Divisive?

Lieberman aides said that Mr. Lamont’s association with Mr. Sharpton and Mr. Jackson — both of whom campaigned vigorously for Mr. Lamont — was a political albatross that helped explain why Mr. Lieberman believed he could win over a majority of voters.

“Primary night was the first time that many Connecticut voters saw Lamont on TV, and he’s surrounding himself with two of the more divisive and problematic figures in the Democratic Party,” said Dan Gerstein, a veteran Lieberman aide who was appointed communications director for the campaign last week.

It seems to me that Joe Lieberman, who has just formed his own party to run in the Connecticut election, might want to be a little careful about calling people divisive. I wonder if he's still mad that Al Sharpton's relatively pathetic campaign got more 2004 delegates? No, that can't be it, since apparently he asked for Al's endorsement. Maybe he wasn't problematic until after he campaigned for Lamont.

Personally, I'm not a big Al Sharpton fan. I haven't forgiven him for his part in the Tawana Brawley affair. And while I admire his willingness to rattle the cages of some people who frankly need rattling, Al still seems so self-aggrandizing to me. But Lieberman was complaining just a couple weeks ago about restrictive definitions of what makes a good Democrat, so, really, where does he get off?

Sadly, there's something else about those two figures that Gerstein mentioned. Something that might be apparent to voters on TV? I'd hate to think Gerstein thinks it might make a difference to a majority of Connecticut voters. Joe Lieberman may not be a Democrat any more, but he's not George Allen, after all.