Alex, do you think Lieberman, running as an Independent, could throw the election into Republican hands?

Pam,

Its a nice fantasy, but not likely. Last I heard, the republican was running way behind Lamont and Lieberman in the polls. The only real chance was if Lieberman lost the democratic primary, didn't run as an independant and enough GOP and independants got together to elect the GOP. But even that is not real likely.

Either 1) Hillary is pretty sure Lieberman is going to win the primary (likely, but less likely when he announced the independant bid, 2) She is trying to suck up to the netroots blogs, 3) She didn't get the message that the party line is Lieberman will win the primary and no speculation on what is going to happen after the primary or 4) She doesn't care that she is likely to be spending some time in a club of 100 having put a knife in one of the 100's back.

2000 Lieberman was who the democrats thought should be one heartbeat away from the presidency

2006 Lieberman is a "coward" (Lamont), a sore loser (Kos) and less important than the party label (Hillary).

Perhaps we should dispatch Mr. McCain to explain to Joementum he might be more welcome on this side of the aisle.

If Joe loses, it will be because he does not run an effective campaign. He has great name ID, national reputation, and an enormous warchest. If he cannot convince his party voters to support him, then he doesn't get his party's support in the general election, plain and simple.

And HRC's support of the Democratic party candidate is standard practice---even in a primary, members of the same party often come out and say that they will support the eventual nominee. Not saying that is kind of a warped, selfish mindset that says one man is more important than the party that got him there.

If you want fair analysis, imagine Chaffee facing someone from the right, or Snowe, or any other Republican who you think fails the party litmus test. Truth is, Northeastern Republicans are a moderate group, and if they come out as too far left they lose a primary, and too far right and they lose the general. In Joe's case, it is about 1/3 his right-wing politics (which are limited) and 2/3 his giving cover to the GOP and supporting a President who polls in the 30s in CT.

As for sucking up to the netroots blogs, that is laughable. The people who write and read at the good blogs are not easily won over, they don't want a pat on the back, and they are the party activists who can make your campaign run like a machine or grind to a halt. Any politician from one of the two parties has to play by a certain set of rules to get and stay elected. If they think they are above it they can go independent and try their luck.

The only variable in your argument, Kimyl, is that many times the activists are the ones that turn out for the primary. They're going to vote. And on both sides they end up being the ones that select the nominee.

You're right, Lieberman will have to run a good campaign to create enough 'Jomentum' to excite enough moderates to turn out and vote for him. Otherwise he's toast. Lamont has mainstream papers printing opinion pieces in his favor. It will be interesting to see who the papers eventually support, Liberman or the Kosacks.

Others have said that he could win if he dropped out now and strictly ran as a independent to avoid defeat in the primary. May be true, I'm not sure. But he will have a hard row to hoe if he is defeated in the primary. It would require a spectacular campaign to recover from that. And I doubt he could win then, unless it were proven that only the hard left base turned out in the primary and everyone else stayed home. Most likely, he would be toast then.

Add to first paragraph...

And on both sides many times they end up being the ones that select the nominee.

Sorry, left that out.

Regardless of one's opinion of Joe (and mine seems to grow less the more I know), I think it is a good sign to see people take on incumbents in primaries, so that the strongest party member ends up in the general election.

I will be very interested in the debate, because though I am lukewarm on Lieberman, I have not seen enough of Lamont to fall for him yet.

Kimyl Oh! You pretty much reflect the clueless side of the democratic party. I really and genuinely hope this Ned thing nationalizes the election. You might get a lunatic to be senator of CT, but the republicans will use this to paint democrates all over the nation as idiots. Good luck with that.

Well you know, Kimyl Oh is right - on the GOP side, we want candidates who fit our party philosophy. Remember Laffey (name?) running against Spector in Penn. or Chaffee in RI this year? Many of us netroots folks wanted the true conservative backed by the GOP, not the incumbent moderate and we have been very vocal about the national committee support enjoyed by incumbents.

We should really rejoice when ANY or EITHER moderate politician is challenged by his/her party. While the politics of this move are pretty calculated on Clinton's part and I believe that she will suffer as an end result (as will Democrats nationally if Lieberman loses) of her declaration of support, we could also read the tea leaves that Clinton has already recognized that she cannot win the presidency in 2008 and therefore is turning to her more natural liberal inclinations. She also has a senate race to win and NY'ers will start paying attention to politics after Labor Day with a big gubernatorial campaign underway.

Well, if you want to deride me as an idiot and then talk about a well-educated man who made millions and then donates his time to teach in inner city schools as a lunatic, good luck taking that case to the national election. I mean, nationally people might be closer ideologically to Lieberman, but if we want to talk about national, try getting a GOP Senator elected in the North or the West by talking about how great Inhofe, Cornyn, or other reactive right-wing Senators are. You can make up scary stories about what a Democratically controlled congress might do, but we have 5 years to show what a GOP controlled congress would do, and 70-80% of people don't see much that they like...

The only clueless sides of the Democratic party are the one way off to the left that has no concept of reality and no voice in the party, and the one that is "centrist", i.e. center-right (the DLC) who make no case other than to say they are Republican "lite". If people want center-right politics, they vote Republican. If they want idealistic tripe they vote Green. If they want rational leftist politics they vote Democrat, and that is where about 80% of Democrats are. The right has as many or more clueless people to worry about, so I encourage you to worry about your own.

The clueless part of the GOP are the ones that fail to see counterarguments to their ideology, who ignore Democratic strategy and policy completely, and who write off candidates as "lunatics" without evidence. They also fervently pursue policy that Americans either disagree with or are harmed by. I don't know, but you might be at risk of belonging to said group...

Lieberman has always drawn strongly from the ranks of his state's Repubicans and independents. His first win, defeating Lowell Weicker, was strongly backed by conservative Republicans, especially William F. Buckley, Jr.

Even if he were to lose an activist-dominated Democratic Primary, he would be the odds-on favorite to win reelection as an "independent" candidate - a circumstance which was no doubt the main factor in his move to reserve that option.

õ¿õ

I agree he knows an indy run is his best bet, but I also think he has to win the primary because people don't like voting for a loser (unless Lamont turns out to be unpalatable for moderates in CT).

The idea that once you become popular and moderate you should be Senator for life is something I oppose. If that happens the status quo will reign supreme and progress (in any direction) will stagnate. Primary challenges are good.