NYT Says Time's Up for Bush's Favorite Dem

The New York Times, which lately has been operating as one of the few checks and balances on the Bush Imperium, has had enough of spineless Democrats who write blank checks for the prez. In a lead editorial yesterday that was surprising for its vehemence if not for its choice, the paper endorsed the challenger to Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman's seat, thereby placing its heavy thumb on the scales of next week's primary and possibly ending slippery Joe's Senate career. Or at least one can only hope.

The smarmy Lieberman has been trying to spin it differently, of course. He fancies himself a stubborn martyr to centrism, one of the few remaining national politicians who is above acting on naked partisanship. Instead, he says he has the best interests of the country at heart in backing the Iraq war. Give it a break, Joe. This is a guy who was quick to jump on Bill Clinton for his R-rated Oval Office calisthenics when it suited his own career. Fair enough--I've never agreed with my fellow progressives that those sins were entirely Clinton's private business. But the way he subsequently became a fawning, obsequious apologist for Bush & Company on their criminally negligent prosecution of the war, a war whose consequences dwarf whatever modest damage Clinton may have caused the country, was too much for millions of stomachs to bear. Including mine.

Despite the morals-police hammering he once received from Lieberman, Bill Clinton recently went to Connecticut to campaign for him. Why? Theories abound, but I think it's pretty simple: Bill is concerned that the dynamics of this race may influence the outcome in another race, where a similarly opportunistic, triangulating politician (his spouse) will have to answer for her inability to stop splitting hairs and start speaking simple truths about where this Bush disaster has left us. Time to get out of the middle of the road, Hillary, where the only thing one finds is roadkill.