THE unexpected defeat of veteran Connecticut senator, Joe Lieberman, in Tuesday’s Democrat party primary will surely make party politicians think hard about their tactics for the November mid-term elections. Lieberman, a staunch supporter of President Bush’s Iraq policy, was defeated by a political unknown, Ned Lamont, who campaigned almost exclusively on an anti-war ticket. The clear defeat of a Democratic grandee who stood for vice president with Al Gore in 2000 may serve to galvanize those in the party whose initial unease about the Iraq invasion has since turned to outright opposition. After the dubious Florida shenanigans which won George W. Bush his first term in office, Americans accepted their new president for the sake of political stability. The horrors of 9/11 gave them even more cause to rally round the flag and it was a brave Democrat who questioned the Bush White House in what was seen by many as America’s darkest hour since the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Bush’s second term victory was very much due to his being the commander-in-chief in the midst of an unfinished war on international terror. Even though it was clear that the Iraqi invasion had been based on lies and that postwar planning, if it even existed, had proved totally inadequate, few Democrats felt able to stand up and attack Bush’s Iraq policy for the incompetent failure that it early proved to be.
Two years on and the mood among Democrats is changing, in keeping with growing public unease at the cost of the Iraq involvement, both in lives and dollars. While the White House still insists that the Iraqi government, backed by the coalition forces, is beating the insurgency, US generals are telling Congress that the security situation is getting worse, not better. Hillary Clinton, who may seek the Democratic nomination for the White House in 2008, is already shifting her original pro-Iraq war stance. Perhaps in part responding to opinion polls that suggested strongly Lieberman would lose, this week she launched a ferocious attack on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, calling for his resignation. For a politician who has studiously kept clear of controversy as a New York senator and tried to occupy the political middle ground, this change of position is significant.
As a once enthusiastic supporter of the invasion, she cannot now admit she was wrong but she can attack Rumsfeld, the neoconservative architect of the disaster. Yet in common with many other Democrats, she will be leery of an all-out attack on the White House while US troops are still fighting and dying in Iraq and public opinion is still wavering.
In this respect, Lieberman’s defeat and humiliation may not be an accurate guide. His defeat almost certainly stemmed from his unswerving support for the Republican White House’s neoconservative Iraq agenda. His opponent also had deep pockets and drew in anti-war liberals from all over the country. Nevertheless come November, many Democratic candidates may decide to campaign on an anti-war ticket.
