Blogs, our "press corps" and Bush Democrat Joe Lieberman

The two authors of The Hunting of the President are separately looking at the "press corps" conventional wisdom on the primary challenge to Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman: Passions run high in Connecticut Senate race by Gene Lyons Arkansas Democrat-Gazette 07/26/06 and by Joe Conason 07/26/06; Lieberman's allies blame the bloggers by Joe Conason WorkingforChange.com/New York Observer 07/26/06. Both columns remind us once again, as Bob "the Daily Howler" Somerby says, if we didn't have this press corps of ours, you couldn't invent them.

Conason:

What is most astonishing about typical commentary on the Connecticut primary, aside from the nonsense about bloggers, is the prevailing attitude toward the war in Iraq. While the catastrophic consequences of the invasion and occupation are now so obvious that conservative columnists and Republican politicians can no longer evade them, liberal Democrats are expected to keep their mouths shut. And many of them do, evidently fearful of accusations that they want to "cut and run."

But anyone who knows how to read a poll - indeed, anyone who has read a poll during the past several months - knows that popular opinion on the war is strongly negative. The American public now understands that the Bush administration deceived them about its reasons for invading Iraq, that the President never had any serious plan for establishing order there, and that he badly understated the costs and grossly overstated the benefits of "regime change." They are beginning to understand that his belligerent foreign policy has been a sham, and that his management of the war on terror has been a shame. (my emphasis)

Lyons:

The New Republic, an allegedly liberal magazine dubbed "The Joe Lieberman Weekly" by his political foes, has coined a term for Internet Web sites trying to help Lamont win. They are "blogofascists," filled with "intolerance and rage."

Granted, it's possible to find most of the major bad words on certain liberal Web sites if you hunt for them. Nothing quite as shocking as the average "Sopranos" episode or the many "conservative" sites that routinely whoop it up over the deaths of Arab children and call for the assassination of Supreme Court justices. But definitely impolite.

Okay, I wasn't planning to go below the fold here. But this one's too good to leave out.

Lyons concludes his column with this:

True, some Democrats are still angry with Lieberman for his self-righteous speech chastising Bill Clinton’s sexual sins during the 1998 impeachment follies. OK, so he kicked an old friend while he was down. Apparently, Clinton himself thinks he deserved it, because he’s campaigned for Lieberman in Connecticut. But the Big Dog and Hillary also have indicated that they'll support the Democratic nominee, even if Lieberman loses and, as promised, runs as a third party of one come November. Polls show Lamont leading. Feelings are running strong. Irving Stolberg, former speaker of the Connecticut House and a longtime Lieberman ally, recently endorsed Lamont in the Hartford Courant. He wrote that Lieberman’s "blind support of the Iraq war, begun illegally and a continuing catastrophe, is monstrous." Stolberg added that Lieberman’s "defense of an incompetent president, a vice president who fits the dictionary definition of fascism and an extremist administration that has perpetrated torture, illegal eavesdropping and a general shredding of the Constitution is insulting to the people who elected him in the first place." Savage? Vituperative? Not really. But strong? Definitely strong. (my emphasis)