Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Lieberman, McKinney lose

The story on Cynthia McKinney.

The story on Joe Lieberman.

The Lieberman race has gotten a lot of attention as some sort of referendum on the "soul" of the Democratic party. But the McKinney race was another primary involving a high-profile Democrat, and it tells a different story.

In the first race, an antiwar upstart overthrows a moderate (conservative) pro-war Democrat. In the other, a radical Democrat is beaten by a more moderate one.

So is Ned Lamont the "face" of the Democratic Party? Or is Hank Johnson?

Or is pointing to one Congressional race out of hundreds as the definitive battle for anything just a touch hyperbolic?

, , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the Lieberman defeat is the more important result to come out of yesterday's primary, for the following reasons
1. Mckinney put herself in the mess, with all the talk and behavior, well documented . The primary being one congressional district
2. The Lieberman primary was a statewide contest. Of course only democrats voted, But it also resulted in 28,000 new voters registering as democrats, . This election can be thought of as a opinion poll on the war in that corner of the country ,with a great number of respondents than that possible with regular poll taking
3. It showed that a 3 term senator can be blindsided by an upstart, which is very good for democracy. There is too much influence that an incumbent has.

4. The Lamont campaign came up with a good grassroots campaign, daily kos or not.
5. As todays NY times editorial puts it it is the revenge of the irate moderates. A revenge where the 'net roots ' joined in and probably are bragging about as their first 'scalp'

8/09/2006 11:08 AM  
Blogger Sean Aqui said...

Good points, GK. I agree that the Lieberman race was the more important one. I just am not sure what significance can be ascribed to it in terms of the Democratic Party in general.

It does show that support for the Iraq war -- or, more accurately, perceived coziness with Bush -- can cost even a powerful incumbent his job. At least in Connecticut.

8/09/2006 12:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am not sure what the defeat of Lieberman means to the democratic party.
There is so much of opinion being thrown around, and there is this talk that the war will bring 'soul searching' to the democrats.
I see the democratic senators who voted for the war resolution, at best, were fringe supporters . whose support the administation took for granted and taunted them to vote against (at their peril). The 29 or so dems bit the bullet and voted for it.
I think John Kerry's vote was the single issue that cost him the presidency.
Today there was an opinion poll that said 60 % of Americans are now against the war. this number has changed over the years , so clearly people are changing their opinion and the politicians can be doing the same.
I dont know why vietnam resulted in deep soul searching for the democrats,( I am too young for that) and I dont know why the war now should result in the same for them again.
If after september 11th, with the cooperation of the world and taking the democrats into confidence, the administration had created the most covert military /intelligence machine, that can track down all the terrorists. and if the administration had followed the geneva conventions, (even ignoring the 'quaint' provisions) I think they would have had more success in rooting out terrorism and a better reputation of america world over.
All this is not without precendence
Israeli intelligence has a more fearful reputation than their army
Instead there is a situation in Iraq that is a veritable hornets nest.
The Rovian plan is for 'permanent republican majority' with national security as the the stick to beat everyone with.
I think it is time people saw through this

8/09/2006 2:09 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home