One can (and should) reject the more grandiose claims of the blogospheroids, but I do think that the importance of the net as _a_ fundraising source continues to grow in importance, especially for what we might call entrepreneurial candidates. Also, the progressive internet has a growing relevance for communication, message coordination, and the like.

So, I do think that the web is a factor, and worthy of a bit of candidates' time & attention; but I definitely agree with you that it's just certainly not _the_ factor, and it's certainly of far less importance than, say, organized labor.

But, Zach, I have to take you to task for a bit of silliness: "This is a make-or-break race for the netroots: anything less than a Senator Lamont will illustrate that online activists are either irrelevant or spoilers." The Lamont campaign has already proven relevant, by putting massive pressure on Lieberman and forcing him to campaign, which he hasn't done for his senate seat in a long time. Moreover, if Lamont wins the primary and is the official Democratic nominee, and then Lieberman runs as an independent with the result that a Republican wins the race, then it should be patently obvious that it is _Lieberman_ who would be the spoiler.

The Lamont campaign has already proven relevant, by putting massive pressure on Lieberman and forcing him to campaign

I'm not sure what the net effect of forcing Lieberman to campaign would be. Is it causing him to change his positions on issues? Is it bringing him closer to his constituents? Is it causing secondary effects in Connecticut politics?

then it should be patently obvious that it is _Lieberman_ who would be the spoiler

Depends on your perspective. The netroots would definitely consider him the spoiler, but the establishment Democrats, who still support Lieberman (and I assume still would if he ran as an Independent), would likely discount Lamont's status as the official candidate as little but a stolen mantle.

It's hard to tell what immediate effects Lamont's run has, other than forcing Lieberman to pay attention. However, there's definitely talk that it's emboldening down-ticket candidates who want to run against the war (generally a winning proposition in CT these days), but were previously afraid of looking like they were running against Lieberman. In the longer run, if Lieberman wins in a squeaker, it'll definitely make him have to consider more what policies his constituents actually want him to defend (assuming he's planning on running again in 6 years). If Lieberman wins it in a blow-out, though, then that's another matter.

I have no doubt that certain elements in the DC establishment would think of Lamont that way; but isn't that obviously an incorrect way to think about it? As a general rule, when a third-party or independent person runs and causes a race to go one party when previously it would have to the other, then that person is the spoiler. That's basically the definition of "spoiler". Unless there are real charges of actual election theft, then the "stolen mantle" charge would ring completely false. This is, after all, what we have primaries for.