Analysis of Lieberman loss

Slate, the national online magazine, featured a very interesting analysis today about how a widespread shift to th eleft in the wake of Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman’s loss to anti-war challenger Ned Lamont could backfire on Democrats.

Here’s an excerpt of writer Jacob Weisberg’s conclusion:

“Whether Democrats can avoid playing their Vietnam video to the end depends on their ability to project military and diplomatic toughness in place of the elitism and anti-war purity represented in 2004 by Howard Dean and now by Ned Lamont. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner for 2008, is trying to walk this difficult line, continuing to express support for the war in principle while becoming increasingly strident in her criticism of its execution. As the congressional elections approach, many Republican candidates are fleeing Bush’s embrace because of his Iraq-induced unpopularity. But Lamont’s victory points to a way in which Bush’s disastrous war could turn into an even bigger liability for the Democrats.”

Lisa Vorderbrueggen

  • Matt


    I think this quote it ridiculous. So even though the Iraq War is wildly unpopular, it’s somehow elitist to oppose it. The American people must be damn elitists.

    Moreover, why does the media fall over itself congratulating Karl Rove on energizing his base, but warns of dire consequences if the Dems dare to stand for anything? The GOP gets to run candidates who are homophobic, racist, and who say that Democrats are objectively pro-terrorist and guilty of treason. But if the Dems run a candidate who says he’s had enough of Bush’s utter failure in Iraq, they’re the crazy ones.