Monday, August 07, 2006

Linda Feldmann: In Connecticut race, insurgent left aims at Democratic hawk

In Connecticut race, insurgent left aims at Democratic hawk
By Linda Feldmann
The Christian Science Monitor

WINDSOR LOCKS, CONN. – "I'm in a battle - I think you all know that," Joe Lieberman tells his supporters, gathered at the air museum near Hartford's airport.
If nothing else, the three-term Connecticut senator and 2000 vice presidential nominee has become a master of understatement. Indeed, the lineup of Democratic senators here to back their colleague said it all, as Sen. Lieberman fights to fend off a humiliating defeat in next Tuesday's primary at the hands of a wealthy, anti-Iraq-war upstart.

On Sunday, no fewer than four senators appeared at Lieberman's side. All that party firepower on the campaign trail probably did more to boost his spirits than actually sway voters.

But their presence suggests they know the stakes. Tuesday's primary is no longer just about one senator's career; it's about the future of the Democratic Party.

A primary victory by Ned Lamont, the businessman who took on Lieberman over his fierce support for the Iraq war and his criticism of Democrats who "undermine presidential credibility" would embolden the Republican Party to paint the Democrats as untrustworthy on national security and willing to purge those who differ with the left, analysts say. "The difficulty for the Democrats in this race is the same one that existed during Vietnam: an unpopular war, but a perception of the party as weak on security," says Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow at the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, which backs Lieberman.

Looking ahead to the potential impact on the 2008 presidential race, he adds that an emboldened left "would pose a problem for all the centrists who have stood by their original position on the war in Iraq," including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) of New York.

Democrats warn against reading too much into the results of the Connecticut primary - especially if turnout is low. Still, when asked if he thought a Lamont victory would inspire antiwar candidates to enter the presidential race, Sen. Chris Dodd (D) of Connecticut said, "It could happen. It wouldn't surprise me if it did."

The latest poll, released July 20 by Quinnipiac University in Hamden, Conn., shows Mr. Lamont surging from obscurity into a slight lead over Lieberman, but primaries are tough to predict. Lamont's campaign, the toast of the liberal blogo- sphere, has the energy of an insurgency; the Lieberman campaign, after a slow start, has brought in reinforcements. "It's definitely going to be close," says Lieberman spokeswoman Marion Steinfels.

Complicating matters further for Lieberman's party brethren, the senator has already announced that if he loses in the primary, he will run in November as an independent. The Quinnipiac poll shows Lieberman winning a three-way general election handily, with majority support among Republican and independent voters, and a single-digit showing by the Republican candidate. But in the meantime, Lieberman's Senate colleagues would face a tough choice - sticking with their friend or backing the voters' choice of nominee.

In interviews, Sens. Joe Biden (D) of Delaware and Dodd would not touch that question. But Sen. Ken Salazar (D) of Colorado, like the others, at Lieberman's side on Sunday, says he will stick with Lieberman in the general election. Former President Clinton, who stumped with him in Connecticut last week, says he will support whomever wins the primary.

To Read the Rest of the Article

Also check out the The All Spin Zone post:

In Connecticut--America Wins

2 comments:

Susannity said...

I guess what I don't understand is how on the one hand they say Lamont will undermine the Democratic party, but if Lieberman loses, he says he will run as an independent and affect the main election. Isn't that undermining as well or is that Lamont's fault too?
Perplexing...

Michael said...

Well, as you have probably figured out, I have little sympathy for the problems of the democrats, and I blame them, just a much as the republicans, for many of our current problems (although the republicans are in power now--a lot of these problems, especially of the corporate avarice and merger-mania nature, were starting during Clinton's terms).

This division and bickering in their ranks is symptomatic of their problems--the republicans generally keep a united front and center their discourse around common beliefs and keywords. The democrats are shell-shocked and confused--afraid and timid.

A huge problem, as I know you are well aware, is the ontinuing perpetuation (explicitly through mainstream media censorship/exclusion, two party debates, and funding laws that benefit the richest, most well-funded, money-grubbers) of the two-party hegemony.

Parties of the people--not likely. Representatives of the people--definitely not!