The Democratic leadership is deeply uneasy about this contest. Not only does it threaten to end the 36-year career of one of its biggest beasts in Washington but Mr Lamont’s challenge is also turning the spotlight on the party’s divisions at a time when Democrats should be presenting a united front for mid-term elections in which they have a good chance of taking control of one — or both — houses of Congress.
Even more disturbing for them is the prospect of the Connecticut primary becoming a model for the presidential primary elections in 2008. Howard Dean got close to winning the nomination last time with the help of the anti-war vote and the subsequent fall-out did much to cloud John Kerry’s campaign. If the Internet activists can take out Mr Lieberman, they could yet wreak havoc with the presidential ambitions of Hillary Clinton, who has also failed to renounce her support for the war.
Joan Vennochi, Boston Globe: Antiwar Democrats may be as out of touch as Wall Street Journal editorial page writers hope they are. But as Republicans have proven, a political party has to stand for something in order to win elections. Lieberman versus Lamont makes the war the critical election issue, giving primary voters a clear choice between two candidates who stand for two different positions.
"Howard Dean Answers The Question," on CNN (with video), via spazeboy:
“The nice thing about our party is we don’t dictate from the top down. We actually let voters make decisions, and I think that’s a very healthy thing to do. I encourage voters to make decisions, and who they choose is who we support.”
From Washington Note, with thanks to reality-based educator:
Joe Lieberman is unapologetic in his support for the Iraq War -- which I agree with former National Security Agency Director William Odom may be "America's greatest strategic blunder of all time".
While I have respected Lieberman's work and advocacy for a serious national technology policy and for progressive work on gay rights and civil rights, his support for the expansion of a significant challenge from Osama bin Laden into a crusade in the Middle East and war against Iraq calls for serious electoral consequences.
Lieberman has helped empower the course that we took and has not stepped back from his support of Bush on the Iraq War -- which has threatened America's global standing as well as moral and military credibility. Our security has now become more complex and our options in the future more limited.
Opposing Lieberman has nothing to do with being "anti-war", it has everything to do with being "anti-Iraq War" and trying to prevent the same kind of dangerous calculus from being followed in the future. If Lieberman helps empower thinking so potentially dangerous to American national security interests, he should be purged from the party.