Should Democrats Be Scared?

I'm seeing a lot of articles trying to explain why Lamont's victory is a bad sign for the Democrats. One of the most sensible is this article on Slate. Jack Weisburg says that Lamont represents an anti-war movement that is not only anti-Bush and against the current war, but represents a weak stance against terrorism in general. He compares this to the 1970's era Democrats purging themselves of Vietnam era leaders and embracing the anti-war movement.

I don't think Lieberman got in trouble because he originally supported the war. I don't think he lost because he was tough on terror. There are plenty of Democratic Senators who supported the war and aren't calling for an immediate withdrawl that aren't facing a primary election threat. The reason I think Lieberman lost was his die-hard support of the President on the war. Last December Lieberman came out and said,

It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.

As Weisman himself pointed out, Ned Lamont only decided to run for office after reading an editorial by Lieberman that painted a rosy picture of Iraq. Good for him, good for CT, good for the USA.