From The Nation:
The Nation -- The key line from U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman's press conference where he announced that he may cut and run to an "unaffiliated" ballot line if Connecticut Democrats don't renominate him in August? That's easy:
"I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party."
That is, of course, an honorable line.
But to whom are the 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee's loyalties directed?
That, of course, is the senator's problem.
And from the NY Times:
Now Mr. Lieberman faces the prospect of rejection by the Democrats who know him best, the party faithful in Connecticut. Once more the problem is Iraq. But this time it is not only Mr. Lieberman who is being challenged; it is the national party leadership, as it faces a grassroots push to toughen its stand against the Iraq war and distance itself from a senator who supports the war.
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.
It's about changing course, and if national Dem leadership doesn't understand this, they're going to have a much bigger problem than Joe Lieberman on their hands. In the meantime, Joe just keeps digging his own grave deeper and deeper with his announcement of "run at all costs". In fact, he's making room for some of his Senate 'buddies' running the national campaign, just in case they're not paying attention.
Democrats are going to have to come to grips with the war sooner or
later. The idea that they can finesse their way around it, or avoid
saying what they think, is rapidly becoming i
noperable inoperative (Ron Ziegler's
words, though my not-enough-coffee error fits, too) - and the reason is that that's not what Americans want. They
want to know what alternatives are available - that's alternatives, not
"stay the course" bullshit - to get us out of the quagmire. Present
one, and you win. Pretend we can win if we only do it better than Bush
("the next six months are crucial") and you lose, big time. You can't
compete with Republicans on the basis of making stuff up. They have a
lock on that.
Start by admitting Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. A reality based approach will pay dividends down the road. From the Times:
Markos Moulitsas, the founder of a widely read blog, the Daily Kos, and a supporter of Mr. Lamont's, cut to the chase in a posting yesterday about which of the two Democrats would draw support from the national party this fall.
"An interesting kind of 'Democrat,' Lieberman thinks he is," he wrote. "One who doesn't respect the wishes of his state's Democratic voters, one who will split his state's vote on the left and potentially hand the election to a Republican."
Except the Republican is not a player, and has zero chance of winning, no matter what happens. The reality is that Joe's candidacy is a bigger problem for DC (Rs and Ds alike) than that, particularly if Lamont wins and the race brings out voters in the fall. That doesn't necessary bode well for the CT R incumbents in CT-2, CT-4 and CT-5, all of whom will have to run fast enough from Bush to save their own necks.
It's going to be an interesting summer.