to point it out. In his concession speech, Lieberman said, “Tomorrow is a brand new day” and promised a “new campaign to unite people of Connecticut, GOP, Democrat and independent.” But tomorrow is now today, and the race might look different to Connecticut voters.

Back in 2000, in an entirely different context, Republicans cast the Gore-Lieberman team as “Sore Loserman.” GOP anger was directed at Al Gore, who would not admit that he had lost the presidential election. At least Gore’s loss was excruciatingly, historically close. That’s not the case with Lieberman today. He lost by three and a half percentage points, with no question about the results. This time, it might be Democrats holding those “Sore Loserman” signs.

It's hard to say how that's going to play out. There are many voters in Connecticut who didn't get to express themselves in yesterday's primary because they weren't registered Dems. Last night Lamont got approximately 186,000 votes. In 2000, Lieberman won reelection with 800,000. Given that those who voted for Lieberman last night are likely to do it again in November, Lamont has to convince an awful lot of Connecticut voters that he's better than 3-term Joe, and that won't be easy.

While the Sore-Loserman gig might make some of the wackos happy, I can't believe it will really have that much effect on a state-wide campaign.

Dem Candidates Sprinting to the Left

Powerline points us to two articles which they accurately describe as companions to one another. The first is from Nina Easton who discusses how the '08 Dem hopefuls are running to the left as quickly as they can:

Former senator John Edwards got high marks from labor for a new effort to unionize hotel workers, and Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold's demand this week that President Bush be censured was music to the ears of activists on the left.

Mark Warner, former Virginia governor, recently hired one of the leftist blogosphere's biggest names to run his Internet outreach campaign, and Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana began a blog on the liberal Huffington Post, peddling his foreign policy views.

The next round of prospective Democratic presidential candidates, even those with centrist credentials, is actively courting the Democratic Party's left wing -- which speaks loudly through its blogs, enjoys rising fund-raising clout built on Howard Dean's 2004 campaign, and is imbued with a confidence that it can build on Republican disarray. The Democrats are rushing to fill a void left in the hearts and minds of many liberal activists by New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's efforts to move to the center, particularly on the Iraq war.

And who are the lefties that the Dems are trying to appeal to? Dean Barnett answers that in his review of the book "Crashing the Gates":

JEROME ARMSTRONG AND MARKOS MOULITSAS are pioneers. Armstrong founded MyDD.com, arguably the first political blog of real prominence. As for Moulitsas, he's the founder and proprietor of Daily Kos, by far the most widely read of all political blogs. Pioneers they may be, but neither Armstrong nor Moulitsas has developed a reputation as a particularly skillful prose stylist.

Yet their new book, Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots and the Rise of People-Powered Politics, is a crisp and well-crafted work. The authors sharply diagnose the Democratic party's ills in a blunt and entertaining fashion.

Less impressive is the political philosophy they espouse. Crashing the Gate is a candid (indeed, shockingly candid) look into the morally vacant motivations of the movement that Moulitsas and Armstrong represent. In spite of confessing that the Democratic party stands for very little, Armstrong and Moulitsas fight for it passionately.

[...]

BUT THE MOST DISTURBING question raised by Crashing the Gate is if progressives don't know what they're fighting for, then why are they fighting so hard?

Crashing the Gate provides an invaluable snapshot of the Democratic party and the progressive movement circa 2006. Moulitsas and Armstrong are at the vanguard of the progressive movement, and even they don't know seem to know what it stands for.

What's interesting about this book is that despite having hundreds of thousands of daily visitors to the two lefty websites, an embarrassingly few books have actually been sold. I guess the folks that slobber over the daily dose of conspiracy theories and venom won't crack open their wallets to support the cause.