Similarly, Lieberman's fellow Connecticut senator, Chris Dodd, who had been campaigning for Lieberman, said he regretted his close friend's decision and would now campaign for Lamont.
The Republicans called Lieberman's defeat a "shame."
"Joe Lieberman believed in a strong national defense, and for that, he was purged from his party. It is a sobering moment," Republican National chairman Ken Mehlman said.
Lieberman had already filed paperwork to create a new party called Connecticut for Lieberman.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060809/ap_on_el_se/primary_elections_104Larry Sabato, a political analyst at the University of Virginia, said the Lamont-Lieberman clash would keep the Democratic debate over the war prominent through the fall and highlight the image of a party fractured by divisions.
"That's not really the image that Democrats want to send right now," he said.
But Democrats said high turnout in Connecticut showed the party's rank and file was energized and eager to head to the polls in November, a factor that could boost challengers to endangered Connecticut Republican incumbents Chris Shays, Rob Simmons and Nancy Johnson.
"It should be a flashing red light to all Republicans in Connecticut about the energy on the Democratic side," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (news, bio, voting record) of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic campaign committee.
"Voters are angry about the course we are on, and all Republicans are offering is stay the course," he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060809/pl_nm/usa_politics_connecticut_dc_2August 09, 2006
Mehlman: Sherrod Brown Is Ohio's Ned Lamont
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/08/mehlman_sherrod.htmlMR. SNOW: No, I'm saying that there are some Democrats who have said that the key issue is leaving, and that there are some elements within the Democratic Party who are pushing hard to say, look, if you don't agree with us, you no longer belong in the party. You know, you take a look at the blogs today, they're pretty hot.
And the real question for the American people to ask themselves is, do you take the war on terror seriously, with all the developments going on around the world? And, if so, how do you fight it to win? There seem to be two approaches. And in the Connecticut race one of the approaches is ignore the difficulties and walk away.
Now, when the United States walked away, in the opinion of Osama bin Laden in 1991, bin Laden drew from that the conclusion that Americans were weak and wouldn't stay the course, and that led to September 11th. And it's important to realize that terrorists are not simply inspired by American engagement in the world, but they have their own agenda and it is an agenda that if we turn around and look the other way, they're not going to ignore -- they will continue to build strength and they will continue to build adherence. And it is a vitally important debate to have.
And it's really up to Democratic candidates and the Democratic Party to figure out how they want to stand in the war on terror: do they want to have the sort of timetable approach, leave by a date-certain; do they not want to have something constructive to say about gathering threats from Iran and elsewhere. Or do they want to acknowledge that fact that in a dangerous world it takes commitment, it take persistence.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060809-1.htmlSnow must have missed this:
Poll: Democrats Now Preferred On Terrorism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2764027&mesg_id=2764027