With Lieberman fading and threatening to divide the votes of those opposing the Republican candidate for U. S. Senate in Connecticut, we need Ned to do really well (not just "win" the primary) and send Joe way out to pasture, as soon as possible. Not just because we need this seat to be occupied by a Democrat, but also to send a message about who our candidate for president should be in 2008.
"Senator's Plan B Puts Democrats in a Bind," from the NY Times:
Leaders of the national Democratic Party, like Mr. Dean, the chairman, and Charles S. Schumer, who is leading the effort to regain control of the Senate, may have to choose between Mr. Lieberman and an antiwar Democrat in the fall, when they had hoped to make Iraq squarely the president's problem.
"Lieberman fights for political life," from the BBC:
What has turned this local political tussle into a contest of national significance, is the fact that Mr Lamont has become a standard-bearer for activists who believe the Democratic leadership lacks any coherence over Iraq. (snip)
When Howard Dean was running for the presidency two years ago, the mainstream media leapt at the net-roots' activism that it spawned, before helping to bury the candidate, after the celebrated "Dean scream" in Iowa.
A Connecticut primary is a far more manageable field, and after attending a Lamont rally in a trendy New York bar, it is clear that hundreds of liberals from out-of-state will be donating both money and time to the cause, over the coming weeks.
"Lieberman To Go Indie? And Why Hillary Should Care," from The Nation:
This primary race is--or should be--important to her and other Democrats because it shows how the war can split the party. And that could become the dominant theme of the 2008 race for the Democratic presidential nomination. If the war in Iraq remains a mess a year-and-a-half from now, the Democratic presidential primary will be all about what to do in Iraq. Many Democratic primary voters will be looking for an antiwar, pro-withdrawal candidate (Senator Russ Feingold?) and reluctant to vote for any candidate who has supported the war and stood by it (as has Hillary Clinton). Clinton will certainly have the deepest pockets of any of the candidates--and money usually beats all else (though that didn't work for Howard Dean in 2004). But if Hillary Clinton is on the wrong side of the war (as far as most Democratic primary voters are concerned), the race will be a bitter and divisive one.