UPDATE: Indeed: ” Cursing at Kos. Firedoglake says ‘Sore Loserman.’ Isn’t it strange to see Democrats cursing him with the very wordplay that drove them up the wall in 2000?”
They’ve never come down from that wall . . . .
ANOTHER UPDATE: David Corn observes a Hillary problem:
This primary race is–or should be–important to her and other Democrats because it shows how the war can split the party. And that could become the dominant theme of the 2008 race for the Democratic presidential nomination. If the war in Iraq remains a mess a year-and-a-half from now, the Democratic presidential primary will be all about what to do in Iraq. Many Democratic primary voters will be looking for an antiwar, pro-withdrawal candidate (Senator Russ Feingold?) and reluctant to vote for any candidate who has supported the war and stood by it (as has Hillary Clinton). Clinton will certainly have the deepest pockets of any of the candidates–and money usually beats all else (though that didn’t work for Howard Dean in 2004). But if Hillary Clinton is on the wrong side of the war (as far as most Democratic primary voters are concerned), the race will be a bitter and divisive one.
I think that a lot of the Democratic activist base — and nearly all of the “netroots” establishment — will be bitterly antiwar regardless of events on the ground. You can see that in their treatment of Lieberman today. It’s pretty clearly subordinating their alleged top goal, regaining control of the House and Senate, to their real goal, striking out at anyone who supports the war regardless of their political affiliations or other positions. Actions speak louder than words. And yes, it’s likely to be very damaging for the Democrats. Can you say “McGovern?”