A Troublesome Joe
Let's get the conventional wisdom about Joe Lieberman out of the way: Yes, he has become a target of the Democratic Party's antiwar ranks because he supports the war in Iraq. Yes, he's a part of the evil Washington establishment. Yes, he is every Republicans' favorite Democrat. And yes, President Bush once even hugged him. Worse still, Lieberman hugged back.
And so Lieberman is locked in a Democratic primary battle against political neophyte Ned Lamont, a wealthy, antiwar liberal with a very Connecticut pedigree, much like Lieberman. Maybe in another year, or in another war, Lieberman's forays across the aisle regarding foreign policy would impress Connecticut's elite moderates. Only this year, regarding this war, proper New England etiquette has clearly been replaced by a full-blown revolt. And Lieberman is the poster child for the uprising.
But it's too easy to say that Lieberman is endangered only because he supports the war and most Connecticut Democrats do not. After all, Lieberman is an 18-year Senate veteran with a past: He's the Democrat who angered liberals when he took to the floor to chastise Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. He's the guy who confused moderates when he happily forfeited some of his long-held "new Democrat" ideas--like school vouchers for inner-city kids--when he became Al Gore's running mate in 2000. He was even willing to compromise with Republicans on real Social Security reform.
Sure, if you're in politics long enough, you will make everyone unhappy--and Lieberman is no exception. But the war in Iraq took it over the edge. Even some of Lieberman's middle-of-the-road compatriots believe that he has taken his celebrated independence a step too far--making a fetish of his disagreements with his own party. It's not just that he associated himself very early on with the war (as in writing the president in December 2001, asking him to take on Saddam Hussein). The real issue is that he has taken on fellow Democrats who dared to question the Bush administration on the war--and has said that if he loses the primary, he'll bolt the party and run as an independent.
That made lots of Democrats believe the Connecticut senator's campaign slogan should be "Putting Lieberman First." Indeed, if Lieberman is seen as either: (a) being deserted by an antiwar party or (b) deserting an antiwar party, it hurts Democrats looking for credibility on national security. You can be sure every Republican will portray it that way, and with good reason. "It's not good for the Democrats to have Lieberman lose the primary and win as an independent," says Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin. Inevitably, it's going to be viewed beyond Iraq and through the prism of whether Democrats are strong enough to lead the war on terrorism. Democrats know that Lieberman knows it--and doesn't much care. "He deliberately chose the most controversial path," says one Democratic strategist who is a Lieberman ally in spirit but thinks the senator has handled himself badly. "He's become a lightning rod."
Blog fodder. That's putting it mildly. The lefty bloggers consider him close to the Most Evil Man in America, and their vitriol and name-calling are enough to make anyone want to vote for Lieberman. But make no mistake--that world counts, big time: Primaries are all about voter turnout. Turnout is all about intensity. Intensity brings out the true believers. And the Democratic believers, in election 2006, are against the war. What nobody can truly figure out yet is whether those feelings will translate to the rest of the Democratic ranks. Howard Dean expected it to materialize in the 2004 campaign; it did not--at least not for him.
No doubt about it, there's going to be a significant debate on foreign policy inside the Democratic Party before the next presidential election, and it's going to be high-stakes--establishment vs. outsiders; antiwar vs. pull-the-trigger Democrats. "We can't send the wrong kind of message that we don't take these [national security] threats seriously," says William Galston, a former Clinton domestic policy adviser. "If that becomes the public face of the party, then we lose."
This story appears in the July 24, 2006 print edition of U.S. News & World Report.