I am really not that interested in Democratic primaries, but I thought I'd pass interested readers along to HotAir and Michelle Malkin's coverage. (h/t Expose the Left).

Allah and Ian at HotAir liveblogged the events, and have videos for you including Liebeman's concession speech.

All I would like to say is that you should consider what today's Lamont victory says about the modern Democratic party. That they have been completely taken over by the far left (see my earlier post on Dean hosting a $10,000/plate dinner at Soros's house for more). Lieberman is as liberal as anyone, except he has the courage to stand by his convictions and previous statements, and not change his mind with each shift in the polls.

CNN reports that McKinney, in her concession speech, praised "leftist leaders" in Cuba and Venezuela, but stops it at that:

Despite her defeat, McKinney was unbowed, unleashing a stemwinder of a concession speech in which she barely mentioned her opponent but praised leftist leaders in Cuba and Venezuela, took aim at the efficacy of electronic voting machines and offered several swipes at the media.

One can only assume that the "leftist leaders" are Castro and Chavez, but why wouldn't CNN just use the names? I suppose it's possible that she didn't refer to them specifically. But if she did (as is a reasonable assumption) name the two men, could it be because CNN knows the stigma that comes with those names, and they don't want to reveal the increasing number of Democrats coming out of the woodwork that sympathize with Castro and Chavez? I don't know, mabye I'm being cynical, but we do already know of CNN's bias and I can't think of any reason why they would just say "leftist leaders" rather than name names, unless the "leftist leaders" refers to people other than Castro and Chavez.