Just who were those Lamont voters opposing Senator Joseph Lieberman in last week's Connecticut primary?  Angry kiddies using blogs and online activism to fuel their post adolescent rebellion?  Not quite according to an analysis to be published in this week's New York Times Sunday Magazine by staff writer Matt Bai. Instead they were

'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.'

In other words the voters were not for Lamont and his ideas, they voted for him because Lamont was not Lieberman, and he was "an acceptable alternative." 

And don't write off those angry blog leftists either, he asserts.

"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."

And while at the moment Lieberman is benefiting from a surge in support from Republicans and is, according to polls, running ahead of Lamont by 12 percentage points, this could obviously change.  And one of those vehicles for change could be those angry blog leftists about whom the author says

"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."

Impressive.  On the rise.  They were the ones who proudly claimed nearly two years ago "We own the Democratic Party."  Of course the New York Times endorsed Lamont but he has a scary point.

Ethel C. Fenig   8 18 06