The Meaning of Connecticut

Over at Slate, David Greenberg has an interesting column on Lamont’s victory and on the questionable comparisons between Lamont and McGovern. See this for one of those comparisons. Whatever side your on, it’s worth reading for Greenberg’s reminder that it was not opposition to the war that killed McGovern’s candidacy; it was the sense that his approach to withdrawal was bad combined with a rhetoric that seemed to blame America for the situation it was in.

What I think many people are forgetting when analyzing Lamont’s victory is the year. This is 2006; it is not 2008. The people are not being asked to replace Bush; they are being asked to pick the representatives and senators who will either check or assist a president who has never admitted that the war has gone badly. I think the Democrats are in a great position to say to the public, “Do you want a critical Congress or a complacent one?” and get an answer that they want to hear. In short, even a liberal Democratic candidate has a good chance if he or she does not act crazy,

In 2008, assuming the nation’s situation is either no better or worse, a new question will be added to the one above. That question will be, “Who will set the new course?” In the context the concerns of moderates about the popular perception of liberal foreign policies are going to have much more credence. That does not mean that a pretty liberal candidate has no chance, but he or she will have to project a strong sense of strength and direction and American virtue to help overcome the weight of limp liberal (or crazy liberal) stereotypes.