"'NYT' Sunday Preview: Do Lieberman Foes Know What They Want?"

Editor&Publisher:

In the upcoming New York Times Magazine on Sunday, regular writer Matt Bai declares that, contrary to popular wisdom, the main backers of Ned Lamont in his upset win over Sen. Joseph Lieberman in last week’s Connecticut Democratic primary were not young online activists but “exasperated and ideologically disappointed baby boomers” who felt “duped” by their party’s move to the center during the Clinton years, and later found their “icon” in Howard Dean.

These “older lapsed liberals,” he opines, grew up marching against the Vietnam war and now, beyond the Iraq issue, are “yearning for a more confrontational brand of opposition on all fronts, for something resembling the black-and-white moral choices of the 1960s, that more broadly animated Lamont’s insurgency.”

The Times itself was one of the few papers to endorse Lamont in the primary.

In the article, titled “What Are the Lieberman Foes FOR?,” Bai raises comparisons to the Republican revolution of 1980, when the moderate center was unseated by its right wing with a clear agenda -- roll back the federal government and détente with the Soviets. But he sees a big difference for the liberal Democrats (who will surely dispute this).

“By contrast,” he charges, “Lamont’s signature proposal as a primary candidate -- and the only one anyone cared to hear, really -- seemed to be the hard-to-dispute notion that he is not, in fact, Joe Lieberman. He offered platitudes about universal health care and good jobs and about bringing the troops home but nothing that might define him as anything other than what he is: an acceptable alternative.”

Bai also interviews one of those behind the "Reagan revolution," Jeffrey Bell, who says that while "it's easy to say these guys are nuts" -- referring to the DailyKos and Moveon.org campaign activists -- "the truth is, they're on the rise, and I think they're very impressive."