That is what is so unforgivable about Lieberman, his adopting of the Rove plotlines as if they were actually real. We've got generals on our side, we've got all kinds of policy experts, we have totally respectable Democratic hawks -- maybe more than we need. But Joe buys what Rove says. He reminds me of Tammy Bruce, or the other "ex-Democrats" who always end up with talk shows.

They (the pod people for the war) have learned to speak confidently, and loud, and say nothing. It's not surprising that the Republican gurus are frothing at the mouth, repeating the message of the day. But what's remarkable to me is how many of our pundits are quite, quite mad, and quite divorced from reality.

The meme is, Lamont = McGovern. Well, aside from the fact that a Scripps-Howard poll says that McGovern would beat Nixon if the election happened today, the situtations are completely different. There is no counter-culture now, no mass anti-war "movement," no rioting, no Black Panthers, no women burning their bras, and no gay liberation. None of the cultural conditions that the hardhats wanted to defeat so they could get back to "normality" apply.

So, Nixon inherited a Democrat's war, which he promised to "end with honor," using a "secret plan." So people voted for Nixon thinking he would bring peace. And just before the November, 1972 election, what happened? Kissinger announced that a treaty had been signed. A month after the election, the last combat unit left Vietnam. McGovern? He would have done it faster, I suppose, and he thought that Vietnamization was a cynical ploy; which turned out to be right, too. So, in 1972, where was the "stay the course" politician? Nowhere.

In fact, Nixon and McGovern differed on the subject of racial justice -- Nixon inherited the solid South that election -- and the War on Drugs, and the last remnants of the Great Society. Not National Security. The GOP fought a successful campaign of dirty tricks that year. And we know what happened next.

I didn't mean to imply that, elisabeth. But mainstream America really did see all of those things impinging on them, their children, and their lives during that time, as a kind of crisis. They chose reaction. The '70s were still pretty groovy, change continued in a quieter way, but the classic '60s represented a time when politics and the personal were intensely linked. The Yippies were probably the most vibrant expression of that tendency, but Abbie Hoffman was not a revolutionary, just the greatest PR man the world has produced. Everything he did was calculated to get ink for the revolution.

Anyway, go to the Mahablog. There's a very good timeline there, that shows that Nixon's win was not a pro-war win; he promised to get out, and the last combat soldier left Vietnam right after the election of '72. There was a lot of dying left, but not by Americans, by and large. (In fact, W stopped flying in '71, so the war must have been already over, right?)

Nixon won the South by linking the Great Society to poverty pimps, by linking drugs and hippies and sexual liberation and women being immoral. The culture war is why Nixon won, not the war. Oh, plus, he burgled the Democratic HQ and pulled a great number of dirty tricks.

The "Lieberman supporters" here use language indistinguishable from the righty blogs like RedState and Powerline. This is Joe's instinct too, and it shows how low he has sunk. If a Democrat disagrees with a Democrat, you argue it out, and maybe agree, or agree to disagree. Joe's unfitness to serve is demonstrated by his response to losing the primary of the party he alleges he belongs to. He pretends to be a moderate, but he's just a nasty old FOX republican when the chips are down, and his followers, if they really are that, abusively use the term "nutroots" and other expressions I've never seen except on Michelle Malkin's poisonous writings.

There may be enough Republicans in CT, when added to the suckers who voted for Joe but are against the war, that he could win. I predict he won't. He's turning Democrats off so bad, he's going to fail. Of course, he'll stay in the race all the way, since he'll take in a ton of Republican money too.

The smart neocons aren't confronting the judgment on warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional because its wrong, but it's not well written, you know, like Bush v. Gore. You know those black female judges weren't a good idea, were they? They're such literalists about "all men are created equal," and things like that, aren't they?

So the "serious" Fred Hiatt, and the abused liberals who love him, makes the point that it's "poorly reasoned." Hmm. Bet they thought granting Bush an injunction to stop counting the votes because his civil rights would be interfered with if the count went against him, that's wonderful logic.

All of them. Or all they still on?

This religion that has to do with the disserction of dead people is a very strange cargo cult. I think sometimes it's present society inspecting the lifeless corpse of postwar (the good war) America. The photography is all Michael-Mann/Miami Heat, but it all makes me think they've never seen an autopsy. It stinks. You get hit by blobs of goo you don't want to know about.

Plus, the police procedural is pure bs. The crime scene guy solving the case? Elbowing stupid detectives out of the way? Not on your life.

Doesn't this look like the typical Bush pattern? Problem with torture allegations? Blame the midnight shift. Problems with Rove outing an agent? Blame the opposition State Department.

Also, how come Isikoff gets a pass, when you think of what he did in the Lewinsky matter? And I've always previously trusted David Corn, except now, what is he doing with Pajamas Media? Is his co-authorship to put a lefty gloss on the famous fake Watergate/blowjob investigator?

Always paranoid.