This story brings to mind the adage, "watch what you wish for, you might just get it."
We Washington Republicans know from way back that winning the party primary is not any guarantee of future results in the general election.
Lieberman defeat could signal Democratic shift
By Dan Balz
The Washington Post
FARMINGTON, Conn. — The passion fueling the anti-war challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Senate primary signals a power shift inside the Democratic Party that could reshape the politics of national security and alter the battle for the party's 2008 presidential nomination, strategists in both political parties say.
A victory by businessman Ned Lamont on Tuesday would confirm the growing strength of the grass-roots and Internet activists who 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 could reverberate far beyond Connecticut.
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 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 Lieberman, 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.
While 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.
The full ramifications of a Lieberman defeat are not certain. One may be to signal immediate problems for Bush and the Republicans in November, but another could be to push Democrats into a more partisan, anti-war posture, a prospect already adding powerful new fuel to a four-year intraparty debate over Iraq.
Connecticut is a liberal, Democratic-leaning state, by no means a reflection of the rest of the country, which is one reason some strategists caution against reading too much into Tuesday's results.
But strategists say the Connecticut race has rattled the Democratic establishment, which is virtually united behind the three-term incumbent's candidacy.
"This sends a message to all Democratic officeholders," said Robert Borosage of the liberal Campaign for America's Future. "You're going to have a much tougher Democratic Party."
That could be felt most acutely by Clinton, who polls show is the early front-runner for the 2008 nomination and who has drawn criticism from Internet activists for opposing a timetable for withdrawal.
Clinton appears to have gotten the message, as she demonstrated with sharp questioning of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at Thursday's Senate hearing.
The Connecticut race may be seen as an intensification of the partisan, polarized politics of the Bush era. Lieberman is paying a price for being an advocate of bipartisanship.
As a result, a loss Tuesday could generate more demand for a strongly anti-Bush, anti-war candidate in the Democratic primaries. Several are ready to run, including Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, the only one of the three to vote against the war in 2002.
None may be as attractive to the grass-roots activists as Gore. He has said he cannot conceive of circumstances that would put him in the race but may be coaxed to reconsider.
Republicans are seeking to exploit a possible Lamont victory as a sign Democrats are moving too far to the left on national security. "They want retreat — under the guise of 'reducing the U.S. footprint in Iraq,' " William Kristol writes in the current issue of the Weekly Standard.
Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said it is a mistake to claim, as the Republicans are, that the Democrats have been captured by left-wing, anti-war activists: "This is really about Bush. ... It's deeper than an anti-war thing."
Still, many Democratic moderates say they see worrisome parallels to what happened to the Democrats during Vietnam, when they opposed an unpopular war but paid a price politically for years after because of a perception the party was too dovish on national security.
"Candidates know they cannot appease [anti-war] activists if they are going to run winning national campaigns," said Will Marshall, president of the centrist Progressive Policy Institute. "It will intensify the tension inside the Democratic coalition as we head into two critical elections."
But leaders of the so-called netroots — Internet meets grass-roots — activists and some party strategists say Democrats stand to gain politically by aggressively challenging Bush's war policies. Parallels to Vietnam are inaccurate, they say, because of the nature of an Iraq war that has become a low-level sectarian civil war.
"If Democrats were winning elections, that prescription would be something worth listening to," said Tom Mattzie, Washington director of MoveOn.org, said in response to the party's moderate wing. "That's the prescription people have been giving us and we've been losing elections."
With much of the establishment backing Lieberman, Lamont built his campaign with the support of grass-roots activists disaffected with the incumbent and the president.
Liberal bloggers around the country promoted his candidacy, helping to raise his profile, attack Lieberman and attract money, although Lamont's personal fortune has financed most of his campaign.
They helped give voice to rank-and-file Democrats furious with Bush and frustrated by what they regard as cautious and ineffective party leadership in Washington, as well as to some local elected officials angry with Lieberman.
Lieberman enjoys the support of the party's national leadership, along with most of organized labor and key constituency groups.
Former President Clinton campaigned in Connecticut two weeks ago for Lieberman. Hillary Clinton has said she wants Lieberman to win. Senate Democratic leaders back his candidacy and months ago urged MoveOn officials to stay out of the primary.
If Lamont wins the primary, the Clintons will shift allegiance. Both have said they will support the winner of the primary, and other party officials plan to do the same.
Lieberman, however, has said that if he loses he intends to run as an independent in the general election. Party officials will have to decide whether to press him to abandon those plans and, if he declines, how strongly they will get behind Lamont's candidacy.
On Friday, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., suggested Lieberman drop plans to run as an independent if he loses by a wide margin. "I think he really has to take a look at what reality is," said Lautenberg, who campaigned by Lieberman's side last week.
Republican pollster Bill McInturff sees the Connecticut race as important in shaping the midterm campaigns. "This will embolden Democrats around the country," he said.
"I think that this primary in its own way sets off a chain of events that makes the fall elections very quickly a debate that could be framed as a [Democratic] timeline [for withdrawing U.S. forces] versus Republicans supporting a longer-term solution."
Material from The Associated Press is included in this report. |
