The Connecticut Primary

The Connecticut primary is apparently getting really ugly. Check out this passage from Lanny Davis' article at the Journal -- and recall that Davis is a proud liberal who was Clinton's lawyer during a large chunk of Whitewater:

A friend of mine just returned from Connecticut, where he had spoken on several
occasions on behalf of Joe Lieberman. He happens to be a liberal antiwar
Democrat, just as I am. He is also a lawyer. He told me that within a day of a
Lamont event--where he asked the candidate some critical questions--some of his
clients were blitzed with emails attacking him and threatening boycotts of their
products if they did not drop him as their attorney. He has actually decided not
to return to Connecticut for the primary today; he is fearful for his physical
safety.

(hat tip: Instapundit) The funny part is, there's only one reason for liberals to vote against Lieberman if they weren't doing so prior to the Iraq War -- and that is his support for the war (if they were angry at Joe for some of his more moderate positions like chastising Hollywood for moral decay, they missed the boat on that three previous times). Lieberman's been far more supportive of Bush than almost anyone else in the Democratic Party, but he has been critical. It's just that he tends to be able to demonstrate that criticism doesn't have to be venemous or lead to an admission of defeat. He's honorable enough to understand the difference between substantive criticism and defeatism, and tends to err on the side of caution because he recognizes the greater stakes in the war (stakes that are greater than domestic politics).

In a nutshell, this primary is a referendum on whether the mainstream Democratic Party is worth trusting with national security. You can (and I'm sure many would argue that you should) criticize the Administration's handling of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the diplomatic efforts with regard to Iran and the current Isreali-Hisbollah war, and the greater war on terror. But that's not what this is about -- Lieberman's not in trouble for just being mildly critical, he's in trouble simply because he doesn't believe that gaining a political benefit is worth potentially losing a war.

For all of my (and many other conservatives) criticisms of John McCain, note that they don't have any real qualms about him on national security (okay, save immigration, but that's one issue where he and Bush are seemingly in total agreement). And one can argue that they should vote on that issue alone in 2008, if they view it as most important. And there's virtually no one in the field (save Rudy) who has the same cachet on the issue as McCain in the GOP primary (there may be better candidates, but not in terms of perception). McCain's and Guiliani's status as front-runners isn't because of moderates in the GOP agreeing with them on issues, it's because they trust them on this issue.

In this way, I'd actually breathe a sigh of relief if the Dems nominated Hillary (I know plenty of people probably dropped their coffee reading that). Even though I'm not sure I believe her, at least she advocates the right positions on the war at times. She's certainly far better on national security than Ketchup Boy or John Edwards or Al Gore, the other presumptive front-runners. That being said, the fact that mainstream Dems are annoyed with Hillary is bad enough. The idea that they would throw Joe Lieberman out is sickening. Ned Lamont's a joke candidate who has no position other than to advocate leaving Iraq right now (likely leaving some mysterious "international force" in place). If that's the best the Democrats can offer, we're in more trouble as a country than I thought.