HARTFORD, Conn.--Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, locked in a battle to keep his Senate seat against an anti-war challenger, said on the eve of Tuesday's primary that the voters who were upset with him were trying to "send me a message," and he assured them: "I got their message."
Primaries are also being held Tuesday in Colorado, Missouri and Michigan.
Lieberman's seat was the biggest prize at stake. If defeated, he would be only the fourth incumbent senator since 1980 to lose a primary election.
The three-term senator, nationally known for his centrist views, has endured harsh criticism in his home state for supporting the
Iraq war and has been labeled by some Democrats as too close to Republicans and
President Bush.
Challenger Ned Lamont, a millionaire owner of a cable television company, held a slight lead of 51 percent to 45 percent over Lieberman among likely Democratic voters heading into Tuesday's primary. The Quinnipiac University telephone poll of 784 likely Democratic primary voters, conducted from July 31 to Aug. 6, has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
The race has tightened in recent days, with Lamont's lead cut from 13 points.
Okay, are you ready for the punchline? Well, here it is:
Lieberman said he believes voters are coming back to him.
"I feel they were flirting with the other guy for a while, wanting to send me a message," he said Monday during a stop at a restaurant in Hartford. "I got their message. I think they want to send me back to Washington to continue working with them, fighting for them, and delivering for Connecticut."
Err--Joe? Are you saying the message that Connecticut voters want to send to you is to continue working in Washington as their senator? I thought that the message was your unwavering support for the Bush administration's war in Iraq. Consider this Washington Post article:
The Connecticut race has drawn national attention because of what it may say about the president and the politics of Iraq heading into a critical midterm election and the 2008 presidential campaign, as well as what it may reveal about a Democratic Party that often has been at war with itself over foreign policy since the Vietnam era.
Long one of the Democrats' most prominent hawks, Lieberman has found himself at odds with the rank and file in his party, not only for supporting the war so vigorously but also for refusing to engage in the rhetorical combat of a politically charged moment in history. He has warned fellow Democrats that hyper-partisanship on foreign policy issues damages American interests. In recent days, he has noted that he has given the same warnings to Republicans and emphasized that he has not been a blind supporter of Bush on Iraq.
Lieberman's friends and allies have watched this drama play out with differing emotions -- both a sense of sadness that someone they have long respected has been caught in the vise of the Iraq war and a sense of alarm that he either ignored the warning signs or was somehow incapable or unwilling to adjust to them.
Lieberman argues that in an age of intense partisanship, he is paying an unfair price for what he regards as measured criticism of the president's policy. But his reluctance, as he put it, to think like a Democrat when many Democrats are demanding that their leaders stand up to the president has put him at risk against Lamont.
What this Connecticut race really brings out is the issue of how should the Democratic Party respond to the Bush administration's war in Iraq. On one side, you have a Democratic incumbent senator who has been a complete supporter of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq--even as the issue is actively debated within the liberal, progressive, and conservative wings of the Democratic Party. Moderate Democrats such as Hillary Clinton continue to show some tacit support for the war--even as Hillary Clinton criticizes the Bush administration's conduct of the war. On the other hand, you've got Democrats such as House representative John Murtha who are already calling the Iraq war a lost cause and are demanding timetables for U.S. troop withdrawals. The liberal and progressive blogosphere just magnifies this internal debate within the Democratic Party. The Connecticut race between Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont not only brings the Iraq war out for the election, but it also shows the Democratic Party just a slight hint as to which way the political winds are shifting for Democratic voters regarding the Iraq war. If Lieberman wins tomorrow's primary, we could expect the Democrats to follow along with their tacit support for the Iraq war, unless some unforeseen event causes American public opinion to heavily shift against the Iraq war. House representative John Murtha could become muzzled by the Democratic Party. If Lamont wins over Lieberman, then this could force the tacit Democratic supporters of the Iraq war to rethink their positions--possibly pulling somewhat back from their original support. Democratic warhawks, such as Senator Clinton, are not going to change and become peace-loving doves overnight. A Lamont win in the Connecticut primary would force them to watch the November general election results even more carefully. A Lamont win in November, plus any major Democratic gains in Congress could shift the Democratic warhawk's opinions towards a U.S. pullout--certainly as they look ahead towards the 2008 presidential election.
So this election could define the Democratic Party's soul(?) regarding the issue of the Iraq war, for at least the next two years until the 2008 presidential election. Political poll results are one thing, but the Connecticut primary will clearly show the Democratic Party the mood that Connecticut Democrats are in, regarding their current Democratic Party leadership. Will the Connecticut Democrats choose the status quo of Joe Lieberman? Or will the Connecticut voters opt for a change with Ned Lamont?
We'll soon find out tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment