So I guess Mr. Lieberman no longer has Joementum. Lamont made the war in Iraq THE issue, as Republican and conservative commentators have remarked over and over. But, since Lieberman voted 90 percent with Democrats, the war being his primary departure, and since those same Republicans and conservatives invested a lot in supporting him, it seems fair to say that the war was the issue for them, as well.
Which is as it should be. Anytime we're at war and that isn't the main issue, there's something wrong. As for how much this foreshadows what might happen in this year's elections, let alone the presidential one in 2008, I'm not so sure about that. Lieberman lost on the war by only four points in one of the bluest of the blue states. There is also the war on terror, and Democrats trying to seek an immediate end to the Iraq war have to be careful not to sound even more lackadaisical about national security than they already do. I say this issue poses as many problems for them as it does for Republicans.
Comments
I don't think the Connecticut primary voters' discontent with Lieberman was solely due the war. Lieberman's voting record was generally with the Democrats, but 1) some of that is illusory: think voting for cloture on the Alito nomination even though he voted against confirmation of Alito; and 2) there is more to politics than one's voting record: think Lieberman's willingness to be Fox News's favorite Democrat.
He was in favor of the War in Iraq and the subsequent occupation. Even worse, he advised against criticizing the Bush administration's incompetent prosecution of the effort. He seemed more willing to trash Democrats than Republicans in his public statements. And then you have stuff like the Alito nomination, his position on the morning after pill, his position on the Bankruptcy bill, his eagerness to censor movies and music. Plus I suspect there were local Connecticut issues of which I know nothing.
So, it was about the war in Iraq, but it wasn't *just* about the war in Iraq.
Doug's analysis is right on the money and shows he's being paying attention to the race.
I find it funny when Lieberman and others say "he only lost by 4 points". Nevermind that he
1)Outspent Lamont 3-1
2)Was an 18-year incumbant
3)Was a previous VP nominee
4)Had the support of the Democratic establishment
5)Had a campaign visit from one of the most popular (if not THE most popular) Democratic presidents in history
6)Was up 30 points in the polls 6 months ago
7)Was up 15 points about 3 months ago
8)Had the support (at least verbally) of nearly every elected Democrat
9)Had the endorsement of every Conn newspaper
10)Had the endorsement of every rightwing talking head
11)Had nearly all MSM pundits saying "Lieberman shouldn't be purged from the party".
But hey, HE was the underdog. What a fight Joementum put up. If only those crazy "far left, outside the mainstream" Democrats didn't take over the party - all 52% of them.
A rhetorical question:
Can you get a majority of your party's votes in a state where your party dominates and still be a "fringe" or "outside the mainstream" candidate?
I think the major reason for his loss was simply the fact that he is a decent human being and behaved as such. He didn't rant, rave, and scream, or call everyone he disagreed with a liar, terrorist, bigot, or worse.
It's a damn shame when being the most level-headed guy in the room gets ya tossed!
Tim,
You must've missed the televised Lieberman/Lamont debate. For those of us who watched Lieberman cower like a scared girl in his VP debate w/ Cheney it was quite sad.
Lamont has shown class throughout the entire campaign and didn't stoop to any of the mudslinging that you describe...
Jeff, I did miss the Lamont/Lieberman debate. I was using Joes' overall tenor the last few years as opposed to the overall tenor of the democratic party the last few years.