Throwing Lieberman under the bus

By Salena Zito
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, July 16, 2006

Connecticut's U.S. Senate primary between Greenwich millionaire Ned Lamont and incumbent Joe Lieberman is the race for the epicenter of the Democratic Party.

It is a benchmark for both parties as they ramp up to pick their 2008 presidential candidates.

Democrat strategist Steve McMahon is watching the race closely: "After Aug. 8, we will know if Ned Lamont is an apparition or the leader of a larger storm for the Democratic Party."

That larger storm is the anti-war momentum. With 70 percent of registered Democrats opposing the way the war in Iraq has been managed, those incumbents who have supported the effort are now under siege.

Lieberman, who is potentially being blogged out of his seat, has been at the forefront of what Democrats have pointed to as their insular wedge issue: all things Iraq.

He has been in lock-step behind the Bush administration's handling of the war. As recently as last month, he opposed two Democrat Senate resolutions to scale back involvement in Iraq.

Primary season is typically where parties let their hair down, tilt toward their furthest corner and let their anger show.

On the Republican side, for example, Pennsylvania Republican primary voters drove out their state Senate leadership over a late-night, up-to-54-percent self-awarded pay raise.

And not all that long ago, U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., faced the same in-party pitchforks in his primary race against uber-conservative Pat Toomey.

Primaries always slant to the edges; extremes dominate the scene.

That does not mean challengers will necessarily win -- but they can cut a broad swath.

"When the Democratic Party shrinks, it shrinks left," says Democrat strategist Dane Stoker. And that is when you will see the Angry Voter Syndrome strike.

"But on a national basis," says Stoker, "as a whole, your average Democrat is more Joe Lieberman than Nancy Pelosi."

When I asked Lieberman about how his support of the war has become the wedge issue of his party, he said: "I know some people disagree with the position I've taken on Iraq. I respect their point of view."

But Lieberman remains "optimistic that most voters will judge me on my entire record -- like saving jobs and creating new ones, making health care more affordable, protecting Long Island Sound and opposing the Bush administration on Katrina, Social Security privatization and tax giveaways for the rich."

Lamont, the millionaire who is taking on the same man he donated to in this campaign, has two key attributes that tip the race in his favor: He possesses a limitless ATM card and he is against the war.

Oh, yeah, and the blogosphere loves Lamont. It's enough of a power-packed punch to send the good Sen. Lieberman looking for a back-up plan, running as an independent if he loses the primary.

Strategist McMahon thinks "the strength of the Lamont candidacy demonstrates the depth of the Democratic Party's opposition to the war."

In short, Ned Lamont is a bellwether.

It's interesting to watch Democrats on the 2008 presidential wannabe list distance themselves from Lieberman. Hillary Clinton went out of her way to be the first to raise the throw-Lieberman-under-the-bus banner on Independence Day, followed quickly by almost everybody else.

You just can't buy that kind of loyalty.

Story Link

-Buck

Anonymous