This is not about left or right. Ned Lamont is just plain in contact with the American people; he understands what they want and need in government.

As long as he keeps that focus, he will do fine as a senator. Remember, Connecticut just traded a senior for a junior, it will be years before Ned can do anything really useful there in that grand old institution we know as the US Senate.

All Americans are a mix of issues both left, and right. Ned Lamont just listens to them, and not the special interest group noise machines that want to speak for them.  And wins.

The article indicates that being a liberal, means being anti-war. Well, friend. Didn't Liberals win the war in World War II.   You bet they did!  We threw everything we had at hitler, and thank heaven we did!

Jon, if the GOP is hungry to tell people what to think about this - please take the time to have a good laugh on their behalf. They have been obsessed, lately, under Karl Rove - with marketing tricks that don't work. Americans understand that Ned Lamont is Mr. Smith going to washington. They get it. Pick your fight, and when you do - fight to win, Jonathan. You will do just fine.

Republicans will probably try to spin the Heathrow plot against us.  But doesn't it really just illustrate the dangers of taking your eyes off bringing Al Qaeda to justice in favor of a pointless adventure in Iraq?  Who is really weak on defense?

I'm with HeyAnita above.  This "left/right" narrative is nonsense, and is precisely the way the GOP would like to frame it.  Ned Lamont is a very wealthy white entrepeneur from Greenwich CT whose grandpa was hanging with J.P. Morgan.  Let's not allow the Republican spinmeisters to peg him as "left" of anything.

It is a huge mistake to associate liberalism with being 'anti-war' in a knee jerk way.  Some wars are disastrous (see Iraq) and some like WWII must be fought.

Lakoff was right; we've got to get better and smarter about this framing stuff.

Jeez... don't say left.  Left feeds into the notion Lamont is not in the main.

Plus, I'd prefer "frontal assault" as at it better describes the approach.

Anyhow, I was watching TV and Joe Lieberman is still a douchebag.  So, the world can continue to turn and hell has not froxen over.

There's no more wrong with the term "left" than there is with the term "right". These days, "mainstream" and "center" are turning people off because it's come to mean anyone who goes along with Bush.

The Right doesn't give Bush a blank check any more, and the Left never has, but he can still count on self-styled Centrists to collaborate with him.

If ever there were proof of ascendency of progressivism, this is it.

I hope liberalism is on the rise. But I still see indication that too many Democrats are afraid of it. "Third way" political doctrine has permeated the Democratic consciousness through constant repetition over many years.

So far I've seen little talk of using Lamont's win as a blueprint for challenging other DCDems who have let ordinary Democrats and their country down repeatedly by supporting the NeoCon/Corporatist agenda.

I had hoped that Lamont's win would rally liberals to help Tasini take on Hillary in her primary, since her record differs little from Lieberman's. But there seems little interest in more than patting ourselves on the back for taking JoMo down a peg.

I think its time to discuss other races- its been two days now, and while this race is important- so are the races in PA, OH, MT, MO, RI etc. There is a poll out about OH by the way with us up by 8 pts. This whole pontificating on what the Lieberman lose, Lamont win means for the party will not be decided now. It's one victory. It will be decided in a winning of the House and Senate. One victory is needed- actually there have been others with MT, but its not enough to say what anything means yet. The only way to change meaning is to take over. And, that happens through the slow swing rather than quick pick of the pendulum in politics- as you said- it took what 40 years for the rightward shift to happen. I have no idea if the country is moving indeed leftward- I think the best that can be said is that the country is ready for change. It sees where we are now as not good. I would also agree with the other posters that the left-right dictomy that you create is false. Being against all wars is not a per se requirement of being on the left no more than being per se for all regulations a requirement. Personally, if progressivism's goal is to replace one extreme idealogical approach with another- then we would have learned nothing. Part of the Bushites many flaws was a hubris that believed any simple theory could describe a complicated world. For example, as someone esle points out war should be a last resort, but when it comes to something like WWII it has to be an option that even progressives say is needed in order to stop a threat ourselves and to prevent genocide (ie, Bosnia). The simplisitic war is always the wrong choice is a bad way to define the left when clearly that is not true. It is true my first instinct would not be war but diplomacy, but sometimes one has no choice.

In short- what I think this win was about was returning a real balancing process back to the conversation. This balancing has been lost. It's only going to return with a stronger left to compete with an already strong right. I don't think a stronger left means what you say it means.

Try Illinois in 1992, only 14 years ago.  

Democratic Senator Alan J. Dixon of Illinois was defeated in a Democratic Primary by Carol Mosely Braun -- largely due to the fact that Dixon had cast the deciding vote to confirm Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.  That act generated 2 primary challengers for Dixon -- Braun and Al Hofeld -- both of whom ran to Dixon's left.

Ned Lamont is not on the left. He is a millionaire with a conscience.

Joe was over there with Atilla the Hun and so Ned was supported by the "left" who wanted the Hun gone.

Lamont is no Paul Wellstone and not even a Russ Fiengold.

He seems to be a decent millionaire who bears the guilt of wealth and wants to help those who don't have the big bucks get a better shake.  Not a bad thing.

THERE IS NO REAL LEFT IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.  Get real.

I think it's safe to say we know what the Republican angle is going to be into the upcoming elections. They are already saying that the radical left wing has hijacked the Democratic Party. I've been checking the "red" blogs as well as some news sources and this is the angle that going to be taken.

Please don't forget about the other Democratic Senate Primary - this one in Hawaii between progressive Akaka challenged by DLC/Leiberman-endorsing/pro-Bush's-war Ed Case.

Back Akaka.

Whereas once the more progressive Senators had to worry about being outflanked to the right -- a sign of the rightward drift of American politics over the past several years -- now overly hawkish and regressive Democrats will have to worry about losing the party base. If ever there were proof of ascendency of progressivism, this is it.

I disagree. Whether a person is 'hawkish' or not is a different topic than 'our leaders are lying to us' or 'we demand accountability from our leadership.'

As a lifelong bleeding heart progressive liberal, I fully support a strong and capable military, and foreign policy tailored to meet the current challenges of terrorism and fourth-generation warfare. What gets the Lieberman's of the world (and any incumbent, really) kicked out of office is, are they too cozy with the thieving weasels in power? Are they properly serving their constituency?

For Holy Joe, the answers were 'obviously' and 'obviously not.' Iraq was a mistake, now it's time for those who blindly support it (and it's instigators) to pay up. To be "anti-Iraq war" does not necessarily translate to "anti-All war."

Lloyd Bentsen is missed - I expect he would advocate support for military strength, but would lacerate the weasels for their collective larceny and ignorance. Much Like Rep. Murtha does today.

-GFO

Jonathan - Great post and an interesting history.  I think it is fascinating that primaries, something I support, are part of what pulled the party to the right.  Another example is Jimmy Carter, who was one of the more conservative Dems running for President in 1976 against liberal like Mo Udall and Birch Bayh.

now overly hawkish and regressive Democrats will have to worry about losing the party base. If ever there were proof of ascendency of progressivism, this is it.

If the intention is to fool the Dem establishment into believing that the netroots have the political nous and attention span of five year olds, then - Singer has it exactly right...

I want to see Democrats get Lieberman to explain why he considers Maxine Waters more of an extremist than his supporters like Coulter and Hannity. Democrats cannot let him get away with this while they continue to shower him with faint praise. Once he starts demonizing democrats despite the help he got from the party the last few months, he needs to be made accountable regardless of his so called independent status.