Lieberman concedes defeat in the CT. Democratic Primary, the party membership doesn't want him as their candidate.
Largely this is seen as due to Lieberman's pro-war stance. He's considered a 'conservative' democrat, in some ways.
Now, does this translate to the rest of the country?
On the one hand, Lieberman is perhaps more conservative than other democrats, even those who voted for the war (that, of course, would be the majority
of them), so perhaps he isn't buffered at all from the anti-war reation, but others, such as Hilary Clinton, might be.
On the other hand, Lieberman has served many terms in CT, and he just barely missed being made Vice President of the entire country. Does his fall
mean that the democratic base is ready to vote out pro-war democrats all across the country?
Connecticut has Independents as its largest voting block. This might mean that the people that are registered as Democrats represent the far left of
the party, if that is true, then perhaps in other states this anti-war reaction will be tempered by the moderate democrats, who in CT might be
registering as Independents.
THe people that perhaps are in the biggest bind are the republicans. If they put their support behind their own candidate, Alan Schlesinger, they run
a big risk of Lieberman and Schlesinger splitting the rightist vote and propelling Lamont to victor in the actual election. Perhaps the Republican
Party's best interests would be served in having Lieberman win that election, even if as an Independent.
I see along with Lamont, making his victory speech, is Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, evne though Lieberman is reported to have larger support amoung
blacks. This, of course, could have some interesting implications for the future in general.
What does anyone else think? Is this the signal of a 'progressive democrat' congress take-over, or is CT just too screwy to translate to the rest of
Directory of Connecticut candidates