It had always seemed to me that the Lefty blogs were pretty tough, and could both dish out and take some pretty stern stuff. But it seems that Joe Lieberman went over even their line yesterday, according to Election Central, 'he went out of his way to bash' Harry Reid. Kos says that 'Soulless Joe' 'launched a completely unprovoked attack,' while Crooks and Liars went with the simple 'Lieberman attacks.'

This is what Lieberman said:

"You know, Harry Reid said a while ago that the war in Iraq is lost. It’s wrong. It’s not lost. In fact, I would say we’re beginning to win it. We’ve turned the tide with the new strategy. And in fact, I cannot conceive of a circumstance in which American forces would lose the war in Iraq, on the ground in Iraq. If we lose it, it’s gonna be lost here at home, in a different kind of war for public opinion and political support."

Let's stipulate that it does sounds as if Lieberman brought up Reid of his own volition, but Reid did say 'the war is lost'--before realizing how it sounded and backing off the comments. I suppose Lieberman could have ignored the best example of defeatism on his side of the aisle, but this hardly constitutes a vicious attack. That would have been if Lieberman said 'I don't know why Harry Reid seems to be rooting for our enemies,' or 'too many Democrats simply don't take terrorism seriously.'

I know that many on the Left would prefer Lieberman to switch parties, even at the cost of Democratic control of the Senate. But whatever they think of Lieberman, this 'attack' is a lot tamer than the stuff they regularly dish out. They ought to apply an equal standard--and it's pretty lame to call Lieberman 'Soulless Joe.' It's like the foolish Code Pinker who called him 'unprincipled.' It's a criticism that doesn't pass the laugh test.