Peace, love, and Ned Lamont

A Democratic friend of mine- a reasonable person, sort of like Joe Lieberman himself, whose opinions I recognize as carefully considered and well thought-out even when I disagree with them- has sent me this article explaining why Ned Lamont's victory in the Connecticut Senate primary is an utter disaster for the Democrats.

I agree. The age of Clintonesque "triangulation" is over. The Democrats- driven mad by the frustration of losing twice to George W. Bush- have done the Republican party the favor in this dark hour of once again becoming openly what it has always been at heart: the party, not of Bill Clinton, but of George McGovern.

My friend is looking for a comfortable third party. For myself, the Lamont victory merely encourages my impression that no matter how deep the hole we Republicans manage to dig for ourselves, for the foreseeable future we can count on the Democrats to dig themselves one that's deeper.

Incidentally, that same friend has made it clear for years that one thing which would lead him to leave the Democratic party entirely would be the nomination of Hillary Clinton for president. I continue to think that the Democrats are too smart for that. But after the Lamont victory, I'm not quite as certain of that as I was.

But just picture it: the most divisive American president in recent history is leaving office, and the Democrats respond by nominating somebody so divisive that she, and not he, will be the issue.

Yep. Makes every bit as much sense as replacing Joe Lieberman as your party's candidate with Ned McGov- er, Lamont.