First, this depressing point from Markos.
The GOP establishment tries to nominate electable candidates, and gets sabotaged by the teabaggers. We’re trying to nominate electable candidates, and we get sabotaged by the Democratic Party establishment.
Ugh. I used to think term limits were a bad idea, but I just don’t know how you drain the swamp of fetid money in the Senate without them. It’s simply become too difficult to take down a sitting Senator. Lincoln probably didn’t get into politics to become a handmaiden to the oligopoly, but that’s what she’s become. She’s served in the Senate for 12 years — that should be enough for anyone.
Now this, from Yglesias.
…and even though Bill Halter’s challenge to Blanche Lincoln gave her a real scare (and seems to have had a real impact on the course of the financial regulation bill) in the end it was turned aside pretty comfortably since Arkansas Democrats are a pretty conservative bunch.
What a lazy analysis. There’s nothing “conservative” about Lincoln — unless you buy the MSM’s formulation that “centrist” equals “corrupt.” As Markos pointed out, it was the Democratic establishment that defeated Halter — not the political orientation of Arkansas Democrats. I don’t think Halter lost because he was so much “more liberal” than Lincoln, I think he lost because the Clintons and the White House still have their hands on the levers of the Arkansas Democratic machine.
As I said, depressing.