The funny thing is that for Lieberman supporters it is all about the war. There are a lot of people out there who either supported the war or who have friends who supported the war. They imagine themselves to be smart, well-intentioned, decent people. They don't like coming to terms with the fact that they fucked up big time, and they don't like the idea that anyone should suffer any consequences for that. No harm, no foul, they want to say. We meant well. Bygones.
For us Lamont supporters it isn't just about the war, of course. I highly recommend listening to To the Point when the archive version is up. Matt Stoller did a great job, and Chuck Todd did an excellent job explaining what The Trouble With Lieberman is.
Oddly the wanker Chait seems to think this is about obtaining power - that supporting Lamont is some sort of power grab by the netroots, and he worries we'll take over the Democratic party.
It's a weird view of things. I really don't have much interest in being a kingmaker, and I'm too lazy to run much of anything. I do what I do because I actually give a shit about stuff, not to glorify myself (though just in case George S. is reading, I'm happy to be enriched.) Giving a shit seems to be alien to too many beltway pundits.
