Lightning rod Lieberman tests party loyalties

Do like Lamont?
Will the Lamont template fit elsewhere?

Are all other incumbents, and especially supporters of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq, now in jeopardy? Or just some of them?

The short answer is: some incumbents, even ones who voted for the Iraq war and for continued funding of it, are in trouble, while others will do just fine on Nov. 7. And the ones in jeopardy are at risk for a variety of reasons, not Iraq alone.

Consider some of the Democratic senators up for re-election and Democratic House members running for the Senate who supported the war and to some degree still do:

• Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska
• Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida
• Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington
• Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California

The anti-war wing of the Democratic Party, which rallied so enthusiastically to Lamont’s banner, has not launched insurgent anti-war challengers against any of these incumbents.

Why not?

One reason: Democrats are thinking strategically, not ideologically. They want 51 seats in the Senate. If that is their goal, it would, for example, be foolhardy for an anti-war Democrat to challenge Ben Nelson, for instance, a conservative Democrat in one of the most Republican states in the nation.

If ideological deviance is really what this election is about, then Nelson might have been targeted. But he wasn’t. The number 51 is more important than ideological purity.

In the morning-after version of events from Democratic leaders, the implication was that Lieberman was a proxy for Bush, therefore a Lieberman loss was reason to celebrate.

At a press conference Wednesday in Hartford at which he endorsed Lamont, Sen. Chris Dodd, D- Conn., Lieberman’s colleague of 20 years and, until Tuesday night, his ally, said, “People are trying to read into this race. It’s plainly about the Bush administration and its lack of leadership…. It was really about the Bush administration and its direction that people expressed themselves.”

There's a problem with this idea: Dodd is the very same person who gave a rousing argument on Sunday night in Connecticut that the election was really about Lieberman’s record of service to his state.

“Joe Lieberman has been a fighter on behalf of the people of our state and the people of this country,” Dodd told a crowd of supporters in East Haven, Conn.

Dodd especially praised Lieberman’s record on the environment and veterans benefits. “We don’t forget that in Connecticut, we’re going to remember that on Tuesday,” he said.

Dodd called him “a great Democrat, a good man, a very good United States senator.” It could all make great footage for a Lieberman TV ad this fall.

Who has more credibility, the Dodd of Sunday night or the Dodd of Wednesday morning?

Perhaps it does not matter now, since the die is cast: Democratic voters have chosen Lamont and must defeat Lieberman, no matter what they once might have thought of him.

MORE FROM POLITICS

Politics Section Front

CQ: GOP presidential hopefuls — You’re on notice   Obama, China’s Hu open talks as world watches Poll: Americans fret over health overhaul costs Obama’s bow in Japan sparks some criticism Newsweek: Would House health bill boost spending? Mutual financial reliance binds U.S., China NYT: Drug firms raise prices ahead of reform From Levi to Letterman: Palin's rough year Carter defends handling of Iran hostage crisis FDR papers to become public soon Politics Section Front   Add Politics headlines to your news reader: