They’ll get used to this.

Their chief asset — crazy rage — is also their chief liability. It’s great for fundraising and recruiting volunteers, not so great for winning elections. I think what you’ll see in the next few years, especially if Lamont wins the primary (which looks likely) is mainstream leftists like Mark Warner wooing them early on and then inching away as the campaign heats up. You don’t want to loiter outside a bomb factory; sooner or later, one’s bound to go off.

Which is why they’ll always be outsiders.

kos2.jpg

Now here’s a question I need someone to answer for me. The “LieberYouth” is a term used by Lieberman’s supporters to describe themselves, right? I know the nutroots, bad as it is, wouldn’t compare a Jewish politician’s volunteers to Nazis unless those volunteers had adopted the term first.

I can’t find any reference to it online other than on nutroots blogs, though.

I’m going to e-mail the Lieberman campaign and ask them. Stay tuned.

In the meantime, Hamsher wants to know why the right-wing blogosphere is backing a guy who’s ostensibly on the other side:

First David Horowitz, then the College Republicans and now the rightwing blogosphere are all championing a particular Democrat in a Democratic primary. Perhaps they have come to admire what seem to be ever increasing Rovian tactics, such as that flyer accusing Lamont of being a racist (which inspired the satirical graphic in the first place.) Whatever it is, it certainly should give Connecticut voters pause as they consider whether they are really voting for a Democrat in the Democratic primary on August 8th.

Point one: that’s quite a subdued bit of writing for someone who helped popularize the terms “Rape Gurney Joe” and “sandpaper snatch.” Funny how uncombative the fightin’ nutroots becomes when they know the camera’s on them. Point two: does she truly not understand how disgusting we find her “movement,” both in its policies and its tactics? They don’t hate Lieberman because he’s a Republican; they hate him because he’s not a socialist. Forced to choose between a Democrat and a socialist, the right will vote for the Democrat every time, especially if the other guy’s being backed full force by people treating the race as a bellwether. So yeah, it should give voters pause why the right is backing Lieberman. I hope we put him over the top in the general election, too. A leftist’s going to the Senate from Connecticut either way; why not make it the one who hasn’t been bought and sold by the adversary culture?

I leave you with the Times’s latest hagiography of Lamont, replete with a photo of none other than Joe Lieberman gazing adoringly at him as he waves to the crowd, and the following tidbit from WaPo. Nice of Arianna to take time out from castigating Hollywood for its silence on Mel Gibson’s racism to absolve sweet Jane, don’t you think?

Arianna Huffington, the founder of HuffingtonPost.com, said that no one from the Web site has asked for the photo to be removed. “We did not ask her, nor would we have asked her,” she said. “It was a satirical point she made in the picture, and there was nothing in the text that was racist, and there is nothing about Jane that is racist.”

Update: Here’s the Mentos ad which certainly doesn’t feature any bloggers, which Ned Lamont wouldn’t know about even if it did.

Update: Goldstein is back from hiatus.

Update: Blogging at Hugh Hewitt’s site, my pal Dean Barnett offers a new word to the lexicon:

[L]et’s say the bomb that went off yesterday blows up the Lamont campaign and denies the Nedster the victory that was so clearly within his reach. Then the language will have a new word – “hamshered”. “Hamshered” will be defined as a politician being wounded because of his close ties to a kooky blogger.

Used in a sentence: “There’s a chance that Mark Warner will be hamshered because of his relationship with a prominent blogger whose hobbies include astrology and manipulating the price of worthless stocks.”

I’d be shocked if there was any fallout from this. But we can hope.