Conn. Race Could Be Democratic Watershed - Loss by Lieberman May Embolden Critics of War

FARMINGTON, Conn., Aug. 5 -- The passion and energy fueling the antiwar challenge to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in Connecticut's Senate primary signal a power shift inside the Democratic Party that could reshape the politics of national security and dramatically alter the battle for the party's 2008 presidential nomination, according to strategists in both political parties.

A victory by businessman Ned Lamont on Tuesday would confirm the growing strength of the grass-roots and Internet activists who first emerged in Howard Dean's presidential campaign. Driven by intense anger at President Bush and fierce opposition to the Iraq war, they are on the brink of claiming their most significant political triumph, one that will reverberate far beyond the borders here if Lieberman loses.

An upset by Lamont would affect the political calculations of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who like Lieberman supported giving Bush authority to wage the Iraq war, and could excite interest in a comeback by former vice president Al Gore, who warned in 2002 that the war could be a grave strategic error. For at least the next year, any Democrat hoping to play on the 2008 stage would need to reckon with the implications of Lieberman's repudiation.

Even backers of the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee are now expecting this scenario. Two public polls in the past three days show Lamont with a lead of at least 10 percentage points.

Although there are reasons beyond Lieberman's strong support for the war and what critics say is his accommodating stance toward Bush that have put him in trouble, the results will be read largely through the prism of what they say about Iraq and Bush's popularity.

Should Lieberman lose, the full ramifications are far from certain. One may be to signal immediate problems for Bush and the Republicans in November,...

Though well thought out, I disagree with a some parts of your reply.

LIEberman WILL lose the primary, which is, as you said, a closed primary; all of Conn.'s primaries have always been "closed". It is possible that he could win the general election, if he goes at it as an Indy; however, the fact that as an Indy he will be woefully short of funds ( something that has been completely ignored, from the beginning of all of his downward slide ), makes even a run, "iffy". And as for the supposed "intensity" felt by ALL Dems, against President Bush and/or the war, that is over-hyped, in the extreme.

Lamont is a puppet candidate, funded, supported, and pushed down the throats of Conn. voters by outside forces. His ads are terrible, his debate style worse, his campaign, though slick, very superficial.

The Dems never ending onslaught against Nancy Johnson has resulted in her being reelected; reelected every single time. The phone calls, junk mailings, T.V. ads, and push-polls have done absolutely NOTHING whatsoever, to take her down and Lamont's campaign hasn't been nearly as hot and heavy as the one against Johnson. For that reason, I am telling you to NOT extrapolate about what will happen in the rest of the country, based soley on the Lamont/LIEberman campaign.

For the most part, Americans are not "angry" about us being in Iraq. Neither are a majority of people consumed with the illegals problem. And ALL politics really IS "local"; no matter how much the damned Dems want to make an off year election about the president; it isn't.

Hijacking this thread, because of your own concerns and biases, don't help matters at all and neither is it now allowable, no matter how carefully you couched it all.

There will be NO "Dem tsunami", come November and if there were one, none of your concerns would be addressed or taken care of.

Yes, you're right. The moonbats might succeed in knocking Lieberman off in the primary, but he'll run as an independent and stands a good chance of winning if he does. The moonbats are the ones most likely to vote in the primary. In November, it won't just be the moonbats voting.

The moonbats aren't just throwing Lieberman under the bus. They're throwing the whole Rat party under the bus in the name of "ideological purity." Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys.

"Driven by intense anger at President Bush and fierce opposition to the Iraq war, they are on the brink of claiming their most significant political triumph, one that will reverberate far beyond the borders here if Lieberman loses."

I doubt these people are so much against the war, but the fact that it proceeded w/o the approval of the *international* establishment.

Candidates who are more national, such as Lieberman, will be pruned by their base who see themselves as global citizens, and not so much Americans. Elitists, in other words.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.