(I don’t know if I personally agree with everything in here (at least 90% I do…maybe 100%…thinkin’ about it…), but it’s too good and thoughtful a diary not to promote – all points are very well taken. – promoted by odum)

Now that our hangovers have partially cleared from the Ned Lamont victory parties, I think it’s time to consider what the Joe Lieberman loss means for the hundreds of other elections in November, especially the biggies right here in Vermont. Sure, getting Lamont to finish off Lieberman once again in November is a laudable goal, but it won’t mean squat if Lamont is just ONE more voice in a Congress filled with Lieberman-like politicians.

Nationally, of course, euphoria is in the air among the antiwar and netroots movements – deservedly so, too. It’s been a while since we got to celebrate anything. And it sure would be nice to be celebrating again on November 8th to the news that Lamont will be joined by dozens of newly elected officials who will stand up to Bush, work to immediately stop the war, and really work toward a broad progressive agenda.

In Vermont, it looks like it will be a mixed bag in November. Bernie Sanders is seemingly getting a cakewalk of a race thanks to Rich Tarrant’s blatant ineptitude and rather creepy sense of entitlement. But the other big races are distressing.

Take, for example, the race to fill Sanders’ seat in the House of Representatives. I cannot understand how Peter Welch is running neck and neck with Martha Rainville, especially when viewed through the Lamont lens of current affairs. Vermont is clearly one of the most antiwar states in the nation. And yet a National Guard general – the woman who so proudly sent hundreds of our neighbors to the war – is doing extremely well in her inaugural race for elected office. What gives?

In Connecticut, Lieberman got bounced by his own party because he VOTED in favor of the war. But here in Vermont, the person most responsible for CARRYING OUT the Bush war agenda by training and sending troops, Martha Rainville, is doing quite well in the polls at this point in her race.

The same could be said for the Vermont races for governor and lieutenant governor. Republicans Jim Douglas and Brian Dubie have been staunch supporters of the Bush war on Iraq, and yet they are both in what appear to be easy races for re-election. Again, if we break out our Lamont lenses, we have to scratch our heads and ask “what gives?”

For me, the answer is quite simple: Vermont Democrats are not making the war THE ISSUE. And, worse, those of us in the netroots and grassroots movements are letting them get away with it. We’re cheering Lamont from our desktops in Burlington, Montpelier and Brattleboro but apparently not learning much from it.

The beauty of the Lamont campaign was the clarity of his message. He didn’t like Bush’s war and he wasn’t afraid to not only say so but also promise to do something about it. Moreover, Lamont made people think Lieberman and Bush were one in the same. And he stayed on that message until his victory party on Tuesday night.

This is exactly what Welch must begin doing to Rainville, Scudder Parker must do to Douglas, and Tracy/Dunne must do to Dubie. But when this strategy is mentioned to political insiders they nervously point to Douglas’ last campaign against Peter Clavelle.

“Clavelle tried that,” one Democratic strategist told me recently. “And look where it got him.”

But that was also two years ago and a lot has happened in those two years, most notably the Lamont phenomena. Bush’s approval ratings have also plummeted in those two years – especially in Vermont – and the anxiety and opposition to the war have risen dramatically. Moreover, Bush was on the ballot two years ago, giving the Rove-led Republican machine plenty of money, time and exposure to spread their nonsense, manipulate the news, and otherwise defend and promote themselves. In other words, I’d argue that it’s a hell of a lot easier to run against Bush when Bush isn’t running.

Clavelle also ran a terrible campaign. He was slow to respond to important developments; he ran as if he was owed the job; he had considerable baggage from his shifting party allegiances; and his message was anything but clear and consistent.

And, let’s not forget, Parker isn’t Clavelle – yet. I believe Parker has a much better chance of connecting with people because I think he actually likes people. I’ve spoken to many people who have almost reluctantly attended one of his living room events around the state and they all seem to come away with the same feeling: They like him.

Now it’s time for a message. And his message has got to be the war. It’s easy to connect Douglas to Bush’s war. He’s been supporting it and defending it all along. Douglas, in fact, couldn’t even get himself to criticize the Bush administration’s handling of Abu Ghraib. I mean, come on, connecting the Republican Douglas to Bush and his war would be a hell of a lot easier than what Lamont just pulled off with Lieberman.

The same should hold true in Welch’s race against Rainville. Given Rainville’s direct link to the war it should be even easier. But – as the polls currently prove – Welch isn’t exactly setting Vermont voters’ hearts on fire. Welch clearly doesn’t have the same charm or people skills as Parker, but he’s got a dream opponent in the new Lamont political landscape.

I’m not holding my breath that Parker, Welch or Dunne/Tracy will heed any of this advice. But I don’t think any of us should let them off the hook as easily as we have been. As the Lamont campaign proved, the power of the netroots, the blogosphere or whatever else you want to call it is here and it’s real.

Sure, let’s celebrate the Lamont victory. But let’s also work to bring it all home, right here in Vermont where we all live (and vote).