Lieberman Loss Could Be a Party Watershed (impact on 2008)

[AlGore-08.com]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/05/AR2006080500963.html

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 6, 2006; Page A01

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.

(snip)

None, however, 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 he may be coaxed to reconsider if the sentiment for him grows after the November midterm elections.

(more... )

[mdmc]

1. I have a hard time believing that this could happen in my world

God, please. I would be willing to get a GOP Senator from CT if it pushed our party to the left.:patriot:

[Vidar]

2. Let's give 'em one hell of Dean Scream!

[KoKo]

3. Fair Article! and interesting. Dan Balz has not been very favorable to

Dems in his writings in the past so that makes this article a break for him.

I hope to hell Lieberman does lose to Lamont. Most of us couldn't take another poll saying Lamont will win and find out the machines elected Lieberman. Or, that the polls were just fooling with us raising expectations for a loss.

[Monkeyman]

7. yep some guy on the kos said Democrats should lose if Lamont wins

If thats the way people feel and keep saying it Dems will lose in 2006 split like that will hurt everyone

[rosesaylavee]

24. Don't forget the rights trolls are out in

huge numbers this past month. No way of knowing if that was one or not. It sure would benefit and delight the other side if we were concerned about the Dems splitting in two.

[KoKo]

4. Come on All...let's kick this to Greatest Page!

[napi21]

5. It's really pi**ing me off that everyone is saying it's all Iraq!

I don't live in Ct so I guess I don't really have a say here, but my dislike of Leiberman isn't ONLY his support of Iraq, but his consistent support of SHRUB!

Every time there's an IMPORTANT vote in the Senate, wether it's a judicial nominee, the bankruptcy bill, or something to so with abortion law, ALL the Dems across the Country worry that JOE will be siding with the Pubs! When they need 67 votes, and don't have 67 Pubs, it's Joe we always worry about who will be the traitor AGAIN!

Why does everyone keep saying it's his war stance????? It's NOT! It's everything!!!!

[Zorra]

9. I was thinking the same thing. Lieberman voted to invoke cloture

on the bankruptcy bill. There was no honest reason for a Democrat to do this.

Joe has reached across the aisle in a continuing effort to be bi-partisan. In this case, reaching across the aisle means collaborating with fascist scum in an effort to destroy America.

You are correct - we simply cannot trust Joe Lieberman.

[bvar22]

10. I agree,

and its pissing me off too.
Its NOT JUST the Iraq War.
In addition to the issues mentioned above, it IS also about not behaving as an OPPOSITION PARTY, and Joe Nomentum IS one of the biggest public Republican Appeasers in the Democratic Party!
Hillary and some of the other "Talk Show" Dems HAVE gotten the message, but I don't put much trust in Last Minute JailHouse Conversions!

[kurth]

6. Ya mean a loss for the Republican Party

Pack yer bags, Joe.

[Harper_is_Bush]

8. Is an opinion piece allowed in LBN? n/t

[humbled_opinion]

11. Bottom Line

A Lieberman loss means that the Neo-Cons will be out shouting that the party has drifted too far to the left. It is important to show that Joe will lose not only because of his war standing.

[Straight Shooter]

12. It isn't just the war.

Lieberman has become an empty sack that can't stand upright. He's too self-righteous, too willing to advise everyone to sit down and shut up and capitulate to bush.

That's my problem with Lieberman. He's the Great Capitulator.

[krkaufman]

13. Lieberman's echoing the "undermining the credibility of the President" BS

... was the absolute final straw for me, telling me Lieberman was too far gone to ever rescue. That is FAR RIGHT WING talk. So I guess, *yes*, the Democratic Party if far too the Left of Joe Lieberman -- but not because of any Leftward movement by the Party.

[Hissyspit]

14. Think about how much Ned Lamont, if elected, will have to let us down

to let us down as much as Joe Lieberman has.

[Writer]

15. I thought this article was presumptuous at best.

Not every state behaves like Connecticut, and to say that the impact of one primary race on the center of a party misunderstands the complexity of the Democratic Party's make-up. We are as eclectic as the average American voting pool, and to assume that Lieberman's defeat will suddenly turn the tide in a particular direction is highly speculative. Lieberman isn't exactly a power broker in the party, and his notoriety emanates only from his Vice Presidential bid in 2000 and his ardent pro-war views. Otherwise he's a fairly lame player.

Had this been Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, whose reputation and powerful image carries across the entire party, I would then agree that her defeat in the primary would have a significant impact.

It's not politician's pro-war votes we're after, but symbols of that pro-war vote. To us Lieberman is merely a symbol, but only a weak symbol. Much of the non-DU Democratic Party could care less whether he stays or goes. They care more about an overall Democratic victory come November.

[exlrrp]

18. Agreed!!

Your right. The MSm wants to simplify everything because then they don't have to do any investigation/ coverage of whats really happening and can stenograph it right off the pages of the Republican talking points.

[Writer]

19. I don't think it's the msm... I think it's this columnist. n/t

[bvar22]

21. Every Professional Politician inside the Democratic Party....

...is watching the Primary in Ct.
Hillary has already gotten the MEMO from the Democratic Base, and altered her performance accordingly for the cameras at the Senate hearing last week (attacked Rumsfeld).
After Lamont pulled ahead in the polls, Democratic Party insiders have spilled out of the woodwork saying they will support the winner of the Primary.

Edited to Add: "Centrism" as practiced by the policy wogs of the Democratic Party is DEAD. The Democratic Party can no longer safely ignore the MAJORITY (base) in its pursuit of Corporate money.

In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic party:

1. 65 percent say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

http://alternet.org/wiretap/29788/

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[Writer]

22. And that is your take on things...

the world shapes itself into the way we wish to see it.

[bvar22]

25. We also shape the World,

either by giving permission through passive acceptance and apathy, or through direct active intervention.

On Edit: Do you really believe that there is a Democratic Office Holder anywhere who is not keenly aware of the Democratic Rebellion in Connecticut?

[Raine]

16. Interesting article

I have heard that this is a fight for the way the party is going to go in the future but the MSM insists on saying it's all about the war. x(

[skyblue]

17. Yes, But, what do the swing vote states think? Are they like CT?

[cliss]

20. Well, look at what's been happening

around the world. A lot of leaders who supported Bush have been removed from power. There will be more to come.

So many other countries have already made statements about this war. And really, there are only a few Bush supporters left like Koizumi of Japan, Howard of Australia and of course Blair of the UK. But his time is running out.....

I think they're getting the message.....

[varun]

23. Democrats need not worry about intra-party debate in 2008

I think by the Fall of 2007, even the Repugs will be debating whether to support the war.