It wasn’t so much a Lamont victory as a Lieberman loss.  I’m sure the political blogosphere will have a lot of post-game analysis about why Lieberman lost.  Much of it will no doubt suggest that Lamont won only because of the blogs (even the mainstream media has reported that angle). 

The "bloggers did it" meme is silly.  They may have helped raise money (although Lamont funded a huge majority of his own campaign).  The reason Lieberman lost the primaries is because of his steadfast support of the Iraq War, and the Connecticut voters (most of whom, I assume, or at best tangentially aware of the political blogosphere) rejected Lieberman for that.  It’s that simple. 

Okay, not quite that simple.  Lieberman did far worse than just support the Iraq War.  He reiterated the tried GOP talking point that disagreeing with the Commander in Chief about the Iraq War means you are "weak on national security".  That’s utterly absurd, and he should know better.  Being strong on national defense doesn’t mean starting senseless and unproductive wars in countries that never attacked us and that posed no threat to us.

But, to me, this headline says it all:

Sixty percent Americans oppose Iraq war: CNN

…that’s all you need to know as to why Lamont prevailed.

UPDATE:  Yes, I’m aware that Joe hasn’t given up yet.

ANOTHER UPDATE:  I agree with what Josh Marshall writes in Time:

So who brought Joe Lieberman down? Was it the liberal blogs? Was Lieberman the first political casualty of the Iraq War?

Both. But neither.

Yes, Iraq was the issue that crushed Lieberman in the Democratic party. And the blogs were the vehicle that helped that latent but pervasive disgruntlement among Connecticut Democrats become aware of itself. But Joe Lieberman succumbed to a political ailment (common to long-serving senators) that would have been as recognizable to Daniel Webster and Henry Clay as it was to so many 21st century bloggers: He got his head lost in the clouds of national politics and lost touch with his constituents.

***

Many pundits claim that Lieberman’s defeat is a replay of the way Democrats tore themselves apart over Vietnam. It’s an appealing thought for Republicans. And it has got nice drama. But those pundits are either being disingenuous or are caught in a time warp. Democrats are actually fairly united on the Iraq War in their opposition to it — which is actually where most Americans are right now. And though many senators are not as full—throated in their opposition as the base of the party, you don’t see any successful challenges being made against other senators who aren’t ready to bring the troops home.

With Lieberman, there’s something different. It’s not just that he wouldn’t wash his hands of the Iraq War. Lots of Democrats won’t. It’s more than that. He’s seemed almost militantly indifferent to the disaster Iraq has become. And his passion about the war seemed reserved exclusively for those who questioned it rather than those who had so clearly botched the enterprise. His continual embrace of President Bush — both literal and figurative — was an insult to Democrats, the great majority of whom believe Bush has governed as one of the most destructive Presidents in modern American history. It’s almost as though Lieberman has gone out of his way to provoke and offend Democrats on every point possible, often, seemingly, purely for the reason of provoking. Is it any wonder the guy got whacked in a party primary?