Big Day in Politics (CT)

Save for those of you who live under a political rock/haven't looked at a major news source in about two weeks, today as most know is the Connecticut primary. When you have an incumbent, primaries are usually a mere formality; the incumbent sweeps aside the usual array of challenging flakes and extremist nutjobs and turnout is pathetically low. In the nutmeg state, however, incumbent Joe Lieberman is confronted by a well-funded, and especially well-supported nutjob in the form of multimillionaire Ned Lamont.

Lamont's insurgency (for in reality is little more than that) is interestingly fired by a combination of old and new media; he's been the darling of the ultra-left Daily Kos and his ragtag band of anti-American peaceniks, socialists, and anarchists (with a nice mixture of conspiracy theorists thrown in for kicks), and the New York Times, which endorsed Lamont. Same politics, different mediums. Of course the real impetus for this campaign has come from the netroots, activists like Kos et. al, and if their darling wins tonight, it will be their greatest triumph to date. As an aside, a netroots activist noted with cynicism this morning that

no matter what happens later today, Wednesday will be the worst day of press for the progressive netroots in years. If Lamont loses, we will be branded as ineffectual, irrelevant, extremist, and destructive. If Ned Lamont wins, we will be branded as powerful, relevant, extremist, and destructive.

He goes on to say he'd prefer the latter outcome; personally I'd like the former - but either way he is right, and the media will be right.

Why is it that Connecticut Democrats are even thinking about ditching their three-term incumbent, the man who at one point was poised to become Vice-President of the United States? The first, most obvious, and most oft-touted answer is simply the war. Since Day 1, Lieberman has been the President's most steadfast supporter across the aisle, and the voice of sanity in a party that seems to be rapidly losing its grip on reality. Lieberman, in contrast with the majority of his fellow Dems, understands the importance of finishing what we have started in Iraq. Agree or disagree with the war, I think we should all be able to say in unison that we must finish what we've started; his party disagreed, and so Lieberman's suffering for taking a stand. But there's more to it than simply that. One of the best analyses, I think, came from the Weekly Standard last month, when they noted that while the war was the most germane issue, most Lamont activists have problems with Lieberman far beyond that, starting

in 1998, when Lieberman scolded President Clinton on the floor of the Senate, and pass through 2000, when he declined to give up his Senate seat after joining the presidential ticket, before detouring in 2002, when he picked a public fight with Gore over campaign strategy, and then careening toward November 2004, when he appeared on Fox News after John Kerry's loss and "smiled," before arriving in 2005, when he held open the idea of compromise with Republicans on adding personal retirement accounts to Social Security, lent support to the Republican congressional intervention in the battle over Terri Schiavo, and voted for the "Cheney energy bill." Finally, the Nedheads end up with last winter, when Lieberman voted for cloture--allowing a final vote to proceed--on the Supreme Court nomination of Samuel Alito. Iraq is only one count in this indictment.

Let's go through some of those points again, as I think it says a lot not only about Lamonters but also about the state of the Democratic party. They begrudge the man for chastising a lying, unfaithful President who abused the station of his office and shamed the White House, for not joining in the wailing and gnashing of teeth when Kerry lost (given the two mens' stances on Iraq, it's understandable), for sanity on Social Security, and for cloture - for allowing judicial nominations to forward as dictated by the Constitution - on the nomination of Samuel Alito, a surpremely qualified nominee for the Supreme Court. Many allege that this day is all about whether or not the Democratic Party's proverbial tent is big enough for disparate opinions on the war; the Standard suggests today is more about whether or not that tent is big enough for any dissent.

Whatever the reason, Lieberman's future as a Democrat is on the line. Should he lose narrowly today, there is plenty of speculation that he'll get on the ballot as an independent; if the outcome is a Lamont landslide, however, I think Lieberman will go into the sunset. But problematically, no one can predict what's going to happen. An August primary seems like a ready-made recipe for low turnout, though the peculiar dynamics of this race means that no one really knows what's going on. Nearly 700,000 registered Democrats who can vote today, and I've seen turnout estimates ranging from 25%-40%. Although Quinnipiac has released two much-touted polls in the last two weeks, the first of which showed Lamont up 15%, the second only by 6%, I'm inclined to think things are much tighter than that. Want me to pick a winner? I won't. All I'm going to say is that this fight is a preview of November and of 2008, and of the acceptability of diversity on key issues in the Democratic Party - and oh yeah, it's going to be a squeaker.