In an Odd Bit of Synergistic Irony...

...the talk is now about Barack Obama running with Republican Chuck Hagel and John McCain running with (kinda sorta) Democrat Joe Lieberman. There's a certain amount of logic to both choices, in that they would boost each candidate's preferred brand image, Obama as a post-partisan agent of change and McCain as a "maverick" willing to buck the party line. Neither would likely directly affect the electoral landscape in the traditional sense; Nebraska is still likely to go red and Connecticut blue. And there's the risk to both men at the top of the ticket alienating their bases with ideologically "impure" running mates, though this seems less of a risk with Lieberman who is Republican in the only way that counts these days: slavish devotion to George W. Bush and the Iraq War.

The Shape of Things to Come

What's the Fall campaign gonna look like? Something like this:

1. The MSM flog Obama over moronic comments made by his former pastor, while glossing over rabidly anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic rants by McCain's religious braintrust;
2. McCain, apparently disatisfied with the old "Who would Osama vote for?" slander, has upgraded to actively claiming that Al Qaeda will kill people in order to elect Democrats;
3. Ezra Klein, sadly, hits the nail right on the proverbial head as to why Obama's ex-pastor "matters," but Joe Lieberman's rabbi and Pat Robertson don't.

The Big Mo

Talent has conceded in Missouri, returning Harry Truman's desk to the Democrats. Tester leads in Montana. The Senate will apparently be decided by the recount in Virginia. Cry havoc, and let slip the lawyers of war!

And Joe Lieberman is now the most powerful man in America.

Joltin' Joe

Here are some of my previous thoughts about Joe Leiberman. This is me arguing with someone over at (Liberal) Girl Next Door about the Leiberman/Lamont race. And this is one of the few good non-rabid critiques of Leiberman I've found so far.

You Heard the Moose!

The Bull Moose makes an excellent point about the politics of polarization, which relates to my last column. And while we're at it, can anyone explain to me what's wrong with Joe Leiberman's record besides the the Iraq War? Compared to other Democratic Senators who are not facing angry "netroots" backed primary opponents? Can anyone explain to me the difference between Joe Leiberman's position on the Iraq War and Hillary Clinton's position on the Iraq War? I have no real dog in this fight, other than my fear that if Leiberman (who is five of the most boring people I have ever met) loses and runs as an independent, a safe Democratic seat could go Republican, thereby killing any chances to take back the Senate. However, I remain concerned about the rise of one-issue voters in the Democratic Party and my sneaking suspicion that many (maybe even most) of them would rather lose an election and remain ideologically pure than win one with a "tainted" candidate.