MICHAEL MOORE plays Robespierre. Nobody’s pure enough for him, especially Hillary.

UPDATE: Blogometer isn’t very optimistic about Dems’ hopes for talking Joe Lieberman out of running as an independent:

It’s just hard to picture Lieberman accepting defeat at the hands of a movement that calls him “rape gurney Joe.” Thus at the very moment bloggers ought to be celebrating their biggest accomplishment to date, they’re instead heading straight on into a train wreck.

We’ll see. Stay tuned.

ANOTHER UPDATE: InstaPunk offers helpful advice for the Democrats. Well, advice, anyway.

And reader Kevin Pedraja emails:

As a Democrat and a staunch opponent of the decision to go to war in Iraq, I must say I have mixed feelings about the Lamont victory and the resulting triumphalism of the Liberal netroots. I think it’s a mistake to generalize this result (in a fairly moderate to liberal state) as a harbinger of things to come in the 2008 national elections. Kos’ comment about Jesse Jackson being on stage with Lamont during his victory speech is particularly worrisome (a feeling that only grew when I read that not only Jackson but Al Sharpton flanked Lamont). How can any Democrat with a brain think that our chances of regaining control of either house of Congress or the White House go up if we’re “united” behind the tired hucksterism of Jackson and his ilk?

There’s no question that Lieberman’s unwavering support of Bush hurt him with activist Democratic voters (who tend to vote more often in primaries), but he also ran a comically inept campaign, inflicting almost as many wounds on himself as those delivered by his opponent. Should this surprise anyone? After all, this is the guy who thought “Joementum” would be well-received.

The fact is, opposition to Bush and the war is largely visceral in the Northeast corridor. And while dissatisfaction with the president and the war seems to be growing elsewhere in the country, it’s a far more nuanced issue than (as some like Kos would have us believe) “yer either fer us or agin us.” In any event, it seems incredibly premature to start buying the champagne before it’s remotely clear who the respective standard bearers of either party will be.

To me, this seems like a building debacle for the Democratic Party, and a reprise of 1972. But I could be wrong.

THE WASHINGTON POST reports on Reutergate:

Charles Johnson could tell there was something wrong with the news photo the minute he saw it. Something about the three plumes of black smoke rising over the buildings — smoke just doesn’t curl that way, pirouetting in unison. It was, he wrote Saturday, “blatant evidence of manipulation.”

He was right on target. . . .

Little Green Football’s “Reutersgate” and “Rathergate” scalps share a key characteristic: They stem from Johnson’s skepticism of, if not outright hostility toward, the mainstream news media (or as some Little Green Football visitors like to refer to them when they post comments, “the lamestream media”).

In Johnson’s view, the news media haven’t adequately sounded the alarm about threats to Western societies posed by radical Islamic groups — something he says he seeks to redress through his politically conservative blog.

“My main take is that political correctness has kept a lot of the hard truth from being spread by the mainstream media,” says Johnson, 53, a professional musician in Los Angeles who spends most of his time maintaining his blog.

“The vast, vast majority of Muslims want to get along and live a comfortable life just like everyone else,” he says. “But the mainstream media shies away from showing the public the real face of Islamic extremism. They don’t want to offend. And they are influenced by some strong advocacy groups that are funded by Middle Eastern countries, which are actively engaging with the mainstream media to promote a point of view.”

Read the whole thing. Plus, Butch Hajj and the Sundance Kobeisi. And here’s a Reutergate backgrounder.

UPDATE: Charles comments on the Post story.

MORE LAMONT FALLOUT: Austin Bay is calling for a McCain-Lieberman ticket in 2008. Cato’s Ed Crane says that this is proof that campaign finance reform just makes it easier for rich guys to buy elections. (“More than 60 percent of Ned’s campaign expenditures came from Ned. Without Ned, Ned loses.”) Guess we’ll see more Neds, then.

And, in a semi-related item, Hot Air bids farewell to Cynthia McKinney.

CYNTHIA MCKINNEY HANDILY DEFEATED:

Cynthia McKinney, the fiery Georgia congresswoman known for her conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11 attacks and the scuffle she had earlier this year with a U.S. Capitol police officer, lost a runoff election Tuesday for her district’s Democratic nomination.

Attorney Hank Johnson, a former county commissioner, soundly defeated McKinney. With 98 percent of the precincts reporting, Johnson led with 59 percent of the vote. . . . Johnson, a political unknown three weeks ago, strode into the ballroom of his campaign party to shouts of, “Hank! Hank! Hank!” Meanwhile, there was no sign of McKinney at her campaign celebration for most of the night.

Let’s hope we don’t see much of her in the future. Perhaps she’ll curl up with a good book!

JAMES MCCORMICK REVIEWS Chris Anderson’s The Long Tail, over at Albion’s Seedlings.

MORE FAUXTOGRAPHY CHARGES, this time involving the AP.

TIME: “Joe Lieberman’s loss Tuesday in the Senate primary also signaled the ascendancy of a legitimate new power center in the Democratic party, the Netroots.”

I think that’s right. The big question now is, can they win a general election the same way. Joe Gandelman has a big roundup of reactions, and asks: “Is Lieberman’s defeat and Lamont’s victory a harbinger of a new direction for the Democratic party with many parts of the party on the same page — or the beginning of a self-defeating split that will cause the Democrats to grab defeat from the jaws of victory in November?”

Kaus says that Lieberman beat the spread, but agrees that his defeat is a big deal, and credits Kos for gloating “effectively and non-megalomaniacally.” But he also relays this bit of snark: “Will history record that the first significant victory of moveon.org was the defeat of a…..Democratic incumbent?”

And Markos observes: “Seeing Al From’s oldest nemesis, Jesse Jackson, behind Lamont tonight must’ve driven him insane. That brings a smile to my face.” And Karl Rove’s, I imagine.

It’ll be interesting to see what effect this has on Republican politicians’ interactions with the blogosphere. Perhaps PorkBusters will get more respect. And Kaus notes similar primary victories in GOP races on the part of the Club for Growth, which suggests that the power of outsiders is generally being magnified by the Internet. Hmm. Intriguing idea!

There’s lots more rounded up over at Pajamas Media.

UPDATE: Don Surber won’t miss Joe: “So a Trust Fund Baby named Ned Lamont, whose money goes back four generations to a partnership with JP Morgan himself, knocked off Joe Lieberman today. Good for Ned. See ya, Joe. Don’t let the door hit you on that ass you’ve been covering for years in the Senate.”

SOME INTERESTING Lebanon media notes.

Plus, reflections on “fauxtography.”

UPDATE: Interesting stuff on blogospheric fact-checking at USA Today.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Steve Sturm has more thoughts on Fauxtography, and a question:

With all due respect to the abilities and talents of the bloggers who have uncovered these frauds (not to mention all the free time they seem to have), these bloggers are not doing anything the likes of the NYT and Reuters couldn’t do on their own…. if only they were interested in doing so. The fact that they’re not the ones uncovering these frauds is evidence of the lack of effort they’re putting into verifying the legitimacy of the photos – and photographers.

And the reason they’re so willing to accept as true the stuff they’re given? Well, let me answer that question with a question: are the NYT and Reuters giving a free pass to Jewish photographers taking pictures of the destruction on the Israeli side of the border?

Meanwhile, Gateway Pundit has more photo questions.

IPOD VIDEO issues.

EARLY RETURNS FAVOR LAMONT.

UPDATE: John Cross is liveblogging the Lieberman and McKinney elections tonight. Early returns have Hank Johnson ahead of Cynthia McKinney. As with Lieberman/Lamont, though, it’s too early to say much based on these returns. However, Howard Mortman notes that some people have already been writing “Joebituaries.”

ANOTHER UPDATE: It’s close, and probably Lamont’s, but some people are still waiting for an earth-shattering kaboom. And there’s more liveblogging, with video, here.

Mickey Kaus is impressed that it’s “closer than expected.” That makes it a “moral victory” for Lieberman, right?

MORE: Some more McKinney/Johnson liveblogging, plus Wizbang coverage of Connecticut here, and McKinney here.

Lieberman has conceded the primary to Lamont.

RealClearPolitics thinks a narrow Lamont win is “just about the worst result possible for the Democratic Party.” Political Wire says that Lieberman will run as an Independent.

If he wins, will he pull a Jeffords? It’s interesting to see what Lieberman said about Jeffords’ switch in 2001.

Armed Liberal is thinking of Jean Hagen. And Brendan Loy is undertaking a party switch himself: “Well, if there’s no room in the Democratic Party for Joe Lieberman, then there’s no room in it for me. . . . It’s official now: the Democrats have jumped off the cliff, and are in free fall toward a richly deserved oblivion.”

Plus, GOP triumphalism at PoliPundit. Justified? We’ll see.

I CAN’T SEEM TO REACH VOLOKH.COM at its usual address, but I can still reach it here. Just in case you’ve been having the same problem.

HEZBOLLAH MEETS Monty Python.

UPDATE: James Taranto emails that he appears to have been wrong about that picture.

LOADS OF CONNECTICUT ELECTION UPDATES over at The Hotline Blog.

ALLAH HAS video of Jim Meigs talking about Popular Mechanics’ new 9/11-myth debunking book.

Here’s the PM blog on the book.

BRENDAN LOY HAS MORE on the Lieberman website kerfuffle.

There’s more here.

“PARTY OF SATAN:” Saudi religious leader denounces Hezbollah.

REUTERS GETS BURNED, at Hot Air.

PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: A look at pork in higher education: Earmarks for colleges and universities don’t get as much scrutiny as pork aimed at other sorts of institutions, according to this report. “The most recent statistics on college pork come from an article in The Chronicle that reported total earmarks had surpassed $2 billion for the 2003 fiscal year.”

NEWS ABOUT MIGRAINES: Everything you thought you knew is wrong, apparently.

THE SANITY SQUAD IS NOW PODCASTING! [Isn’t everybody, now? — Ed. Seems like it!]

KOS HAS IT RIGHT: “I can’t let people believe that all we need to move the progressive movement forward is a strong liberal blogosphere — if people believe that, we’re doomed.”

Though I’m not sure that liberal talk radio is the solution. More on Connecticut from Political Wire.

THE U.N.’S “dangerous definitional problem” regarding terrorism.

UPDATE: Link was bad before. Fixed now. Sorry!

TED FRANK looks at the Vioxx litigation: “So out of eleven cases that have gone to trial or almost gone to trial, there is a reasonable suspicion that plaintiffs faked Vioxx usage in as many as five of them. How many more of the tens of thousands of pending plaintiffs have similar flaws? . . . Drug safety is important, but so are the health costs from vaccines and drugs not marketed because of liability risks. If the judicial system cannot police itself adequately, the question then becomes why we want to entrust national drug safety policy to an elected judge and a handful of randomly selected jurors in Starr County, Texas.”

AMIT VARMA WRITES on Reutergate and stringers.

YES, IT’S MY FIVE-YEAR BLOGGIVERSARY, and yes, I forgot about that until just now. I don’t have any special plans to celebrate, beyond just blogging as usual, but if you want to return to those thrilling days of yesteryear, here’s the archive for that week.