Imagine that!

Crashing the centrist party at Slate, American Prospect editor Michael Tomasky disproves the "Dems-gone-McGovernite" braying of Lieberman partisans, and does so through the clever device of applying that logic to other current Democratic primary races, where it simply does not hold up.

Similarly, Greg Sargent, on his blog The Horse's Mouth, presents a hypothetical mainstream-media news analysis piece that spins yesterday's terrorism news as being good for the Democrats. One wishes that the DNC would grab Sargent's line.

Meanwhile, your blogstress's editor, Sam Rosenfeld, frets over what the anti-war rhetoric does for the Dems, while setting the politics of Connecticut into context:

I agree that the upper-middle-class ascendancy within the Democratic Party over the past decades is a real phenomenon and a problematic one. But again, a Democratic primary in the richest state in the country -- a liberal, anti-war state, lacking any kind of modern populist political tradition -- does not offer very impressive substantiation for that argument. Upscale culturally liberal politics is what's done in Connecticut. The much ballyhooed Lamont/Lieberman socioeconomic and demographic split among Tuesday's voters, while there, is actually less stark than people realize. And to repeat myself -- Joe Lieberman is an odd fit for the role of old-school blue-collar Democrat cast out by peacenik cultural elites. That’s never been his political profile (notwithstanding his penchant for moralizing, etc.). He's not Bob Casey.