The Hill says the Congressional Black Caucus is divided on the McKinney run-off.

FEC deep-sixes DeLay’s ARMPAC.

Not looking good for Katherine Harris. A second staffer has a talk with the Feds.

A true testament to our political discourse. From WaPo: “The shift is subtle, but Republican lawmakers acknowledge that it is no longer tenable to say the news media are ignoring the good news in Iraq and painting an unfair picture of the war.”

Kondracke on Lieberman-Lamont …

Lieberman Race Pits Moderation vs. Hatred-Politics

This is no exaggeration: The soul of the Democratic Party — and possibly the future of civility in American politics — is on the line in the Aug. 8 Senate primary in Connecticut.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.), one of the last “liberal hawks” in the Democratic Party and a leader in efforts to find bipartisan solutions to America’s problems, is being targeted for defeat by an emergent new left that’s using savage, Internet-based attacks to push moderation out of politics.

The rest at Roll Call, subscription required.

Greg Djerejian: “Three years ago, I would have poo-pooed anyone using the word “radicals” to describe the neo-cons. No more. Any group that can so brazenly (and breezily) avoid a real reckoning with the continuing crisis in Iraq–which is descending into civil war as we speak–any movement that has the gall to suggest as some panacea that we mount significant military operations in Iran and Syria and god knows where else (with Israel in Lebanon to boot), well, their credibility is at a very low ebb indeed, and they very much need to be urgently reined in.”

TPM Reader DT on Kondracke …

Does Kondracke know who Steve Laffey [currently challenging Sen. Chafee] is? Or Pat Toomey [who challenged Sen. Specter]? Or is it only sign of “hatred politics” when Lieberman is the focus? What is hateful or radical about Ned Lamont? How come the internet radicals are okay with anti-choice Harry Reid? How come the more conservative Dem senators like Baucus and Dorgan are not under assault by the allegedly radical internet mafia? Does Kondracke even bother to ask these questions, or shall I assume that truth isn’t the point?

I think that there’s something of a difference with Baucus and Dorgan. They come from red states. But there is this odd indifference to the fact that Republicans pretty routinely draw primary challengers pretty much just like Lieberman is this time. But that doesn’t seem to phase anyone. Right now in Rhode Island you can make a decent argument that the last remaining moderate Republican senator is being primaried from the right. But nothing. That doesn’t seem to faze anybody.

DeWine campaign pledges no more doctored photos in attack ads.

TPM Reader DE on whether the “corruption” issue has traction politically …

Maybe I am being overly simplistic here, but is it possible that both the mainstream media narrative and your narrative on the electoral effect of corruption are right? I.e., corruption has certainly contributed to the trouble that the GOP faces in the November elections. On the other hand, it is difficult for a candidate to run on a “culture of corruption” unless the opponent has some personal involvement in corrupt activities. The rising tide is lifting Democratic votes, but in most races, the Democrats are still going to have to explicitly run on other issues to win.

I think there’s a lot of truth to this way of understanding the issue. And, yes, I blame George Lakoff for the fact that I had to use ‘understanding’ as opposed to being able to use ‘framing’ in its pre-Lakoffian sense. Okay, I’m done.

TPM Reader DO chimes in on Lieberman …

Have you ever actually READ the things left-wingers are saying about Lieberman on sites like Democratic Underground? Sure, Kos’s daily rants against Lieberman are bad enough. But look at what the rank-and-filers are saying. You don’t have to look hard to find someone wishing Lieberman an untimely death, or expressing anti-Semitic sentiments. And while this may only represent a fraction of the anti-Lieberman crowd, the majority who ought to know better chooses to remain silent rather than confront the bigotry in their midst. I don’t have a problem with people not liking Lieberman, or even supporting a primary opponent. It’s a free country. But the obsession that the far left has with Lieberman (which actually predates the war in Iraq by several years) borders on the psychopatic. Everything Lieberman says or does is scrutinized far more closely by the left-wing blogosphere than the actions of any other Democrat I can think of, and he’s presumed to exercise an influence over the body politic far out of proportion to reality. And then there are the lies. Sorry, but no rational person would assert that Lieberman is a right-wing Republican, but that’s become gospel among the far left. The fact of the matter is that Lieberman’s voting record puts him well to the left of any Republican in the Senate, with the possible exception of Lincoln Chafee. And with the exception of Lieberman’s enthusiastic support of the Iraq war, it’s hard to see how Lieberman’s policy preferences are markedly different than his Democratic colleagues. But none of this seems to matter to the far left, which regularly brands Lieberman a DINO.

You ought to read today’s post by the Bull Moose, who really hits the nail on the head. The comparison to the New Left’s smearing of Hubert Humphrey, one of the greatest liberals this country has seen is particularly apt, since I’ve always considered the New Left to be the spritual forerunners of today’s left-wing blogosphere. And no, I don’t mean that as a complement.