Lieberman-Lamont Race Gets Fierce, From Race Baiting to National Security

Ned Lamont surged ahead of Joe Lieberman by 13 points in today's Quinnipiac University poll, and the race has been getting fierce, with the campaigns sparring over everything from race-baiting to the Democratic Party's national security reputation.

First, here's how race is playing in the race. While African American leaders Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson stump for Ned Lamont, the campaigns are battling over a doctored photo of Bill Clinton hugging Joe Lieberman in blackface, which was posted on this website by blogger Jane Hamsher. Today's Washington Post has the candidates' responses:

Lieberman responded indignantly after the photo posting was revealed. "This is one of the most disgusting and hurtful images that has been used in American history, it's deeply offensive to people of all colors, and it has absolutely no place in the political arena today," he said in a statement issued by his campaign.... Lamont brushed past reporters Wednesday night in Bridgeport, saying: "I don't know anything about the blogs. I'm not responsible for those. I have no comment on them."

Today's Hartford Courant got more from Lamont's campaign: "'It's offensive. It does not represent this campaign,' said Tom Swan, Lamont's campaign manager. 'We were offended, and we took immediate action when we heard about it.'"

Of course, blackface is very offensive. It has no place in American political campaigns. I also find it odd to peddle racial attacks against Sen. Lieberman, given his early civil rights advocacy and strong Senate voting ratings on civil rights issues. Hamsher has removed the photo and posted an apology here last night, which was the right thing to do.

Meanwhile, the Lieberman campaign is warning voters that his loss could destroy the Democratic Party's national security credibility and ruin its chances for retaking the White House. That is not an exaggeration. Here is how Lieberman recently explained it:

"...unless the party has room for people like me, unless the party begins to redeem some public confidence on issues of national security, we're not going to elect a Democratic president or Congress ahead."

Many pundits have been sounding similar alarms. Former Republican turned DLC fellow Marshall Wittmann recently declared that a Lieberman loss would feed the perception of Democrats running a "weak party that will not be trusted to defend America."

If Lieberman loses the primary, get ready to hear that idea pounded by all the pundits who root against the party -- regardless of its supposed strength or weakness. That includes the curious cabal of Right Wingers who have rushed to Lieberman's defense, from Sean Hannity to Dick Cheney to Ann Coulter to David Brooks. These are people who oppose Democrats, yet share their altruistic "concern" for how Lieberman's loss would hurt their beloved Democratic Party. (To see it yourself, check out Dear Joe: A GOP Love Letter, a 10-minute video collection of conservative endorsements.) Obviously these people have no credibility as Democratic strategists (or supporters), but more importantly, they are misinterpreting the challenge to Lieberman. His loss could enhance the Democratic Party's security standing by clearly distinguishing it from failed Republican policies. In fact, I think the most devastating thing one can say about the Democrats' recent foreign policy record is that it is too similar to the Bush doctrine.

As I argue in this new American Prospect essay, Lieberman's policies are bad for America's security and his actions have helped facilitate the fierce politicization of national security by the GOP. From the Homeland Security Department to Iraq, Lieberman is a net negative for good policy and effective politics for the Democrats. Or as journalist Jeffrey Toobin observed after the 2002 elections, "Intentionally or not, Lieberman spent the fall doing the Republicans' bidding. His stature gave the President's policy on Iraq the shimmer of bipartisanship; his leadership on homeland security led to a political debacle and policy failure for the Democrats."

Of course, while this all may be interesting to politicos, most Connecticut voters are probably not calculating how this race may affect the party's national security reputation, or whether the candidates should be held responsible for their associates' political statements (be it Jane Hamsher or Sean Hannity). Next week voters will simply decide which candidate is the right Democrat to represent them.

And on a final, parochial note, this is probably the first major Senate race where Huffington Post provided groundbreaking coverage, opinion and participation, from bloggers to readers. For good or bad, the writing and ideas on this site has influenced the campaigns, politicians, and press coverage. No word yet on whether the voters care. Next week I am headed up to Connecticut to write about the primary, so if you have any questions, criticisms or ideas you'd like addressed from the field, please post them in the comments section.